Wisconsin Gays Face Fines, Prison for California Weddings [Archive]

DoubtingStephen

14th June 2008, 09:14 PM

Redtail

14th June 2008, 10:03 PM

shemp

14th June 2008, 10:03 PM

Prediction: The first time this is tested in court, it gets shot down.

DoubtingStephen

15th June 2008, 08:47 AM

Well dammit guess where I wound up moving to last month... I must say I'm a bit shocked since when I got here it seemed to be more of a progressive state. There are at least 3 gay/lesbian couples in my neighborhood and at the cookout lat weekend they seemed just as welcome as anyone else. (I tend to find out rather quickly the two faced people because it's hard for some to tell I'm Black and when they find I'm from the south the bigoted stereotyping tends to come out.) I guess my fiancee and I just found a pocket of sane.

I spent a winter in Milwaukee and found it to be a liberal and enlightened city, but that was 40 years ago.

I think what has happened here, as in many other states, is that some very malicious Jeebus organizations pretended they were selling one thing, when really what they were doing is protecting the Sanctity of Bigotry.

Prediction: The first time this is tested in court, it gets shot down.

That seems very easy to believe, this is as Un-American as a Rush Limblob broadcast. And then there is the US Constitution to be considered.

Sefarst

15th June 2008, 10:07 AM

Prediction: The first time this is tested in court, it gets shot down.
Indeed, but the purpose is intimidation.

These cases are going to present some serious legal questions such as whether or not a gay couple will be able to claim spousal priviledge in cases outside of California, tax questions and so on. It'd be interesting to hear someone with more legal experience comment on it.

Bob Klase

15th June 2008, 12:11 PM

Prediction: The first time this is tested in court, it gets shot down.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me it could be shot down on several fronts. First, it only addresses people who live there who go to another state to marry and then come back. It doesn't appear to apply to people who live somewhere else, get married and then move there. Don't know if that would be covered by equal protection, interstate commerce, Full Faith and Credit or something else, but I'm sure it's not going to (and shouldn't) stand up through the courts.

15th June 2008, 04:59 PM

Wow.
Were I gay, and living in Wisconsin, I'd arrange to get married specifically to bring this offence against human dignity to the worldwide stage.

How is this at all moral or ethical?
How did it even get passed?

The people of Wisconsin should be very dissapointed in there governing body. Especially the homosexual and non-homophobic demographic.

Sefarst

15th June 2008, 05:02 PM

;3780213']Wow.
Were I gay, and living in Wisconsin, I'd arrange to get married specifically to bring this offence against human dignity to the worldwide stage.

Unfortunately, this means going through the embarrassment and inconvenience of getting arrested, going through court, etc.

The people of Wisconsin should be very dissapointed in there governing body. Especially the homosexual and non-homophobic demographic.
I agree. Any resident of Wisconsin who is not foaming at the mouth with rage at this moment should be ashamed of himself.

Safe-Keeper

15th June 2008, 05:20 PM

Delaware law also provides criminal penalties for homosexuals who are married outside Delaware and have the nerve to show up in Jesusland Delaware afterwards.So basically, they want to shut their state off from people who don't agree with their religious bigotry. Next they'll want a giant wall built.

It'd be freaking hilarious if it wasn't for real.

Complexity

15th June 2008, 05:45 PM

Unfortunately, this means going through the embarrassment and inconvenience of getting arrested, going through court, etc.

What 'embarrassment'?

Sefarst

15th June 2008, 06:54 PM

What 'embarrassment'?
The embarrassment of getting arrested, searched, and locked in a cell.

Loss Leader

15th June 2008, 06:58 PM

Thanks to a recent successful Jesus-brand ballot initiative in Wisconsin, gay and lesbian couples who travel to California to be married face 9 months in prison and/or up to $10,000 fines. Now that is what I call Protecting the Sanctity of Bigotry.

Sources: PDF (http://attorneysagainsttheban.org/Documents/Crim_Signatures.pdf) PDF (http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_marriage-for-same-sex-couples-in-california.pdf) HTML (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Misc-Legal-2134/Marriage-Wisconsin.htm)

You can thank fine Christian organizations like the Wisconsin Fascist Family Council for this fine piece of legislation.

Can you say "Full faith and credit clause"? I bet somebody will.

Delaware law also provides criminal penalties for homosexuals who are married outside Delaware and have the nerve to show up in Jesusland Delaware afterwards. HTML (http://www.einnews.com/delaware/newsfeed-delaware-crime)

God bless the lawyer that gets this case. It's the kind of thing you wait your whole career for.

15th June 2008, 09:52 PM

The embarrassment of getting arrested, searched, and locked in a cell.

Perhaps. It depends on the individual, an bias of the prison population (if there was a threat to personal safet for being gay in prison, it may not be a good idea to get arrested).

On the other hand, jailing or fining two consenting adults for the crime of proclaiming their love for one another is wrong (although I'm likely preaching to the choir).

Highlighting this absurdity and bringing down international riducule and derision upon Wisconsin and Delaware seem to me to be the best way to make them reconsider.

ETA: If it happened in Manitoba, I'd marry a man just to make a protest, and I'm not even gay.

tiger

16th June 2008, 02:48 AM

Thanks to a recent successful Jesus-brand ballot initiative in Wisconsin, gay and lesbian couples who travel to California to be married face 9 months in prison and/or up to $10,000 fines. Now that is what I call Protecting the Sanctity of Bigotry.

Sources: PDF (http://attorneysagainsttheban.org/Documents/Crim_Signatures.pdf) PDF (http://data.lambdalegal.org/publications/downloads/fs_marriage-for-same-sex-couples-in-california.pdf) HTML (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Misc-Legal-2134/Marriage-Wisconsin.htm)

You can thank fine Christian organizations like the Wisconsin Fascist Family Council for this fine piece of legislation.

Can you say "Full faith and credit clause"? I bet somebody will.

Delaware law also provides criminal penalties for homosexuals who are married outside Delaware and have the nerve to show up in Jesusland Delaware afterwards. HTML (http://www.einnews.com/delaware/newsfeed-delaware-crime)

In every state in this country you have those kinds of groups that tout the specials wants and get away with it. Me thinks they worry to much about something thats none of their business. Of course let it be known the a high number of christiians still support George W's war in Iraq, so it's all done to please their values. It's funny how someone can pray to God and yet support the killing of others without a second thought pretty hypicritcal.

