NY State Legalizes Gay Marriage !!!

[Nova]

Got a question. Is a gay marriage that takes place in NY recognized in other states? What a quagmire if it isn't.

Is a gay marriage recognized for federal income taxes?

Guess I've answered my own first question. Gay marriage, although not legal in these states, is still recognized: Rhode Island and Maryland. Again, what a quagmire.

Thanks to the odious Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriages (including my own in CA) are recognized only in states that choose to do so. That includes states that have gay marriage now (and maybe a few with domestic partnership laws--you mention RI and MD). After Prop 8 passed, the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriages already performed in CA (such as mine) remain valid and also that CA would continue to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

My husband and I remain "domestic partners" as well as spouses, because when we travel, some states recognize one, but not the other. This could have dramatic consequences if one of us were to fall ill while traveling.

The Federal Government does not recognize gay marriage or domestic partnerships for any purposes. HOWEVER, beginning this past year, the IRS recognized that in community property states (such as CA), each gay partner actually owns half of the other partner's income. So now my husband and I combine our incomes from all sources and divide the total by half; each of us then files an individual return for half of the total. (To add to the confusion, we ARE married per the state and so file a joint state return.)

So, yes, I am married in NY (and Mass., where my daughter and grandkids live) and marriages performed in those states will be recognized in CA (unless and until some court rules otherwise).

Still with me? A new proposition will likely be on the ballot in CA in 2012 and we'll start the fight for marriage equality all over again.

Perhaps I'm being petty, but I can't help but point out that the supreme courts of Mexico and Argentina ruled that gay marriages performed where they are legal (the capital cities) MUST be recognized by the entire country.

Who's the third-world country now?

 

[reportertype]

Better watch out Nova. If you dare suggest that America isn't No. 1 in everything people will start calling you an un-Amuuurican.

 

[legalmania]

Welcome to the 21st Century NY. See it didn't hurt that bad now did it. I love the fact that the gays are adopting, this is good for everyone.

 

[Nova]

Better watch out Nova. If you dare suggest that America isn't No. 1 in everything people will start calling you an un-Amuuurican.

Oh, dear! As you can imagine, that has NEVER happened before!

Living in a state where gay marriage was legal and then voted down by a slim margin has made me a tad bitter.

The truth is at least the U.S. is wrestling with this issue. That isn't true of much of the world.

 

[Nova]

Let’s hope marriages are gay, happy occasions. I expect there will be a lot of unintended consequences with “any two [adult humans] make a marriage,” particularly when children are “involved,” estate settlements get nasty, divorce settlements expand, and other matters of “marriage” expand beyond simple contract law, civil courts and religions. It boggles the mind, at least my little kitty brain is boggled by the prospects, but it is the progressive way. The “statements of understanding” and prenuptial agreements will likely have a lot of new twists and turns ... and the lawyers will certainly applaud, applaud and applaud, at each discontent and controversy. At least a lot of pretenders will be held to task.

Russell

I'm not sure I understand your point, Russell. Marriage rights and responsibilities haven't changed, nor has marriage been removed from the jurisdiction of civil and family courts. In fact, legal gay marriage may bring legal clarity to relationships that were formerly mired in legal ambiguity.

All that's happened is New York has decided to grant full citizenship to a few more people.

Will marriage bring unexpected consequences to some gay people? Of course, just as it does to many straight people. Will some gay spouses encounter heartbreak and/or financial ruin? Yes, just as straight people do.

But, you know, for a lot of us, state recognition is just a matter of legally protecting our homes and families. My husband and I were really and truly "married" for over 30 years before California got around to making it official. I think we knew what we were getting into when we said, "I do."

 

[Knot4u2no]

I'm not sure I understand your point, Russell. Marriage rights and responsibilities haven't changed, nor has marriage been removed from the jurisdiction of civil and family courts. In fact, legal gay marriage may bring legal clarity to relationships that were formerly mired in legal ambiguity.

All that's happened is New York has decided to grant full citizenship to a few more people.

Will marriage bring unexpected consequences to some gay people? Of course, just as it does to many straight people. Will some gay spouses encounter heartbreak and/or financial ruin? Yes, just as straight people do.

But, you know, for a lot of us, state recognition is just a matter of legally protecting our homes and families. My husband and I were really and truly "married" for over 30 years before California got around to making it official. I think we knew what we were getting into when we said, "I do."

