California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[Mark F. Barnes]

Okay I see your point Red, what about one significant other legally adopting the other, for the purpose of name changing , dependence, and establishing Kinship outside of bloodline? I think it would serve the same purpose, if their whole purpose is to reap the benefits of married people. Just a thought.

[RedScare]

Okay I see your point Red, what about one significant other legally adopting the other, for the purpose of name changing , dependence, and establishing Kinship outside of bloodline? I think it would serve the same purpose, if their whole purpose is to reap the benefits of married people. Just a thought.

If they intend to have sex, it would violate incest laws. If it is platonic, adoption would be another way around it.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Hell as far as that goes, Sodomy is still illegal in Texas, on the books I'm pretty sure, same sex or not. Seems like there was an issue brought up in the media about the obscure outdated law. Kinda like the hanging people for stealing horses is still on the books.

[TJones]

If they intend to have sex, it would violate incest laws. If it is platonic, adoption would be another way around it.

THAT'S IT !!! Red, you and Mark are brilliant. Bryan S, Htown, and others, you can just ADOPT each other !!! Only downside is that there is no more sex for you guys, because of new set of laws involved. Problem solved, Ok, onto the next issue.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Never mind, it was invalidated by the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas

[TJones]

Never mind, it was invalidated by the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas

I believe that is the case that originated here in Houston. The cops were busting in on drug charges and caught him in the act. They couldn't find drugs but they had him for sodomy. I am not 100% positive, but I think that is the case. Woops! Apparently the officer entered in under a false report of a weapons disturbance at the home. WHO the hell leaves their doors unlocked here in Houston ??? I think the cop broke in on that one.

[KinkaidAlum]

I believe that is the case that originated here in Houston. The cops were busting in on drug charges and caught him in the act. They couldn't find drugs but they had him for sodomy. I am not 100% positive, but I think that is the case. Woops! Apparently the officer entered in under a false report of a weapons disturbance at the home. WHO the hell leaves their doors unlocked here in Houston ??? I think the cop broke in on that one.

The story I was told was that there was an ex-boyfriend involved. The ex apparently knew the new couple was engaging in sex and he called the cops under false pretenses. Ended up being one helluva messy breakup.

[houstonmacbro]

The story I was told was that there was an ex-boyfriend involved. The ex apparently knew the new couple was engaging in sex and he called the cops under false pretenses. Ended up being one helluva messy breakup.

Didn't one of the partners pass away recently? I thought I read something in one of the magazines.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Didn't one of the partners pass away recently? I thought I read something in one of the magazines.

Yes you are correct

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/obituari...amp;oref=slogin

[dbigtex56]

I kinda understood the issue wasn't whether a gay couple wanted to be called "married" or "not married", they just want the same tax benefits and insurance breaks, as any other couple. Am I missing something here? Treat it like "Common Law" they live together for X number of years, let them file any way they want. Common Law allows others to do that, does it not? Who gives a crap if the so called union is solemnized or not. I am sure those involved don't they just want to be able to file their taxes and health-care like anyone else. My vote, treat it like "common law", who gives a rats ass about the rules for the solemnization of marriages, and whether or not it's a man and a woman or whatever. They want tax benefits and health-care benefits not solemnization. Or have I missed something here?

We're so close to agreement!

When you proposed (I'm of the impression that you're in a heterosexual marriage), did you ask your beloved, "Shall we share tax benefits and insurance breaks?"

If yes, well, your wife's quite a gal. I imagine that your marriage meant (and means) something more than that. You wanted the world to know that you two love each other, that your union was to be taken seriously.

No surprise that same-sex couples feel the same way.

[Jeebus]

We're so close to agreement!

When you proposed (I'm of the impression that you're in a heterosexual marriage), did you ask your beloved, "Shall we share tax benefits and insurance breaks?"

If yes, well, your wife's quite a gal. I imagine that your marriage meant (and means) something more than that. You wanted the world to know that you two love each other, that your union was to be taken seriously.

No surprise that same-sex couples feel the same way.

I'm sure they do, which is why the word "marriage" needs to be completely removed from all government use, and replace with the words "civil-union". That way it doesn't matter how special the relationship is in the eyes of the government - it only now matters in the eyes of the couple.

Let the churches marry people. Make the government create civil-unions.

[Mark F. Barnes]

I see exactly what you are saying, I am sure that all people want to shout it from the roof tops when they are in love, regardless if it's same-sex or not. In my case I had to go through a lot of old world courtship, with my wife being Lebanese, but anyone that knows us, there's no doubt in anyone's mind about the way we feel. A lot of our friends make fun of the way I change in her presence. The seem to think it's funny that someone my size can be reduced to a little boy, by just the way she looks at me. I personally don't feel affected by other peoples relationships, and if they are married or not, because my whole world is my the one I've been married to all these years. My sister is gay and has a significant other that she might as well be married to. If and when that becomes feasible, I will be right there when it happens. I have quite a bit of family, that doesn't approve, but that's their own issue. I could see the need for people to consummate vows, and declare their love in front of their friends and relatives. Eventually, the laws will be changed, it just doesn't seem like it's happening quick enough for some. Look how long it took for women to get the right to vote. And it took a hundred years from emancipation, for African-Americans to start voting. Eventually attrition overcomes resistance, that doesn't make it okay, but it's a simple fact of life for now. Honestly people that feel like anyone's else's marriage, same-sex or otherwise, effects or endangers the validity of their own, has got bigger issues than can be helped and is doomed to failure regardless of whatever happens. Until the laws are changed, I was just trying to come up with a legal solution otherwise.

