So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[ariel71]

I don't get it, but an actual "ceremony" is almost always required.

I'm old enough to remember the miniseries The Winds of War. I don't remember that much about it, but there was a scene where two Americans were getting married in France. They were in front of a civil servant just signing papers - many of which they couldn't read. When they were done signing, they asked what else they needed to do to get married, and civil servant said to them, "You are married now."

There was also one episode of the NBC show Night Court, where Judge Stone conducts a wedding at the request of a couple where the groom just got off on some charge. He sort of makes up something on the spot, they look sort of puzzled, and at the end he says something like "The only thing that really matters is that I sign your license."

Why do you keep quoting me? I'm responding to specific questions from TLSnell. For a marriage to be legal, people have to follow whatever procedure the state says they have to follow. Whether the state officially defines that as a "ceremony" or not is neither here nor there. What do TV shows have to do with anything?

 

[bcla]

Why do you keep quoting me? I'm responding to specific questions from TLSnell. For a marriage to be legal, people have to follow whatever procedure the state says they have to follow. Whether the state officially defines that as a "ceremony" or not is neither here nor there. What do TV shows have to do with anything?

Why not? However, TV shows often drive perception, whether or not it's accurate. My understanding is that it wasn't accurate that NY state allows for a marriage to simply be legal on the basis of the paperwork being filed. However, once it's signed and filed, what do they know about whether or not the procedures were properly followed.

 

[ariel71]

Why not? However, TV shows often drive perception, whether or not it's accurate. My understanding is that it wasn't accurate that NY state allows for a marriage to simply be legal on the basis of the paperwork being filed. However, once it's signed and filed, what do they know about whether or not the procedures were properly followed.

I think even bringing up a fictional TV show from 30 years ago to be downright silly and adds nothing to the conversation. But if we're going to go there, here's current NY state law (Article 3 Section 12)-

"No particular form or ceremony is required when a marriage is solemnized as herein provided by a clergyman or magistrate, but the parties must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife."

From the sections before and after, they need a valid license, appear in front of someone legally allowed to officiate, say those words, license is signed and dated by officiant and filed. Done. TLSnell asked why an application for a license wasn't enough. I said they had to follow whatever steps the state requires, whether it's called a "ceremony" or not. We seem to be saying the same thing, so I honestly have no idea what point you're arguing.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I don't know the rationale behind why states have the procedures they do, so I couldn't say one way or the other. There are probably reasonable pros and cons to either side. If there's no discrimination involved, changing each state's statutory requirements is a solution in search of a problem when it comes to the matter at hand. Someone might argue the process is inefficient, but that could be true of anything from building codes to the DMV.

I find much about the marriage "requirements" to be insufficient. Not much needed in most states, just your identification and signature is required. Most have no waiting period either.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I find much about the marriage "requirements" to be insufficient. Not much needed in most state, just your identification and signature is required. Most have no waiting period either.

Sometimes the couple doesn't even need a license.

A common law marriage is a legally recognized marriage between two people who have not purchased a marriage license or had their marriage solemnized by a ceremony.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

 

[ariel71]

I find much about the marriage "requirements" to be insufficient. Not much needed in most state, just your identification and signature is required. Most have no waiting period either.

I admittedly have only recently looked up the actual statutes in IL and NY, both of which have wait periods and have different procedures for the issuance of a license vs solemnization and certification of the license. I don't have an opinion either way but I would be surprised if just an ID and signature really is required in most states.

ETA - And just to be clear, I'm talking about the whole process it takes to be legally married, soup to nuts (excluding common law, obviously different and not what we've been discussing). In many states the issuance of a marriage license means simply that you're "allowed" to be married, it doesn't mean that you are married. You have to go through the secondary step of solemnization/certification/officiant signature/declaration/witnesses/whatever the state requires. Want to make sure we're not talking apples and oranges.

 

[LovesTimone]

I have never been against it, You love who you love.

 

[dinolounger]

It's too bad she did not feel comfortable leaving it up (likely because there were only a handful of authors and it would be too easy for some crazy person from here to figure out who she is)--it was posted and it was good research which I found really interesting, but by the time I was done skimming it, that post on the thread read "duplicate post" or something like that and the link was gone.
Anyway, I will confirm its existence -- you can believe her on that point.

Where have I heard this sort "I can't produce any proof but trust me" stuff before? I know!!

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Where's the "off" switch?

