Gay Marrige UK vs. USA

[dmcuk]

Hello
I really don't want to rock the boat or anything.... i'm only asking so i can understand the full picture.

I'm from the UK and we can technically get married, well have a commitment ceremony (is it me or does that sound just odd. "We're getting committed!")

This allows us all the rights and privileges of a straight married couple, the only difference is that we can't do anything in a church or use the word marriage in the ceremony.

What's the deal over there for you guys??? I've read some threads where people talk about planning their wedding and others that seem to refer to the fact that they aren't aloud to get married at all.

I know this topic is a bit taboo, and people have a lot of opinions about it. But lets be honest, i'm sure that all everyone wants is to be treated the same as everyone else.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[Disney_Villain]

What you've missed is that equal marriage in the USA isn't federally legalized for the whole of the USA. It is being being done state-by-state, and not many states have civil unions or weddings in place yet.

See this article for a map of the USA states and how they handle gay marriages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Opposition

. . . as opposed to us lucky ones in Canada, where we've had full equal marriage legalized federally 3 years ago (I've been happily married for 2 of them).

 

[rocker123]

yeah how i wish everyone will be treated equally in every place of the earth.

 

[turkygurl]

In our Constitution, it specifically lists the powers of the federal government. If a power was not one of the ones specifically given to the feds, then it is to be regulated by each individual state (i.e. abortion and slavery being 2 of the biggest issues with this). Both of them were made federal issues. The first was made a federal issue by the Supreme Court, which technically should not have been involved since it was an issue for each particular state. (I'm pro-choice, but also a history major, and I paid attention in class). The second was made a federal issue by lobbyists (they called them radicals at the time) and a growing tension among the states led to secession over the rights of individual states to regulate the question of slavery for themselves. The president did not agree with the Constitution, and therefore abolished slavery in all states that were in rebellion (not ALL states, just the rebellious ones). The Constitution was later ratified to include the freedom for all, but originally, it wasn't supposed to be a federal issue.

The U.S. is not simply a single country, but a confederation of states, each with its own seat of government and representatives to the federal government. The federal government was designed specifically NOT to hold supreme power over the entire nation, but as a means to unite the individual states, which are as diverse as its people. Marriage, taken for granted by so many for so long, is arguably a right, but is it in the federal government's power to regulate? The answer should be NO. It should be a state issue. But then again, so should the above examples, but they clearly didn't end up that way.

I hope this isn't too long, and that it's at least understandable.

 

[UKMark]

Wow, great answer. It's a bit confusing for us over here to get our head around each state having such different laws from the next. At least now I understand why

 

[EWR2AUS]

In our Constitution, it specifically lists the powers of the federal government. If a power was not one of the ones specifically given to the feds, then it is to be regulated by each individual state (i.e. abortion and slavery being 2 of the biggest issues with this). Both of them were made federal issues. The first was made a federal issue by the Supreme Court, which technically should not have been involved since it was an issue for each particular state. (I'm pro-choice, but also a history major, and I paid attention in class). *** Marriage, taken for granted by so many for so long, is arguably a right, but is it in the federal government's power to regulate? The answer should be NO. It should be a state issue. But then again, so should the above examples, but they clearly didn't end up that way.

Hi Turkygurl - very well written answer. However, I have to say that I think that you might be just a bit misguided. Its not really a question of history as much as it is a question of the law and, while not a history major, I am a lawyer. The Supreme Court has ruled, as a matter of law, that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (which is, of course, also in the US Constitution) requires certain equal protection of all of our citizens.

Thus, while marriage isn't an enumerated power in the Constitution, it still rightly becomes a federal question (as opposed to an issue reserved to the states) because of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has previously considered the question of marriage in light of the Equal Protection Clause in Loving v. Virginia (thus, making it a federal issue), where they ruled that state laws prohibiting people of different races from marrying violated the Equal Protection Clause. Were it not for Loving, I have no doubt that, in some states in our nation, an african american man would STILL not be able to marry a white woman.

There are many "rights" that we all take for granted today that have been established in this way and, in time, the right of people of the same sex to marry will also be granted by the Supreme Court. When they do, they will cite Loving and Lawrence, and a whole line of other Equal Protection cases, in their opinion. It may not be for 20 or 30 years, but it will happen. And it will be the right answer and it will be Constitutionally correct and appropriate.