[RedScare]

Maybe if everyone could marry Lebanese, the world would be a better place, huh, Mark?

[Mark F. Barnes]

It would dang sure be prettier, and a lot more happy men folk......

[BryanS]

Let the churches marry people. Make the government create civil-unions.

Yes.

[houstonmacbro]

Yes.

I have a friend that lives in Hamburg, Germany and that is how they do it there. Wherever you actually 'get married' you still have to go and have it made official at a small civil ceremony.

Makes a lot of sense.

[Reefmonkey]

To the person who said they don't like activist judges but support this, that is a huge problem. It is not a judges job, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, to make/change law. We should be VERY, VERY scared of judges who take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench and usurp the power of the legislative branches and the will of the people.......

............However, it has been an alarmingly popular trend of late for judges to legislate from the bench based on political agendas/views and not the constitution.

"Legislate from the bench." Another one of those completely meaningless catch-phrases that AM talk show hosts turn into memes that they virally infect into the minds of gullible people.

Now whenever a judge issues a ruling a conservative doesn't like (usually, striking down a law the conservative does like), the judge is "legislating from the bench", as if that judge has somehow overstepped his/her boundaries. The bald implication is that the judge is making laws, something the conservative thinks a judge is not allowed to do. In the United States, we have a common-law system, so judges and courts are empowered to make case law through legal precedents, so, gwilson, you're wrong.

It also is a judge's job to excersize judicial review. Since in Marbury vs Madison way back in 1803, Article III (in part "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish

[CDeb]

I have a feeling abortion is next in the sites for the radical right.

Darn near half the country isn't exactly radical.

[Reefmonkey]

I think the allegation of judicial activism stems from the court's arbitrary determination of who has a "right to marry" and who doesn't. They decided that two people of the same gender have this right, but that two people in the same family, or that more than two people of any gender, do not. Why draw the line where they did?

The court explained their decision not to extend the "right to marry" to incestuous and or polygamous relations on the basis that

An interesting rationale, considering that many people think that same-sex relationships have a potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. It's all a matter of what you consider to be "detrimental" and "sound family environment." I'm sure there are many different opinions on that, but the real question is, why is the court making this decision? What gives them insight into what is detrimental to a sound family environment that the general public doesn't have?

They are talking about the fact that most polygamous and incestuous relationships are manifestations of emotional and sexual abuse. Show me a marriage between a man and five consenting adult (at the time of the ceremony) women whom he treats as his equals - just doesn't happen. Same with incestuaous marriages - even between brother and sister, there is usually a power imbalance there. I know, someone is going to bring up cousins, which probably wouldn't have the power imbalance- actually, contrary to popular belief, most states allow marriage between cousins - even first cousins - though in some states those first cousins may be required to prove that they are incapable of reproduction - proof that incest laws are also about avoiding the amplification of deleterious genetic disorders through inbreeding.

[Reefmonkey]

I think you need to sign some forms before you're considered common law in Texas. I don't think you can be common law just by living together like you can in other places.

Actually, in Texas all you have to do to be considered common-law married - whether you want to be or not - is to have, at some point, represented yourselves as a married couple. You and your girlfriend want to keep Mr. Roper from clucking his tongue at you for living in "sin", so you claim to be husband and wife on the apartment lease - bing - now you are common-law married according to the state of Texas.

[Reefmonkey]

It seems the best argument gays can provide for being married is having access to benefits and bank accounts.

That in itself shows me a need for recognized civil unions. We don't have to call is marriage becuae it is not.

And TJones, were you asleep or durnk during your vows? Did you forget the "for better or for worse" part?

What crap. Most gay people who want to get married do it for the same reason that straight people want to get married - they want to make a binding committment to the person they love.

The issue of benefits, bank accounts, and the right to make medical decisions come out in discussions about the issue because they are tangible legal rights that are being denied to these people, and so a little bit easier to have a constitutional discussion about than talk of binding commitments of love. Discussions about the right to make that binding committment of love aren't going to appeal to legal arguments, they only appeal to compassion and understanding. Gay people know they will never get any compassion or understanding from people like you so they don't waste their time trying.

[BryanS]

Darn near half the country isn't exactly radical.

Right. And we should just let the female half of the country decide the issue (for or against), once and for all.

[KinkaidAlum]

Darn near half the country isn't exactly radical.

Where are you coming up with darn near half the country?

The latest Gallup Poll from May 8-11, 2008 shows the following;

28% of Americans think abortion should be legal under ALL circumstances

54% of Americans think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances

17% of Americans think abortion should be illegal under under ALL circumstances

Hmmmm, that makes 82% favoring at least LEGAL abortions in certain situations (rape, mother's life at risk, serious birth defects, etc...)

