| Author |
Message |
    
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2058
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 7:51 pm: |     |
Hey, folks. Update on our wedding. We met with a lawyer today about some other matters & mentioned our pending San Fran nuptials. This woman is well-versed in all the same-sex issues & was an expert witness in the Mass. lawsuit.
She warned us that we could only get married once, and that, even tho CA law may not recognize our marriage, MA would. So, we wouldn't be able to get married in MA unless the CA licenses are revoked. Now, since the MA marriage will be 100% legal, it may be better to do it there.
She also told us that MA is designing the new form to discourage people from running around doing marriages & civil unions in multiple jurisdictions. So, if you are planning to register as DPs in NJ & want to get married in MA, it may pay to wait until to do the NJ paperwork until after the wedding.
I know it gets a little complicated & marriage in MA is not as easy as in CA (waiting periods, medical certificates, etc.). Just wanted to warn the other gay folks out there. Choose your jurisdiction carefully.
Oy - I wait for the day when we not only have our full civil rights, but can do it without jumping thru more hoops that our straight friends! |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 537
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 8:41 pm: | |
How confusing! Does this mean you'll get married in MA? What about "renewing vows?"
I echo your sentiments about simpler days ahead. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
When I asked my niece who is both an attorney and involved in a committed same-sex relationship if she and her partner were planning on going to Mass. she said that the laws of that state only recognize the union if the participants are citizen of MA. Don't know if this is the case in California.
This is all so confusing. Good luck and love whatever you decide, Greentree.
Nancy Chiller Janow
On a coffee break..or something like it. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2059
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Nancy-
I think that what your niece is refering to is that each state has the right to accept the marriages performed in other states. The whole uproar with states voting to define marriage as man/woman is that, until this recent period, it wasn't an issue. All states recognized each other's marriages. Clinton's infamous "defense of marriage" act in 1996 gave each state the right to define marriage individually, something not ever before codified.
Massachusetts can only grant legal marital rights to same-sex couples who live there because they have no jurisdiction over other states. This is the same situation as straight couples. The difference is that, once a s-s couple goes home, their rights are completely dependent on their home state's laws.
However, NJ law currently recognizes all legal marriages performed in other states. By law, then, we must be given equal rights here in NJ. It doesn't mean that, when s-s couples get married in MA & come home & ask for those rights, that there won't be some sort of legal test taken to the courts.
There is a lawsuit in the NJ courts right now asking that s-s couples be allowed to marry here. Currently, we can't get marriage licenses. But, that doesn't mean that we can't get legally married elsewhere.
The reason MA is so important is that it is the first state to say that anything short of marriage discriminates. Marriage between any couple in MA cannot be differentiated in terms of rights. MA could "resolve" this issue by amending the state constitution to define marriage as male/female.
This is why these state amendments are so dangerous to our community.
We don't expect that everything will be immediately rosey. But, we do expect that, once full federal rights are ours (and they are coming), we will have already legalized our relationship.
We are going to go to MA instead of SF because we don't want to go into some legal black hole if the CA courts revoke the marriage licenses.
A little sample math:
Sue and Jane are a couple and own a house in Maplewood, NJ.
Sue is a physician and Jane is a social worker. When they bought the house, they did not yet have joint bank accounts. The downpayment came from Sue's accounts and Jane covered the closing costs. They didn't worry about it, having been together for 10 years. The house and mortgage are in both names.
The house is now worth $800k (they bought on the hill in the mid-nineties). Sue has a life insurance policy worth $600k. They have a summer cottage down the shore (inherited from Sue's "spinster aunt"  ) now worth $300k (it's small).
They have mutual funds & investments worth about $300k.
Total worth (without counting Jane's 401k & life insurance) = $2M
They are over the federal $1.5M exemption from inheritance tax (NJ exemption is much lower) by $500k. Jane makes less than Sue & cannot prove that she put in 50% of the downpayment. She can't show that she owns half of the house (that value would be deducted from the inheritance limit).
Jane owes the inheritance tax on that amount. If Sue & Jack were married, it wouldn't be an issue; they would all be joint assets & go to Jack. Even if Jack were a stay at home dad with no income.
|
Shock & Awe Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 2140
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
If I were gay, to be honest the last thing I'd be thinking about right now is getting married. Sounds like a big pain in the ass and to be honest even if you do "officially" hitch up, it really doesn't sound like it counts anywhere, so what's the point?
