|
Columns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
Man must pay alimony to wife despite her domestic partnershipIronic. LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife -- even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name. California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law. An Orange County judge didn't see it that way. The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Gerber plans to appeal. The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed. Lawyers arguing favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage. In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage. The alimony ruling shows "the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme" for same-sex partners, Stewart said. Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage. "This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair." Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship. Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed. "If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void," Hulsy said. http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html Submitted by Harpy (9559 posts) on July 23, 2007 - 2:25pm. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
HA! I predicted this type of
after reading this article
after reading this article i'm going to side with the husband. it just seems to me if the ex-wife is in a relationship no matter what kind of relationship it is he should no longer have to pay alimony. the fact that he still has to pay alimony while another ex-husband who might find himself in the same situation but whose ex-wife may have married another man is hypocritical and sets up a terrible double standard.
"The road to darkness is a journey, not a light switch." – Lex Luthor, "Ryan"
double dipping
Nasty, unnecessary comments
Nice, not so subtle, bisexual bashing. Correct me if I'm wrong there but since I see no reference to being bisexual in the article, I'm calling your remark as I see it. Maybe you're saying that a woman cannot realize she's a lesbian after being married and simply MUST be bisexual. Wouldn't be the first time I've heard that from a lesbian. Sad on so many levels.
Where also does it say she is unemployed? Employment has absolutely nothing to do with alimony.
*Stands up and applauds*
*Stands up and applauds* Amen, sistah. ;)
True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James
Isn't that the point?
alimony controversy
he really has no other choice than to pay alimony until they change the laws...if they ever do.
"The road to darkness is a journey, not a light switch." – Lex Luthor, "Ryan"
Alimony stopping is dumb anyway
The concept that you stop paying alimony when your ex-wife remarries is ridiculous anyway - it implies that alimony is to take care of a woman because clearly she can't take care of herself, and that as soon as she has someone new to take care of her, she doesn't need it anymore.
I agree with the previous poster though - let them keep proving that their "separate but equal" domestic partnerships are not, actually, equal. More fodder for us finally getting them to realize that the only way to ensure equality is actual equality.
But this is exactly why alimony is paid.
"...it implies that alimony is to take care of a woman because clearly she can't take care of herself, and that as soon as she has someone new to take care of her, she doesn't need it anymore."
The theory being that having stayed home and raised the kids the abandoned wife has no means to support herself and has sacrificed her best earning years and potential economic growth that would have occured had she worked steadily lo those many years, so the ex has to pay until she finds another meal ticket...um, breadwinner. If the couple both worked and no one's potential earnings were affected by the union, usually no alimony is awarded. Oh, and sometimes it's the man collecting from the wife (hello Brittany Spears). Child support, however, doesn't end until the child is of age - eighteen years old.
I totally agree that alimony should stop when the financial burden is eased by the presence of a new spouse. It's dicier with the Domestic Partner union, but she took the woman's name, too and that shows that she has a new permanent domestic arrangement akin to marriage regardless of what its called. It sounds to me as though this woman wants to have her cake and eat it too. :) Free to enter into a new binding relationship, she wants her ex to continue to suppport her (and the argument could be made that he's supporting her lover, too). She's making us all look bad, IMO. The alimony should stop. I side with the husband on this.
On a related note, I know a man who has been told he must continue to pay child support even though blood tests reveal that the child he is supporting is not his. His "son" got sick and when the docs ran routine bloodwork it was discovered that the boy's bloodtype ruled out my friend as the father. The judge said "Sorry, boy, he has your name and was raised as your son, you must continue to pay support." I realize that the child is not to blame, but it seems grossly unfair to make a man pay for another man's child just because the "real father" is unknown and can't be found to pick up his rightful tab.
Our courts are nuts sometimes. Or is it the judges?
The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole - is quit diggin'.
angry straight men
This case illustrates only one of the legal pitfalls of “civil unions.” I personally think it’s unfair to Mr. Garber to continue paying alimony even tho his ex is in a...domestic partnership/civil union, whatever you want to call it. And I think that if his ex had any decency, she'd voluntarily stop taking his alimony (but, ya know, people are fucked up when it comes to $).
If Mr. Garber is angry enough, he should start an organization, “Hets for Gay Marriage.” Lesbians/bi women all over CA should enter into domestic partnerships by the thousands, keep bilking their ex’s for alimony, and soon, a powerful new coalition of straight ex husbands will be lobbying the state for gay marriage. Nothing like a mob of angry, straight, financially stable men to fire up the judicial system.
