I Hate...

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by ila

According to the news reports that I have heard and read the legality of the marriages of a lot of gays are now in question. Would this be the messy court battles that you are alluding to?

Originally Posted by ocinteeni

That shouldn't be the issue because in the United States we prohibit ex-post facto laws. Meaning that any gay marriages that happened before this prop passed will still be honored.

Well, Ila, that's part of what I was referring to, and then ocinteeni posted a great answer which is correct. The courts are expected to rule that anyone who got married before Prop 8 passed should still have their marriages honored since the rule in law is that you can't legally grant a "right" to someone and then turn right around and take it away from them. But basically, here's where things stand...

Some of the people who backed Prop 8 -- the more moderate faction -- are willing to say: "Okay, we won and it's law now. But to be fair over a very emotional issue, we're willing to let the marriages that already took place stand. We just want it understood that from now on there will be no more marriages. So, those of you who got it done, congrats. The rest of you, forget it."

Meanwhile, others that backed Prop 8 -- the real hard liners -- are arguing that the whole POINT of Prop 8 is that the California Supreme Court was wrong from the very beginning. That the Court over-reached when it legislated from the bench and it ruled that same-sex marriages should now be legal. So, these hard liners have an even more aggressive view: IF Prop 8 is now the law...and IF it's now the will of the people by vote...and IF the court was wrong to begin with...then why shouldn't all of the marriages be revoked? Why should the state recognize any of them since those wedding licenses were issued on debatable legal ground to begin with?

And finally, there's the Gay community itself which is out staging large and emotional protests. Right now, they've targeted Mormon Temples as rallying points and are protesting outside them (since the Mormon Church was one of the biggest financial supporters of Prop 8). But now the more vocal activists want to expand those protests and target Catholic and Protestant churches too. They also want to target businesses and even the homes of private citizens who made donations. Their opinion is IF you backed Prop 8, then you deserve to be exposed or publicly humiliated and you deserve to have protesters outside your home or business -- all of which could turn this even angrier and uglier.

And last but not least, some -- such as Melissa Etheridge, who made the news just yesterday over this -- are out advocating that the Gay community should refuse to pay any taxes. After all, why give the government any of your money if it's going to treat you like a second class citizen? And since the economy is on such shaky grounds and since California in particular is SO broke that its actually bankrupt, they want to make their point where it will hurt the most -- in State's pocketbook. Although frankly, that's a no-win stance since Higher Courts already have a long, long, LONG track record of setting down legal rulings that as an American citizen you have every right to protest, but you still HAVE to pay your taxes no matter what.

[ila]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, Ila, that's part of what I was referring to, and then ocinteeni posted a great answer which is correct. The courts are expected to rule that anyone who got married before Prop 8 passed should still have their marriages honored since the rule in law is that you can't legally grant a "right" to someone and then turn right around and take it away from them.

Ocinteeni provided a very good answer to my initial question. I was sure that those that had been legally married couldn't have their marriages annulled. Yesterday though I read a news item, in my newsparer, in which Ellen Degeneres was commenting on the situation. I think the news item came from the AP, but maybe not (I threw away the paper so I can no longer confirm the source). The news item basically stated that because of Prop 8 her marriage has been annulled. Unfortunately it was really only half a story in that it didn't give any details on why her marriage would be annulled. It also only specifically mentioned her marriage. The media isn't helping to clarify anything in this situation. It is going to be very interesting to see how all of this plays out and as you have mentioned CreativeMind I'm sure there will be some very messy court battles. The big winners in all of this will be the lawyers making money from all the court battles.

[ocinteeni]

I personally beleive it will be shown that civil unions are not equal to marriage. And I beleive it is more than just the gay community wanting to be accepted. I can't say this with certainty but I beleive civil unions can not cross state lines, meaning if a gay couple were to get a civil union in california if they go to another state which doesn't have civil unions they would not be guaranteed the same rights. The only way to get the full rights everywhere is to be married which I believe is protected on a federal level.

I also heard those same arguments of "well they can have civil unions so it's the same thing but they just cant use the word marriage." But the thing is the government decided to give people these rights using that particular word, "marriage." So the gay community unfortunately has to use that vocabulary in legislation to gain full rights in this country, which is what is making the conservative religious right so angry. If the government decided to call it "salty balls" I'm sure the gay community would be going about getting their rights through that vocabulary, so I truly beleive it isn't just a matter of wanting the recognition of society and being accepted. That should come secondary, they simply just don't want to be second class citizens with second class rights.

[ila]

Back to the theme of this thread.