These types of question are much more important to look at than Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice polls.

[houstonmacbro]

Where are you coming up with darn near half the country?

The latest Gallup Poll from May 8-11, 2008 shows the following;

28% of Americans think abortion should be legal under ALL circumstances

54% of Americans think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances

17% of Americans think abortion should be illegal under under ALL circumstances

Hmmmm, that makes 82% favoring at least LEGAL abortions in certain situations (rape, mother's life at risk, serious birth defects, etc...)

These types of question are much more important to look at than Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice polls.

Because the radical right doesn't deal in facts. Thanks for that info.

[RedScare]

Actually, in Texas all you have to do to be considered common-law married - whether you want to be or not - is to have, at some point, represented yourselves as a married couple. You and your girlfriend want to keep Mr. Roper from clucking his tongue at you for living in "sin", so you claim to be husband and wife on the apartment lease - bing - now you are common-law married according to the state of Texas.

Not exactly. There must be cohabitation, an agreement to be married, and put yourselves out to the public as married. The agreement to be married can be inferred from other acts, such as the signing of that lease, or filing joint tax returns.

Incidentally, not only is there commpn-law marriage (officially known as an "informal marriage"), but there is a common-law divorce as well. If the two of you split up, and no divorce proceedings are iniated within 2 years of the split, the State considers you informally divorced.

[TheNiche]

I haven't been following the topic almost at all because it isn't of great interest to me, but just to insert a couple of cents:

I do not support marriage or civil unions. I do not support differing tax treatments for married or single people. Government ought not be in any way shape or form involved in the relationships of its citizens. It is not their business.

By default, this means that I do not support gay marriage, but I do support equal rights for gays.

[20thStDad]

Because the radical right doesn't deal in facts. Thanks for that info.

By definition the radical right OR left are going to be a ways off from reasonable or commonly accepted stances. Both radical sides piss me off, they make the rational ones who sit on either side look bad when they claim to be on the same side of things, and the right no more or better than the left.

[MidtownCoog]

I haven't been following the topic almost at all because it isn't of great interest to me, but just to insert a couple of cents:

I do not support marriage or civil unions. I do not support differing tax treatments for married or single people. Government ought not be in any way shape or form involved in the relationships of its citizens. It is not their business.

By default, this means that I do not support gay marriage, but I do support equal rights for gays.

Somewhere, out there, there is sweet little honey (female) who could change your mind.

Patience young man.

[Reefmonkey]

Not exactly. There must be cohabitation, an agreement to be married, and put yourselves out to the public as married. The agreement to be married can be inferred from other acts, such as the signing of that lease, or filing joint tax returns.

Incidentally, not only is there commpn-law marriage (officially known as an "informal marriage"), but there is a common-law divorce as well. If the two of you split up, and no divorce proceedings are iniated within 2 years of the split, the State considers you informally divorced.

You're right, I did oversimplify it a bit. However, in the scenario I put out, the boyfriend and girlfriend who were representing themselves on the apartment lease certainly met the requirments you state - since they were getting an apartment together, they were cohabitating, they were putting themselves out to the public, at least to the landlord and neighbors, as married, and had it on paper in the lease. As you say, the agreement to be married could be inferred from other acts - such as the signing of the lease.

Now, I have a question. This couple may have taken on all the trappings of an informal marriage, but never really intended to be married - they just wanted to appear that way out of convenience. Let's say the guy always made a lot more money than the girl, and had accrued some decent savings while they were living together. Say they split up, and the girl decides she wants half of those savings. The guy is protesting that they were never really married, neither of them actually considered themselves married, they just claimed to be for convenience. The girl wants the money, so she says that's not true. In these informal marriages, how do the courts usually go in these cases? Also, if she wants to claim half his assets as community property, does she need to do so before two years have passed since the split, or does she have to wait until after two years have passed, so that they are now informally divorced?

[jayshoota]

Now, I have a question. This couple may have taken on all the trappings of an informal marriage, but never really intended to be married - they just wanted to appear that way out of convenience. Let's say the guy always made a lot more money than the girl, and had accrued some decent savings while they were living together. Say they split up, and the girl decides she wants half of those savings. The guy is protesting that they were never really married, neither of them actually considered themselves married, they just claimed to be for convenience. The girl wants the money, so she says that's not true. In these informal marriages, how do the courts usually go in these cases? Also, if she wants to claim half his assets as community property, does she need to do so before two years have passed since the split, or does she have to wait until after two years have passed, so that they are now informally divorced?

Like Redscare said, you have to have all 3 elements and since they were not in agreement to be married, an informal marriage never existed. BUT in your scenario it appears you would have conflicting sides since the female is trying to get half the property and she would argue they were in agreement. It is all a question of fact for the jury. An agreement can be inferred by circumstantial evidence so it is not hard to prove.

She would need to file for divorce to get half the community property within the 2 years after they are no longer cohabitating and intend to be seperated. If outside of the two years, it is presumed that an informal marriage never existed. But this presumption can be rebutted.