There's something decidedly wicked...
...about the way your mind works, zee. Oh, yes, I admire it at times, but it is wicked indeed.
The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole - is quit diggin'.
that's better than
...“sick” and “twisted.” *cough* Not that I’ve ever heard those before....
Personally, I prefer “evil genius....”
:D
Oh, cry me a river
Where does it say she employed? And if she is employed and STILL taking money from her ex she's even more pathetic then I thought!
Well it should, and so should any current co-habitation arrangements. I hope he wins the appeal.
Assumptions
just the facts, ma'am
"Where does it say she employed?"
The article doesn’t say whether she’s employed or not.
It also doesn’t say that she’s NOT a one-armed albino, so I won’t just assume that she is...
Quote:The news piece doesn't
Damn, I almost got run over...
...by all those people moving along. I don't do political correctness either so I'm okay here.
I, myself, would not have concluded that she was bi just because she had been married. I know too many women (don't you) who were too scared to be "gay" before they realized just how miserable misery could really be or actually thought the whole damn thing would blow over one day - "that damned phase I'm going through!"
That said, it seemed to me that you were more disgusted by her avarice than her sexuality, whatever it might be. Am I close?
PC and moving along
maybe you don't, but we do, and AE does, particularly with bi-bashing, namely, it's NOT ALLOWED, period. feel free to real the forum rules. let me know if you can't find it, i'd be happy to provide the link. perhaps you ought to be the one 'moving along.'
"didn't i throw you out of a window? " - jessica/nikki, heroes
Is this really a problem....
...Msqulp? Oh, I'm not refering to this one poster, but to bi-bashing in general.
It simply amazes me that any lesbians would be intolerant of anyone else's sexuality. After all, we ourselves seek tolerance from others for ours. It would be the height of hypocracy for us not to extend it to everyone else - and I include all of the colors of the rainbow: straight, bi, transgendered and trans-sexual.
It just seems self-evident to me that if women can be straight (and most are), and women can be gay (as I definitely am) then women can obviously know their own heart and mind quite well and define themselves as bi-sexual. I have never understood the idiotic assumption that bi-sexuality isn't real it's just people too afraid to admit that they might be gay. That's ridiculous and while I've never had the pleasure of dating a bi-sexual woman, it has only been because of lack of opportunity. Simply put, I love all of the flavers of Woman.
Sorry for getting off topic. This just surprised me, that's all.
"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion." - stolen from the little Dutch Girl
...
ditto
see above. and touche!
"didn't i throw you out of a window? " - jessica/nikki, heroes
I hope I'm not
I hope I'm not commenting on an out of bound area. If I am the moderators are free to remove my post. But I just like to add that all of us here, despite our sexual orientation, at least share our love of TV shows/movies featuring lesbian/bi characters. Also, I think we all share the belief that there is much homophobia/biphobia in the real world and not enough acknowledging of our sexual diversity. If we were all the same and had the same experiences it would be a boring world to live in.
I make no suggestion that our experiences are identical or that I, or anyone else, can actually assume to know or pretend to relate to the experiences of any other person here because I cannot. I still believe that we can all make an equal contribution to eradicating homophobia. One of my bi friends gave an interesting example of how we all connect together. She told me that if a really hard core, violent homophobe was to come up to 3 of us (one of my lesbian friends, my bi friend and me-an openly affirming lbgt friendly str8 ally) and was hell bent on bashing up anyone they thought to be remotely gay/or lbgt friendly- they wouldn't ask us what orientation we were, what our past history was and bash us accordingly. My bi friend wouldn't get half of what my lesbian friend got, and they wouldn't go easy on me for just being a mere, meek ally. According to her, if we were open about our beliefs and stood up for each other they would most likely be equally violent with each of us.
I know that example has a lot of shortcomings but i liked the basic idea of solidarity and standing up for each other.
You're not...
I welcome any and all allies we can find. I like your friend's analogy and think she is exactly right. Well put.
"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion" - stolen from the Little Dutch Girl
Thanks for the response
If you want to argue that
If you want to argue that this person, or Melinda Kirkwood (she does have a name, after all) is a good for nothing in your opinion, fine. But to use the term bisexual in such a pejorative way ("this bisexual") is disgusting. It's not a big jump to make: you made assumptions about who she is and applied a label strictly based on those assumptions. Then you made negative, baseless comments about her, which thus casts negativity onto the label itself.