I hate winter. More specifically I hate snow. I hate shovelling it, driving in it, watching it fall, walking in it. I hate blowing snow and blizzards. I hate anything to do with snow. I also hate freezing rain and ice on the roads.

Strangely enough I don't mind the cold. It can be -40 degrees and it doesn't bother me. Now if we could only have winter without the snow I'd be happy.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by ocinteeni

I can't say this with certainty but I beleive civil unions can not cross state lines, meaning if a gay couple were to get a civil union in california if they go to another state which doesn't have civil unions they would not be guaranteed the same rights. The only way to get the full rights everywhere is to be married which I believe is protected on a federal level.

Actually, you have the right idea -- but reversed. Generally speaking, a "marriage" is viewed as a religious bonding, but a "marriage" does NOT necessarily have to be respected or honored by a state. For example (as we saw in the news a while back), you could have a group of people who are part of a wacky religious compound cult...they feel they are a "legitimate" religion since in America they have every right to practice whatever they want (hey, you can worship a tiki doll on your shelf and it's technically your own religion)...

...And yet that same cult could say they believe 50-year old guys should marry 16-year old girls to have kids and keep the cult clan going. So, in an instance like that, the cult can go ahead and perform their own "religious" ceremony in their own "church" -- and thus in their eyes they see it as a valid "marriage." However, the BIG question is: did the state recognize that church as a valid religious entity to begin with? Also, laws vary from state to state regarding the age of consent and that too could negate the marriage. Not to mention, once you crossed state lines with your underage teenage cult bride, not only would the marriage NOT be recognized, but given the age of the girl the police might arrest you.

On the other hand...a civil union, as defined by law, is performed by a state-recognized and state-sanctioned appointee. Thus, in the eyes of the government, it is fully legal, binding, and transferable across state lines. Basically, as someone noted on a legal web site: States are free to pass whatever laws they want to enforce upon their own state as long as it is Constitutional and not in violation of pre-existing Federal law. However, it has always been the law that IF a state has no law regarding a particular activity (for example gay marriage) then it will legally recognize the legitimacy of the other state's law.

Long story short, Article V1 of the United States Constitution -- which is commonly known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" -- addresses the fact that states within the United States have to respect "the public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. In other words, a civil union -- since it was performed by an appointed state or municipal official -- would actually be more legally recognized across state lines than a marriage.

In fact, here's another example of how wacky and tangled this gets. In Rhode Island, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state's family court had an all-new problem. They lacked the authority to grant a divorce for same-sex couples. Why? Because Rhode Island doesn't recognize same-sex marriages to begin with. As a result, that left a same-sex couple seeking a divorce without any options UNLESS unless they actually packed their bags and moved back to neighboring Massachusetts where they got married to begin with.

To be honest, perhaps it seems as if I misspoke before, so let me clarify something. The Gay community wants to use the word "marriage" not just for social acceptance, but also for some very real legal reasons. That's because much like Rhode Island realized it had a funky loophole on its hands and suddenly found themselves saying: "Huh, what do you know? We never thought about that!" you have the same thing happening with all sorts of other issues, across the board and state to state. For example, in one of the most commonly cited things, you could be a same-sex couple that is united in a civil union, but then you get a new job and suddenly discover that your health insurance has forms that specifically use the word "marriage" -- which means that now you're in a legal bind where the heath provider won't give your significant other coverage because they don't technically view them as a legal "spouse." It's things like that...the way that we define certain terms on the ledgers...that has made this such a contentious issue.

Also, there's a whole other tangent we haven't even gotten into, where the Gay community wants same-sex marriage defined as a civil rights issue because then by law they could force any church where they dreamed of exchanging their vows into letting them use that property, otherwise they could sue for a violation of civil rights. So, there's that as well. That goes back to something I mentioned in my other post, where a section of the Gay community voted FOR Prop 8 because they felt they were actually protecting the rights of their own local parishes.

And again, as a term, "marriage" can be a wacky thing. For example, in Texas if you live with someone and (1) literally just SAY that you're married (I mean simply turn to one another and say "Yep, we're married!") and then (2) go out amongst your friends and simply SAY "Yep! She's my husband/wife!" and then finally (3) file a joint tax return, then congratulations -- without ever going through a church ceremony OR going to town hall for a civil union, you're now married. You can now claim to be "common law spouses" and ask the state to mail you a marriage certificate.

So, the whole thing is a legal web all it's own, and I didn't mean to make light of what the Gay community is fighting for in my other post, ocinteeni. To that end you're right and I'm sorry if it seemed that I misspoke. This isn't ONLY about social recognition. The whole debate of marriage, same-sex marriage, and civil unions clearly has a crap load of legal arguments that still need to be ironed out and settled...