G-K-4

17th June 2008, 07:42 AM

Some questions:

1.) When a couple marry in Massachusetts or California and return to their home in Wisconsin, how likely is it that they will be ignored? My concern is that enforcement may become selective, and these penalties will be used against "uppity" gays and lesbians, as a form of political retaliation. Those of you who know the cultures of Wisconsin police and politicians, how likely is selective enforcement? Would it depend on where in Wisconsin a couple live?

2.) Would an "offender" ever go to prison (as opposed to jail) if their case is still being appealed (perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court, so it could take years)?

3.) If this Wisconsin law is challenged, would only the penalties be struck down, or the whole law?

4.) If this Wisconsin law is challenged, would that have any effect on the federal DOMA? Or would that depend on how the case is argued and how the Supreme Court rules?

ponderingturtle

17th June 2008, 07:48 AM

Some questions:

1.) When a couple marry in Massachusetts or California and return to their home in Wisconsin, how likely is it that they will be ignored? My concern is that enforcement may become selective, and these penalties will be used against "uppity" gays and lesbians, as a form of political retaliation. Those of you who know the cultures of Wisconsin police and politicians, how likely is selective enforcement? Would it depend on where in Wisconsin a couple live?

If the couple did not make a point of it how would the state know to charge them?

Also it is illegal to be married in massachusetts if your marriage would be illegal in your home state(yea laws against myscegination)

4.) If this Wisconsin law is challenged, would that have any effect on the federal DOMA? Or would that depend on how the case is argued and how the Supreme Court rules?

That would entirely depend on the ruleing. If it was a broad ruleing about how states must recognize marriages in other states it would effect the DOMA. If it was based on some other principle it might not.

Of course the court could also rule this law is just fine.

BPSCG

17th June 2008, 07:59 AM

Invidious

17th June 2008, 08:01 AM

That would entirely depend on the ruleing. If it was a broad ruleing about how states must recognize marriages in other states it would effect the DOMA. If it was based on some other principle it might not.

Of course the court could also rule this law is just fine.

This article (http://www.madison.com/tct/news/287353)seems to be about a current challenge. I'll see if I can scrounge up some more.

ETA: Woops! This (http://www.channel3000.com/news/16436862/detail.html)is a bit more current...

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 08:40 AM

Don't see how the Defense of Marriage Act enters into this. It's one thing to not grant legal recognition to a same-sex marriage, but to treat it as a crime when it was entered into legally in another state? IANAL, but I bet this goes way beyond anything intended in the DOMA.

Pretty much. A marriage isn't really subject to full faith and credit, thus a state can refuse to recognize an out of state marriage if it finds a compelling policy reason to do so. DOMA is largely a masturbatory piece of legislation meant to influence any finding of the compelling policy reason, otherwise it doesn't really grant any power the state didn't already have.

Trying to make conduct in another state illegal has some serious jurisdictional problems. A state has no power to criminalize conduct occuring in another state, and it can't punish people for leaving the state to do something legal. Making it a crime to live as a married couple runs into [u]Lawrence v. Texas[/i] style privacy problems. Also could be seen as a regulation of interstate commerce, also a no-no.

Maybe a state that specifically rules such marriages void would have an interest in prosecuting any that holds themselves out to be a married couple in any legal document or to obtain a benefit for fraud.... that would be about it.

JoeEllison

17th June 2008, 08:47 AM

It is like... ummmm... saying that if you go to Vegas and have sex with a hooker in a legal brothel, you can be arrested in Virginia for it?

e-sabbath

17th June 2008, 09:55 AM

More like someone getting vaccinated in another state, then returning to their own.

17th June 2008, 10:53 AM

Well, wasn't there one state that passed an anti-Abortion law that said you could be prosecuted for murder for having an abortion in another state?

This seems similar, designed to ruin anyone who stands out among the sheeple.

Loss Leader

17th June 2008, 11:05 AM

A marriage isn't really subject to full faith and credit

Really? I thought it was.

BPSCG

17th June 2008, 11:30 AM

Well, wasn't there one state that passed an anti-Abortion law that said you could be prosecuted for murder for having an abortion in another state?Evidence?
This seems similar, designed to ruin anyone who stands out among the sheeple.Looking at the law, I wonder if it wasn't intended as a measure to protect minors from getting married without parental consent, say, at age 16, in another state, if Wisconsin's minimum age was 18. Or to prevent someone from crossing state lines to marry his 16-year-old first cousin. Or something like that. I didn't see anything in the link from the OP that indicated this law had been passed recently.

luchog

17th June 2008, 11:31 AM

Prediction: The first time this is tested in court, it gets shot down.
It depends on the court. No court in Wisconsin will shoot it down for this reason:

Wisconsin Constitution
Article XIII. Miscellaneous provisions
Section 13. Marriage. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Wisconsin is one of the most restrictive states in the US with regard to same-sex marriage, or any other sort of same-sex union.

This issue would need to get all the way up to the US Supreme Court before it could receive a contrary ruling. Since that would require invalidating the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, it's highly unlikely that the USSC would even bother to hear the case, in fear of the precedent that would be created. So far the DoMA has never been tested at the SC level, and all lower federal courts have consistently ruled it constitutional. So far, only the California Supreme Court has ruled the Federal DoMA unconstitutional.

17th June 2008, 11:33 AM

Evidence?

Nilistic skeptical demands, now, eh?

Which Dakota it was I forget.

Looking at the law, I wonder if it wasn't intended as a measure to protect minors from getting married without parental consent, say, at age 16, in another state, if Wisconsin's minimum age was 18. Or to prevent someone from crossing state lines to marry his 16-year-old first cousin. Or something like that. I didn't see anything in the link from the OP that indicated this law had been passed recently.

How can that be "man and woman" related?

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 11:39 AM

Really? I thought it was.

Full faith and credit is geared toward judicial findings and proceedings. A marriage is more of a contract, and the general rule is that a state can refuse to honor a contract if it violates some public policy of a state.

To use the prostitute example, if I go to a place where prostitution is legal and contract with a prostitute to have sex with me as desired over the next six months, then move to a state where prostitution is illegal, that state is not bound to honor the contract in court in the case of a lawsuit for breach of that contract.

(They'd also arrest me, which is a pretty strong indication of adverse public policy, but past that this is a separate issue from enforcement of a contract)

States have generally recognized marriages of other states. Before 1967, some states refused to recognize interracial marriage, the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia ended this as a matter of Equal Protection.

A current example would be a person marrying a first cousin in a state where that was legal, another state (like West Virginia) that makes such a marriage illegal would be able to not recognize the marriage on public policy grounds. It can get more complicated than this, and state decisions are all over the map when deciding when to recognize for what purpose.

