If gay marriage is legalized...

confuzzled dude wrote:

charvaka wrote:

CroMagnon wrote:there is no reason why polygamy should not be legalized.

Polygamy is unequal. If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

and so called normal marriage is all about equality *ahem* now, how long have you been married for

charvaka wrote:

Helmet laws with MN and NH are unequal how?

When most other states require you to wear one while riding...

The point is most states have different laws when it comes to marriage and divorce. For example the age requirements and custody.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

charvaka wrote: If you legalize polygamy, you should also legalize polyandry.

i'm all for taking away the government's role in deciding what is legal when it comes to relationships between consenting adult humans.

In principle, I like that choice. However, in practice, polygamy is often correlated with the exploitation and ill-treatment of women, as observed in societies around the world (and as can be observed in the Middle East today.) I think government does have a role in protecting the rights of the vulnerable sections of society from the encroachment of the more powerful sections, and as such, any legalization of polygamy needs to account for that responsibility.

Hellsangel wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Helmet laws with MN and NH are unequal how?

When most other states require you to wear one while riding...

Ahha... now I can see why you are confused. "Unequal" does not mean "not the same in all states." "Equal protection" means equal protection to all residents of a state under the laws of any one specific state. Read the text of the 14th Amendment here, and it should become clearer to you.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If two different states make different laws, neither of them necessarily violates this clause. But if any one state makes a law that treats a group of its own residents differently from the way it treats other residents, that can be challenged as a violation of this clause.

Hellsangel wrote:The point is most states have different laws when it comes to marriage and divorce. For example the age requirements and custody.

And they can continue to do so constitutionally -- as long as they do treat all their respective residents equally. The moment any state passes a law that discriminates against a certain group, then it is open to constitutional challenge.

Kris wrote:but I believe if a woman conceives a child in an adulterous relationship, the child is considered to be that of the man she is married to, by default.

These things are not written in stone. A hundred years ago, what you say would have been the accepted norm in most western societies. In today's courts, a DNA test establishing paternity would lead to visitation rights and other recognition to the biological father, unless he is a complete goner. Which of course illustrates the point both of us have made -- that what is considered normal varies from one generation to the next. Miscegenation was considered a seriously valid concern back in its day, and its repeal was heralded as the beginning of a slippery slope toward marrying animals.

charvaka wrote:The moment any state passes a law that discriminates against a certain group, then it is open to constitutional challenge.

OK. On that note how about consanguineous marriages? Does the ban against them constitute discrimination?

Hellsangel wrote:they have no validity in law there.

So there is no need for a ban.

In the current legal situation regarding those marriages, which group's equal protection rights do you think are getting violated?

charvaka wrote:
In the current legal situation regarding those marriages, which group's equal protection rights do you think are getting violated?

Cousins who want to marry in states that don't permit them. (Like gay people who want to marry, but can't in states that don't permit them. Fortunately the State Senators of New York had more sense)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

Hellsangel wrote:Cousins who want to marry in states that don't permit them.

I guess "cousins" can attempt to challenge the laws in court and seek constitutional redress. Only problem is, "cousins" doesn't hold together as an affected class as well as "women," "black people," "gap people," "disabled people," etc. do.

Hellsangel wrote:Fortunately the State Senators of New York had more sense)

The long arc of history won't judge them to be any greater possessors of "sense" than the senators who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

charvaka wrote:

Kris wrote:but I believe if a woman conceives a child in an adulterous relationship, the child is considered to be that of the man she is married to, by default.

These things are not written in stone. A hundred years ago, what you say would have been the accepted norm in most western societies. In today's courts, a DNA test establishing paternity would lead to visitation rights and other recognition to the biological father, unless he is a complete goner. Which of course illustrates the point both of us have made -- that what is considered normal varies from one generation to the next. Miscegenation was considered a seriously valid concern back in its day, and its repeal was heralded as the beginning of a slippery slope toward marrying animals.