You don't do PC... fine. But perhaps you should have some respect for the bisexual people on this forum.
What conversation would we be having if you just assumed the woman in the article was black and you said, "Perhaps this black should have an ounce of pride, and go out and get a job, and stop mooching off her ex! The new gf should be wary--the same thing might happen to her, and she may end up writing this little princess monthly checks, too. Eek."
?? Think about it.
True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James
Assuming
and another assumption.
I don't do PC either so I am assuming someone here got "dumped" for a guy at some point! :)
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
LOL
You never cease to amaze, Gali. I was thinking the same thing when I read the post!
"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion" - stolen from the Little Dutch Girl
And more to the point...it
And more to the point...it looks to me this case could legally change things in either direction. However I personally never see that making such a difference. I don't think rights gotten by legal precedent or accidental by-product of some "straight" matter change much. Next case will again be a fight because there will still be no equality in the minds of people. It all remains "technical".
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
not "technical" at all
I think you’re wrong on this. When it comes to issues of equality, “rights gotten by legal precedent” is EXACTLY what we need - I don’t give a shit about the “minds of people.” Change the damn laws, give me my rights, and let my neighbor think what he wants. If we waited for “the minds of people” to change before legislating civil rights, there’d still be Jim Crow laws.
When it comes to social change, people are often slow to accept it. But eventually they do, so enacting legislation must necessarily come first.
Oh, I agree with you
Oh, I agree with you basically and I don't think I was very clear in my post. I didn't mean first all people have to change their mind .
I believe the reason Martin Luther King's campaign worked is because many regular people of all races became "aware" and felt things were just not right. Laws were changed because people felt they had to be changed. People who were not the direct victims . I mean I think most people have a sense of fairness and will naturally support fights against injustice once they are aware that fight is going on and I think that will be the main cause of change and what I meant to say is that just a technical change of the law will not bring social change. Awareness does.
So, if we get a right we didn't have before as a side result nobody but us (and people who study law) is going to be aware of it and there will be no social change. And if there is no social change a year from now and ten years from now we may have all the same rights but we will still not be equal.
My neighbour doesn't have to approve of me or my life style but he should feel I am equal and deserve equal rights! So, in a sense, yeah! I do care what my neighbour thinks! Because me and all my neighbours together are what society is made off.
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
but...
But that kind of “fairness” is subjective. Lots of people think they’re ‘fair,’ including homophobes and bigots. And if people were naturally inclined to "support fights against injustice," there wouldn’t be so many poor people in the world. Sorry, but I don’t trust my fellow man to 'fight the good fight' for me. I just don’t have that much faith in mankind.
And changing the law on something as big as gay marriage does bring about social change. You’re wrong that “no one will notice but us.” It’s not a minor change in the tax code – it’s “gay marriage.” It’s huge. The whole world will notice when we legalize it, and that is 'awareness.' And once it is legalized, the country will come to accept it, much the way we accepted the end of segregation and women in the workplace. And I think the next generation is, demographically, much more diverse, open and tolerant, as a whole - the implications of that will be deep. Of course, it could take 20 more yrs, but that’s another story - still, that's social change.
And your neighbor may never approve of your behavior, but his son probably will. Or his grandson.
I don't agree at all that
I don't agree at all that fairness like that is subjective. There is nothing subjective about the unfairness of different laws for different people and apart from the outright bigot or homofoob I think if you would pose this to anybody they would call it unfair to have this difference in law!
Gay marriage may be huge in our eyes (gays) and in the eyes of the bigots but it is not for the rest. Unless you believe the majority of the not gay world to be bigots and homofoobs?
For most people their safety and the cost of living are "huge" not gay marriage. And I don't want my neighbour to fight my fight. What I mean is social change comes when it is a given in my neighbour's mind that different laws for different people is wrong and that it is logical that any such situation is corrected! I believe the first to already be the case and the latter is what we fight the fight for. To make him aware of the situation! And I think that is why segregation ended .
Some people fought the fight and made people aware of an injustice and our neighbours then voted with in their mind the awareness of the facts and out of a sense of fairness. And that's what made up the numbers to create an actual change.