Congress has power to affect the procedural aspects of full faith and credit, like how in one state I can prove and enforce a judgment for damages or specific performance from a lawsuit in another state, that sort of thing. It can't by statute affect the basic content of the clause, this requires a constitutional amendment.

BPSCG

17th June 2008, 11:44 AM

Nilistic skeptical demands, now, eh?

Which Dakota it was I forget.If you could find such a law, it would be nice. Otherwise, you really don't have much of a point here.

How can that be "man and woman" related?Huh? :confused:

Read the statute (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0765.pdf), particularly 765.30. Neither the word "man" nor "woman" appear anywhere in chapter 765 (Marriage).

Note also that 765.03 (Who shall not marry) doesn't expressly forbid same-sex marriage.

godless dave

17th June 2008, 11:47 AM

It is like... ummmm... saying that if you go to Vegas and have sex with a hooker in a legal brothel, you can be arrested in Virginia for it?

Great analogy. Here are some more:

If I drive from Minnesota (where it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays) to Wisconsin on a Sunday to buy beer, can I be arrested when I return to Minnesota?

If I drive from Wisconsin to Georgia, buy some fireworks that are legal in Georgia but illegal in Wisconsin, and set them off in Georgia, can I be arrested in Wisconsin?

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 11:49 AM

It depends on the court. No court in Wisconsin will shoot it down for this reason:

Wisconsin is one of the most restrictive states in the US with regard to same-sex marriage, or any other sort of same-sex union.

This issue would need to get all the way up to the US Supreme Court before it could receive a contrary ruling. Since that would require invalidating the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, it's highly unlikely that the USSC would even bother to hear the case, in fear of the precedent that would be created. So far the DoMA has never been tested at the SC level, and all lower federal courts have consistently ruled it constitutional. So far, only the California Supreme Court has ruled the Federal DoMA unconstitutional.

The issue Shemp is referring to is not whether they can not recognize the marriage, rather whether somehow criminal liability can result from such an out-of-state marriage.

The constitutional amendment is irrelevant as to this question, as is DOMA. Issues are jurisdiction, regulation of interstate activity, the right to travel under the privileges and immunities clause, the right to privacy as stated in Lawrence v. Texas, and probably some other stuff I'm missing.

godless dave

17th June 2008, 11:51 AM

It depends on the court. No court in Wisconsin will shoot it down for this reason:

Wisconsin is one of the most restrictive states in the US with regard to same-sex marriage, or any other sort of same-sex union.

Yes, but that's not the issue at hand. The law we're talking about criminalizes Wisconsin residents who enter into a same-sex marriage in another state, whether or not they try to get Wisconsin to recognize that marriage.

ETA: Suddenly explained it better while I was typing my response.

Beerina

17th June 2008, 11:52 AM

Prediction: The first time this is tested in court, it gets shot down.

It doesn't even make sense.

A sovereign state's power stops at its border. It isn't even possible to do something illegal in Wisconsin, in another state, because you can't be two places at once.

And what's their worry anyway? Didn't the "Defense of Marriage" act pass, which says no state must recognize gay marriages from other states? (Not that I think this is a good law, but wasn't it passed?)

Gazpacho

17th June 2008, 11:54 AM

Is there really no federal precedent that directly addresses being arrested for entering a state after doing something legal in another state? Loving v. Virginia looks a bit risky, as much of the reasoning seems to turn on equal protection by race.

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 11:56 AM

Great analogy. Here are some more:

If I drive from Minnesota (where it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays) to Wisconsin on a Sunday to buy beer, can I be arrested when I return to Minnesota?

Section 2 of the amendment repealing prohibition (21st) makes it illegal to transport liquor into a state against the laws of that state, so depending on specifics bringing the liquor back can be a problem.

17th June 2008, 12:00 PM

If you could find such a law, it would be nice. Otherwise, you really don't have much of a point here.

No, I don't have to help out your defective memory. Rocks fall down, too, when dropped. Remember?

Huh? :confused:

Read the statute (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0765.pdf), particularly 765.30. Neither the word "man" nor "woman" appear anywhere in chapter 765 (Marriage).

Note also that 765.03 (Who shall not marry) doesn't expressly forbid same-sex marriage.

Now read in context, including the state constitution.

Loss Leader

17th June 2008, 12:00 PM

Full faith and credit is geared toward judicial findings and proceedings. A marriage is more of a contract, and the general rule is that a state can refuse to honor a contract if it violates some public policy of a state.

I'm sorry, I disagree with you. The full faith and credit clause of the constitution reads: "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."

Sure, FF&C is used to enforce one court's judgment's in another state. But issuing a marriage license, certifying the celebrants who can perform marriages, receiving the completed license after the ceremony and keeping marriage records are all public acts. They are all performed by the state (or its municipalities). Moreover, the government's role in legitimizing marriages predates the Constitution by ... forever. Hence, the general rule that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid in the state.

On the other hand, marriage is not a contract. It bears some resemblances in some of its aspects, but it is for an indefinite term, for an indefinite amount of consideration, for illegal consideration (sex), includes a third party (the state), requires third party permission to dissolve and more.

While equal protection and due process grounds may also play a part in the portability of marriage, full faith and credit does as well.

17th June 2008, 12:01 PM

Section 2 of the amendment repealing prohibition (21st) makes it illegal to transport liquor into a state against the laws of that state, so depending on specifics bringing the liquor back can be a problem.

So, dry state to wet state is different than dry county to wet county?

Gazpacho

17th June 2008, 12:04 PM

If I drive from Minnesota (where it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays) to Wisconsin on a Sunday to buy beer, can I be arrested when I return to Minnesota?
If you bring the beer with you, maybe.
If you return intoxicated, maybe.
If you return sober, the circumstances are similar to this law.

BPSCG

17th June 2008, 12:10 PM

No, I don't have to help out your defective memory. Rocks fall down, too, when dropped. Remember?Wait a minute. You initially claimed: Well, wasn't there one state that passed an anti-Abortion law that said you could be prosecuted for murder for having an abortion in another state?The fact that you phrased it as a question indicates you weren't sure whether you had your facts straight or not. When I asked you to elaborate, you replied:
Which Dakota it was I forget.
And then you claim it's my fault you can't be more specific because I have a defective memory? :eek:

Ixion

17th June 2008, 12:22 PM

This guy posted ten arguments against homosexual marriage on his blog, and then goes to refute the arguments. He is not using critical thinking much, but he certainly is impassioned about his stand. Have a read if you want:Ten arguments (http://www.joethepeacock.com/2008/06/ten-arguments-against-same-sex.php)

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 12:59 PM

I'm sorry, I disagree with you. The full faith and credit clause of the constitution reads: "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."