>>>> The presumption of paternity does go back to common law roots. That presumption is still the California law, although DNA may be used to establish otherwise. This was the link I could find in googling which discusses the pitfalls/ exceptions/ changing implementation of this.

http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1675&context=ggulrev&sei-redir=1#search=%22adultery+paternity+per+california+law%22

Anyway, the broader point I was making is that the law's involvement in this whole thing is/should be outside the ambit of morality and presumably administrative in its focus. Morality, for want of a better term, harks back to religion and later culture. That does change with time.

Kris wrote:the broader point I was making is that the law's involvement in this
whole thing is/should be outside the ambit of morality and presumably
administrative in its focus.

I agree. In practice, though, many laws are written specifically to legislate the moralistic biases of the majority at specific points in time. Jim Crow, Asian Exclusion Acts, DOMA... the story continues, even as things do get better and better with time. So some times it becomes necessary for the laws to be brought up to date with changing social mores. My strong preference is for that process to happen by popular vote (in matters like this), and I do worry about judicial activism in these matters.

charvaka wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Fortunately the State Senators of New York had more sense)

The long arc of history won't judge them to be any greater possessors of "sense" than the senators who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

They already have civil unions which by the way are also recognized for heterosexual couples.

Hellsangel wrote:They already have civil unions which by the way are also recognized for heterosexual couples.

Civil unions and marriage for one group, only civil unions but no marriage for another group. That's not equal protection under the law.

charvaka wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:They already have civil unions which by the way are also recognized for heterosexual couples.

Civil unions and marriage for one group, only civil unions but no marriage for another group. That's not equal protection under the law.

Marriage has a whole lot of implications in society. For example in bringing up children. One of the reasons why moms almost always get custody of children is because women are naturally considered the nurturers. They are the ones who bear children. As much as we like to talk about equality, in practice it does not always work that way.
As far as protection goes, how do civil unions NOT protect gay couples?

And why does everyone have to bend over backwards to change whole marriage laws for less than 3% of the population?

Hellsangel wrote:As far as protection goes, how do civil unions NOT protect gay couples?

The constitutional requirement is not for an adequate level of protection to all groups. The requirement is for equal protection for all groups.

Hellsangel wrote:why does everyone have to bend over backwards to change whole marriage laws for less than 3% of the population

There is no bending over backwards on the part of "everyone." The proposed NY law doesn't affect anybody who is not gay; it simply says no couple will be denied a marriage license by the state on the grounds that they are gay.

BTW, the estate tax (which conservatives like to call death tax) affects 0.2% of the population. Why does everyone have to bend over backwards to change whole inheritance laws for the benefit of the 0.2% wealthiest people in the US?

Hellsangel wrote:
Marriage has a whole lot of implications in society. For example in bringing up children. One of the reasons why moms almost always get custody of children is because women are naturally considered the nurturers.

That is not true. In almost all cases it will be joint custody. One parent gets custody only when the other parent cant get it or they can prove in court that their (ex)spouse in incompetent. Studies show that children who grow up in same sex households are as well adjusted.

PseudoIntellectual wrote:

In almost all cases it will be joint custody.

Maybe in some states. But not most states.

Somehow seemed apt.

I think gay marriages should be made legal. No one would want their daughters to marry a gay man :-ss
let them marry each other and be happy. it will be unfair if we asked them to never marry at all.

Hellsangel wrote:why does everyone have to bend over backwards to change whole marriage laws for less than 3% of the population

Why does >50 of the population have to bend over backwards to deny < 3% of the population their basic human right of companionship? What social and moral catastrophe will homosexual marriages bring?

PS: I'm not in favor of government making marriage laws. Let marriage be a religious institution which doesn't make sense in the 21st century anyways. Government should only make laws related to civil unions so that in case of the absence of pre-nup between the 2 or more parties involved, there is a foundation to determine inheritance, child custody, end of life decisions etc.