 

[dinolounger]

And in other news, your tax dollars at work:

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/taxpayers...ns-find-out-why-lesbians-are-fat#.rcbbrk:AQf3

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Sometimes the couple doesn't even need a license.



http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

I was always kind of fascinated by commonlaw marriage. My sister has been living with her boyfriend for 26 years and as far as I know, when they moved to their current state, they have presented themselves as married to everyone. They own a house and have a business, and in an article in their local paper, she referred to her boyfriend as her "husband". Also, we worded my mother's obituary as such. They ARE making it official in a couple of months tho.

Just read your link, UR. (Note to self...read the link I'm quoting before commenting. ) This is what I always thought was "the" definition of a commonlaw marriage, as vaguely remembered from a college law class, a very long time ago :

• New Hampshire: Common Law Marriage: “Persons cohabitating and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for 3 years shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married, until one of them dies.” (N.H. Stat. §457:39)

They don't live in New Hampshire, nor any other state that acknowledges commonlaw marriages. Which I guess is why they feel compelled to get married now that he is seriously ill.

And which I guess is all very much off-topic.

Back to the original question...I have never EVER had a problem with same-sex marriage.

 

[Riff Off Gal]

I have never been against it. If two people are in love then they should have every right to marry and be together and have all the rights other couple do in marriage.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I was always kind of fascinated by commonlaw marriage. My sister has been living with her boyfriend for 26 years and as far as I know, when they moved to their current state, they have presented themselves as married to everyone. They own a house and have a business, and in an article in their local paper, she referred to her boyfriend as her "husband". Also, we worded my mother's obituary as such. They ARE making it official in a couple of months tho.

Just read your link, UR. (Note to self...read the link I'm quoting before commenting. ) This is what I always thought was "the" definition of a commonlaw marriage, as vaguely remembered from a college law class, a very long time ago :

• New Hampshire: Common Law Marriage: “Persons cohabitating and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for 3 years shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married, until one of them dies.” (N.H. Stat. §457:39)

They don't live in New Hampshire, nor any other state that acknowledges commonlaw marriages. Which I guess is why they feel compelled to get married now that he is seriously ill.

And which I guess is all very much off-topic.

Back to the original question...I have never EVER had a problem with same-sex marriage.

And some couples don't even have to say they're married in some parts of the world to be married:

In British Columbia, becoming a spouse no longer requires a wedding. As of Monday, couples who have lived together for a period of at least two years will have the same rights and responsibilities as couples that are married.

Couples that have been living together for two years will now have a "50/50 split of shared debts and assets, excluding pre-relationship property, inheritances, and gifts,"

http://theweek.com/speedreads/56612...e-just-forced-lot-couples-tobasically-married

 

[TLSnell1981]

And some couples don't even have to say they're married in some parts of the world to be married:



http://theweek.com/speedreads/56612...e-just-forced-lot-couples-tobasically-married

Makes sense to me.

 

[dinolounger]

Sometimes a picture does truly say so much more than words. In this case, painting a fascinating image of how our society can roil itself into turmoil over something that -- when it's all said and done -- is extremely rare and is being utilized by a truly miniscule proportion of the population:

 

[Uncle Remus]

Sometimes a picture does truly say so much more than words. In this case, painting a fascinating image of how our society can roil itself into turmoil over something that -- when it's all said and done -- is extremely rare and is being utilized by a truly miniscule proportion of the population:

Thanks for pointing out that even the gays in this country are Americans, probably taxpayers and should have the same civil rights as heterosexual Americans.

 

[Unas]

Too bad that long blue line isn't to scale.

 

[bcla]

Thanks for pointing out that even the gays in this country are Americans, probably taxpayers and should have the same civil rights as heterosexual Americans.

I would definitely question the numbers, which aren't necessarily numbers. However, when did it become important what the numbers are before we accept that a minority of the population should have rights?

The strange thing I find about it is how the gay marriage debate affects some people in an almost visceral way. In the end, what does it really matter to anyone whether someone else has spousal or parental rights that are only recognized via marriage?

 

[SirDuff]

I would definitely question the numbers, which aren't necessarily numbers. However, when did it become important what the numbers are before we accept that a minority of the population should have rights?

Funny thing is, you use that same picture the exact opposite way (ignoring for the moment its validity). If such a small number of people are going to take advantage of the change, why are opponents of it so up in arms? What difference can it really make to their lives? Ignoring, again, the fact that even if a large number of same sex marriages happen, it still wouldn't actually affect those up in arms.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

While I was never against it had never known anyone who had been in a same sex marriage but now one of my dear friends is able to be married. When I listen to him and view it from his perspective not only am I not against it....I am very happy that it is legal. I come from MA so this is really a non issue since we have had same sex marriage for quite a long time.