Divorce Attorneys
Respect states’ role in deciding marriage law
|
|
President Bush used his State of the Union address Tuesday to enter the political minefield surrounding gay marriage. While proclaiming the need to preserve dignity for all, he warned that if “activist judges” continue broadening the definition of marriage beyond that between a man and woman, the only recourse left would be a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. But Bush overlooked a far more promising avenue. The explosive issue could be better addressed by honoring the conservative principle of states’ rights. After all, states competently have handled marriage law since before the Revolutionary War. In fact, most states already are dealing with the issue of gay marriages in their own ways. This month, for example, New Jersey became the third state to grant same-sex couples many of the rights and benefits of marriage. By contrast, Ohio is joining 37 other states that have passed gay-marriage bans. Wednesday, its legislature passed a law that would refuse to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages and deny benefits, such as health insurance, to the domestic partners of state employees. |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
Multi-tiered marriage
This Article contends that society in the United States needs to hold a genuine discussion about alternatives to current conceptions of marriage and family law jurisdiction. Specifically, the Article suggests that the civil government should consider ceding some of its jurisdictional authority over marriage and divorce law to religious communities that are competent and capable of adjudicating the marital rites and rights of their respective adherents. There is historical precedent and preliminary movement toward this end--both within and without the United States--which might serve as the framework for further discussions. Within the United States, the relatively new covenant marriage statutes
Will Consult Doctors Before Deciding Wisconsin Test Case.
he developments in the Eugenic Marriage law fight to-day were a decision of Judge Eschweller, before whom the law is being tested, to take testimony of physicians before reaching a conclusion; a decision of the county doctors to modify their attitude, and the decision of the first eugenically licensed pair in Milwaukee to have their wedding secret in order to avoid further publicity. Source : query.nytimes.com
Out-of-state gay couples plan to appeal ruling on 1913 Massachusetts law
A state judge upheld a 1913 law that prohibits out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage between residents has been legal since May. The eight couples who filed the lawsuit — from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York — sought a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the statute, claiming it is inherently discriminatory. The law prohibits marriages that would not be legal in couples' home states. In a ruling handed down Wednesday, Superior Court Judge Carol Ball said the law is being applied equally to all nonresidents. For instance, it has been used
A Defense of Marriage Divorced From Reality
Same-sex couples have the right to a state in the report that allows and then in a state that might not connect in the relationship with no access to divorce. At least 10 states and the District of Columbia, some form of recognition of the relationship, including through marriage (Massachusetts), for civil unions (four countries), domestic partnership (five states), and the mutual benefit (Hawaii) after the Human - Rights Campaign, Washington, Organization for Defending Rights. In these countries, the couple is a complex mix of legal rights and obligations in the context of their relationship. However, 45 States (and) have
Gays challenge Oregon marriage ban
Supporters of marriage equality filed suit Monday against Oregon's constitutional same-sex marriage ban, which was approved in the November general election. "The Oregon Constitution belongs to all Oregonians, including same-sex couples and their families," said Basic Rights Oregon Executive Director Roey Thorpe. "Using the Constitution to treat some Oregonians differently violates every Oregon tradition of fairness and is an insult to the spirit of the Oregon Constitution, which was created to establish justice, maintain order and perpetuate liberty and prevent a majority from deciding or diminishing the basic rights of a minority." On Nov. 2, 2004, 57 percent of Oregon voters approved Measure