PDA

View Full Version : Will New Jersey recgonize New York's gay marriages?



aka:PBS
06-26-2011, 09:09 AM
HockeyMom (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 08:40 AM
Original message
Will New Jersey recgonize New York's gay marriages?
We know a number of gay couples in New Jersey who may want to get married in New York now.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1365329


soleft (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. Right now I have a Civl Union in NJ
And I'm getting killed on taxes on my partner's health care benefits. I'm wondering if I go married in NY, I think I read or saw that non-residents will be able to marry in NY - if it will affect my tax status.



CanonRay (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. I thought they had to under
the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the constitution, requiring each state to recognize the laws of the others. That's why you can drive in New Jersey with a New York drivers license. Am I nuts?


Yes you are....:D

Apocalypse
06-26-2011, 09:23 AM
Quote #2, won't make a difference.

Quote #3, until the rouge judges forced it here in Iowa, Iowa didn't because it was law not to respect gay marriage, even from other states.

Novaheart
06-26-2011, 10:52 AM
A masterful strategy on the part of Gay rights groups would be to somehow team up 50 state recognition of gay marriages with 50 state recognition of concealed carry permits.

The way I see it, it's the affirmation a single Constitutional principle. It would be hilarious to have the NRA as a friend of the court in gay marriage and the Human Rights Campaign as a friend of the court in shooting down California, Illinois, and Maryland on the Second Amendment.

Rockntractor
06-26-2011, 11:13 AM
I don't think New Jerseyans recognize who they wake up with the next morning half the time.

Novaheart
06-26-2011, 11:33 AM
http://pwwwblog.ibeatyou.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/snooki-435.jpg

NJCardFan
06-26-2011, 02:26 PM
A masterful strategy on the part of Gay rights groups would be to somehow team up 50 state recognition of gay marriages with 50 state recognition of concealed carry permits.

The way I see it, it's the affirmation a single Constitutional principle. It would be hilarious to have the NRA as a friend of the court in gay marriage and the Human Rights Campaign as a friend of the court in shooting down California, Illinois, and Maryland on the Second Amendment.

Please quote me chapter and verse where it says in the Constitution that marriage is a right. I'll wait.*








*-Keep in mind I could care less either way because 2 homo's marrying doesn't affect me in the slightest.

linda22003
06-26-2011, 02:33 PM
Quote #3, until the rouge judges forced it here in Iowa, Iowa didn't because it was law not to respect gay marriage, even from other states.

Rouge judges sound VERY glamorous.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rvo-b5jScn4/S3UZ2c-LU_I/AAAAAAAAASk/RjHKjNjADB4/s400/d_4399.jpg

Novaheart
06-26-2011, 03:26 PM
Please quote me chapter and verse where it says in the Constitution that marriage is a right. I'll wait.*

*-Keep in mind I could care less either way because 2 homo's marrying doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Does the Constitution protect your right to own and carry a weapon not available in 1776? Or are you applying the principle of the Second Amendment to your semi-auto carry gun?

Either way, my post referred not to the right of gay people to enter into legal marriage, as it does to the fact that all states recognize the heterosexual marriages of other states. It would only make sense that they also recognize the same-sex marriages of other states. My second complain is that CCW people have to check individual state laws on concealed carry rather than have their carry permit honored by all states.

I see them both as full faith and credit issues. As someone else noted, your New York drivers license is honored in New Jersey. It pisses me off that some states don't honor the concealed carry permits of other states.

NJCardFan
06-26-2011, 03:45 PM
Does the Constitution protect your right to own and carry a weapon not available in 1776? Or are you applying the principle of the Second Amendment to your semi-auto carry gun?

Either way, my post referred not to the right of gay people to enter into legal marriage, as it does to the fact that all states recognize the heterosexual marriages of other states. It would only make sense that they also recognize the same-sex marriages of other states. My second complain is that CCW people have to check individual state laws on concealed carry rather than have their carry permit honored by all states.

I see them both as full faith and credit issues. As someone else noted, your New York drivers license is honored in New Jersey. It pisses me off that some states don't honor the concealed carry permits of other states.

The Constitution protects me right to keep and bear arms. However, the Constitution does not mention marriage in any shape, way or form. You're trying to create a strawman where it is impossible to do so. To your 2nd complain, there is that pesky 10th Amendment. And, yes, your DL is honored throughout the country, however, you are subject to the laws of that state you are driving in. For instance, in the speed limit in Virginia is 70MPH, however they cannot come to NJ and legally drive 70mph when the speed limit is 65. Let me put this another way. Say I have an Arizona drivers license. Does that mean I can open a gas station in NJ, make it self serve, and sell beer in the store section of the station? So, stop trying to convey an idiotic argument and apply it to the Constitution because you're failing miserably at it. It amazes me that when it comes to the subject of gays, your ability to discuss things logically flies out the window.

Apocalypse
06-26-2011, 03:46 PM
Whats laughable is now some gay rights activist are whining about being forced into marriage because of this.

Lawprof Katherine M. Franke explains: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html)

If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, “winning” the right to marry may mean “losing” the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage....
As strangers to marriage for so long, we’ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry....
But we shouldn’t be forced to marry to keep the benefits we now have...


-----------------


So gays should now have the option to keep domestic partnership and enjoy all the benefits there of, if they choose not to wed, where we heterosexuals must marry to enjoy the same benefits.

Talk about wanting the best of both worlds.

Novaheart
06-26-2011, 09:36 PM
Whats laughable is now some gay rights activist are whining about being forced into marriage because of this.



Some gay people have always opposed the idea of gay marriage, because they saw it as emulating heterosexuals. They also opposed the expectation of monogamy. Many of these people, oddly enough were militant socialists or communists who were eventually purged or self exiled from the mainstream gay rights movement.




So gays should now have the option to keep domestic partnership and enjoy all the benefits there of, if they choose not to wed, where we heterosexuals must marry to enjoy the same benefits.

In most corporations, the "Domestic Partner benefits" aren't limited to gay couples, they are available to all cohabiting couples. At Megabank for instance, there are no domestic partner benefits per se, health insurance offerings are"employee only", "employee plus one", "employee plus two", and "family". Some plans, however, were indeed restricted to those couples not legally eligible for marriage.

Even so, these were not equal offerings. A heterosexual employee could get married to a waitress in Vegas with a prenup and she would be instantly covered under the corporate benefits while gay people had to cohabit for 6 months and demonstrate shared finances. On top of that, the unmarried couple had to pay taxes on the domestic partner benefit as if it were income and heterosexual married people didn't.