Sure, FF&C is used to enforce one court's judgment's in another state. But issuing a marriage license, certifying the celebrants who can perform marriages, receiving the completed license after the ceremony and keeping marriage records are all public acts.

"Public Acts" in this context means legislation. If I violate a state law in this state other states are required to respect this if I were to flee even if the act would be legal there, that sort of thing.

Rather than go through the gory details, I'll just quote a Yale Law School Prof...

"Full Faith and Credit"--A Commentary by Prof. Lea Brilmayer

.......

The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check
whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.

Link (http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm)

Loss Leader

17th June 2008, 01:13 PM

Rather than go through the gory details, I'll just quote a Yale Law School Prof...

Link (http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm)

And I'll just quote a Harvard Law School Professor who disagrees with her:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=697862

ETA: Well, that was fun. But seriously, you're wrong.

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 01:32 PM

And I'll just quote a Harvard Law School Professor who disagrees with her:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=697862

ETA: Well, that was fun. But seriously, you're wrong.

Hardly. My article was discussing legal reality.

This article argues that the full faith and credit clause should be interpreted to require interstate recognition of same sex marriages

This is a theoretical proposal. People write these all the time urging courts to make a change in the law for public policy reasons:

...this article argues that the full faith and credit clause should be interpreted to require recognition of marriages that are valid where celebrated to avoid inconsistent obligations, to allow free interstate travel and commerce, and to prevent the states from authorizing married partners to walk away from their concededly valid and persisting obligations under Massachusetts law.

He is arguing that a court should recognize marriages under full faith and credit. This is because, at present, they don't.

The article I cite discusses what the state of the law is. This article discusses what it should be.

Big difference.

Loss Leader

17th June 2008, 02:05 PM

The article I cite discusses what the state of the law is. This article discusses what it should be.

Semantics.

Your article talks about how states should behave based on the professor's interpretation of the law.

My article talks about how states should behave based on the professor's interpretation of the law.

... unless you can show me where Professor Singer states that he knows that the current law of FF&C does not support his position.

But since neither of us is getting paid for this, let's just end this on friendly terms by both agreeing that you're wrong.

DoubtingStephen

17th June 2008, 02:06 PM

fatewilleatyou

17th June 2008, 02:21 PM

The embarrassment of getting arrested, searched, and locked in a cell.

I've been through the process, it's not terribly embarrassing. On an annoyance, discomfort level, it's somewhere between routine surgery and Jr. High School.

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 02:29 PM

Semantics.

Hardly. The difference between fact and a contention is pretty vast.[/quote]

Your article talks about how states should behave based on the professor's interpretation of the law.

[/quote]

No... The Yale article discusses what the state of the law is. It gives no guidence, just observes that claims that the Full Faith and Credit Clause will cause a state to recognize a marriage against that state's public policy concerns has no, that is zero, basis in law as it stands.

My article talks about how states should behave based on the professor's interpretation of the law.
Should be. Exactly.
... unless you can show me where Professor Singer states that he knows that the current law of FF&C does not support his position.
Strawman. Law isn't science. He is obviously going to argue that there is a legal basis as well as public policy rationale for courts to make a finding that they have never in the past made. This is what people do when they argue in law review articles that a court should take a different direction in the future.

Can I say for sure some court will not decide to follow this advice? No. I can say that it is clear to date that the public policy doctrine has protected states from having to recognize a marriage that violates that state's public policy concerns.

But since neither of us is getting paid for this, let's just end this on friendly terms by both agreeing that you're wrong.

You are completely out of your depth.

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 02:38 PM

Suddenly,

Thank you for contributing valuable legal insights, it has made this thread much better.

I'd like your informed opinion, in the seemingly very unlikely event that a person would face charges in Wisconsin for having married a same-sex partner out of state, do you think it likely a conviction would result?

If convicted, would you expect appellate relief?

It seems very much far-fetched, yet it is conceivable.

I could not find a published case on the general issue since the interracial marriage issue was quashed in 1967 (I didn't look that hard though), and criminal law doctrines in themselves and how they relate to constitutional law is so different 40 years later that I could see it going in a number of directions.

It is as if the law has been frozen like Austin Powers for forty years, and how exactly it translates into a different world if some silly rube decides to thaw it out is hard to imagine.

Sefarst

17th June 2008, 02:57 PM

Loving v. Virginia seems like a pretty good precedent. A 40-year-old, unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court:

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Substitute "race" with "same-sex" and it's the same situation.

Gazpacho

17th June 2008, 03:38 PM

Substitute "race" with "same-sex" and it's the same situation.
It would be, but you'd have to justify the substitution to a judge. After all, same-sex marriage doesn't advance human existence and survival in the same sense that hetero marriage does.

I Ratant

17th June 2008, 03:45 PM

God bless the lawyer that gets this case. It's the kind of thing you wait your whole career for.
.
The opportunities for lawyers are expanding daily!
http://www.avpress.com/n/17/0617_s2.h

Complexity

17th June 2008, 03:52 PM

The embarrassment of getting arrested, searched, and locked in a cell.

It is only embarrassing if you care more about what ignorant people think than doing the right thing.

Loss Leader

17th June 2008, 04:31 PM

Suddenly,

Thank you for contributing valuable legal insights, it has made this thread much better.

I'd like your informed opinion, in the seemingly very unlikely event that a person would face charges in Wisconsin for having married a same-sex partner out of state, do you think it likely a conviction would result?

If convicted, would you expect appellate relief?

It seems very much far-fetched, yet it is conceivable.

Well, I wasn't asked but ...

Whether the marriage is considered by Wisconsin to be a valid one or not, the chance of a conviction for a crime appears vanishingly small. I'd say that the First Amendment's Freedom of Association clause would rule it out. It just can't be criminal to hang out with somebody.

ponderingturtle

17th June 2008, 04:36 PM

It would be, but you'd have to justify the substitution to a judge. After all, same-sex marriage doesn't advance human existence and survival in the same sense that hetero marriage does.

It also does not reverse a previous supreme court ruleing though.

I Ratant

17th June 2008, 04:41 PM

Well, I wasn't asked but ...