I guess we just have a fundamentally different world view in this. Though I believe in the basic sense of fairness of mankind I do not believe the next generation is so much more "open and tolerant" nor does that mean the generation following them will automatically be. That is not what history shows us.
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
I agree with you when you
I agree with what you say and, in particular, when you say that awareness is important. It is and it's important on so many levels. Non lgbt people should be aware of the experiences of lgbt people and the discrimination they face. This could be through direct as well as indirect contact through exposure to lgbt characters on TV shows, movies and stories about lgbt people in newspaper articles etc.
Gay marriage may not be as "big" in the eyes of most non lgbt people, but to say that only gays and homophobes care about gay marriage would be, imho, inaccurate. Children of gay people who have faced homophobia would realize the importance of gay marriage, despite their orientation. People with friends and family who are gay would realize the importance of gay marriage and would actively try to change the laws. There are many organizations consisting of gay-straight people who are both active in the fight for equality for lgbt people in all spheres of life.
When I think of lgbt rights, i don't think of them as a separate category but as basic human rights. I am reminded of the civil rights struggle and the contribution and input that both black and white people put in to make equal rights for black people a reality. I'm sure in some corner of the country there was a white person who had never met a black person in real life, never had a face to face conversation but they knew, internally, that the current situation was injustice personified and that something had to be done about it. Maybe the only contact they had was through news events showing black people being unfairly treated, or through movies, novels and Tv shows depicting black people that created a whole new world and culture for them to understand. Or maybe they admire a black person from past history or the present and are profoundly affected by their struggles for basic rights for instance interracial marriage. If that scenario is possible when thinking of race equality, why is it not possible for lgbt equality?
If any straight person you know thinks that homophobia won’t affect them, tell them they are deluded. Homophobia affects us all whether or not we know someone who is lgbt. Thus they should care about gay rights. I am not at all saying that homophobia affects us all equally, but it may affect straights in subtle ways that they do not realize. This list from (http://www.gsanetwork.org/resources/straight.html) shows that.
Ten Ways Homophobia Affects Straight People.
1. Homophobia forces people to act "macho" if you are a man or "feminine" if you are a woman. This limits our individuality and self-expression.
2. Homophobia puts pressure on straight people to act aggressively and angrily towards LGBTQ people.
3. Homophobia makes it hard to be close friends with someone of the same sex.
4. Homophobia often strains family and community relationships.
5. Homophobia causes youth to become sexually active before they are ready in order to prove they are "normal." This can lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
6. Homophobia prevents vital information on sex and sexuality to be taught in schools. Without this information, youth are putting themselves at a greater risk for HIV and other STDs.
7. Homophobia can be used to hurt a straight person if they "appear to be gay."
8. Homophobia makes it hard for straight people and LGBTQ people to be friends.
9. Homophobia along with racism, sexism, classism, etc. makes it hard to put an end to AIDS.
10. Homophobia makes it hard to appreciate true diversity and the unique traits that are not mainstream or "normal."
Btw, it has come across more seriously than I hoped. But I just wanted to let you and others know that other non-gay people do care. :)Wow, aren't you earnest
Wow, aren't you earnest ;)!
However I am afraid you misunderstood my meaning. When I said "awareness" I did not mean of what it's like to be gay, or any colour or female! I meant many straight people don't know any gay people so naturally our rights to anything are not a priority in their minds. It has nothing to do with "caring". They are not aware of the actual injustices! What I meant is that if you make people aware of the fact that there are injustices in the law they , I believe, will vote for correcting them.
As an example; If you see interviews with Jennifer Beals ( not exactly a dumb or ignorant person I think we can agree?) she says before she got the part in the L word she never even realised how sexuality was not included in certain laws!
To be very honest I actually don't believe a straight person can understand what it is like to be gay or vice versa. Or that a man can know what's it's like to be a woman or vice versa. Hell, I am a gay woman and find on these boards that many other gay women's experiences are completely alien to me!
I don't care if someone else understands my life style or approves. All I care about is equality. And I believe most people understand the concept of fairness without having to put themselves in anybody else's shoes.