I particularly agree that "In fact, legal gay marriage may bring legal clarity to relationships that were formerly mired in legal ambiguity." I still think there will be many unintended consequences that are unique to gay marriages, but that's only my opinion.

Russell

 

[hockeymom]

I will never quite understand why in a world with so much discontent and anger,why anyone would object to 2 people expressing their love and commitment to one another. Proud to be a NYer right now. Hopefully the other states will follow suit!

 

[Emma Peel]

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...ight-repealing-doma/politics/2011/06/25/22889

But our work is not done.

The fact is that once our LGBT friends and family are legally able to marry here in New York, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will prohibit them from enjoying over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that are afforded straight married couples.

That&#8217;s why earlier this year, I <NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand> joined Senator Feinstein and several of my Senate colleagues to co-&#8203;sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that will repeal the regressive and discriminatory DOMA.

 

[angelmom]

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...#ixzz1QJMZaCra

A religious exemption was also built into the bill to assuage some opponents. "Whoever opposes the rights of gays and lesbians to marry - whatever religious institution, whether it's the Catholic Church, Orthodox Jews, anyone else - they are not required to marry any couple they do not want to marry," Elizabeth Cooper of Fordham University Law School told CBS News.

This was the only concern I personally found valid, so I'm glad they got this exemption in so it could be passed.

Congratulations!

 

[reportertype]

The truth is at least the U.S. is wrestling with this issue. That isn't true of much of the world.

Very true and thank goodness we're at least this far along. I simply cannot imagine why it matters so much to some people that gays not marry. Or that anyone happen to be gay.

 

[Nova]

I particularly agree that "In fact, legal gay marriage may bring legal clarity to relationships that were formerly mired in legal ambiguity." I still think there will be many unintended consequences that are unique to gay marriages, but that's only my opinion.

Russell

You seem to mean issues that only apply to same-sex marriages, but not to opposite-sex marriages. I swear I am in no way offended by the idea, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean.

If you would be willing to give us a couple of examples, I would greatly appreciate it. (If not, no problem. You're not under any obligation. I still appreciate your sharing your view.)

I can tell you from experience that where straight couples sometime strain against conventional gender roles, gay couples often wrestle with the lack of prescribed roles and have to find new ways to assign household responsibilities. That isn't affected, really, by legal status. But I mention it here just to show I'm not offended by the idea that gay and straight marriages may vary in some ways.

 

[Nova]

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...#ixzz1QJMZaCra




This was the only concern I personally found valid, so I'm glad they got this exemption in so it could be passed.

Congratulations!

I'm not sure why this exemption was necessary; I think it's already built into the U.S. Constitution. But I, too, agree that no church should be forced to perform the sacrament of marriage in cases that violate that church's view of religious marriage. Hey, I think it's silly, but the Catholic Church has a right to its rules about Catholics marrying non-Catholics in the church.

Sacred marriage is not the same as civil marriage.

 

[animlzrule]

Congratulations New York!!!! Sadly, my state of WI is currently trapped in the stranglehold of the Koch brothers and their conservative ideology, so I fear it will be quite a while before my state will do the right thing and be a voice for human rights. Good for your citizens, choosing love, family and acceptance over intolerance, bigotry and ignorance. :woohoo:

 

[Emma Peel]

Thanks to the odious Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriages (including my own in CA) are recognized only in states that choose to do so. That includes states that have gay marriage now (and maybe a few with domestic partnership laws--you mention RI and MD). After Prop 8 passed, the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriages already performed in CA (such as mine) remain valid and also that CA would continue to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

My husband and I remain "domestic partners" as well as spouses, because when we travel, some states recognize one, but not the other. This could have dramatic consequences if one of us were to fall ill while traveling.

The Federal Government does not recognize gay marriage or domestic partnerships for any purposes. HOWEVER, beginning this past year, the IRS recognized that in community property states (such as CA), each gay partner actually owns half of the other partner's income. So now my husband and I combine our incomes from all sources and divide the total by half; each of us then files an individual return for half of the total. (To add to the confusion, we ARE married per the state and so file a joint state return.)

So, yes, I am married in NY (and Mass., where my daughter and grandkids live) and marriages performed in those states will be recognized in CA (unless and until some court rules otherwise).

Still with me? A new proposition will likely be on the ballot in CA in 2012 and we'll start the fight for marriage equality all over again.

