livendive 8 #1 February 2, 2012 So our state senate passed a bill yesterday legalizing gay marriage in the state. The House is expected to follow suit next week (and is the easier of the two hurdles) and the governor has already said she'll sign it. Good news, in my opinion. My girlfriend and I became domestic partners a couple of years ago, and we're marrying this fall. I'm excited about that, but have also felt lucky that we're one of those few domestic partnerships for whom marriage is even an option and I felt bad for those who couldn't take this step. Today I'm quite happy for all the other folks in my state who will soon be able to marry their partner. Washington will be the 7th state to legalize gay marriage. How many will it take for the feds to step up and take notice? 25? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #2 February 2, 2012 I like to see the people happy... Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 February 2, 2012 Dave: This is a good thing to me, as well. However, the federal government, in my opinion, has no business authorizing gay marriage because marriage has ALWAYS been a power relegated to the states. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 was legislation that provided that the Federal Government will not recognize gay marriages. This doesn’t mean that the states cannot themselves allow gay marriages. However, it has SIGNIFICANT effects when marriages end via divorce or death. For example, let’s say that a spouse has a retirement that needs to be divided. Retirement funds are all controlled by Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which has federal supremacy. Here’s an example where I’ll pick the easiest and simplest way of doing this. Say that a guy was an officer in the Army for five years and gets married. He remains in the Army another twenty years and retires. Shortly after his retirement, wife files for divorce in California, where they have maintained permanent domicile. Under community property laws, the wife has a 40% interest in his Army Retirement (Husband has 5 years plus half of twenty, Wife has half of twenty – means wife/husband = 10/15). If the husband doesn’t want to cash her out of her interest (or cannot cash her out because of lack of liquidity or other interests) a state court can issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, which means that when husband begins drawing his pension, the DOD cuts her a check fro 40% and him a check for 60%. Fairly simple, right? But let’s say that it is a same sex marriage. Due to the DOMA, no pension plan that falls under ERISA (meaning no retirement plan) may honor a QDRO for a gay marriage. THIS has been the biggest issue I’ve faced when it comes to divorces (or dissolutions) of same-sex domestic partnerships when I’ve dealt with them. (Note, I’ll handle gay male divorces any day. But I’ve handle MANY female-female divorces and they are always much more difficult and emotional). I am saddened that the President and Congress did not do anything to end DOMA when Democrats had the Presidency and both houses of Congress. They could pass health care but a repeal of DOMA? No. They’ll let the courts decide. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #4 February 2, 2012 I'm not sure how to reconcile your statement that the federal government shouldn't authorize gay marriages, but also complicates matters by prohibiting them. I'm of the opinion that the federal goverment should make no distinction between gay and straight marriages. If your spouse triggers any particular requirement or benefit, they should do so regardless of your/their gender. In a perfect world, I don't think the federal government should even pay attention to marital status. Single people and married people should pay the same taxes, enjoy the same benefits, and have the same rights. However, I've been convinced by folks here (yourself included), that this is not a state of affairs we could implement any time soon. My second choice would be to treat all marriages equally, regardless of the gender of each party. To do otherwise seems to me to be a form of discrimination at odds with our nation's principle of equality.. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #5 February 2, 2012 Quote the federal goverment should make no distinction between gay and straight marriages. Talk about stretching semantics, eh?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 February 2, 2012 Quote If your spouse triggers ...also known a a Texas divorce... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 February 2, 2012 Quote This is a good thing to me, as well. However, the federal government, in my opinion, has no business authorizing gay marriage because marriage has ALWAYS been a power relegated to the states. I don't think you phrased this the way you intended - it could read then that the Feds have no right to force states to accept interracial marriage either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #8 February 2, 2012 Quote Quote the federal goverment should make no distinction between gay and straight marriages. Talk about stretching semantics, eh? How so? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #9 February 2, 2012 Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 February 2, 2012 QuoteI'm not sure how to reconcile your statement that the federal government shouldn't authorize gay marriages, but also complicates matters by prohibiting them. I understand that. It’s a fine line, but marriages are controlled by state laws and reserved to the states. The Constitutional issue is “full faith and credit.” The Defense of Marriage Act does not ban gay marriages. It just means that the federal government does not recognize them, though states may do so. The problem caused with the DOMA relates to those matters that the federal government controls. So the DOMA does not ban gay marriage. All it does is fuck things up when the marriages end. QuoteI'm of the opinion that the federal goverment should make no distinction between gay and straight marriages. I agree that the federal government should stay out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to the states – which you agreed with later in your post.. QuoteMy second choice would be to treat all marriages equally, regardless of the gender of each party. To do otherwise seems to me to be a form of discrimination at odds with our nation's principle of equality. I’m in full agreement with you here. My issue that I stated is the cowardice of those in government who vocally support gay marriage from doing anything about it. Congress could have passed a law repealing it ANY TIME in 2009-2010 and did not. Instead, the policy of the president is to enforce DOMA but NOT TO OPPOSE CHALLENGES TO IT IN COURT. As personal, professional and ethical point – the President is saying that he won’t do his job. It’s his JOB to oppose a challenge to the law. The Attorney General’s job to oppose it. The Solicitor General’s job to oppose it. I am all in favor of gay marriage, but when Jerry Brown was the California AG he actively argued AGAINST his client (The State of California) in the Prop 8 litigation and lost. Anybody else have a problem with government officials who decide what laws to enforce and what laws not to? I do. Government officials will act in excess of the authority they have and will not act pursuant to legal command based on their personal political beliefs. That’s serious bullshit to me. Don’t want to do your job because you don’t like it? Then resign. End personal rant... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #11 February 2, 2012 Congratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #12 February 2, 2012 QuoteCongratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love. I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin'Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #13 February 2, 2012 Quote Quote Quote the federal goverment should make no distinction between gay and straight marriages. Talk about stretching semantics, eh? How so? Blues, Dave Ok...I'm sure it'd be more meaningful to you if you heard it coming from the professors mouth... Kallend: Quote Why not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it.... Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln. Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #14 February 2, 2012 I honesty think that sooner or later teh "full faith and credit" thing is going to mandate some sort of consensus across the country. I just don't think in the long term this idea of some states recognizing and then other states (and the federal gov't) not recognizing is sustainable. I do wish we would get the government out of regulating private relationships between consenting adults. That just seems so much simpler."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #15 February 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteCongratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love. I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin' Eh? Who are 'they'? Livendive and his girlfriend, or straight people in general?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #16 February 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteCongratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love. I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin' Eh? Who are 'they'? Livendive and his girlfriend, or straight people in general? Who knows anymore...all these changes in definitions are starting to confuse me. boyfriend - girlfriend, husband - wife, marriage...it's all meaningless now...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #17 February 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCongratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love. I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin' Eh? Who are 'they'? Livendive and his girlfriend, or straight people in general? Who knows anymore...all these changes in definitions are starting to confuse me. You should probably figure them out before you go around talking about semantics then.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #18 February 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCongratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love. I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin' Eh? Who are 'they'? Livendive and his girlfriend, or straight people in general? Who knows anymore...all these changes in definitions are starting to confuse me. You should probably figure them out before you go around talking about semantics then. It's no use with you people, apparently only you guys get to use the dictionary....when I do, I get accused of making ridiculous semantic stretches.