And btw, I am gay but other than because of the principle of equality I couldn't care less about the institute of marriage.:)
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
Thanks for the response
Thanks for the response Gali. I think your post was really clear..maybe I didn't express myself clearly. (I guess I can be too earnest sometimes..being known as the geeky class nerd..i guess it comes naturally to me. ;)
I meant as in straight people understanding that gay people face injustices in every aspect of their lives be that because of the law or social reasons . I now understand that you mainly meant it in terms of the law . I completely agree with you that if more straight people were aware of injustices in the law and how that affects gay people's day to day life most fair minded people would vote to change that. Although the fact that most people who vote on issues affecting same sex couples seem to have some sort of interest in it (whether in a good or bad way) doesn't sound too reassuring. This may sound naive, but I think all people should be interested in changing unjust laws.
I think Jennifer Beals is a great example of an open minded person who would have been more actively involved had she known about the extent of injustices in the law. I think most straight people when aware of these injustices in the law will passively support it ...as in they would vote etc. for the change. But if they do know at least 1 gay person I feel they would be more motivated to pass that message on to colleagues, friends etc. That way a tiny ripple can create a wave, which when intense enough will create an entire sea change in legal attitudes towards same sex couples in all countries. Ideally, you'd think people would be motivated enough to pass that message on even if they don't have contact with any gay people..but I guess that's not reality.
Trust me, I don't believe that I can understand what it means to be gay. I'm just looking for some insights and some information. The main reason I came here was because one of my close friends came out to me, but she was not ready yet to go public with the good news. So the net is the only place I can go to, to discuss how i can best support her. On my own I would have no idea how, and as she wants to keep it secret due to a mostly homophobic environment I cannot ask my lesbian/bi friends for advice. And as she does not have access to a private computer at the moment I have decided to look for sites with relevant movies, Tv shows etc. that we can watch together.
And as I'm bit of an internet nerd i've collected information from a number of sites, but I found Afterellen the most relevant and helpful. So I'm going to keep on collecting any interesting information I can find on movies and in between i'll be posting replies to interesting responses. :) Sorry if my replies sound a little off topic...I think I'm a little inept at replying to people online. :)
I didn't mean it as
I didn't mean it as criticism really when I called you earnest! I just mean you are trying ever so hard and are putting in a lot of effort! And it seems to me you are doing fine with the replying :).
Though my posts were to just the legal equality I am a believer in being out as a political statement in itself and the minimum, but very important one, I can do as a gay woman! So, I agree with you there!
I think your effort on behalf of your friend is very sweet btw. Sweet and earnest ;)
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
Thanks Gali. I took earnest
Thanks Gali. I took earnest as a compliment. That you see me as a genuine person. Though I personally think sweet and genuine sounds better.;) I mean it's a double compliment. So thanks for that. :)
I also agree that being out is important as a political statement. And so is (though this obviously makes less of an impact and is not as powerful, but just felt like adding something similar) being an openly affirming str8 ally. By that I don't mean just having an internal belief that legal equality is important, but actually informing unenlightened straights of the inrqualities that exist and challenging homophobia in conversation and in both the private and public sphere of life.
Ok maybe I just have an inflated view of my own importance, but I like being helpful. And I don't believe in doing anything half heartedly.
Quote:And changing the law
I agree with the points you've both made but I wanted to mention that Gali's opinion about social change is very relevant here. How many times have we seen the laws change for the benefit of gay people, whether it was a lower court decision in Baltimore City or legislators in New England creating gay marriage? And you're right, people have noticed: but the wrong people. There has consistently been a social-conservative backlash against these laws, often resulting in the kneejerk passage of "one man, one woman" Constitutional amendments and the like.
So while I agree that legal change has often come first, IMHO if it is not socially supported then those changes will quickly be lobbied away in favour of popular opinion.
True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James
Yes, Thanks koma! That is
Yes, Thanks koma! That is exactly what I meant! Though you put it way more succinctly than I did. :)
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
hair splitting
Oh, I agree that change has to have social support – I just don’t think we can wait for it. You’re right that it can be lobbied away in favor of popular opinion, which is why I’m not expecting people en masse to fight the injustice of homophobia.
But I’m also distinguishing between smaller, state laws (and the backlashes they inspire) and a federal statute for gay marriage. If/when gay marriage is legalized, I fully expect a backlash from the right (and backlash every step of the way until it’s signed into law, and probably, for years after). But again, like segregation and women’s rights, I think it will eventually be accepted as the norm by the nation.
I see social change on a larger scale – amending the law is only one step in making change, and it often takes decades and future generations before that change is fully realized. One of the things that frustrated me in my 20s was the slow pace of “change.” I wanted/expected things to change in MY lifetime. Some things may change, some may not – but now, in my 30s, I realize social change often occurs in steps, in phases, and over time. And I believe changing the “hearts and minds” of people also occurs in steps, in phases, and over time. But simply, we can’t wait for people to change their minds before taking action.
