Is Same Sex Marriage A Kind Of Marriage?

Suppose a court case involves two parties who are legally married. When they got married, they had agreed to have an exclusive sexual relationship as well as a social and economic relationship. The plaintiff, who happens to be bisexual, wants an immediate divorce. The plaintiff says that the defendant refuses to perform oral sex on the plaintiff. The defendant does not dispute that, but says it is not adequate justification for a divorce. For example, perhaps a divorce would have significant economic consequences for the defendant. For example, perhaps the couple has a young, adopted child and the defendant believes that divorce would not be in the best interests of the child.

If it is a same sex marriage, then should that fact influence the judge? If it is a marriage between a man and a woman, then should that fact influence the judge?

*************************************

Is Sea Water A Kind Of Water?
Suppose you are thirsty. You buy a bottle of liquid. The bottle has a label: "Water. Some municipal tap water made people very ill. This water is guaranteed safe to drink." It also indicates maximum amounts of various kinds of impurities, but sodium is not listed. It turns out that the liquid is processed sea water. Many impurities were removed, but sodium chloride was not removed. The water is safe to drink, but is doesn't reduce your thirst. Is the label accurate? Is processed sea water that contains lots of salt a kind of water?

Are you asking if gay peoples marriages are the same as heterosexuals? How could they be when not one heterosexual marriage is the same as any other heterosexual marriage? Every person has different needs and desires.

Every marraige is different, but as far as a legal proceeding goes, it makes no difference if it's a heterosexual or a homosexual one.

I am legally married, but my state (and most of my country) refuses to recognize my marriage. If we were to decide to divorce each other we would need to first move to a place which recognizes that the marriage exists (Massachusetts, Canada, some European countries - for Canada at least one of us would need to immigrate and live there for 6 months; don't know the specifics for other jurisdictions). Because most US courts do not recognize the marriage they have no jurisdiction to dissolve it.

On the other hand we can't just pretend we're not married and go on our merry way, either. Because a marriage is essentially a contract between two individuals and a governmental entity, the fact that a different governmental entity does not recognize the marriage does not undo the contract.

So... in one sense same gender married couples are MORE married than heterosexual couples since our marriages cannot be dissolved in most instances - but without the benefits that are automatically granted to mixed gender marriages. (Hetero marriages are universally recognized - regardless of where they were entered into, so feel free to get a divorce wherever you are living.)

FWIW, Massachusetts marriages which are between non-residents of Massachusetts are in an even more interesting position, since their marriages may or may not be recognized even in Massachusetts.

(Not that I have actually confirmed that they are facts, but you probably wouldn't be providing details if you didn't have knowledge.)

We've been married almost 25 years, but took the legal plunge just before my state's marriage discrimination statute took effect. It's a big legal limbo-land and since it hasn't been tested anywhere yet there are no guarantees. We found out as much as we could. Decided to go somewhere where the marriage is rock solid, from a legal perspective (no Canada, Oregon, or Massachusetts-as-a-non=resident), so we only have to fight the recognition issue - not the legality of the marriage question.

The summary I posted is based on the consensus of a number of organizations who have looked at the matter, taking into consideration common law marriages (which are not universally recognized, but pose some of the same problems because they ARE legally recognized in other places) and the treatment of marriages which various states and/or countries chose not to recognize in the past (underage, mixed race, polygamous, etc.)

Only time will tell - although I will be surprised if the first challenge is a direct request for a divorce. A lot of us will probably choose to forego the legalities if we separate, either by choice or out of ignorance of the potential consequences. Ultimately the cases will hit the courts on some issue where the existence of a legal but not locally-legally-recognized marriage will impact some other decision: estate, visitation, taxes, adoption, etc. case. (My guess is estate - lots of bitter court fights, and a pre-existing marriage of a step-parent(even one not recognized by the state) is a fairly common challenge to inheritance by the step-parent. No marriage, no inheritance by step-parent, kid gets a bigger share.)