Whether the marriage is considered by Wisconsin to be a valid one or not, the chance of a conviction for a crime appears vanishingly small. I'd say that the First Amendment's Freedom of Association clause would rule it out. It just can't be criminal to hang out with somebody.
.
Just don't let a "gay" rub up against you!
You may start preferring "putting from the rough"!

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 06:28 PM

Loving v. Virginia seems like a pretty good precedent. A 40-year-old, unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court:

Substitute "race" with "same-sex" and it's the same situation.

Yeah, but this is the $64 question.To date, sexual preference has been offered the lowest level of scrutiny under the 14th amendment. Putting it on par with race or gender would be a HUGE change,

This would be the kind of landmark decision that I figure the Roberts Court will hand down right after pigs fly out of my butt...

Loss Leader

17th June 2008, 07:07 PM

Yeah, but this is the $64 question.To date, sexual preference has been offered the lowest level of scrutiny under the 14th amendment. Putting it on par with race or gender would be a HUGE change,

This would be the kind of landmark decision that I figure the Roberts Court will hand down right after pigs fly out of my butt...

Which is why the FF&C argument is so much better suited for this fight than Equal Protection.

pchams

17th June 2008, 07:31 PM

We'll make room for teh gheys in Canada until youse states figgur yer laws.
Hope they all don't get eaten by bears, or die of frostbite.

Hmmm..same thing seems to have happened with emancipation...(spot the logical fallacy) :)

Suddenly

17th June 2008, 09:26 PM

Which is why the FF&C argument is so much better suited for this fight than Equal Protection.

All that takes is eliminating the public policy doctrine, which has only been law forever. More likely that sexual preference is given a higher level of scruitiny seeing that some states have gone in that direction. I don't expect the US supreme court in its current form to follow suit.

As to the criminal statutes discussed in the OP, there are far better defenses to be found in more mundane areas of criminal/constitutional law.

BPSCG

18th June 2008, 04:24 AM

After all, same-sex marriage doesn't advance human existence and survival in the same sense that hetero marriage does.Oh jeeze, here we go again with the, "Marriage is for procreation and since the fags can't procreate, they shouldn't be allowed to marry" foolishness.

Neither Mrs. BPSCG nor I have any children, from either of our marriages, and unless Abraham and Sarah's angel of the Lord comes to visit us, it ain't gonna happen (and if that angel were to tell us to look for a bundle of joy nine months from now, we'd be asking our friends if they knew the phone number of a good abortionist).

So Mrs. BPSCG and I shouldn't be married, either. Damn.

mrbaracuda

18th June 2008, 04:46 AM

Now that is what I call Protecting the Sanctity of Bigotry.

I call that upholding the law, but that's probably just me.

slingblade

18th June 2008, 05:10 AM

I call that upholding the law, but that's probably just me.

If you think laws can't reflect bigotry, I'd like to introduce you to Jim Crow.

Jon_Stripe

18th June 2008, 05:16 AM

They need to fight this.

These gays and lesbiens should preform a protest by perhaps kissing their partners in large nubers on the steps of the govenors office.

-peaceful demonstration

-legal

We are all losing our personal freedoms. What the people in power are doing is unconstitutional. They need to be stoped. They have no right to surpress us like this.

mrbaracuda

18th June 2008, 05:26 AM

If you think laws can't reflect bigotry, I'd like to introduce you to Jim Crow.

Yes, hello to you, too! Or something. :rolleyes:

mrbaracuda

18th June 2008, 05:27 AM

BPSCG

18th June 2008, 05:49 AM

These gays and lesbiens should preform a protest by perhaps kissing their partners in large nubers on the steps of the govenors office.Don't you even think about kissing my large nubers.

We are all losing our personal freedoms. Oh, gimme a break with your "losing our personal freedoms" BS. You remind me of my left-wing neighbor (who I love dearly), who was ranting at a party recently about how people are afraid to express themselves any more because of "the current administration." At which point I sidled up to her and asked, "Hey, Paula, have you called Bush a Nazi fascist yet today?"

"Shut up," she explained, invoking her personal freedom.

Now, explain to me exactly which personal freedoms you have lost recently.

fls

18th June 2008, 06:01 AM

And I'll just quote a Harvard Law School Professor who disagrees with her:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=697862

ETA: Well, that was fun. But seriously, you're wrong.

Do parental obligations depend upon (or are strongly related to) marriage?

Do spousal obligations have any relevance before a marriage is dissolved?

If the dissolution of a marriage leads to judicial findings and proceedings, is it expected that other states will not uphold those findings - i.e. can someone avoid responsibility for alimony payments simply by moving to another state?

If not, does that mean (as it stands) that same-sex marriages are recognized by other states only when they have been dissolved?

Linda

Jon_Stripe

18th June 2008, 06:08 AM

With your vigour you can be the flag bearer!

I'm not gay I just think it's rediculous and petty that gay marrige is illegal.

BPSCG, do you think about the world going around you or do you simply take everything you see and hear to be absolute truth?

Me personal freedoms? Well,

-If I were gay and wanted to marry, I couldn't.

-If I were a chick and pregnant, depending on were I lived, I could'nt abort.

-The draft (although a touchy subject)

-If I were a "high threat" activist chances are I'd be shot or imprisoned-loss of free speach.

fls

18th June 2008, 06:10 AM

Oh, gimme a break with your "losing our personal freedoms" BS. You remind me of my left-wing neighbor (who I love dearly), who was ranting at a party recently about how people are afraid to express themselves any more because of "the current administration." At which point I sidled up to her and asked, "Hey, Paula, have you called Bush a Nazi fascist yet today?"

"Shut up," she explained, invoking her personal freedom.

Now, explain to me exactly which personal freedoms you have lost recently.

My brother-in-law has been very closely involved with our family (he is listed of the guardian of our children in the event of the death of my husband and me), usually living in the same city as we do in order to continue the relationship. He would have to give up his spouse in order to live near us now that we have moved to the US - a choice that most people do not have to face.

I'm not saying that this represents a loss of personal freedom. It's just a constraint that is not equitably applied.

Linda

mrbaracuda

18th June 2008, 06:21 AM

I'm not gay

Well that shouldn't stop you from carrying a flag for them!

I just think it's rediculous and petty that gay marrige is illegal.

Still the law though.

-If I were a "high threat" activist chances are I'd be shot or imprisoned-loss of free speach.