But since government does make marriage laws, it is discriminatory to the minority homosexual population to deny the same rights as heterosexuals.

charvaka wrote:and I do worry about judicial activism in these matters.

But not when that takes place in India and a Supreme Court injects itself suo motu in the day to day affairs of the local administration.

Government should only make laws related to civil unions so that in case of the absence of pre-nup between the 2 or more parties involved, there is a foundation to determine inheritance, child custody, end of life decisions etc.

>>> Yep! I have not been following this issue closely, but I had assumed this would be one of the issues -maybe the main issue- that the supreme court would take up i.e. the judicial overstepping. I know de facto this has been the case, but shouldn't the constitutionality of this be challenged? As for the gay marriage issue itself or any other marital definition that goes beyond the civil union aspects you have cited above, throw it back to the people to decide.

Marriage between consenting adults is a more recent and western concept. Historically even western societies marriage was an arrangement with family consent and was considered a religious institute. Marriage also meant an establishment of relationship between two families. It was associated with having and raising children.

Marriage also lot of religious and social history and traditions. That word implies lot of responsibilities and rights.

Sexual relationship between same sex people existed for a long time.

If two of them wanted to stay together, why don't they start a social system that is new, why call it a marriage?

Gays can seek social justice and protection but why confuse marriage with their staying together? Why not call it something else?

lol yea like we are not married,we are 'somethingelse'.

dear Mrs & Mr., Mr. & Mr., Mrs. & Mrs,

together with our parents
we invite you and your family
with great pleasure
to our 'somethingelse' ceremony....

TBT,

The problem comes up when the institution of "marriage" is viewed as a legal construct. Then you get into the issue of why government or the law accepts one type of marriage over another. I think the definition (or re-definition) should be outside the purview of the government or the law, since the concept precedes the law. The law simply co-opted the concept and made it a legal unit. As Cro says in his recent post, government's concern on this matter should be to the extent of issues like child care, ownership of property, inheritance etc and not extend to the socio-religious aspects.

Government can simply view all unions as civil unions for purposes of administration. The moral aspect of any type of marriage i.e. acceptability or non-acceptability can be decided by the populace. In this case, we have the judiciary overturning a vote. This type of jury nullification has broader implications that are troubling and this is a ground that needs to be tread on carefully. As I mentioned in my previous posts, I think GM will come to pass even via a popular vote in this country sooner or later. The younger generation does not seem to have much opposition to it.

p.S. I also think the percentage of the population that is gay is much smaller than the media makes it out to be. In the long run, this may turn out to be not such a momentous issue anyway.

seven wrote:lol yea like we are not married,we are 'somethingelse'.

dear Mrs & Mr., Mr. & Mr., Mrs. & Mrs,

together with our parents
we invite you and your family
with great pleasure
to our 'somethingelse' ceremony....

>>>> Err, I don't think it was meant in the humorous vain. "Marriage" is intertwined with religious and traditional ideas. Society has not sorted out where gay marriage fits into this fold yet. If a woman refers to another woman as her husband or wife, it still turns heads.

Hellsangel wrote:Fortunately the State Senators of New York had more sense

I am glad for what they finally did.

CroMagnon wrote:Government should only make laws related to civil unions so that in case of the absence of pre-nup between the 2 or more parties involved, there is a foundation to determine inheritance, child custody, end of life decisions etc.

But since government does make marriage laws, it is discriminatory to the minority homosexual population to deny the same rights as heterosexuals.

Agree completely.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

charvaka wrote:and I do worry about judicial activism in these matters.

But not when that takes place in India and a Supreme Court injects itself suo motu in the day to day affairs of the local administration.

I do worry about judicial activism in India too. Particularly when there are no other checks and balances on the government than the court's injecting itself into the matter.

>>>> Err, I don't think it was meant in the humorous vain. "Marriage" is intertwined with religious and traditional ideas. Society has not sorted out where gay marriage fits into this fold yet. If a woman refers to another woman as her husband or wife, it still turns heads.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vein NOT "vain"...my bad!

