Decision on Gay Marriage Creates a Thorny Issue for 2004

fishin' - aren't unmarried, but coupled, heterosexual pairs in Massachusetts considered legally married after a specified period of co-habitation?

Is this the group of single heterosexuals you are talking about as being discriminated against?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

fishin' - aren't unmarried, but coupled, heterosexual pairs in Massachusetts considered legally married after a specified period of co-habitation?

Is this the group of single heterosexuals you are talking about as being discriminated against?

MA doesn't have common-law marriage. (I'm not sure how many states still do but I don't think it's all that many..)

I wasn't limiting it to any "group" per se and hetro- or homosexual makes no difference. Single is single.

Here is a good example - I'm single. Let's say I buy a house with someone else and we both reside there and have all of our financial interests combined (i.e. joint checking, etc..). We'd pay state income taxes at a different (higher) rate (along with having to file two seperate returns) than a married couple in the same financial position.

We'd still have to get seperate health/medical insurance policies because the law won't allow for one of us to cover the other under a "family plan" which would be cheaper (in my case I already pay the family plan rate because I have my daughter on my insurance so adding someone else wouldn't change my current rate).

I could also give this other person a power of attorney and create a living will designating them as the person who can decide what to do (i.e. "pull the plug") if I'm medically incapable of making a decision regarding my own medical care. I could also list them as a beneficary on my life insurance polies.

But legally a hopsital wouldn't have to let them even see me if I was admitted. Technically they could be forced to choose to pull the plug or not without being able to see me! lol

And if I died they wouldn't be able to collect any unpaid wages or vacation time from my employer nor would they qualify for any state programs that a widow/widower would qualify for. There are no survivors benefits paid on pensions, etc..

These are all the same things that the people that brought the suit against the state argued before the court and the court said denying these benefits made them second class citzens. If it makes them second class citizens it does the same thing for anyone that chooses to remain unmarried.

0 Replies

ahhhhhh

here that couple buying the house together, and living in it together, might end up in common-law status if they didn't pay close attention. happened to hetero friends of mine about a decade ago. p*o'd the female of the couple - she was angling to 'get married' - the lad said, 'but we're already married cuz we've been together for 3 years' (now it's only a year, or a shared child). For tax and benefit purposes that broom is jumped over fairly quickly and easily.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

The ONLY point I was making is that IN THIS COURT RULING the court appears to say that determining that seperating/classifying people by any means for the purpose of the administration of government and law creates second class citizen status on some and that the MA State Constitution prohibits the state from doing exactly that.

If denying the legal/social benefits that marriage brings to gays/lesbians puts them in second class citzen status then similar limitations that prevent single people from obtaining those very same benefits makes second class citzens of single people and the court stated that rendering second class citizen status on ANYONE violates the state's Constitution.

None of that has anything to do with how people will, in actuality, react with others or that there aren't legal implications to marriage. I don't see how you could have possibly gotten that out of anything I've written.

OK I think I understand your point. But I still don't agree.

Saying that it is discrimination that someone who chooses not to marry doesn't get the same rights as married folk is ridiculous. Marriage is a voluntary decision that provides certain rights and responsibilities to any (heterosexual) couple who decide to enter into this legal contract. It is an option for every heterosexual person.

There are many other legal commitments that you can enter into voluntarily that provide certain rights and responsibilities. These legal options are not discriminitary if they are available to all people. Examples include living wills, IRAs and incorporation.

This is completely different than the real discrimination that this court ruling addresses. The point is that it is *impossible* for homosexuals to enjoy the same rights (and responsibilities) as heterosexuals. It is simply not an option. Homosexual couples are shut out from the legal rights that are available to heterosexual couples.

There is a big difference. This is why I think this legal decision is both correct and important.

0 Replies

fishin' - Aren't you arguing outcome when the issue is access? Single heterosexual people have the same access to marriage as their married counterparts, they just haven't chosen marriage (or been chosen for it) yet. The law doesn't guarantee us all the same outcome, but we are supposed to have equal access.

Now, if you want to argue unequal access in the marriage arena, I have to think this ruling might also effect ugly people. After homosexuals, they are clearly the next least likely group to be allowed to benefit from the perks of marriage. Cool

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

fishin' - Aren't you arguing outcome when the issue is access?