What I'm saying is that 'Same Sex Marriage' when considered shouldn't be treated any differently than heterosexual marriage. I'm not considering the specific legal ramifications of international law regarding a same sex marriage divorce proceeding and comparing them to one of a heterosexual couple. The initial question sounded more of a hypothetical and what i'm saying is that it SHOULD be no different. AS it is where I am, and most of us are, it isn't legal at all, so the differences are that there is no such thing as same sex marraige here.

where you are, whether or not your state permits them to be created there. Marriage is (at its core) a contract between two people and the political subdivision that marries them (in the US, a state). That's why you get state benefits as a result of being married, and why the state gets to participate in the divorce. It's also why the marriage is legal regardless of how any other state chooses to treat it.

When a marriage is created in a different state or country, all the others states grant full faith and credit to the marriage (essentially they treat it as if it was created in the state in which you currently live). That's why if you married in Georgia and moved to Pennsylvania that you get PA benefits without having to remarry there - and why you can get divorced in PA even though they were not part of the marriage "contract."

The inability to easily terminate our marriages creates a real dilemma for those of us who choose to create legal relationships with our life partners. Part of what we have to consider in choosing to enter into a legal marriage is whether we were certain enough that our marriage will last to tolerate the possibility that it will be impossible to terminate it in the legal system of the state in which we reside - which is not a consideration heterosexual couples have to undertake.

The only gay marriages that would be coming to court in my state for divorce are legal marriages like mine which were created outside of my state - and the challenges are/will be very real. There are hundreds of legally married same gender couples in the state in which I live. If our marriages are anything like heterosexual marriages we will, unfortunately, be heading to court for divorce.

I was providing a serious answer to the hypothetical, based on the substantial amount of research we did before taking the legal plunge. Bottom line - any legal same gender marriage will be treated very differently than a legal heterosexual marriage if it arrives in court in 49 of the 50 states in this country for a divorce - and there are absolutely no guarantees that a divorce can even be obtained without moving to Massachusetts or emigrating to Canada.

No, that's not what I'm asking.

Whether it's a same sex marriage, or a marriage between a man and a woman, shouldn't have any influencing on a divorce proceeding. It's two people, and their relationship that's in question. Whether they are homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with it.

The label is accurate (i guess...i thought drinking that stuff made you puke if you drank too much, or screwed up your internal water salinity levels or something)...so if drinking sea water IS safe, then the label is accurate, though I think there might be a level of false advertising present, in there lacking other information, if it's being sold together in the same area with other beverages aimed at 'thirst quenching'.

true minds should admit impediments.

It should be about hearts and minds and not this or that set of genitalia.

Shouldn't matter who is involved in the contract as long as the 2 signers are consenting adults. Kinda like a car lease. That's how I see it.

They think it is a RELIGIOUS covenant. And they want the STATE to mix it up with their particular religion, in contravention to the Constitution. Of course, they wouldn't be too thrilled if the state chose a religion other than their particular favorite--then, suddenly, the Constitution would matter to these whackjobs.

It's a contract, though, plain and simple.

Anyone that has ever been through a divorce knows this all too well...but some how the states have managed to place stipulations on the number and gender of those that may enter into this contract. Sure doesn't seem very 'publican to me considering how up in arms they get about restricting contracts for other civil things like developers and the environment, etc, etc.... just another case of republican hypocrisy.

MZr7

edit: typo

That's why there are state (and federal benefits)that can't be duplicated by contracts between same gender couples; they are part of the state's end of the contract and those who have not entered into the contract (or have been forbidden from entering into the contract) cannot force the state to dole them out.

Huh?

"Wachoo talking about, Willis????"

Sea water is NOT safe to drink. It'll kill ya.

Take a lot of salt into your body and your metabolism very quickly goes into crisis. From every cell, water molecules rush off like so many voluntary firemen to try to dilute and carry off the sudden intake of salt. This leaves the cells dangerously short of the water they need to carry out their normal functions. They become, in a word, dehydrated. In extreme situations, dehydration will lead to seizures, unconsciousness, and brain damage. Meanwhile, the overworked blood cells carry the salt to the kidneys, which eventually become overwhelmed and shut down. Without functioning kidneys you die. That is why we don't drink seawater.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msaltwater.html

If you are trying to make a point.