Kris wrote:I have not been following this issue closely, but I had assumed this would be one of the issues -maybe the main issue- that the supreme court would take up i.e. the judicial overstepping.

The Supreme Court hasn't heard this one yet. And when it does, it will be about the constitutionality of Prop 8.

Kris wrote:As for the gay marriage issue itself or any other marital definition that goes beyond the civil union aspects you have cited above, throw it back to the people to decide.

New York doesn't have a referendum process in its constitution, as far as I understand. So any laws the state makes need to be made by the legislature (and signed by the executive.)

I didn't know about NY not having the referendum option. That seems like conceding too much power to the government.

[quote="Kris"]TBT,

The problem comes up when the institution of "marriage" is viewed as a legal construct. Then you get into the issue of why government or the law accepts one type of marriage over another.

Kris,

If current understanding of marriage is a problem, you have a problem with how jurisprudence evolved over the entire western civilization. Most, if not all, social relationship laws were products of historical practice. Some are older than others. Marriage is one of the oldest practices and is found in allmost all civilized societies (and religions).

The problem is not with marriage or current legal understanding of it. The problem is the concept of gay families. It is a new concept and the backers think such families will become instantly legalized and acceptable by calling their living style a marriage. If they want similar rights as hetero marriages, they could coin a word (such as civil union) and ask for similar rights. Why insist on calling gay unions marriages? There are all kinds of relationships in the world and each of them are treated differently by courts and society. Why should Gay unions be different?

If Gay union supporters are so confident of their moral and historical correctness, let them pass Civil union laws as different from marriage laws and attract hetero's to abandon their word "marriage" or marriage laws. Give it time and see what happens. Asking govt not to legislate in the name of marriage is a illogical argument because marriage and associated practices and laws have evolved over hundreds of years. Each of those marriage words mean something.

GL community should get their civil rights protected but let us not jump to do gooder philosophy of fiddling with a historically proven social institute. Gay unions have a very short history and I do not yet want to use the word marriage for that activity.

Kris wrote:I didn't know about NY not having the referendum option. That seems like conceding too much power to the government.

Kris,

Very few states have referendum options like CA. South used popular support to stall the advancement of civil rights. Fed Govt had to force civil rights onto those states.

GL community should get their civil rights protected but let us not jump to do gooder philosophy of fiddling with a historically proven social institute. Gay unions have a very short history and I do not yet want to use the word marriage for that activity.

>>>> I am not arguing that this be okayed by the powers-that-be. Rather, I am arguing that let society make that decision, rather hand the power over to the judiciary/ governmental to make the call. To summarize,

marriage = civil union rights + something else (religion/ tradition etc)

In the above equation, CUR is/should be non-negotiable as it falls within the ambit of individual civil rights. The 2nd element, that vague 'something else' is not an idea the government can choose to dictate or define. The counter-argument to the referendum route is that blacks could have been denied civil rights, citing majority preference in the South. The counter to this counter is if gays can demonstrate harm because of a certain law, that law should go, as that violates the equal protection clause. If it is just a symbolic thing, that is too big a price to give in to judicial fiat. Notice that if the gov't gets out of the business of defining "marriage" and uses the baseline of "civil union rights" across the board, there is no inequality. It also neatly avoids the issue of dealing with the morality aspect of polygamy/ marriages between close relatives/ any other alternative family structure in the future and puts the burden on society to sort this out. In other words, government is not in the "morality" business On the referendum issue, I knew certain states did not have it, but I was honestly not aware of how prevalent this was. To me, this leaves room for government (local) to pass laws capriciously with checks and balances substantially compromised. Seems like this should be addressed pronto, if necessary with constitutional amendments.

