LGBT Groups Issue Warning To Out-Of-State Couples Marrying In Calif.

[WillParkinson]

(New York City) Four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups issued a warning Tuesday to couples planning to go to California to marry that they should mot use their marriages to fight for recognition in federal court.

"Pushing the federal government before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren’t ready is likely to get us bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer." the groups said.

"If you’re ready and it’s right for you, get married in California. If you do, claim the name and act like what you are married. But don’t go suing right away. Most lawsuits will likely set us all back," the statement said.

The groups said that there are other ways to fight which are more likely to win.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/06/061008mar.htm

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[rox63]

2. Just curious - Will same-sex marriages done in Massachusetts be recognized in CA?

And vice-versa?

[LostinVA]

3. I don't know about CA, but MA doesn't recognize them

NJ was the first state to recognize out-of-state (and foreign) same-sex unions. Then, RI and now NY. Neither RI or NY have same-sex unions, though. Despite that, they recognize ones from other states.

[Ms. Toad]

5. The legal assumption is that a marriage is recognized everywhere

It is only confirmed in the courts when it is challenged (which is why we now know NY recognizes marriages performed elsewhere - generally the challenges come during estate battles over who is the real spouse). Particularly since same gender marriages are legal in Mass., there is not even a thin thread of a basis for refusal to recognize marriages entered into elsewhere. (The thin thread upon which refusal to recognize same gender marriages in a state which has a marriage discrimination amendment or law will likely be that such marriages are against strong public policy - the same basis used for refusing to recognize polygamous marriages entered into in countries where such marriages are legal. Mass. can claim no such basis since such marriages are not against Mass. public policy.)

So - my guess is that once someone bothers to formally question it in Mass. (if ever), there will not be any significant legal question as to recognition of out of state marriages. Meanwhile, everyone who has been married elsewhere will have been claiming the benefits for years . . .

[moose65]

7. well that's just crazy!

I'm sure that Mass. "recognizes" straight marriages performed in other states. On the other hand, I guess if you're married and move to Mass., you don't have to "prove" you're married, do you? You just keep on keeping on, acting like you've always acted, and the state doesn't care until a court has to rule on something. So the first test will come when a gay California couple relocates to Mass.!

[Ms. Toad]

9. More likely, it will be

when a one member of a couple married in California (who later split up without the benefit of divorce) moves to Massachusetts, marries someone else, dies, and there is a fight over which spouse was the legal spouse and entitled to inherit. That's the normal way the issue hits the courts - if the court doesn't recognize the first marriage, then the second spouse inherits.

Most folks don't run to the courthouse asking for their marriage to be recognized when them move to a new state - there's really no run of the mill reason for the courts to consider the issue just for a relocation.

[ronnykmarshall]

18. Yes.

Same sex marriages in MASS, Canada or any other country are considered legal in the state of California.

[GodlessBiker]

4. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Although I agree with your sentiment,

I also concur with the recommended strategy in this case.

We have bad law in Ohio regarding second parent adoption which my family created. We had a solid, attractive case (donor insemination, so no challenging biological parent, (then) 15 years as a couple, support from our faith community and from our extended families), a decent panel on the Ohio Supreme Court, solid identical adoption law from politically similar states, and second parent adoptions at the county level that had gone through without appeal (so there are children in Ohio who legally have two parents of the same gender). We lost at the county level, at the District Court level, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to take our appeal. We chose not to ask them to reconsider their refusal to hear the appeal on the basis of the split.

The consequences - in the 5th and 9th appellate districts in Ohio (it was formally in one district, but was decided by a different one because of a conflict of interest) no county court can grant second parent adoption. Because we stopped when we did, there is still the potential for change - county courts in districts not governed by the 5th and 9th district are not bound by the decision in our case. If denied at the county level, a different district court could hear the appeal and make a different decision than the one in our case, setting up a conflict the Ohio Supreme Court would be required to hear.

Because a Supreme Court decision in this matter would impact everyone who comes along later - and because I think it's a pretty safe prediction which way the decision would go now - it is better to wait rather than set the decision in concrete. Harder to chip away at concrete (an existing Supreme Court precedent that must be overruled) than to foster conditions that prevent the concrete from setting solidly in the first place (exposure of lots of folks in lots of places to marriages, who ultimately discover there are no dire consequences and over time it ceases to be an issue).

This is not just theoretical musing on my part - we deliberately got married in Canada before Ohio's marriage discrimination amendment took effect, on the theory that it is much harder to take away existing rights than never to grant those in the first place. Our intent was to go back into court on the adoption matter, since the formal basis for denying the adoption was that we were not married and therefore the stepparent adoption rules (which is the only means to permit a second person to adopt without terminating the parental rights of the first parent). It would have been a sideways challenge for recognition of our marriage. We have not felt that the time was right to make that challenge - and certainly do not feel the time is right to make a head on challenge for recognition of our marriage (even though we could have any time during the last three years).

[Falcon_Lights1916]

8. I'm with you, Goddessbiker!

This is why my spouse and I got married in Canada. Fuck the US and the constant bowing-down to fundie bullshit! We
decided it wasn't worth it to get married someplace that might decide our marriage wasn't "really" a marriage after all. This whole same=sex marriage shtick is just bullshit.

[Ms. Toad]

10. As far as getting married - absolutely!

If you're ready, and willing to live in legal limbo-land, there's no reason to wait. We didn't. There are times it's a royal pain - since I am legally married (nothing my own state or government can do erases the legal relationship my spouse and I have created). That means the honest answer to the question about marital status is "married." In reality, they are not really asking whether you are married - but whether you are in a marriage that the state or federal government has agreed to recognize. For straight folks, the two questions are the same. For those of us who are not straight, they are not the same, and the fact that they ask a question I cannot honestly answer on tax forms, financial aid forms, etc. leads to some fancy footwork.

What the groups the OP cited are cautioning against is not just getting married in California - but getting married in California and then rushing into court in your home state to challenge marriage discrimination amendments/laws in your home state.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. These organizations can take a flying leap off a tall cliff

I really do not give a rat's tail about their opinion; if they had their way, black people would still be sitting at the back of the bus and drinking from their own water fountains.

Justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time that our self proclaimed "leaders" either led or got the hell out of the way.

[mitchtv]

12. Damn the torpedos

full speed ahead!

[davidinalameda]

13. they're right though

hate to admit it but they are

suing right now isn't going to accomplish much

I rather wait for President Obama to sign the repeal of DOMA and then let the lawsuits begin

[WillParkinson]

14. So in other words...

It's not going to happen.

[davidinalameda]

17. you're an informed voter?

Obama was the only major candidate calling for a total repeal of DOMA

Hillary, the patron saint of pride marches, only called for a partial recall

[WillParkinson]

19. How do you know a politician isn't being truthful?

His lips are moving.

Sorry, I've gotten a lot of lip service from our public servants and very little on the follow through. You'll have to forgive me if I'm jaded.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. There were Black groups who said the same thing about MLK Jr

If we always heeded the "now is not the time" crowd, blacks would still be slaves and women would still be unable to vote.

[Zuiderelle]

16. After several years of watching this keep getting shoved to the list of "wait for it" issues

I agree with you completely. Why the hell should anyone have to wait until the right time? The right time may not come until after many of us die. And then what's the point? I want to be married so that I can protect my family if I die.

I recently answered a question "What are you afraid of most?" I'm afraid of dying before I'm allowed to be married.