Have a big bash instead, invite all your friends and live your life. Unless of course, this is about playing politics, more so than actual love.
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2060
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
So, Straw. Why did you get married instead of just living together? |
Shock & Awe Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 2142
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Greetrees,
because getting married for me wasn't a pain in the ass. I didn't have to worry about it being legal here, illegal there, etc. I also didn't have to wait on line with thousands of others.
Look Greentrees, I know you love your partner, you've never been shy about that and you already have a life and a home together. Why stress yourself out, pay lawyers, etc. to give you something you already really have.
I think 1/2 if not more of these people who have married over the last few weeks did so more to make a point, than actual love. Right or wrong, it's not the reason to get married, not now. Wait until this thing plays itself out and then have a dignified wedding, with friends and family. Even if the law says you're not married, you know better.
|
alison kosakowski
Citizen
Username: Alikoz
Post Number: 31
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Strawberry:
What a very bizarre comment! Where would we be today if suffragettes and equal rights activists chose to avoid their respective "pain(s) in the ass?" And didn't greentree's post, directly ABOVE your post, explain exactly why marriage is so essential to the financial stability of same-sex couples?
Seems as if you equate "marriage" with a "big bash." That is called a "wedding," NOT a marriage. Big difference. |
Shock & Awe Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 2143
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:04 am: | |
Allison,
I have never met a married couple who says they got married for "financial stability". That is not the reason we get married, or at least people I know. People I know get married because they have met the most important person in their life.
I guess, you feel a little different about your husband. |
trapper
Citizen
Username: Trapper
Post Number: 48
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Please choose the most appropriate response:
Strawberry:
A) Is just stirring the pot a little.
B) Loves his country and exercising his inalienable right to free speech.
C) Is providing a valuable service by playing Devil's Advocate, and thus making the case for gay marriage stronger.
D) Is a complete Asshat©
Due to copyright infringement laws, we were unable to use the following expressions: Assclown, Assmaster, Jacknut, Ass-spoon. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2331
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
My Fair Strawberry,
You wrote:
"I have never met a married couple who says they got married for "financial stability". That is not the reason we get married, or at least people I know. People I know get married because they have met the most important person in their life. "
This is such a typical statement for a Bush supporter to make and demonstrates your complete detachment from the plight of the common man.
Straw, not everybody is millionaire as are you.
Many people factor into a marriage decision the prospect of economic stability.
Keep it up Straw and I will not hesitate to out you. |
algebra2
Citizen
Username: Algebra2
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:37 am: | |
I see where Straw is coming from. Why did I get married? I was young and I wanted to have a big bash. We were married by my father's friend who is a judge -- the whole ceremony was over in a matter of minutes (seconds?) and then we had a fun party. Does this mean I am a Asshat Trapper? I love my husband as much as I would if we hadn't had that one minute ceremony, it changed nothing about the way we act or feel about one another. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
A different take on the situation, from yesterday's New York Times.
Gay Marriage? How Straight
By BOB MORRIS
Published: March 7, 2004
ast week, my boyfriend's best friend, a lesbian, told him she was taking her girlfriend to go tie the knot in San Francisco the first week in April. She wanted him to be there, absolutely. He got all worked up about it, but not the way you might think.
"This whole gay marriage thing is so annoying," he said. "It's aping a bourgeois lifestyle that I've lived my life trying to avoid. I feel confused and betrayed."
He is not alone. Many gay men and lesbians — in fact most of the ones I know — are not jumping to jump the broom. They like their status as couples living between the lines, free of all the societal expectations that marriage brings. But since they don't want to feed politicians using gay marriage as an election issue, they are largely mum.
"It's very hard to speak freely right now," said Judith Butler, a gender theorist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "But many gay people are uncomfortable with all this, because they feel their sense of an alternative movement is dying. Sexual politics was supposed to be about finding alternatives to marriage."
"I've been with the same woman for 13 years," she continued, "and she jokes if I ever tried to marry her she'd divorce me. I know many people who feel the same way."
That's not to say that there isn't a reason to fight for a basic civil right. But ask around. You'll find more than a few gays questioning an institution that mixes property rights with love, church with state. Some also complain that a legal and legislative process that should take time to evolve has become a media circus. They even wonder if they will be forced to marry to receive domestic partnership benefits from their employers. And of course, given the present divorce rate, many feel that most civil unions are more civilized than marriages.