I think we probably agree here more than we disagree, and I’m probably just splitting hairs (since, ya know, I do that sometimes)!
:)
You and me both! Let's us indeed agree that we agree more than we disagree. ;)
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
I agree with you when you
I agree with you when you say that changes in law are as important as social changes. Maybe both should and can occur simultaneously.
I'm hoping that when/and if the Democrats are elected next year America will shift slowly to the centre and hopefully more to the left rather than presently way to the right as it is today. At least then we wouldn't have extreme right wing people like Samuel Alito appointed to the Supreme Court instead of more moderate voices. Besides there are many examples from history where the law has had to change before the minds of people has changed. (http://www.alitosamerica.org/)
It is encouraging that on the 24th of July a Domestic partnership law went into effect in Washington state, but that's not enough. Unless we get rid of the anti-gay DOMA federal legislation and there is federal legislation in place for gay marriage, same sex couples won't be completely protected no matter how many states have domestic partnership laws or civil union laws. It's frustrating that few straight people seem to understand that, but what is equally frustrating is that mainstream news sources, like the one for this article, fail to point out what the differences are between civil unions and gay marriage. That for example no federal protections are included with a civil union, and protections vary from state to state. That this is the same situation with domestic partnerships as well. Some states even refuse to recognize domestic partnerships from other states. This article does not touch on most of the main differences between a civil union and a marriage: the fact that civil unions are harder to dissolve, that it is harder to sponsor a Non- American spouse for immigration, being eligible for joint tax breaks, tax breaks and protections, the benefits ( there are 1049 benefits and protections available only to married couples that are not all present for those with a civil union. The constitution guarantees equality for all, but how does this present situation guarantee equality. It does not.
I'm in my early 20s right now, so I guess I would like change to occur soon in many areas, but if it doesn't by the time I hit 30 I know I'll just become disillusioned by politics in general. And it's hard to remain patient when you know that if politicians just took the time to ammend some laws they would be able to reduce some of that injustice.
It's all about the law
what I meant to say is that just a technical change of the law will not bring social change. Awareness does.
I've studied a lot in American politics, particularly with regard to the Supreme Court and the Civil Rights Era, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. The social activist Supreme Court of the 50s and 60s changed the law WAY before the average American citizen was ready to accept anything even approaching equality between blacks and whites. That's why you got situations like Little Rock, where federal troops had to be brought in to force the governor and the townspeople to let 9 black students attend class. The people weren't ready for the equality the Court ruled into law. They rarely are. Law often has to force social change.
I don't know whether that will happen for gays in America now, and given the current composition of the Supreme Court and Congress (a Democratic majority, sure, but only in name) it seems unlikely. But changes in the law can bring about more change more rapidly than a growth of awareness ever could, and that's what needs to be aimed for.
No, that's not the way...
..it's supposed to work. Gali is right. The way forward is through changes in our society, changes in the understanding of the people. That's what brings about change with a capital "C".
The Constitution says that all powers not specifically enumerated in it as belonging to the Government - belong to the people. There's a reason for that.
"The people weren't ready for the equality the Court ruled into law. They rarely are. Law often has to force social change."
It is the not the "law's" business, nor within its authority to FORCE social change. It is this mindset that has now totally politcised the Supreme Court. These unelected people are not graced with powers above and beyond the Constitution. Every time the Court has over-reached, it has indeed forced change, but at a high social cost. No body disagrees that the Civil Rights and anti-Jim Crow rulings weren't a rightful correction by the Courts, but correcting wrongful rulings of the past (oh, where's our loyal adherence to precidence now?) and purposely affecting social change are two very different things. It is a foolish game to play when you decide you will force change on others because you are so certain of your convictions that anyone in disagreement is a damned peasant that needs to be dragged into enlightenment as you define it. Be careful. That logic can be used against you. Already the "Right" has rediscovered the Power of the Court and the intension of the "Left" to use it to change laws (and policies? and rights?) they disagree with but can not pass electorally...and the damned Nation is held in hostage by these two forces and their power plays.