Marriage and govt were around much longer than marriage laws. All of them precede the whole gay union issue by centuries. Unlike slavery laws, marriage laws were not written against gays.

gays who Joined the discussion much later want to join in marriage. Marriage is not an army. It is asocial relationship that got some attributes derived from it's history. The issue of gay and marriage is not settled in any sense. Then asking govt to change marriage laws is asking for putting the cart before horse.

Gays can get their civil rights by using another name.

Those asking govt to get out of defining marriage, remember that in all most all societies it is the culture of the nation that decided marriage laws and they endured tyrants, hitlers and democracies. Over longer period of time marriage may evolve into a free union of people but current society is not there. So let marriage be what it is.

Both referendum and legislature are representative of people s will. However both are manipulated by powerful interests to push their own agenda. I saw no evidence of one being better than the other.

Marriage and govt were around much longer than marriage laws.

>>>>> Yes, and marriage presumably before gov't...if I may.

..... Marriage is not an army. It is asocial relationship that got some attributes derived from it's history.

>>>> Yes and religion as well, but bear in mind societies do evolve on what they consider acceptable.

The issue of gay and marriage is not settled in any sense. Then asking govt to change marriage laws is asking for putting the cart before horse.

>>>>> This state of flux is because society has not worked this out yet, although the opposition to same sex unions is not as strong as say 30 years ago, if we go by polls. Inasmuch as society needs to work this out, gov't should not be doing this via royal diktat

Gays can get their civil rights ..

>>> of course, this is a given..

Those asking govt to get out of defining marriage, remember that in all most all societies it is the culture of the nation that decided marriage laws and they endured tyrants, hitlers and democracies. Over longer period of time marriage may evolve into a free union of people but current society is not there. So let marriage be what it is.

>>>> Gov't should not have defined marriage to begin with beyond the point of administrative necessity. It/the law has conflated a social construct with the legal union. Understandably, that happened because the contours of both were pretty much the same when the laws came into existence. Not so now, when alternative options are surfacing.

Both referendum and legislature are representative of people s will. However both are manipulated by powerful interests to push their own agenda. I saw no evidence of one being better than the other.

>>>> None of this is perfect. We are learning as we are going along, but a referendum vests certain rights in the people. Admittedly, it would be pandemonium if the populace is given the right to micro manage every issue, but there needs to be a mechanism when sea changes are initiated ( I am not familiar with what the recourse is in non-referendum states and so, I am talking generally here)

Kris wrote:Government can simply view all unions as civil unions for purposes of administration. The moral aspect of any type of marriage i.e. acceptability or non-acceptability can be decided by the populace.

This is the approach that I prefer the most. In that regard, you can regard the issuance of a marriage license as the only administrative requirement that the state fulfills; everything else in terms of where and how a wedding takes place is up to the couple. The original fights by the LGBT community were to get those administrative marriage licenses. Because of the backlash from the rest of the population, it became about the definition of marriage, instead of the government's purely administrative role. The first step was the passing of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the several state constitutional amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Kris wrote:The problem comes up when the institution of "marriage" is viewed as a legal construct. Then you get into the issue of why government or the law accepts one type of marriage over another.

As I said above, if you look into the chronology of this debate, government inserted itself into this question when they passed DOMA and the various constitutional amendments, instead of granting the purely administrative licenses that governments have the power to give a couple to get married. Religious groups could simply have accepted the administrative change that happened in San Francisco while continuing to define what marriage is in their view, without going into a frenzy about gay people's marriage licenses somehow violating the sanctity of their own marriages!

Kris wrote:I think the definition (or re-definition) should be outside the purview of the government or the law, since the concept precedes the law. The law simply co-opted the concept and made it a legal unit.

The practical problem is that many other constructs that predate government are also actively roped into legislation; for example: property rights, murder as crime deserving of punishment. These concepts existed as primarily religious constructs for much of history; but we don't expect the legal system to cede these issues to religion. Much as I don't like governments making laws about marriage, I don't see that going away any time soon.

Kris wrote:In this case, we have the judiciary overturning a vote. This type of jury nullification has broader implications that are troubling and this is a ground that needs to be tread on carefully.