What's a "high threat activist" and why do "high threat activists" get shot or imprisoned? Do "high threat activists" infringe upon others' freedoms?

mrbaracuda

18th June 2008, 06:25 AM

My brother-in-law has been very closely involved with our family (he is listed of the guardian of our children in the event of the death of my husband and me), usually living in the same city as we do in order to continue the relationship. He would have to give up his spouse in order to live near us now that we have moved to the US - a choice that most people do not have to face.

I'm not saying that this represents a loss of personal freedom. It's just a constraint that is not equitably applied.

Linda

This post is confusing. Is your brother-in-law just gay and you live in an area where his same-sex-marriage is not accepted, or what do you mean by saying "would have to give up his spouse"? :confused:

Loss Leader

18th June 2008, 06:30 AM

Do parental obligations depend upon (or are strongly related to) marriage?

Mostly, no. Your rights and responsibilities as a parent are dollar for dollar the same whether you are married or not. However, in some states, marriage creates a presumption of paternity in the husband. Lord knows how gay marriage would affect this - probably very little if at all.

Do spousal obligations have any relevance before a marriage is dissolved?

I don't understand the question but yes. You have an obligation to support your spouse when you are married. Is that what you were asking?

If the dissolution of a marriage leads to judicial findings and proceedings, is it expected that other states will not uphold those findings - i.e. can someone avoid responsibility for alimony payments simply by moving to another state?

A fascinating question. I cannot wait to find out what the courts do with any of this. And I'd like to see if they differentiate between divorces based on Separation Agreements (which are contracts and judicial orders) and judicial divorces (which are just orders).

If not, does that mean (as it stands) that same-sex marriages are recognized by other states only when they have been dissolved?

Maybe. It's an interesting question that we'll spend about the next twenty years learning the answer to.

fls

18th June 2008, 06:32 AM

This post is confusing. Is your brother-in-law just gay and you live in an area where his same-sex-marriage is not accepted, or what do you mean by saying "would have to give up his spouse"? :confused:

I mean that his spouse wouldn't be able to immigrate with him (from another country), whereas my spouse was able to immigrate with me.

Linda

mrbaracuda

18th June 2008, 06:37 AM

I mean that his spouse wouldn't be able to immigrate with him (from another country), whereas my spouse was able to immigrate with me.

Linda

Why not if I may ask? This is getting even more confusing right now. Does this have anything to do with the topic; marriage laws? :confused:

fls

18th June 2008, 06:42 AM

Mostly, no. Your rights and responsibilities as a parent are dollar for dollar the same whether you are married or not. However, in some states, marriage creates a presumption of paternity in the husband. Lord knows how gay marriage would affect this - probably very little if at all.

Okay. That confirms my impression (I think) that the issue of parental obligations (as brought up by the author of the article you quoted) won't really advance the issue of same-sex marriage.

I don't understand the question but yes. You have an obligation to support your spouse when you are married. Is that what you were asking?

I meant that the issue of spousal obligations doesn't really (or maybe usually) become a public matter until the marriage is in the process of dissolution, right?

A fascinating question. I cannot wait to find out what the courts do with any of this. And I'd like to see if they differentiate between divorces based on Separation Agreements (which are contracts and judicial orders) and judicial divorces (which are just orders).

What do the courts do now with interstate movements and Separation Agreements?

Linda

fls

18th June 2008, 06:44 AM

Why not if I may ask? This is getting even more confusing right now. Does this have anything to do with the topic; marriage laws? :confused:

Because his marriage would not be recognized (same-sex). I'm sorry; I didn't mean to be confusing. I thought it would be assumed that I was talking about a same-sex marriage.

Linda

mrbaracuda

18th June 2008, 06:55 AM

Because his marriage would not be recognized (same-sex). I'm sorry; I didn't mean to be confusing. I thought it would be assumed that I was talking about a same-sex marriage.

Linda

Oh don't be sorry, I might be a bit slow today. :D

So just to get this straight (ha!), he'd have to have a divorce first to even enter the country, or state you live in? In other words: Is he barred from entering because of his same sex marriage? :confused:
Or is it just about being married he'd have to give up?

Loss Leader

18th June 2008, 07:01 AM

I meant that the issue of spousal obligations doesn't really (or maybe usually) become a public matter until the marriage is in the process of dissolution, right?

No, that's not right. Especially in the area of disability and elderlaw, one's spouse is expected to give support. For instance, in calculating how much the government must pay to keep an elderly person in a nursing home, the resources and income of the spouse will be counted.

This will create perverse problems for the federal government. They are always looking to spend as little money as possible. Refusing to recognize gay marriages means that they will have to consider a disabled person to be unmarried and in need of federal aid even if gay-married to the wealthiest gay guy in the Castro district. I will bet that at some point the SSA tries to recognize gay marriages for exactly this reason.

What do the courts do now with interstate movements and Separation Agreements?

They are almost entirely portable.

Professor Yaffle

18th June 2008, 08:07 AM

Oh don't be sorry, I might be a bit slow today. :D

So just to get this straight (ha!), he'd have to have a divorce first to even enter the country, or state you live in? In other words: Is he barred from entering because of his same sex marriage? :confused:
Or is it just about being married he'd have to give up?

I tink what fls is saying is that if one of a homosexual married couple had permission to immigrate to the US, their partner wouldn't have the right to come with them. With a heterosexual married couple, the spouse can immigrate by virtue of being married to the person with permission to immigrate.

BPSCG

18th June 2008, 08:14 AM

I'm not gay I just think it's rediculous and petty that gay marrige is illegal.Neither am I, and so do I. So what's your point?

BPSCG, do you think about the world going around youNope. Never give it a second thought.

Me personal freedoms? Well,

-If I were gay and wanted to marry, I couldn't.You stated, "We are all losing our personal freedoms..." Since you are not gay, this is not a personal freedom you have lost. In fact, even if you were gay, you would not have lost that personal freedom, since you never had it to begin with.

-If I were a chick and pregnant, depending on were I lived, I could'nt abort....and if you had wheels and a gas tank, you'd be a Toyota. So, again, you haven't lost the right to have an abortion. In fact, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the U.S. who has lost the right to have an abortion. Are you under the misimpresion that there are places in the U.S. where abortion is flat-out illegal?

-The draft (although a touchy subject)What, you're saying you've lost the right to be drafted? Uhmmm, okay... :boggled:

-If I were a "high threat" activist chances are I'd be shot or imprisoned-loss of free speach.Given your obvious difficulties with the English language (highlighted in red), I wonder if you would consider that to be much of a loss.

