Late night musings about same sex marriage.

Veronica said:
I was reading an article about how same sex partners will now be able to collect social security benefits, pensions, and all the things that we straights take for granted.

This made me wonder do you have to be gay/lesbian to have a same sex marriage. Is there any reason why two straight people of the same sex cant get married. I dont have anyone personally in mind but say you do. Maybe a best friend? The person you choose would be eligible for social security benefits, pensions, and all the things that we straights take for granted.
Click to expand...
I would think wanting to marry someone of the same sex would rule out being considered "straight". I'm straight...why would I want to marry another woman? Not my cup of tea, though I do have gay and bi friends. I love my BFF of 47 years dearly and we're so close that we tell each other our secrets, but damn if I'd want to marry her.

Back before the scandal hit about our then Governor McGreevy, who was married to a woman, having sex with a man, he signed into law that a gay partner could be beneficiary of his/her partner's state benefits. The same privilege was not given to straight people. I think it's because at that time, gay couples could not legally marry.
 

Ted01 said:
Hmm, my thoughts were always that they were two separate things, and the order of sequence was of no consequence... but idk, you might be right.
I'm confident that the people who "officiate" at the church(es) that I follow would stay within the bounds of the laws, but I wouldn't want to speculate about all churches in the US that call themselves Christian doing the same thing... again, idk, though I'd like to think that they would.
Click to expand...
We had to show the recorded court house records with an apostille.
 
Twostep said:
We had to show the recorded court house records with an apostille.
Click to expand...
I think that different States (and jurisdictions) have different "rules"... whether or not those are laws or regulations, idk... most would require a recognized "official" of a church to provide a certificate or license to State officials after they performed a marriage. However, (and I'm guessing here) I don't think that a State can require any private organization to do anything on the State's behalf... therefore, if the government wants a couple to enter into some contractual obligations, the responsibility falls on the State.

Up until now, the churches and the government have worked together on this but with recent decisions where courts have been ordering businesses to provide service that are contrary to business owner's beliefs/faith... I guess some congregations are considering how to mitigate such things.
 

Ted01 said:
I have heard that some Christian congregations are getting away from doing "legal" marriages and doing only Christian marriages... letting the new couple sort things out with the legal issues. I like that idea.
Click to expand...
The situation in Australia is that every member of the clergy of a recognised religion/denomination is licensed to perform legal marriages. This also applies to same sex couples. However, the law requires that at least one of the two people seeking to be married must belong to the faith of the celebrant. For example, a Christian celebrant may legally marry a Christian/Hindu couple but not two Hindus. Clergy have the right to refuse to marry couples for any reason. Some will officiate at same sex ceremonies, others may refuse.

There is no such restriction for civil celebrants.

To get married in Australia, you must:
  • not be married
  • not be marrying a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother or sister
  • be at least 18 years old, unless a court has approved a marriage where 1 person is 16-18 years old
  • understand what marriage means and freely agree to marry
  • use specific words during the ceremony
  • give a notice of intended marriage form to an authorised marriage celebrant at least 1 month and no more than 18 months before your wedding
  • be married by an authorised marriage celebrant.
You don't have to be:
  • an Australian citizen
  • a permanent resident of Australia.
 
Warrigal said:
The situation in Australia is that every member of the clergy of a recognised religion/denomination is licensed to perform legal marriages. This also applies to same sex couples. However, the law requires that at least one of the two people seeking to be married must belong to the faith of the celebrant. For example, a Christian celebrant may legally marry a Christian/Hindu couple but not two Hindus. Clergy have the right to refuse to marry couples for any reason. Some will officiate at same sex ceremonies, others may refuse.

There is no such restriction for civil celebrants.

To get married in Australia, you must:
  • not be married
  • not be marrying a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother or sister
  • be at least 18 years old, unless a court has approved a marriage where 1 person is 16-18 years old
  • understand what marriage means and freely agree to marry
  • use specific words during the ceremony
  • give a notice of intended marriage form to an authorised marriage celebrant at least 1 month and no more than 18 months before your wedding
  • be married by an authorised marriage celebrant.
You don't have to be:
  • an Australian citizen
  • a permanent resident of Australia.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That is interesting.
 
Regarding questions / references in this thread to the marriage of same sex couples in churches or houses of worship, on page 10 of the attached ACLU PDF FILE, under the heading: Can a church or member of the clergy refuse to marry my partner and me?, it says, in part: "The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty protects clergy members and houses of worship from having to conduct ceremonies that are contrary to their faith beliefs. However, many religious institutions allow or even require their clergy to perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples."

Whether a marriage is performed in a church or elsewhere, it is not legally recognized until a marriage license has been signed and filed by an authorized officiant. At least that's the law in my State (Texas).
 
Lavinia said:
Some couples do marry for financial reasons so I suppose two people who are just friends might do for the same benefits. But what happens when one of them falls in love with someone else and wants to have a proper marriage?
Click to expand...


Probably the same thing that happens in straight marriages. Somebody cheats and then theres a divorce. :D
Maybe an open marriage. #Sister wives. Theres endless possibilities. :D
 
I remember of course my first marriage in UK - the minister/priest was very reluctant to marry us because we had never ever attended his church - even though we packed it on the day!! - He of course relented - possibly in the name of God and we got married - it was a sorta haze then and still is actually. The second one was much easier in our back garden in OZ!! officiated by a celebrant but on "catholic land"
 
Last edited:
Veronica said:
I was reading an article about how same sex partners will now be able to collect social security benefits, pensions, and all the things that we straights take for granted.