The California Supreme Court actually upheld Prop 8 as valid. The current challenge is in federal court, on the question whether the proposition violates the implicit rights of minority groups as set out in the equal protection and due process clauses. I hope California repeals Prop 8 by popular vote before the US Supreme Court rules on the matter.

Kris wrote:I also think the percentage of the population that is gay is much smaller than the media makes it out to be. In the long run, this may turn out to be not such a momentous issue anyway.

I completely agree. Future generations will see this as a complete non-issue, just like we see the furor over the Civil Rights Act as a non-issue today.

truthbetold wrote:Why should Gay unions be different?

They should not. When two people commit to each other for the rest of their lives that they won't exclude the other person dharmEcha, arthEcha and kAmEcha, society calls that marriage. (I am using the Hindu definition because that's the context we are most familiar with; but the same argument applies to other religious traditions of marriage.) There is no need to invent another name for that commitment just because they are of the same gender.

Besides, if you admit that gay couples should have the same rights and privileges that straight couples have as far as the government is concerned (e.g. in terms of inheritance, taxation, mutual decision-making rights), then coining a new word means amending thousands of laws in the various states and at the federal level before those equal rights can be established. If, OTOH, the commitment made by gay couples to each other is recognized as marriage, then they immediately obtain the rights that you admit that they are entitled to.

Kris wrote:

As Cro says in his recent post, government's concern on this matter should be to the extent of issues like child care, ownership of property, inheritance etc and not extend to the socio-religious aspects.

Where do you draw the line? inheritance is as personal as marriage to me, it may not be to you. And marriage is not a socio-religious custom rather as universal as a code coolie.

charvaka wrote:

Kris wrote:Government can simply view all unions as civil unions for purposes of administration. The moral aspect of any type of marriage i.e. acceptability or non-acceptability can be decided by the populace.

This is the approach that I prefer the most. In that regard, you can regard the issuance of a marriage license as the only administrative requirement that the state fulfills; everything else in terms of where and how a wedding takes place is up to the couple. The original fights by the LGBT community were to get those administrative marriage licenses. Because of the backlash from the rest of the population, it became about the definition of marriage, instead of the government's purely administrative role. The first step was the passing of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the several state constitutional amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Just wanted to add: In order to do what you are suggesting -- treat all unions as civil unions -- the number of legal and administrative changes needed is very high. For instance, IRS needs to change all its rules that govern how couples file returns together.

..Religious groups could simply have accepted the administrative change that happened in San Francisco while continuing to define what marriage is in their view, without going into a frenzy about gay people's marriage licenses somehow violating the sanctity of their own marriages!

>>>> The levels of tolerance vary, with religious groups being the most opposed. The word "marriage" with its traditional implications was probably a trigger for many others. Gavin Newsome's "whether you like it or not.." didn't help the cause. I remember hearing it on the radio and was frankly put off by it, but I don't remember when this happened in the sequence of events.

I think the definition (or re-definition) should be outside the purview of the government or the law, since the concept precedes the law. The law simply co-opted the concept and made it a legal unit.[/quote]The practical problem is that many other constructs that predate government are also actively roped into legislation; for example: property rights, murder as crime deserving of punishment.

>>>> This is true (see my post to TBT)and may have evolved this way out of happenstance. While it is unwise to throw the baby out with the bathwater, a case can be made to refine them as we learn from experience. If there are religious implications to marriage and this is being asserted (and not without historic basis), considering we are working within a church/state separation model, this must perforce be done.

Kris wrote:In this case, we have the judiciary overturning a vote. This type of jury nullification has broader implications that are troubling and this is a ground that needs to be tread on carefully.

The California Supreme Court actually upheld Prop 8 as valid.