So again, please specify what personal freedoms you've lost. I'll be sitting here, waiting.

fls

18th June 2008, 08:18 AM

Oh don't be sorry, I might be a bit slow today. :D

So just to get this straight (ha!), he'd have to have a divorce first to even enter the country, or state you live in? In other words: Is he barred from entering because of his same sex marriage? :confused:
Or is it just about being married he'd have to give up?

I just meant that he would have to give up the ability of him and his spouse to share those things they share now - home, work, various benefits, etc.

Linda

fls

18th June 2008, 08:22 AM

No, that's not right. Especially in the area of disability and elderlaw, one's spouse is expected to give support. For instance, in calculating how much the government must pay to keep an elderly person in a nursing home, the resources and income of the spouse will be counted.

This will create perverse problems for the federal government. They are always looking to spend as little money as possible. Refusing to recognize gay marriages means that they will have to consider a disabled person to be unmarried and in need of federal aid even if gay-married to the wealthiest gay guy in the Castro district. I will bet that at some point the SSA tries to recognize gay marriages for exactly this reason.

Thanks. I was looking for an example like that.

They are almost entirely portable.

Aha.

So the article you quoted is quite relevant and useful. Thanks.

Linda

BPSCG

18th June 2008, 09:03 AM

This will create perverse problems for the federal government. They are always looking to spend as little money as possible. Refusing to recognize gay marriages means that they will have to consider a disabled person to be unmarried and in need of federal aid even if gay-married to the wealthiest gay guy in the Castro district. I will bet that at some point the SSA tries to recognize gay marriages for exactly this reason.Social Security disability benefits are not tied to a person's marital status. The benefit calculation is a function of the earnings a person had during his/her working life, and is not increased or reduced based on a spouse's income or assets, nor by a person's marital status.

Not now, anyway. The Dems want to "save" Social Security by making financial need a qualification to receive benefits, thereby turning it into a welfare-type program.

Loss Leader

18th June 2008, 09:43 AM

luchog

18th June 2008, 02:25 PM

Social Security disability benefits are not tied to a person's marital status. The benefit calculation is a function of the earnings a person had during his/her working life, and is not increased or reduced based on a spouse's income or assets, nor by a person's marital status.

Wrong. This applies only to SSDI Title 2 benefits. SSI Title 16 benefits are means-based, and are definitely affected by marriage.

Both depend on an individual receipient's disability level. The only difference is pre-disability income. Individuals who have never been employed, or have been employed but who fall below a coverage-period and income threshhold will qualify for SSI Title 16. Individuals who have been employed prior to filing for disability benefits, and are over the coverage-period and income threshhold qualify for SSDI Title 2.

SSI is means-tested, and is affected by marriage; SSDI is not means tested and not affected by marriage.

The only difference between the two is the length of qualifying employment and amount of qualifying income prior to disability. Determination of disability is identical in both cases.

I know this because my wife is currently on SSI Title 2 benefits; due to the fact that her US employment history is insufficient to qualify her for SSDI Title 16 benefits. The majority of her pre-disability employment was in Canada, and therefore doesn't qualify for the purposes of benefits determination. Had it been in the US, she would likely qualify for SSID.

Professor Yaffle

18th June 2008, 03:11 PM

Wrong. This applies only to SSDI Title 2 benefits. SSI Title 16 benefits are means-based, and are definitely affected by marriage.

Both depend on an individual receipient's disability level. The only difference is pre-disability income. Individuals who have never been employed, or have been employed but who fall below a coverage-period and income threshhold will qualify for SSI Title 16. Individuals who have been employed prior to filing for disability benefits, and are over the coverage-period and income threshhold qualify for SSDI Title 2.

SSI is means-tested, and is affected by marriage; SSDI is not means tested and not affected by marriage.

The only difference between the two is the length of qualifying employment and amount of qualifying income prior to disability. Determination of disability is identical in both cases.

I know this because my wife is currently on SSI Title 2 benefits; due to the fact that her US employment history is insufficient to qualify her for SSDI Title 16 benefits. The majority of her pre-disability employment was in Canada, and therefore doesn't qualify for the purposes of benefits determination. Had it been in the US, she would likely qualify for SSID.

Is it really affected by marriage? I only know the UK system, and for income based benefits, they take into account your partner's income. Partner is defined as someone you are married to, or someone you live with as if you are married. Until recently, this did not include gay partners, but when civil partnerships came in, they became included (regardless of whether or not they were civil partners).

BPSCG

18th June 2008, 04:29 PM

Wrong. This applies only to SSDI Title 2 benefits. SSI Title 16 benefits are means-based, and are definitely affected by marriage.

Both depend on an individual receipient's disability level. The only difference is pre-disability income. Individuals who have never been employed, or have been employed but who fall below a coverage-period and income threshhold will qualify for SSI Title 16. Individuals who have been employed prior to filing for disability benefits, and are over the coverage-period and income threshhold qualify for SSDI Title 2.

SSI is means-tested, and is affected by marriage; SSDI is not means tested and not affected by marriage.

The only difference between the two is the length of qualifying employment and amount of qualifying income prior to disability. Determination of disability is identical in both cases.SSI is not Social Security. It sounds like Social Security - "Supplemental Security Income" - and the program is run by the Social Security Administration.

But it is not funded out of Social Security (FICA) taxes and the rules of eligibility, other than the requirement that one be disabled (or blind or over 65) are completely different from Social Security.

I know this because my wife is currently on SSI Title 2 benefits; due to the fact that her US employment history is insufficient to qualify her for SSDI Title 16 benefits. The majority of her pre-disability employment was in Canada, and therefore doesn't qualify for the purposes of benefits determination. Had it been in the US, she would likely qualify for SSID.You have it exactly backwards. Title II of the Social Security Act provides for Social Security benefits. Title XVI provides for Supplemental Security Income. There is no such thing as "SSI Title 2 benefits," and if by "SSDI Title 16 benefits," you mean Social Security Disability Insurance, then there's no such thing as that, either.

And I know this because I worked as a claims representative for the Social Security Administration for almost 13 years, taking, processing, and adjudicating applications for both Social Security and SSI benefits.

BPSCG

18th June 2008, 04:35 PM

Is it really affected by marriage? SSI is affected by marriage. SSI payments are reduced if you have other income. If your living-with spouse has income, a portion of that income is deemed to be yours, since some of it goes towards your own food, clothing, and shelter.

