same-sex marriage

Colleen Logan, writing in the Huffington Post, writes about five reasons why the LGBT community is ready for same-sex marriage but not divorce. The upshot is that there are legal ramifications from state-sanctioned matrimony. Those include:

One- The law's notion of presumed parenthood does not protect non-biological mothers and fathers. "Until the law sees fit to protect both parents in a same-sex couple in the case of divorce, we won't truly be ready for marriage," Logan writes.

Two- Different tax treatment is going to ensue from same-sex matrimony: "Filing jointly may seem like a benefit, but what if your newly betrothed had huge tax debt that you didn't know about before you got hitched? Coupling your doom is the fact that that sweet little refund that you used to get as single and head of household is now a distant memory," Logan also writes.

The Pennsyvlania Supreme Court has been asked to allow a Montgomery County clerk to once again issue licenses to same-sex couples, The Legal Intelligencer reports. The clerk, D. Bruce Hanes, argues that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court should have considered the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage when it ordered him to stop issuing licenses, The Legal further reports.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby of the District of Utah heard oral arguments yesterday on a lawsuit challenging that state's ban on same-sex marriage, the Salt Lake Tribune reports. Shelby said the constitutionality of the ban will turn on whether the copules are "seeking a new right or establishing access to an existing, fundamental right to state-sanctioned marriages," The Tribune further reports.

State attorneys argue that the plaintiffs are seeking to establish a new right and the ban should get rational basis scrutiny "to determine if Utah’s law promotes a legitimate government interest in supporting responsible procreation and the 'gold standard' of two biological parents for child rearing," according to The Tribune.

In contrast, the plaintiffs’ attorney "advocated a heightened-scrutiny standard, which would recognize same-sex couples as an unprotected class such as racial minorities or women."

In the view of state attorneys, the lawsuit is aimed at establishing a new right, one that no other federal court has recognized. In the view of attorneys representing the plaintiffs, it is about gaining access to the fundamental right to chose whom to love and marry.

Even though a trial date has been set in the first case in which plaintiffs are challenging Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage, Governor Tom Corbett's administration is appealing to the Third Circuit on the applicability of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Baker v. Nelson, on the Pennsylvania case, The Legal Intelligencer's Saranac Hale Spencer reports. In 1971, the Supreme Court upheld a five-page Minnesota Supreme Court opinion that the federal Constitution does not protect a fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married for "'want of a substantial federal question,'" according to SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston. The Supreme Court has not yet declared if there is a fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, however, rejected the idea that Baker still has precedential value: "'The Supreme Court has decided several cases since Baker which demonstrate that it no longer views constitutional challenges based on sex or sexual identity classifications as unsubstantial,'" The Legal reports.

The Connecticut Supreme Court is considering whether petitioner Charlotte Stacey is entitled to loss of consortium even though she was not married to her female domestic partner, who allegedly died from medical malpractice, The Hartford Courtant reports. While Connecticut only allows loss of consortium for legally married spouses, Stacey argues that her constitutional rights were violated because she and her deceased partner wanted to be married but could not wed until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state law banning same-sex matrimony was unconstitutional, The Courant further reports. Oral arguments in the case were held this week.

A Mississippi judge has rejected a lesbian's request to have her California same-sex marriage dissolved by the courts of her home state, according to the Associated Press. Democrat Attorney General Jim Hood said in a motion to intervene on Nov. 15 that Mississippi "has no obligation to give effect to California laws that are contrary to Mississippi's expressly stated public policy" barring same-sex marriage, the AP also reported.

Mississippi bars same-sex marriage by statute and in the state constitution.

Almost two-thirds of Croatian voters approved a change to their constitution to define marriage as a "union of a man and woman," Voice of America reports. The move was initiated by Roman Catholic groups and "90 percent of the population of 4.4 million say they are Catholic," according to Voice of America.  Turnout was 37 percent, Voice of America also reports.

The flip side of the national movement to establish same-sex marriage in the United States is the right to dissolve same-sex unions. The Associated Press reports on how estranged couples in "nonrecognition states would have to move back to the state where they were married and establish residency in order to get divorced — an option that can be unworkable in many cases."

James Esseks, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the AP that the right to end marriage is just as important as the right to enter them. '"Part of that system is creating a predictable, regularized way of dealing with the reality that relationships sometimes end,' [Esseks] said. 'Those are the times people are the worst to each other, and that's why we have divorce courts. There's got to be an adult in the room."'

The AP further profiles a Mississippi case in which that state's Attorney General's office filed a motion to intervene because a same-sex couple married in California is seeking to have a divorce recognized by Mississippi's family courts.

A federal judge rejected a same-sex couple's lawsuit seeking to establish the right to marry in Louisiana on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, The Washington Blade reports. Only Louisiana Attorney General James Caldwell was named as a defendant and his office has not denied plaintiffs the recognition of their marriage, The Blade reports. The plaintiffs intend to refile their case.

"Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, said the plaintiffs would be in a stronger position in the case if they sought recognition and then alleged in their amended complaint that the recognition was denied," The Blade further reports.

The Honolulu Star Advertiser reports on a state legislator who argues a 1998 state constitutional amendment did not only allow legislators to decide whether to authorize or ban same-sex marriage--but altogether prevented elected representatives to expand marriage to same-sex couples. "State Rep. Bob McDermott has filed a new motion in state Circuit Court looking to invalidate the state's new law legalizing such marriages," the newspaper reported. However, the judge held that the 1998 amendment "did not restrict the Legislature's separate authority -- under Article III, Section 1 of the state Constitution -- to enact laws that define marriage," the newspaper further reported.