Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Are the new Gay Marriages legal enough, that the couples would have to go through the courts to get a divorce? If so, do the benefits of Gay Marriage outweigh the problems?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gay Marriage/Divorce
- Thread starter Lightkeeper
- Start date
Bastet
Vile Stove-Toucher
Yes, they're legal enough for that. I'm a little fuzzy on all the details, because divorce laws differ from state to state. Some require that you live there at least two months or something, to be considered a 'resident', for purpose of divorce. I think Massachusetts has such a law...so all of the out-of-stater's getting married there, will have to go back there and live, if they wanted to divorce (because so far that is the only state that actually has legal gay marriages). I think it's the same for dissolving a civil union made in Vermont.
Unfortunately, it's not legal enough for bi-national couples who wish to get married. They can marry alright, but it holds no weight with Immigration, and the US partner cannot sponsor his or her spouse for permanent residency within the States (because, according to Immigration law, they don't fall within the definition of 'spouse'). Only when same-sex marriage is recognised on a federal level (or the Permanent Partners Immigration Act is passed), will bi-national same-sex couples, be able to live together without fear of one of them being deported.
I do think the benefits of gay marriage outweigh the problems, just as with heterosexual marriage. There will always be people (gay or straight), who do not wish to be married, or who are serial wedders. If people don't want to get married, then don't. If you don't think the marriage will last (e.g. a Brittney-esque marriage in Vegas), then either don't do it, or know exactly what you're getting into, and how hard it would be to get out of. If you've met the love of your life, and couldn't imagine being with anyone else, then what's the problem? If people were a little more responsible about who they walked down the aisle with, then the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. Be honest with yourself about who you're marrying and why. Makes for less problems in the long run...
For those of you interested in the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, click here for more info.
Unfortunately, it's not legal enough for bi-national couples who wish to get married. They can marry alright, but it holds no weight with Immigration, and the US partner cannot sponsor his or her spouse for permanent residency within the States (because, according to Immigration law, they don't fall within the definition of 'spouse'). Only when same-sex marriage is recognised on a federal level (or the Permanent Partners Immigration Act is passed), will bi-national same-sex couples, be able to live together without fear of one of them being deported.
I do think the benefits of gay marriage outweigh the problems, just as with heterosexual marriage. There will always be people (gay or straight), who do not wish to be married, or who are serial wedders. If people don't want to get married, then don't. If you don't think the marriage will last (e.g. a Brittney-esque marriage in Vegas), then either don't do it, or know exactly what you're getting into, and how hard it would be to get out of. If you've met the love of your life, and couldn't imagine being with anyone else, then what's the problem? If people were a little more responsible about who they walked down the aisle with, then the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. Be honest with yourself about who you're marrying and why. Makes for less problems in the long run...
For those of you interested in the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, click here for more info.
Pah
Uber all member
Not only are the Massachusetts homosexual marriages legal and entitled to full status for claims of benefits in Massachusetts but they will endure within Massachusetts even if a Federal Amendment is passed by the country to limit a marriage to male and female. The marriages in San Francisco may well be thus recognized as California has no "anti" law prohibiting them.
The problems come from recognition of the marriage by other states and the federal governemnt (here I can include international states as well). Each sovereignty controls marriage internally and can decide if foreign (to them) marriages are recognized. I would expect Canada and the Netherlands to fully recognize Massachusetts homosexual marriages while Saudia Arabia (and curretnly South Carolina) will not. Internationally, we are at the whim of the sovereign nation. Domestically, state recognition may be "forced" upon the state if and when a case reaches the US Surpreme Court and a decision is handed down that recognizes the right of one citizen to marry another citizen regardless of orientation. That decision will probably be based on the right of privacy and the recognition that orientation is included in that grouping. It is a veruy small step from de-criminalization of homosexual acts to the bonding that includes the expression of the bond by those acts.
At that point, the federal law that defines marriage (currently being legislated) may or may not fall depending on the character of the case presented to the courts. A victory for state recognition or for federal definition will be a powerfull precedent for the other. It depends on the words and intent of the case holding whether of not they both fall at once.
We can see that there is a high likelyhood of the courts upholding homosexual marriage. The decision in Massachusetts followed the precedents of the US Supreme Court and we can see the "knee-jerk" reaction from some members of Congress to foil the attempt (which is constitutional, by the way, but only used once previously in the Dred Scott decision) for such a case to reach the US Supreme Court.
Oh yeah - divorice will be the only way to end a legal marriage.
The problems come from recognition of the marriage by other states and the federal governemnt (here I can include international states as well). Each sovereignty controls marriage internally and can decide if foreign (to them) marriages are recognized. I would expect Canada and the Netherlands to fully recognize Massachusetts homosexual marriages while Saudia Arabia (and curretnly South Carolina) will not. Internationally, we are at the whim of the sovereign nation. Domestically, state recognition may be "forced" upon the state if and when a case reaches the US Surpreme Court and a decision is handed down that recognizes the right of one citizen to marry another citizen regardless of orientation. That decision will probably be based on the right of privacy and the recognition that orientation is included in that grouping. It is a veruy small step from de-criminalization of homosexual acts to the bonding that includes the expression of the bond by those acts.
At that point, the federal law that defines marriage (currently being legislated) may or may not fall depending on the character of the case presented to the courts. A victory for state recognition or for federal definition will be a powerfull precedent for the other. It depends on the words and intent of the case holding whether of not they both fall at once.
We can see that there is a high likelyhood of the courts upholding homosexual marriage. The decision in Massachusetts followed the precedents of the US Supreme Court and we can see the "knee-jerk" reaction from some members of Congress to foil the attempt (which is constitutional, by the way, but only used once previously in the Dred Scott decision) for such a case to reach the US Supreme Court.
Oh yeah - divorice will be the only way to end a legal marriage.