Nope. I'm not arguing either. I'm arguing that the MA Supreme Court's rationale given for their decision leaves a big wide open hole in the rest of the laws that are currently on the books.

0 Replies

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but why doesn't someone argue that a marriage is, in fact, a Corporation and that the State ought to allow any two citizens to incorporate under the present rules for doing so?

Joe

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Scrat wrote:
fishin' - Aren't you arguing outcome when the issue is access?

Nope. I'm not arguing either. I'm arguing that the MA Supreme Court's rationale given for their decision leaves a big wide open hole in the rest of the laws that are currently on the books.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I can see the hair you're splitting. The state is not preventing single people from marrying (ACCESS), so there's no inequality of treatment, right?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Hmmm, I'm not sure I can see the hair you're splitting. The state is not preventing single people from marrying (ACCESS), so there's no inequality of treatment, right?

The hair spliting isn't on the issue of who can or can not marry. The issue is who can or can not access the benefits. Why should someone be forced to marry to have access to the benefits?

For Joe Nation - I kinda like your idea!

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Hmmm, I'm not sure I can see the hair you're splitting. The state is not preventing single people from marrying (ACCESS), so there's no inequality of treatment, right?

The hair spliting isn't on the issue of who can or can not marry. The issue is who can or can not access the benefits. Why should someone be forced to marry to have access to the benefits?

Why then should someone be forced to work to have access to a nice house, decent car, etc..

But in case you missed it, my point of view is that perhaps government should not be in the marriage business at all, or at least it may not make sense for them to be offering perks to those who are married. Then the issue evaporates.

0 Replies

Fishing wrote:

Quote:

The issue is who can or can not access the benefits. Why should someone be forced to marry to have access to the benefits?

It's a trade-off of benefits. The marrying couple gets the benefits you describe and the State benefits by having two more of it's citizens committed to making a stable family unit. (Stable is such an odd word, isn't it.) Marrying is the price of admission.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Why then should someone be forced to work to have access to a nice house, decent car, etc..

Can you point to any state law that says you have to work to own a house or car? The state's only involvement with either is the transfer of title and the collection of taxes. How you pay for your house or car is up to you and the state doesn't (normally) concern itself with the issue.

0 Replies

The state should get the hell out of the marriage business. Marriage should be a function of religion. If the state sees a compelling reason to offer benefits to people who cohabit -- and who want to offer those benefits to people who are married and/or who cohabit -- so be it.

(Not really sure if the word "cohabit" is a real word, but I'm sure you all get what I mean when I use it.)

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

It's a trade-off of benefits. The marrying couple gets the benefits you describe and the State benefits by having two more of it's citizens committed to making a stable family unit. (Stable is such an odd word, isn't it.) Marrying is the price of admission.

This is the only plausible rationale I've seen anywhere. The kicker is that in their ruling the court said that it wasn't "reasonable" for the state legislature to make the determination of what a "stable family unit" consisted of. That was what they used to throw out the actual restriction against gays in the portion of law that limited who was "qualified to marry".

(With a 50+% divorce rate "stable" is anything but...)

0 Replies

fishin' - If I am handicapped, the state will issue me a handicapped license plate, and I can park where other people cannot. This is unequal treatment. Is it wrong? (I'm not sure what I think here, just trying to look at this from every angle and curious what you think.)

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

fishin' - If I am handicapped, the state will issue me a handicapped license plate, and I can park where other people cannot. This is unequal treatment. Is it wrong? (I'm not sure what I think here, just trying to look at this from every angle and curious what you think.)

Is it wrong? I don't think so. There is a direct relationship between the two.

In the case of the other benefits the access route is secondary. You have to meet the marriage requirement and THEN meet the actual benefit requirement. IMO, the marriage requirement should be removed from the picture.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Scrat wrote:
fishin' - If I am handicapped, the state will issue me a handicapped license plate, and I can park where other people cannot. This is unequal treatment. Is it wrong? (I'm not sure what I think here, just trying to look at this from every angle and curious what you think.)

Is it wrong? I don't think so. There is a direct relationship between the two.

In the case of the other benefits the access route is secondary. You have to meet the marriage requirement and THEN meet the actual benefit requirement. IMO, the marriage requirement should be removed from the picture.

I'm not sure I see your point, but I think we both agree that government mixing in this space makes equal treatment problematic.

0 Replies

Decision on Gay Marriage Creates a Thorny Issue for 2004

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know