After all, if these changes you seek could withstand a public referendum, you wouldn't need the Courts, would you? Why not leave the balance of powers alone and try to change the society by changing the minds of the people within that society? Not fast enough for you? Sorry, this is still a representative democracy - and Gay Marriage is not a CIVIL right no matter how much you want it, or I want it, to be. Defining marriage is not a privaledge of the Government either. Marriage is an institution, grounded in religous and civil traditions, most specifically for the rearing of children. If you try an end-around you may end up hoist by your own petard. Be very careful of what you ask for.
"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion" - stolen from the Little Dutch Girl
change on all fronts
Actually, I think politics itself “politicized” the Supreme Court in recent years, starting with the Clarence Thomas appointment. I also don’t think it’s about “forcing social change,” tho if you agree SCOTUS was correct in legislating civil rights in the 60s, I’m not sure how you can argue against gay marriage.
I agree that normally “marriage” isn’t the business of the govt, but they’ve already made it their business. If DOMA hadn’t passed in 1996, I’d agree that legislating gay marriage wouldn’t necessarily be the way to go. But DOMA did pass, and since I do see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, the only way to rectify that is to rescind it and legalize it (I do see it as “correcting wrongs of the past,” even if the past is only 11 yrs ago).
I see changing the law as only one necessary step in the drive towards equality. Yes, changing minds is important also, but that comes on many fronts. That comes via education and cultural awareness, via more out and open portrayals of gays. Educational, cultural and legal channels all bring about an environment that’s conducive to social acceptance. I think that fighting the battle on all fronts is important, but the legal avenue here is critical, IMO, esp due to DOMA. And the ridiculously powerful influence of the religious right.
But why you would assume that my support for gay marriage (or anyone who supports it) is rooted in the assumption that people are “damned peasant that needs to be dragged into enlightenment?” (oh, please, please use the phrase “liberal elite” in your response. You know you wanna)!
I’m personally not looking to “enlighten” anyone. I want my fucking rights, period. Same as everyone else. And it’s not about enlightenment. If Eunice and Carl from Bumfuck, Iowa can marry and receive all the attendant legal rights, why aren’t I entitled to the same?
Who politicised the Court...
...and why? If was the Left who knowing the only way they could advance an adjenda most Americans would not support decided to use the Court to force social change. The importance of the Court changed radically and the battle was to keep the number of conservative justices in the minoirty at all costs. Clarence Thomas was not the beginning - Robert Bork was. Now the Country was treated to Senators charging racism and sexism on no evidence against Justices Roberts and Alito. This was seen as the sham it was and both Justices were approved by the Senate. The height of hypocracy was reached when Kennedy implied that Alito was a racist/sexist/bigot for belonging to an all men's club in college that voted to allow African-Americans membership which he supported. This while Kennedy was still member of the Owl's Club which to this point still had not opened it's membership to the very people Kennedy referred to. Caught out Kennedy responded that he was going to quit his club immediately. But the damage was already done. Kennedy calls others bigots for doing twenty years ago what he still did today.
I do not see the connection between Civil Rights and Gay Marriage. Marriage is not a right, much as you might like it to be. It is not enumerated in the constitution as a right and the definition of marriage belongs to the people, not to the Courts, who are restricted in power by the constitution. The reason States are clammoring to pass DOMAs is because they now expect that the Left will use the courts to redefine marriage and they are trying to adpopt a defensive posture to prevent this. Every State is within their rights to do this and also to not do it and allow for gay marriage. Marriage itself confers no special rights on anybody, altough there are privaledges associated with marriage, This mostly due to Governemental attempts to use the tax code to encourage behaior it supports and discourage that which is does not. This was also a Liberal idea, was it not? As it stands though, the married couples today pay a "marriage penalty", meaning they pay more taxes filing jointly then they would if they could file seperately. This has led to the wild situation of the elderly "shacking up" and avoiding remarriage. Why don't you list all of the priveledges married people have that you do not and let's look at them.
Oh, my "peasant drug into enlightenment" was meant as a direct response to those who think the law has to FORCE changes in society because evidently the unwashed masses can't be trusted to make those changes themselves. Again what legal rights are those married folk getting that you are denied? I propose that there are none, only priveledges that we can get for oursevles without forcing the people to redefine one of their most celebrated institutions. In some states this has already been offered in the form of Civil Unions, which I think is a perfect compromise, and even this is attacked as "marriage lite". Why? Because society views marriage differently than Unions. Well, you can't force people to "view" you in the manner you wish to be viewed without earning it first. No, it seems to me that what you want isn't equal privledges at all. You want Marriage and nothing less. You want the society to bend to your will and nothing less will suffice. Am i right?