Perhaps I'm being petty, but I can't help but point out that the supreme courts of Mexico and Argentina ruled that gay marriages performed where they are legal (the capital cities) MUST be recognized by the entire country.

Who's the third-world country now?

hey Nova!

We have something for you & your family - from NY:

:grouphug:​

 

[OneLostGrl]

Fantastic news.. been a long time coming. Every state in this country needs to catch up!

 

[Knot4u2no]

You seem to mean issues that only apply to same-sex marriages, but not to opposite-sex marriages. I swear I am in no way offended by the idea, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean.

If you would be willing to give us a couple of examples, I would greatly appreciate it. (If not, no problem. You're not under any obligation. I still appreciate your sharing your view.)

I can tell you from experience that where straight couples sometime strain against conventional gender roles, gay couples often wrestle with the lack of prescribed roles and have to find new ways to assign household responsibilities. That isn't affected, really, by legal status. But I mention it here just to show I'm not offended by the idea that gay and straight marriages may vary in some ways.

In my way of thinking, unintended consequences are the consequences that are not anticipated. We will have to wait and see what they are.

Russell

 

[angelmom]

I'm not sure why this exemption was necessary; I think it's already built into the U.S. Constitution. But I, too, agree that no church should be forced to perform the sacrament of marriage in cases that violate that church's view of religious marriage. Hey, I think it's silly, but the Catholic Church has a right to its rules about Catholics marrying non-Catholics in the church.

Sacred marriage is not the same as civil marriage.

BBM: legally it is.

I think the exemption was necessary to assuage those fears. I personally know someone who feels strongly that the Church should not be allowed to refuse to marry a couple (interracial, same sex, or interfaith) while maintaining the power to marry any couple, granted by the state. So I do know that some people would like to see that fight, knowing they'd probably lose, just to have it. It's less about same sex marriage and more about their anger towards the Church.

Putting this exemption in cuts that drama off at the pass, and allows politicians who are of such a faith to vote for these rights without feeling they are infringing upon the rights of their Church.

PS...the Catholic Church has no problem with Catholics and non-Catholics getting married in the Church anymore. I did it 19 years ago this month without anyone batting an eye. My parents did it 46 years ago. Ditto.

 

[Nova]

Congratulations New York!!!! Sadly, my state of WI is currently trapped in the stranglehold of the Koch brothers and their conservative ideology, so I fear it will be quite a while before my state will do the right thing and be a voice for human rights. Good for your citizens, choosing love, family and acceptance over intolerance, bigotry and ignorance. :woohoo:

That is sad and not just for gays who want to marry. My husband went to college and grad school in Wisconsin (in the 60s) and remembers the state as a bastion of open thinking.

 

[Nova]

In my way of thinking, unintended consequences are the consequences that are not anticipated. We will have to wait and see what they are.

Russell

Fair enough. Keep in mind gay marriage isn't "brand, spanking" new. It's been legal in Massachusetts for 8 years. There remain 18,000 gay marriages in California that are now 2 1/2 to 3 years old.

Many of those marriages include children by birth or adoption; some of us have grandchildren as well. Yes, there have been gay divorces, too.

Any marriage is a personal adventure. That is equally true for gay people.

 

[Nova]

BBM: legally it is.

I think the exemption was necessary to assuage those fears. I personally know someone who feels strongly that the Church should not be allowed to refuse to marry a couple (interracial, same sex, or interfaith) while maintaining the power to marry any couple, granted by the state. So I do know that some people would like to see that fight, knowing they'd probably lose, just to have it. It's less about same sex marriage and more about their anger towards the Church.

Putting this exemption in cuts that drama off at the pass, and allows politicians who are of such a faith to vote for these rights without feeling they are infringing upon the rights of their Church.

PS...the Catholic Church has no problem with Catholics and non-Catholics getting married in the Church anymore. I did it 19 years ago this month without anyone batting an eye. My parents did it 46 years ago. Ditto.

Thanks for the clarification about church rules, angelmom; but as you know, the Church reserves the right to insist on other restrictions concerning divorced people and those who don't want children or don't want to raise children born to the marriage as Catholics.

I'm still not convinced that churches aren't already protected by the Constitution; if there's been any challenge to church rules in states where gay marriage is legal, I haven't heard about it. But if it calmed some fears, I don't see the harm.

I certainly don't think the government should be in the business of dictating church sacraments.