>>> I misspoke. I was referring to Walker's decision rather than the original upholding of the validity. I haven't kept up on this issue. There are several constitutional challenges with regard to the prop and its underlying basis. If the issue is resolved in favor of GM, it will set a precedent for other challenges in the future, whereby the court will be asked to rule on them. If this gets resolved via a popular vote, that precedent is also set (which I think is a more viable model, for previously mentioned reasons)

Kris wrote:Gavin Newsome's "whether you like it or not.." didn't help the cause.

I agree. He was trying to play to his gallery, and wanted to acquire a national stature with his provocative comments. He -- and the people whose rights he was advancing -- would have been a lot better off had he taken a different approach of emphasizing that the government's administrative action is not to redefine marriage itself, but simply to provide a license. It is then up to various religious communities how they want to deal with such a license.

Kris wrote:If there are religious implications to marriage and this is being asserted (and not without historic basis), considering we are working within a church/state separation model, this must perforce be done.

As long as there is a secular answer that works for those that don't subscribe to any church. ("Civil marriage" is really what the state is licensing couples for; and that is decoupled from religion.)

Kris wrote:There are several constitutional challenges with regard to the prop and its underlying basis. If the issue is resolved in favor of GM, it will set a precedent for other challenges in the future, whereby the court will be asked to rule on them.

I agree. A USSC verdict ruling Prop 8 as unconstitutional would set a precedent for similar constitutional amendments that occurred in over a dozen states to be ruled unconstitutional. So marriage equality will be the reality not just in California -- which is more or less ready for it -- but also in states like Utah and Alabama which are nowhere near ready for it. All it will take is one gay couple in each state to file suit in federal court that their own state's anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment violates the equal protection clause. That is not a good way to achieve that equality.

Kris wrote:If this gets resolved via a popular vote, that precedent is also set (which I think is a more viable model, for previously mentioned reasons)

If California repeals Prop 8 by popular vote, that doesn't really require that Utah or Alabama repeal their own constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It allows time for public opinion in those states to catch up with that in California, before the state is obliged to issue marriage licenses to its gay couples.

charvaka wrote: For instance, IRS needs to change all its rules that govern how couples file returns together.

How is this line of thinking any different than not believing in paying taxes/Govt? Shouldn't the changes you're calling for be extended to divorce laws as well because of the very nature of these laws and ramifications?

confuzzled dude wrote:

charvaka wrote: For instance, IRS needs to change all its rules that govern how couples file returns together.

How is this line of thinking any different than not believing in paying taxes/Govt? Shouldn't the changes you're calling for be extended to divorce laws as well because of the very nature of these laws and ramifications?

I am not sure I understand your questions. If any divorce-related laws deal only with straight couple situations, yes, they should be amended too. My understanding is that most of those laws are not written specifically for straight couple situations, but rather for two people in a committed relationship that one or both want out of. The law gives the two parties certain rights and responsibilities, but none of it is specific to the genders of the people involved, AFAIK.

Just wanted to add: In order to do what you are suggesting -- treat all unions as civil unions -- the number of legal and administrative changes needed is very high. For instance, IRS needs to change all its rules that govern how couples file returns together.

>>> Going to be high anyway..this one is going to be for the long haul.

charvaka wrote: If any divorce-related laws deal only with straight couple situations, yes, they should be amended too.

Of course, all the divorce laws were written for straight couple only and definitely won't cover all the issues that come with gay couple divorces.

confuzzled dude wrote:Of course, all the divorce laws were written for straight couple only and definitely won't cover all the issues that come with gay couple divorces.

I am not sure about that... I have spoken to people who know the legal situation a lot better than I do, and the view I heard was that divorce laws essentially deal with the unwinding of a marriage and the settling of property and child custody rights (for both biological and adopted children.) Those laws can already deal with various complicated situations like "biological child of one of the two parties but not of the other," "adopted child of one of the two parties prior to the marriage," and so on; so I can't imagine what situations that arise with gay couples may require clarification. But if there are any such situations, I think divorce laws should be appropriately amended to clarify those specifics.