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 February 2, 2012 Quote I honesty think that sooner or later teh "full faith and credit" thing is going to mandate some sort of consensus across the country. This happens all the time. There are all kinds of laws out there that are fairly uniform for these dealings. I’ll give an example: the “Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.” (“UCCJEA”). It is used to determine which state is the proper state for child custody and visitation determinations. Let’s say that there’s a woman who joined the Navy. She’s originally from New Jersey but while in Basic Training in Illinois meets another male recruit from Alaska. They go to Wisconsin for a weekend and she gets pregnant, but they break up. They return to Illinois, but they complete their training and he gets stationed in Norfolk, VA and she gets stationed at San Diego, CA. 7 months later they meet in Las Vegas to get married (though they haven’t seen each other, they think it’s the right thing to do) but she goes into labor and has the baby in Nevada. They don’t get married, they break up, and she goes back to California three days after birth, and initiates a child support action in San Diego. Two weeks later she boards a ship and gives custody of the baby to her mother, who moved to Florida a month before the baby was born pursuant to a family care plan drafted in California through the Navy. The father initiates a child custody action in Norfolk, where neither the mother, baby or grandmother have ever been. Then the grandmother initiates legal guardianship proceedings in Florida, where neither father not mother have ever been. Mother got seriously injured in an accident on the ship and is expected to be at Walter Reed in Maryland for a significant period of time, where grandma and baby come to spend time with her. Question: which state has jurisdiction? Jersey? Alaska? Illinois? Wisconsin? Virgina? California? Florida? Nevada? Maryland? All of them could, but where should the issue be heard? We only want one case, right? Should it be Florida? California? Virginia? Or maybe even Maryland. The UCCJEA prepared and right now, I think, every state but Massachusetts has adopted it. Each state may have minor tweaking but the whole structure of it is to make sure that there is one state with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction that can change. There are lots of laws like this. The Uniform Commercial Code is in all states except Louisiana for Article 2 (note to y’all out there – Louisiana is truly unique with its laws. Ain’t another state like it). But there are lots of these uniform laws out there that are designed to prevent conflict between states. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #20 February 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCongratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love. I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin' Eh? Who are 'they'? Livendive and his girlfriend, or straight people in general? Who knows anymore...all these changes in definitions are starting to confuse me. You should probably figure them out before you go around talking about semantics then. It's no use with you people, apparently only you guys get to use the dictionary....when I do, I get accused of making ridiculous semantic stretches. No dude, it was the other way round. Have you forgotten already? It was only 2 hours ago!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #21 February 2, 2012 you're not paying attention... you'll have to read the 3 interchanged threads to understand.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #22 February 2, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote the federal goverment should make no distinction between gay and straight marriages. Talk about stretching semantics, eh? How so? Blues, Dave Ok...I'm sure it'd be more meaningful to you if you heard it coming from the professors mouth... Kallend: Quote Why not re-define homo to be the same as hetero while you're about it.... Language does indeed evolve ("cool" is a good example of a word whose meaning changed over a period of a decade or so without being forced or legislated) but the change in the meaning of "gay" and "marriage" isn't evolution, it is linguistic engineering by a special interest group which, in the case of "marriage", is trying to enforce it by legislation. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg"; Abraham Lincoln. Last I checked, Kallend's employer didn't even offer any liberal arts options, so his job description is moot on this point. While I'll grant that the word gay was adopted to mean something completely different than it did previously, I disagree about the word marriage. Same-sex marriages no more redefine the word than interracial marriages did around the middle of the last century. Why should this or this meet the definition, but if there were a surgery in the first, or not a surgery in the second, suddenly these marriages wouldn't meet the definition? The nature of the relationships and word which describes it is unaffected by the presence or lack of a penis. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #23 February 2, 2012 I'm a traditionalist about language. Thus, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #24 February 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCongratulations, I hope your big day brings you lots of sunshine and love. I know...you'd figure they enjoy it rather then keep on bitchin' Eh? Who are 'they'? Livendive and his girlfriend, or straight people in general? Who knows anymore...all these changes in definitions are starting to confuse me. boyfriend - girlfriend, husband - wife, marriage...it's all meaningless now... The fact that something confuses you doesn't make it meaningless. A boyfriend and girlfriend are a boy and a girl who like each other. A husband and wife are the same couple after they get a preacher and/or government to acknowledge their relationship as a 'marriage'. A boyfriend/boyfriend or husband/husband are a similar couple, but neither of them has a vajajay. The presence or lack of said vajajay cannot necessarily be determined by the clothes that person wears, but then, why would you care whether they have one, unless you're hoping they'll have sex with you? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #25 February 2, 2012 Quote I'm a traditionalist about language. Thus, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Leave it to the "honest lawyer" to tell it like it is. Nicely played, sir. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