This made me wonder do you have to be gay/lesbian to have a same sex marriage. Is there any reason why two straight people of the same sex cant get married. I dont have anyone personally in mind but say you do. Maybe a best friend? The person you choose would be eligible for social security benefits, pensions, and all the things that we straights take for granted.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see most of these things eliminated for everyone. No special tax benefits for people with children or whether anyone is married or not. Pensions set up at jobs should have beneficiaries (or not) however the employees decide to arrange it with their personnel department.

I'm a military spouse and my husband has never listed me as beneficiary in his retirement, same with social security. It's riskier but more economical that way. My son was never covered under his medical plan because I had shared custody with my first husband. So I wouldn't think gay couples are really missing out on a lot.

With all the blended families, and unmarried but living together families taxes have become very complicated.

Our government already spends lots of money on children through schools, food banks and hospitals. Even the childless pay taxes for all that and I think that's great, but I think some of the benefits to individual families should stop, it's their own decision to have children.
 
Same sex marriages have already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I believe they cited the 14th amendment as allowing same sex marriages, but you may want to check it out for yourself. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me and I will check it out later. No matter where it is in the Constitution, they high court has already ruled on it as being legal.
 
When I was younger, I though a marriage was conducted by a church. I was surprised, although I should not have been, when my wife and I got our marriage license at the courthouse. I made some off hand remark at the window when we were handed our license that all that was left to be officially married was the wedding ceremony, and the courthouse recorder, quickly pointed out, "No you are married right now. All you need is this license."

I actually felt different, as I thought to myself, " The wedding won't be until a month from now, but I could have sex with this woman right now, and no one could tell us we were being sinful." But the way I was brought up told me that the church makes marriage official, not the state. I did know about common law marriage at the time, but I guess I thought it was just imposed by the state as a way of getting those who were living in sin out of the government's hair, and to force people to comply with the expectations of the church... or something like that. I never actually thought about it too much.

But the church doesn't have a damn thing to do with your marriage arrangement. It's your business.
 
Wow, that surprises me Dave. I thought the license allowed you to be married but didn't make you married.

The first time I married, we eloped. We were only 20 so we drove from Ohio to North Carolina where you only had to be 18 (without parental consent) went to the court house and bought a license, then took it to the Justice of Peace's office (romantically situated over a tire shop) and got married.

I thought once you'd bought that license there was no going back or else we would never have made it to the Justice of the Peace.
 
Della said:
I'd like to see most of these things eliminated for everyone. No special tax benefits for people with children or whether anyone is married or not. Pensions set up at jobs should have beneficiaries (or not) however the employees decide to arrange it with their personnel department.

I'm a military spouse and my husband has never listed me as beneficiary in his retirement, same with social security. It's riskier but more economical that way. My son was never covered under his medical plan because I had shared custody with my first husband. So I wouldn't think gay couples are really missing out on a lot.

With all the blended families, and unmarried but living together families taxes have become very complicated.

Our government already spends lots of money on children through schools, food banks and hospitals. Even the childless pay taxes for all that and I think that's great, but I think some of the benefits to individual families should stop, it's their own decision to have children.
Click to expand...
What benefits do you see in not being listed as beneficiary?
 
Della said:
I'd like to see most of these things eliminated for everyone. No special tax benefits for people with children or whether anyone is married or not. Pensions set up at jobs should have beneficiaries (or not) however the employees decide to arrange it with their personnel department.

I'm a military spouse and my husband has never listed me as beneficiary in his retirement, same with social security. It's riskier but more economical that way. My son was never covered under his medical plan because I had shared custody with my first husband. So I wouldn't think gay couples are really missing out on a lot.

With all the blended families, and unmarried but living together families taxes have become very complicated.

Our government already spends lots of money on children through schools, food banks and hospitals. Even the childless pay taxes for all that and I think that's great, but I think some of the benefits to individual families should stop, it's their own decision to have children.
Click to expand...
Considering taxes - we could have raised a soccer team.
 
Twostep said:
At a bit over 20
You may want to review that. Are you talking about continuing payments to spouse?
Click to expand...
I don't know Twostep, it's his money he does what he wants with it. I've never had any money from the USAF except my medical insurance and I don't plan to get any in the future.
 
Ted01 said:
I think that different States (and jurisdictions) have different "rules"... whether or not those are laws or regulations, idk... most would require a recognized "official" of a church to provide a certificate or license to State officials after they performed a marriage. However, (and I'm guessing here) I don't think that a State can require any private organization to do anything on the State's behalf... therefore, if the government wants a couple to enter into some contractual obligations, the responsibility falls on the State.
Click to expand...
State laws provide for who can solemnize a marriage. Here is Ohio's

Section 3101.08 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
 
911 said:
Same sex marriages have already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I believe they cited the 14th amendment as allowing same sex marriages, but you may want to check it out for yourself. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me and I will check it out later. No matter where it is in the Constitution, they high court has already ruled on it as being legal.
Click to expand...

The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
 
I can only add my personal perspective. My hubby and I were together for 24 years prior to same-sex marriages being made legal. We never even felt the need to get married because we knew we would be together until the end. We married in December 2015, not for financial reasons but in the event either one of us became sick we would have full rights to care for each other. We haven't really seen any significant difference in filing jointly but if I become sick at least he can make medical decisions for me. He is 8 years younger so it's a real possibility.

When my position was eliminated after 20 years and I took early retirement, he went back to work and I was on his healthcare plan until I was eligible for Medicare. I can't imagine two straight people having that level of dedication to one another.

We were married by a Methodist clergy in his condo building with a witness. We didn't think we would become emotional during the ceremony but we did. I do think it is a possibility with a conservative SCOTUS that same-sex marriages may be scrutinized but I don't think any that have already taken place will not be acknowledged.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top