"We have a right to be as miserable as straight people," said the playwright Paul Rudnick, who has been in a gay relationship for 11 years and has not thought about marriage, "especially if we want the gifts." Mr. Rudnick's current play, "Valhalla," at the New York Theater Workshop, makes an argument for the gay contributions to society that have more to do with a passion for beauty and extravagance than propriety and social standing.
But beyond just the "queer eye" contributions of taste and the more substantive one of art commonly associated with gay people, there is the valued point of view of the outsider. "The idea of being different is in itself beautiful," said Jack Waters, a downtown filmmaker in a 22-year relationship, who finds that not having children with his partner, Peter Kramer, lets them serve as mentors in all kinds of ways to younger people.
Who's to say that there aren't other important rights associated with being gay that aren't exactly on the books?
"I like being an outlaw," said Roz Lichter, a lawyer who won't marry her partner.
"We don't have any of the typical social roles imposed on how we live," said Philip Galanes, a novelist in a long-term relationship with no wedding plans. "We have the freedom to be husband and wife rolled into one. If there's so much creativity among gay people, maybe it's because we're allowed to be freer in life in all kinds of ways."
Or maybe it's because we're allowed to be single without being stigmatized.
At least we used to be. These days, with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund publishing an "educational guide" stating that gay people are "very much like everyone else," mowing lawns and having children, and that not allowing them to marry keeps them "in a state of permanent adolescence," you have to wonder if the freedom to define your own life in your own way is going the way of cigarettes in bars.
"Being gay and single is the new smoking," Mr. Rudnick said. "It won't be socially acceptable anymore, and you will have to go outside." Or as Michael Musto, the Village Voice columnist, told me: "It used to be that the whole point of coming out of the closet was to get people to stop asking you when you are going to get married and have children."
Those days are just about over, for better or for worse.
Nancy Chiller Janow
On a coffee break..or something like it. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2061
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Straw-
It's not about financial stability. It's about the fact that you choose to make a life with someone, and in this country, at this time, if you deign to make that commitment legal, it brings about extra protections.
If you and Alg weren't married & something happened to one of you, the other could lose your home. If you love someone that much, why would you not choose to protect them?
That's like saying people only purchase life insurance becuase they want their spouse covered so they can kill them and get rich. I assume you have life insurance? Is it to protect Alg & provide for your child? Does that mean you don't love them, since finances are in the equation?
I had said in my original post that we didn't intend to do this until it was legal. Not being state-sancitoned has clearly not prevented us from building a life together. But, yes. It is a statement of love and a political statement.
And, when (sooner rather than later), our marriage is state-sanctioned, we will have already had the ceremony.
Now, I will engage you on this subject no more.  |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 415
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Greenetree--why not get married in CA, come back and if NJ and the feds dont recognize it fight it in court and put DOMA to the test? I would bet that you could find an lawyer to take on the case for free. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Nancy-
Interesting. I didn't see that article, but I don't necessarily disagree. It's about the right to be able to choose how you want to sanction your relationship.
I don't feel I need to be "legal" in order to be legitimate. It's what we are choosing for many reasons. Straight couples can choose to not legally marry; they just have the choice.
What I find amazing about that article is that it almost sounds like you can only be cool, hip, alternative and single if you are gay. It's a little insulting to anyone, sexuality aside, who chooses to remain single, unmarried, untypical.
What I find funny about the article is that marriage is classified as "bourgois". Hell, even Gloria Steinem got married.
It think the whole argument is geared in the wrong direction. It's the rights and protections that come with marriage, not the "caving in to bourgois mores" that need to be addressed.
If we all had insurance, could designate beneficiaries to pensions, etc., property retained by those who were previously partial owners, etc., etc., we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 187
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
Greentree,
What I don't get is that you can do all of that legal stuff right now.
It is certainly more complicated, but it is all doable.
Wills, Joint powers of attorney, living wills, etc can take care of most of the legal issues like hospitalization and life support decisions, and child custody/guardianship.
Forming a corporation of which all shares are owned equally between you and your partner and you are the corporate officers, and the corporation owns all of your assetts takes care of inheritance problems (though the taxes are still an issue).
Ive said it many times before, I don't believe the government should be telling people who they can and can't marry.
But if benefits are something you and your partner are worried about, why not set this up now instead of worrying about it?