I only know the UK system, and for income based benefits, they take into account your partner's income. Partner is defined as someone you are married to, or someone you live with as if you are married. Until recently, this did not include gay partners, but when civil partnerships came in, they became included (regardless of whether or not they were civil partners).Again, SSI must not be confused with Social Security. And while SSI payments aren't reduced for the income of someone you're living with who is not your spouse, in most states they are reduced based on the fact that you are sharing living quarters with someone else (very complicated and I'm not going to discuss it here unless someone tells me they need to know).

Loss Leader

18th June 2008, 05:31 PM

Again, SSI must not be confused with Social Security. And while SSI payments aren't reduced for the income of someone you're living with who is not your spouse, in most states they are reduced based on the fact that you are sharing living quarters with someone else (very complicated and I'm not going to discuss it here unless someone tells me they need to know).

There are also the issues of gifting away money and set-asides for non-disabled spouses. If a person becomes disabled and needs nursing home care, the rules may require that person to lose all of his SS income to the nursing home, his car and more before being declared (and remaining) indigent. If that same person is married, the spouse not needing care may be able to hold onto some of her husband's social security, the jointly-owned car and other assets.

Gazpacho

18th June 2008, 06:00 PM

Oh jeeze, here we go again with the, "Marriage is for procreation and since the fags can't procreate, they shouldn't be allowed to marry" foolishness.
Hello there. You seem to have some sort of nervous problem with your knee.

I just quoted the wording from the ruling. If you have a problem with the ruling, dig up Earl Warren and complain to him. It's not enough to cite Loving and hope that court will overlook the parts of the ruling that differ from this situation. They need a reason to overlook those parts.

Jon_Stripe

19th June 2008, 02:46 AM

With the gramar, I is am not quite the expert...

Activist assasination, DUH, exstinguishing your freedom of speach.

The draft, again, your being forced to inlist, but as I mentioned, it is a touchy subject.

Freedom of Information. When news is being channeled and tampered before it is given to you that violates our Freedom of Information. A common problem to all.

There...

mrbaracuda

19th June 2008, 02:59 AM

BPSCG

19th June 2008, 04:24 AM

Hello there. You seem to have some sort of nervous problem with your knee.

I just quoted the wording from the ruling. If you have a problem with the ruling, dig up Earl Warren and complain to him.If you're going to quote someone, it's often helpful to indicate to your readers that you're quoting someone, instead of leaving it to them to puzzle out for themselves. Otherwise they might jump to the conclusion that the opinion being expressed is your own.

Here are a couple of examples of ways you can indicate you're quoting someone:

1) Put the statement in quotation marks and indicate who is speaking. Example: In Loving vs Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, "Incidentally, BPSCG smells like dead goats."

2) Bracket your statement in a quote box: Incidentally, BPSCG smells like dead goats.

Hope this helps. :)

BPSCG

19th June 2008, 04:30 AM

With the gramar, I is am not quite the expert...John_Stripe, switch to FireFox as your web browser. The automatic spell check will highlight your misspellings in red underline. It won't catch everything, but it'll help. At this point, your grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax are very bad. That makes it difficult to respond to what you write, because it's hard to puzzle out what you're trying to say.

Saying you're not quite a grammar expert is about like my saying I'm not quite as good-looking as Brad Pitt.

Gazpacho

19th June 2008, 07:53 AM

If you're going to quote someone, it's often helpful to indicate to your readers that you're quoting someone, instead of leaving it to them to puzzle out for themselves. Otherwise they might jump to the conclusion that the opinion being expressed is your own.
It also helps if readers keep up with the thread, especially when replying to comments that were not directed to them.

There's no matter of my opinion vs. the court's. Same-sex marriage does not promote human existence and survival in the same way as hetero marriage. That doesn't mean I don't want same-sex marriage permitted. And it would really help if you would stick to the matter at hand rather than picking at minutiae.

luchog

19th June 2008, 11:01 AM

Is it really affected by marriage? I only know the UK system, and for income based benefits, they take into account your partner's income. Partner is defined as someone you are married to, or someone you live with as if you are married. Until recently, this did not include gay partners, but when civil partnerships came in, they became included (regardless of whether or not they were civil partners).
Yes, the US's SSI Title 16 takes the spouse's income into account when determining benefits.

Professor Yaffle

19th June 2008, 11:03 AM

Yes, the US's SSI Title 16 takes the spouse's income into account when determining benefits.

So in that particular case there is a financial benefit to remaining unmarried and just cohabiting?

luchog

19th June 2008, 11:06 AM

You have it exactly backwards. Title II of the Social Security Act provides for Social Security benefits. Title XVI provides for Supplemental Security Income. There is no such thing as "SSI Title 2 benefits," and if by "SSDI Title 16 benefits," you mean Social Security Disability Insurance, then there's no such thing a

Oh yeah. I accidentally typed the numbers backwards in that one particular paragraph out of the entire post. You caught me. Everything I have ever said on the subject is invalidated by that one typo.

The fact remains that the only difference between Title 2 and Title 16 eligibility is the amount of work performed in the US, and US taxes paid, by the individual prior to applying for disability benefits. They were both created by the same act, and are both administered by the same agency. In one you're judged to have been enough of a contribitor to the federal budget to get some of your money back, independent of other support; in the other, you're not.

luchog

19th June 2008, 11:14 AM

So in that particular case there is a financial benefit to remaining unmarried and just cohabiting?
Yes. That's the main reason why my wife and I remained unmarried for far longer than we would have preferred. I simply did not have a substantial enough income to make up for the loss of disability benefits that she would incur once we were legally married.

Loss Leader

19th June 2008, 03:32 PM

So in that particular case there is a financial benefit to remaining unmarried and just cohabiting?

Read it and weap ... for a government policy that perverts its own values.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CaringForParents/ShouldGrandmaDivorceGrandpa.aspx?page=all

DoubtingStephen

19th June 2008, 03:34 PM

Read it and weap ... for a government policy that perverts its own values.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CaringForParents/ShouldGrandmaDivorceGrandpa.aspx?page=all

This is injustice. It is shameful. It's like something from a dystopian novel.

Jon_Stripe

20th June 2008, 02:32 AM

John_Stripe, switch to FireFox as your web browser. The automatic spell check will highlight your misspellings in red underline. It won't catch everything, but it'll help. At this point, your grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax are very bad. That makes it difficult to respond to what you write, because it's hard to puzzle out what you're trying to say.

Saying you're not quite a grammar expert is about like my saying I'm not quite as good-looking as Brad Pitt.

I apologize. Actually I have FireFox, didn't help much.

Brad Pitt isn't really that good looking BTW... ;)