same sex marriage

[Bernie Cosell]

With [most likely] same-sex marriage as next-up on the radically right
current SCOTUS for reversal, I got to wondering about a few things.

I've heard that there are *hundreds* of law [state laws I presume? Are
there federal laws, too?] that mention and/or affect "marriage". Assuming
that's true I have a few questions:

1) in states that honor civil unions and/or common law marriages, are those
arrangements completely/implicitly included in/by all the laws affecting
"state sanctioned marriages".

2) Is it possible to archive via various legal documents/agreements [I'm
thinking here of things like arranging for visitation at a hospital, joint
property, inheritance, medical directives, etc, etc] to get an otherwise
unsanctioned partnership to have all {most?} of the protections, rights and
privileges of a "state sanctioned marriage". If obergefell gets overturned
I wonder if some lawyers will make a killing in the states that opt not to
sanction such unions by providing all those legal documents and such as a
package deal :o)

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
ber...@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

> With [most likely] same-sex marriage as next-up on the radically
> right current SCOTUS for reversal, I got to wondering about a few
> things.
>
> I've heard that there are *hundreds* of law [state laws I presume?
> Are there federal laws, too?] that mention and/or affect
> "marriage". Assuming that's true I have a few questions:

There are many laws that deal with marriage. Tax laws, immigration
laws, and probably a lot more.

> 1) in states that honor civil unions and/or common law marriages,
> are those arrangements completely/implicitly included in/by all
> the laws affecting "state sanctioned marriages".

Depends on what the state law says.

> 2) Is it possible to archive via various legal
> documents/agreements [I'm thinking here of things like arranging
> for visitation at a hospital, joint property, inheritance, medical
> directives, etc, etc] to get an otherwise unsanctioned partnership
> to have all {most?} of the protections, rights and privileges of a
> "state sanctioned marriage". If obergefell gets overturned I
> wonder if some lawyers will make a killing in the states that opt
> not to sanction such unions by providing all those legal documents
> and such as a package deal :o)

Some but not all the "benefits" of marriage can be made available.
Before gay marriage was legal, some gay couples would have one partner
adopt the other, giving more rights.

Overturning gay marriage would cause some major problems due to the
full faith and credit requirement in the Constitution. So I doubt it
would happen at this point.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Nobody Special]

On 23/06/2022 21:14, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> With [most likely] same-sex marriage as next-up on the radically right
> current SCOTUS for reversal, I got to wondering about a few things.
>
>

Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most
conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
vote to overturn Roe.

In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to
"reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.

He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

In essence, Clarence writes that all three of these rulings - major
progressive victories - are now also up for re-examination.

Quote Message: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this
Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold,
Lawrence, and Obergefell."

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s
substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and
Obergefell."

[Barry Gold]

On 6/23/2022 10:31 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
> Overturning gay marriage would cause some major problems due to the
> full faith and credit requirement in the Constitution. So I doubt it
> would happen at this point.

If the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges and United States
v. Windsor, then the Defense of Marriage Act would (probably) be
re-instated. Section 2 says:

> No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

The US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 states:
> Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

So Congress said (boiled down to plain English) that when it comes to
same-sex marriage, the "effect thereof" is "none".

One of my Facebook friends posted a meme referring to the "Keystone
Court". It's beginning to seem more and more apropos.



--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

[Roy]

On 6/24/2022 10:23 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
> On 6/23/2022 10:31 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
>> Overturning gay marriage would cause some major problems due to the
>> full faith and credit requirement in the Constitution.  So I doubt it
>> would happen at this point.
>
> If the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges and United States
> v. Windsor, then the Defense of Marriage Act would (probably) be
> re-instated. Section 2 says:
>

...
>
>

Parts of DOMA have already been deemed unconstitutional. Section 2 was
never decided either way.

An interesting other fact. The California state constitution was
amended twice by the voters to prohibit same-sex marriages. I think the
cases against Prop 8 were made moot by the federal actions. It might
come into affect and those cases revived.

[Bernie Cosell]

Nobody Special <Nobody....@example.onion> wrote:

} Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most
} conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
} vote to overturn Roe.
}
} In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to
} "reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.
}
} He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
} contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
} Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

Did anyone notice that he didn't mention "Loving v Virginia"? I wonder
why he overlooked that one :o)

[Barry Gold]

On 6/24/2022 5:19 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> Nobody Special<Nobody....@example.onion> wrote:
>
> } Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most
> } conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
> } vote to overturn Roe.
> }
> } In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to
> } "reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.
> }
> } He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
> } contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
> } Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.
>
> Did anyone notice that he didn't mention "Loving v Virginia"? I wonder
> why he overlooked that one :o)

Probably because Loving is pretty solidly based on the 14th Amendment:

...nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.

Treating people differently because of their race is pretty clearly what
the writers of the 14th had in mind.

[John Levine]

According to Barry Gold <bg...@labcats.org>:

>> Did anyone notice that he didn't mention "Loving v Virginia"? I wonder
>> why he overlooked that one :o)
>
>Probably because Loving is pretty solidly based on the 14th Amendment:
>
>...nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
>equal protection of the laws.
>
>Treating people differently because of their race is pretty clearly what
>the writers of the 14th had in mind.

Not at all, it was separate but equal. White people couldn't marry black
people, black people couldn't marry white people. In 1883 the court held
that was fine in Pace vs. Alabama, so Loving is just another instance of
a rogue court rewriting our perfect 18th and 19th century laws.

I hope nobody asks Thomas what he thinks about Lochner vs New York or
Plessy vs Ferguson. Or maybe they should, just to get it on the record.

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[David Spencer]

Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> writes:

>Nobody Special <Nobody....@example.onion> wrote:

>} Justice Clarence Thomas - widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most
>} conservative member - has written a concurring opinion alongside his
>} vote to overturn Roe.
>}
>} In it, Thomas goes beyond affirming today's ruling to ask the court to
>} "reconsider" past Supreme Court decisions.
>}
>} He asks to re-evaluate Griswold, which safeguards the right to
>} contraception, Lawrence, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, and
>} Obergefell, which legalised same-sex marriage nationwide.

>Did anyone notice that he didn't mention "Loving v Virginia"? I wonder
>why he overlooked that one :o)

Because

1. Loving isn't a substnative due process case.

2. Loving fits very nicely in Thomas's position that the Privileges
and Immunities clause is the appropriate standard for rights cases.

--
dhs spe...@panix.com