Is it equal to straight couples, no. Is it a pain in the ass, yes. Should you have to jump through these hoops, no.
But I think its a more effective arguement to claim that you have these rights this way and now want them the same way straight couples have them, without all the hoops. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2331
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Wow, this is tricky! I wouldn't want to force myself into needing to "renew" my vows. They aren't solemn vows if they need renewal. I don't understand the renewal concept for heterosexuals.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
Renewal is not a legal process. It is done for sentimental/spiritual reasons. When you renew, you don't get new licenses, etc. You just do the ceremony as you wish.
RE: setting up corporations, etc. That has fees & costs associated with it. I would even have to pay someone to do the corporation's taxes. Having to do that to attain equal protection under the law is ridiculous and not an option. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 188
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
Of course incorporating has fees and charges associated with it. So does marriage, but you can incorporate for $99 which is less than some states charge for marriage licenses (and less than 2 round trip tickets from Newark to San Fran). And incorporating can even save you money on taxes each year if you do it right.
You probably pay someone to do your personal taxes, or you do them yourself, which while it is more complicated for a corporation, it isn't that much more, and many accountants will give you a package deal to do both your personal and corporate.
It certainly is ridiculous that you have to do that just to achieve equal protection, but right now, you do. That should change, but don't say it can't be done, or its not an option... it is an option that you have for equal protection on most if not all points you want. You choose not to do it.
I'm lucky, I don't have to do that, but if I were gay, and in a relationship, you bet I would. Would that keep me from fighting for equal rights? Not at all, but I sure would sleep better at night knowing my loved one would be taken care of if I should die.
I fully believe you should fight for equality, but don't claim that you don't have these rights right now if you were to incorporate and plan your estate carefully, if you set this up, you and your partner are fully protected.
Don't let the perfect defeat the good.
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 189
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Just to illustrate from your sample math:
Sue and Jane form SJCO inc. of which each owns 50% of the shares. All combined assetts are transfered to the company.
Assets of SJCO = 1.4m (800k house in mpld, 300k house at the shore, 300k in bonds etc.)
When Sue dies, her shares are willed to Jane (through both a will and corporate by-laws making it virtually uncontestable)
Those shares are worth 700k (1/2 the total assetts of the company).
Add in the insurance of 600k (which Jane is the beneficiary... there is no problem doing that) and Jane inherits 1.4m 100k BELOW the fed death tax limit.
I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for a committed gay couple not to plan their estate.
Like I said, its not fair that you have to do this, but since you do have the option, it seems silly not to. |
mas
Citizen
Username: Maplemas
Post Number: 88
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
You could always go to Asbury Park, NJ. They just announced they'll perform marriages. |
Wendyn
Citizen
Username: Wendyn
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Great that someone in NJ is taking a stand! This is the only way we will get these ridiculous laws changed.
But honestly if it were me I'd rather go to SF or Mass for my wedding...
Greentree, congratulations and good luck in whatever you decide to do!
|
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 110
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:00 pm: | |
My grandparents did a beautiful renewal for their 50th anniversary. It was a lovely way to celebrate who they were then and who they are now -- to rejoice in the life they have had together.
I think it is unfair to condemn gay marriage because it will impose a social structure. It's a choice -- plenty of heterosexual couples live together for decades and never marry (don't worry Dad, I swear I'm living with roommates).
But marriage is a chance to stand up in front of your family and friends and declare you'll be together through everything, no matter what. It's a rite of passage, and society uses those rites to mark life changes. As silly as it seems, ceremonies and such help one get into character for the next role (such as husband or wife) that one plays. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6561
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
Can anyone else imagine Ed calling the dept. of Homeland Security about this???
Ed, note this one for your standup routine |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Actually, Dave, you may be among the first to recognize that the simultaneous historical jump in the price of gas and the explosion of cities issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is not a coincidence. The gay community is a powerful force, capable of destroying the economy! 
Damn you for exposing our plan! Now Homeland Insecurity will issue a "level red" threat in San Francisco, Portland and Asbury Park! Hmmm... we must think of other cities where they'd never expect us to strike next..... |
Shock & Awe Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 2162
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
To angry lesbian woman:
"You have a partner?..I have a wife....A wife isn't really a partner though, it's more like a rival"
--Larry David
Kerry Flip-Flop On Iraq War
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)
In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)
Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)
Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page