"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion" - stolen from the Little Dutch Girl
Are you right? Of course you're not!
Are you right? Of course you’re not!
I understood full well what your “peasant” comment meant (hence my reply about “liberal elites” which is what you inferred anyway, and which is fine if that’s what you believe). So now I’ll take the gloves off: to be perfectly blunt, YES – I see ending segregation as a way of dragging the RACISTS out of their institutionalized bigotry. If it were left up to the South, they would still be exploiting and abusing slave labor for their economy. Period.
Just out of curiosity, do you think the Supremes should’ve left anti-miscegenation laws on the books? You do realize they were overturned in 1967 by SCOTUS, yes? Or was that just another example of activist judges overstepping their bounds and “dragging the unwashed masses” out of their ignorance? And yes, I very much equate gay marriage with miscegenation laws. We’re talking the same principles here: the rights of interracial couples to marry and the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
Marriage itself is not a civil right, but the basic equality of all people, including gays, is (and since you brought up the Constitution, I'd refer you to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).
The privileges afforded straight marrieds are numerous enough – inheritance of social security & pension benefits, next-of-kin status for medical reasons, transfer and inheritance of property, health insurance coverage – do you really want me to continue? I haven’t even gotten to any kind of rights associated with parents and children.
And I'll leave the "who politicized the Courts" question for another day. Too long and involved right now.
I didn't think...
..that you'd ever concede that I could be right. But I figured no guts, no glory - go for it!
Again you go right to slavery which has nothing to do with this. And It's not I who am hugging precidence to my bosum. I fully support SCOTUS correcting any wrongly decided or flawed past decisions, whatever they may be. This is a red herring and it's beneath you. Ending slavery could be seen as dragging the unwashed masses into enlightenment, but we're not debating something as abhorent as that. We're talking about ending marriage as it is known throughout the world and has been through centuries and accross diverse lands and cultures.
I do not see the connection between miscegenatin and gay marriage. In one, marriage itself was not altered and the last of the racial barriers were struck down, as it should have been. With gay marriage a fundamental change will have to occur to the institution of marriage itself. This is okay with me, but I want the decision in the hands of the people and not the Courts, marriage being a priviledge and not a constitutional right. I think we want the same end result, but differ strongly on how best to achieve it. That puts me in the change society first crowd.
Speaking of Equal Protection. If gay marriage is mandated by the courts, what then if a man wishes to marry his sister and both pledge not to have offspring? Or if he wants to marry two women? You see, gays are not the only people not allowed to marry. Some straight people are not allow to either. It is this fear, although whether this fear is justified is open to debate, that drives the DOMA laws.
"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion" - stolen from the Little Dutch Girl
my goat wife
"Again you go right to slavery which has nothing to do with this."
Slavery itself has nothing to do with gay marriage – the role of the judiciary, however, does when it comes to equal rights for all.
"I do not see the connection between miscegenatin and gay marriage. In one, marriage itself was not altered and the last of the racial barriers were struck down, as it should have been. With gay marriage a fundamental change will have to occur to the institution of marriage itself."
What “fundamental change will have to occur to the institution of marriage” if gay marriage is recognized? All I’m advocating is recognition and same rights. Period. No one has to change or alter anything.
"...marriage being a priviledge and not a constitutional right."
Actually, marriage is a civil institution – not a privilege and not a constitutional right.
"If gay marriage is mandated by the courts, what then if a man wishes to marry his sister and both pledge not to have offspring? Or if he wants to marry two women?"
What, no “what if they wanna marry goats?” You’re kidding with this, right? And you accuse ME of using red herrings?
What does incest or polygamy have to do with gay marriage (other than being another ridiculous and illogical scare tactic of the right)?
Comparing miscegenation laws to gay marriage is not a red herring – it’s a completely logical parallel. You’re talking 2 people who want to marry, period, and are denied the right based on their race or sexual preference. It’s not about polygamy or incest or bestiality.
Funny, cuz I was gonna post that I don't have time to respond to this more fully, but I now realize I’ve said everything I need to say (here and in my previous posts). But if you can explain how the miscegenation/gay marriage analogy is faulty or a red herring, I’d love to hear it.
I’d also love to hear more on what incest or polygamy has to do with gay marriage.