OP that is unclear and give some indication of what kind of difficulty you are having. For example, are some of the words ambiguous? Is there a sentence with a missing subject or a missing verb?

Should a judge decide to grant a divorce between two homosexuals differently from a divorce of two heterosexuals? Hypothetically, you are supposing that a marriage is a marriage in the eyes of the law (otherwise the homosexual couple would not be before a judge) and both scenarios are treated equally under law, so NO, their sexuality should have nothing to do with the legal decision.

Yes, Seawater is water.

So what exactly did you get from this little discussion? I'm pretty sure I know what, but I'm wondering if you'll just step out and say it. I doubt it.

will Nancy Reagan's astrologer charge her double?

so keep that in mind.

I am trying to understand how the sex of both parties would influence the judge...

And, btw, I don't think "refusal to perform oral sex" is grounds for divorce. There would be a lot more divorces if it were...

You mention the child.

Are you asking about whether a judge considers gender, and not just sexuality, when making a decision?


BTW, unless you clarify, don't be suprised if you don't get the answer you are looking for.

marriage IMHO.

If you have to go through all that tored logic for some reason it isn't just because a certian curriosity or question just happend to pop into your head.

I don't claim that it would influence the judge. I am simply asking.


That is an informative comment. Thank you for expressing an opinion.


Yes, divorce of the adoptive parents may be thought to be contrary to the best interests of a young child.


No, that's not what I'm asking.

If it is a same sex marriage, then should that fact influence the judge? If it is a marriage between a man and a woman, then should that fact influence the judge?

The genders of the partners should be irrelevant.

*************************************

Is Sea Water A Kind Of Water?

Yes, it is a kind of water.

I think the dictionary definition of marriage implies it's between a man and a woman (or possibly "at least one man and at least one woman"), and in an ideal world I'd favour using a differnt word for formalisation of homosexual relationships (although with all the same rights), on purely pedantic grounds.

However, the drawback of doing that is that if you use different words for the two things then it becomes possible at some point for someone to introduce legislation that applies to one but not the other, so I think it ought to be refered to as such, on the grounds that human rights are more important that accurate nomenclature.

Hetero marriage....and currently same-sex. As marriage goes, they're the same.
I feel I'm an authority on this, as I have personal experience. Too bad people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about get to decide if and when I'll ever qualify for those 1,000+ rights and priveledges folks get when they have "Elvis" perform their nuptuals through a drive thru in Vegas.

Try this, OK? I am assuming that you are old enough to use the computer, therefore I am also assuming that if you opened a bottle of sea water that you would NOT drink it after the first bitter taste.

btw--that analogy describes how I felt reading your post...bitter taste in my mouth--but, I wanted to see if you actually had some kind of a point that might make me understand the other side of this argument (I am for non-heterosexual marriages in the state, and in the church--yeah...you read that correctly)

What are you trying to convince yourself of? That some people shouldn't have the same rights as others? What an idiot argument...regardless of the language and rhetoric you choose.

Same Sex marriage is a kind of Marriage, and SeaWater is definitely water.


As all that is required for water is H2O, water is water is water. What else is in there, is irrelevant as long as it doesn't break the mother molecule.


Just as with marriage - which is a property contract between two people to be considered one entity by the State.

Whatever else is in the mix is irrelevant, even if it is not necessarily beneficial. (alcoholism, debt, 2 penises, a vacation home in Bermuda, or in the case of water - Sodium chloride, raspberry flavoring, potassium or radium)

If we allow sea water to be called water, soon they'll be trying to make water out of deuterium, and we'll have two extra neutrons in each molecule! What are we, Mormons?

(As long as we're posting nonsensical analogies, I thought I'd hop in.)

Isn't common decency really just another kind of Nanny State?

Is it possible to be a perfect president if you're a Democrat?

Science. Is it good?

etc.