 

[TuckandStuiesMom]

State's rights vs. Federalism!!! Who'da thunk we'd be seein' a discussion on this subject here?!?! For what it's worth, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth that there are elements of both history and extant law at work here -- as well as more than a smattering of politics thrown in to boot:

Referencing McCulloch v. Maryland, clear back in 1819: laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its Constitutional powers, take precedence over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the remaining legal issues in this area primarily concerned the scope and breadth of the powers Congress possesses under the Constitution, and whether the states possess certain powers independent of the federal government even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the States.

Until the issue is finally addressed in the U.S. Supreme court, there will continue to be this peculiar hodge-podge of state legislation. This is ONE of the reasons that the upcoming presidential election is SO important. If you feel that basic human rights (pardon me -- my bias is showing) are the least bit important, the Supreme Court cannot be permitted to continue its swing to the right. In 2007, the court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber significantly set back the right to equal pay for equal work for women and minorities. Unless checked, can further erosion of our rights be far behind? (Just think for a minute. If those ideologues that compose the court majority block, would do dirt to a nice retired lady from Alabama, what might be in store for the rest of us?)

Off my soap-box now. Next up: Free Will vs. Determinism...

 

[rpmdfw]

What's the deal over there for you guys??? I've read some threads where people talk about planning their wedding and others that seem to refer to the fact that they aren't aloud to get married at all.

Taking this conversation on a completely different tangent. We're currently in the final stages of planning our Big Fat Gay Disney Wedding, but are unable to get legally married. My partner and I live in Florida (near WDW, as a matter of fact) and are taking advantage of Disney's inclusive policy to have a "commitment ceremony" and reception.

Our union has no legal recognition in our state.

That said, why are we chosing to "go through the motions" if it doesn't legally "mean" anything? Because that's what you DO. From the time that we're very young chilidren, we're taught that "you grow up, you meet someone, you fall in love, you get married". It seemed like the natural progression to us. To want to have the same kind of celebration that other members of our family or circle of friends have had.

And this kind of celebration is not without historical precedent either. Back in the dark days where slavery was legal in parts of our country, slaves (being property) were not legally allowed to marry one another. In slave communities they adapted marriage customs, and the tradition of "Jumping the Broom" became popular. Because they could not legally be married, a slave couple would gather their friends and families together to celebrate their love and jump over a broom hand in hand. From that point on, they were viewed as a "married couple" in the eyes of their community. The social validation made them a married couple. One without legal rights, but "married" by the mores of their social group.

Scott and I view what we're doing as analagous to the tradition of "Jumping the Broom" and even considered including it in our commitment ceremony. In the end we decided not to, because it wasn't right for us. But the spirit of it is very much the same as what we're doing.

And as slavery ended, so too will our time as second class citizens in our country. I have faith that it will happen, but I'm not going to wait for it. We're going to have the big party now.

 

[TuckandStuiesMom]

From the time that we're very young chilidren, we're taught that "you grow up, you meet someone, you fall in love, you get married".

That is SO NOT too much to ask for in life.

 

[Friendly]

As some of you know the way the laws work very well, I hope you might be able to help me here with a question. I'm from the UK and my partner in the US. If we were to have either a legal ceremony here or a state in the US where it's recognised, would I have the right then to live in the US as my partner lives there? (i.e. like I assume I would if it were a "normal" straight couple getting married).

 

[dmcuk]

Thank you all so much for the info and explanations. Although i had to re read smoe of those posts a few times... its early over here!

But now I certainly have a better idea about how it all works

D xx

 

[rpmdfw]

As some of you know the way the laws work very well, I hope you might be able to help me here with a question. I'm from the UK and my partner in the US. If we were to have either a legal ceremony here or a state in the US where it's recognised, would I have the right then to live in the US as my partner lives there? (i.e. like I assume I would if it were a "normal" straight couple getting married).

Sadly, no. As I understand it, the immigration laws that allow a foreign national to reside in the U.S. with their citizen spouse are Federal level statutes, which means that even in Massachusetts or California, same-sex couples would be denied this right.

 

[hematite153]

Sadly, no. As I understand it, the immigration laws that allow a foreign national to reside in the U.S. with their citizen spouse are Federal level statutes, which means that even in Massachusetts or California, same-sex couples would be denied this right.

You could probably fight for it though. In Feb, the NY Supreme court ruled that the longstanding federal law governing the legal status of foreign marriages means that same sex New York couples who were married in Canada are legally married in the US and should be treated as such. (I think that the reason the Canadian marriages are being given greater standing than the MA & CA ones is that the Canadian legislation simply removed the "between one-man and one-woman" clauses and redefined marriage to be more equal whereas the MA & CA laws still differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.)

Thus, if it is something that you want, you should look into whether the legal fight is worth it. Many couples that follow would probably thank you.