<p>I have a gay couple in the congregation that I serve that has been together since 1943. I was really hoping that the Supreme Court would have had the courage to declare that marriages deemed legal in one state must be recognized in another. They are too infirm to up and move to one of our border states, but if the ruling had gone that way we would have taken a day trip so that they could marry and have the marriage recognized here in PA.</p>
<p>It seems to me that this could be solved by separating marriage from the benefits. Define marriage as the union of man and a woman for the purpose of legitimizing children. A domestic partnership will confer benefits. Married men and woman will automatically be considered domestic partners unless they opt out. This protects the church from having to recognize something that goes against their beliefs and later having the the 1st and 14th amendment from conflicting in this instance. Since by definition it requires a married man and woman to produce a legitimate child their could be no decrimination because no one is treated differently.</p>
<p>If only more of your generation thought like you, zm. :(</p>
<p>BUT that’s why i have hope. You and several on here were a generation ahead of your time and have raised kids who don’t understand the big deal. That’s why I’m thinking that it will be as foreign to my kids’ generation as the interracial marriage debates are to me and mine.
I’m an optimist.</p>
<p>Hopefully polygamy will also be legalized during my lifetime 
</p>
<p>Also, isn’t having it outlawed a violation of First Amendment rights?</p>
<p>lvvcsf, so by definition, the child of a gay couple can never be “legitimate”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could also be solved by ending discrimination against gay people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Supreme</a> Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional](<a href=“Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | HuffPost Latest News”>Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>Apparently adopted children aren’t legitimate either :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I didn’t know anyone still used phrases like legitimate/illegitimate child.</p>
<p>Now let’s see how long it takes to pass ENDA. I am not optimistic.</p>
<p>Ivvcsf - Congress COULD have handled this in a variety of ways. Instead they went with an “In your face” approach, which led (inevitably IMO) to yesterday’s ruling. Scalia wasn’t the only Old White Guy in DC surprised that ANYONE would support marriage of same-sex couples. But really, what option did the SC have, given that Congress refused to consider other approaches?</p>
<p>Re: ENDA</p>
<p>Until an animal is extinct, we have no incontrovertible proof that it was ever endangered. And while there has been a lot of analysis suggesting the the Woolly Mammoth and Passenger Pigeon are extinct, I don’t know that we can rely on that work. Basically “I don’t trust the science.”</p>
<p>(Hey, why should Old White Guys in DC be the only ones to promulgate unsupportable positions???)</p>
<p>There is a version of domestic partnership for male/female couples; some states still allow common law marriage. </p>
<p>Basically, if you hold yourself out as married, then in 9 states you can be considered married. You can be considered married for probate only in NH. </p>
<p>BTW, this does mean that states like Alabama, Texas and Kansas have always defined and continue to define more than one kind of marriage. You don’t need to enter into holy matrimony or to have the state solemnize your marriage. You just act married.</p>
<p>“some states still allow common law marriage.”</p>
<p>It’s my understanding … and I could be wrong … that this is for Man/Woman only. Also, does anyone know whether the Social Security Administration accepts undocumented common-law marriages? Is there an appeal process for surviving spouses?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Legitimizing children”? “Legitimate child”? My goodness, I thought we stopped using those concepts about a century ago. Do you realize approximately half the babies born in the United States are born to unwed mothers? And you want to write off half the children as “illegitimate”? The law no longer recognizes such concepts as “legitimacy” or “illegitimacy.” A child is a child; they’re all equal before the law, therefore all legitimate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see how your “solution” solves anything–or for that matter, what “problem” you are trying to solve. There is no law, state or federal, that compels churches to perform or recognize same-sex marriages, or any marriages at all. That is entirely a matter of religious belief and conscience. Marriage equality laws merely make same-sex marriages lawful. A judge can perform them. and in some states certain other public officials can as well. Some religious denominations have already decided to perform same-sex marriages, and others will surely follow, but none are compelled to do so by law. </p>
<p>The only possible conflict is if a church refuses to extend spousal benefits on a non-discriminatory basis to employees who are legally married to a person of the same sex. But calling it a “domestic partnership” wouldn’t change anything. That same church could, on grounds of moral disapprobation, still refuse to extend domestic partnership benefits on a non-discriminatory basis to employees in legally sanctioned same-sex domestic partnership relationships, and you’d end up with exactly the same problem. Calling it something else doesn’t make the problem go away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey neither of my parents have produced a “legitimate child” under this definition. It’s their anniversary on Saturday… guess I get to tell them the good news that their marriage is without purpose :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure what you mean by “undocumented” common-law marriages. All common-law marriages are “undocumented” in the sense that there’s no official marriage certificate. On the other hand, if you show up claiming to be the surviving spouse for purposes of collecting Social Security survivor benefits, they’re going to demand some kind of documentation that you were in fact living in a common-law marriage; they won’t just take your word for it.</p>
<p>Here’s what the Social Security Administration says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From a quick wiki search it seems that most, if not all, states with common law marriages require a “husband” and “wife” and I’m sure the actual statutes reflect that language. </p>
<p>[Common-law</a> marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States]Common-law”>Common-law marriage in the United States - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Obviously it’s wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>^^ bc - Thanks, yeah that’s what I meant by “undocumented.” I can’t just walk into a Social Security Office and claim Barney Frank’s Spousal Benefit without some “documentation.”</p>
<p>To think of of, I can’t think of a single instance in which I or someone I know has been referred to as an illegitimate child, and I am one.</p>
<p>Also have fun telling my child-free by choice aunt and uncle that they’re not really married. They’ll take that really well! </p>
<p>Count me among those who has never really seen why this issue is a big deal. I don’t see why my husband and I can have a civil marriage ceremony and be called married if it is about the term marriage alone. </p>
<p>The last thing that makes this issue very serious to me is that a VERY dear friend of my mother suffered terribly because of his inability to marry his spouse. They were together for nearly 20 years, and even had a non-legal ceremony and wore wedding bands. However, while her friend was hospitalized with cancer, his spouse suffered a sudden heart attack and died. He was confined to a hospital bed while his spouse’s family went through all of their belongings and legally took everything that belonged to who would have been his husband if they had been able to wed. He was then excluded from the funeral planning and was not even able to see him buried. While my mother’s friend had taken care of things on his end because he was in failing health, his spouse appeared to be otherwise healthy so there was no will, which wouldn’t have been so much of an issue in the first place had they been married. It was just very, very sad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to be defining marriage as something that only happens in a subset of Christian churches. There are plenty of religious groups, including Christian groups, that define marriage differently. </p>
<p>Are you saying that you believe that the Catholic and Mormon churches should be protected from an imaginary threat to their ability to refuse to marry same-sex couples, while violating the rights of the Quakers and Episcopalians and Reform Jews to marry who they see fit?</p>
<p>My point about common law marriage is of course not that it applies to men and men, etc. That’s silly. The point is that states sanction different kinds of marriage - and other states don’t - which means the arguments about the purpose of marriage don’t hold across the states. For example, if the purpose of marriage is to “legitimize” children - as some have said - then why do most states not allow for common law marriage? If the purpose is to encourage commitment, then why not have them? If the purpose is to say that marriage is a special legal and/or religious status, then how can a state allow people to just hold themselves out as married? That’s like saying “living in sin is fine” because we’ll just define away the sin by saying you’re married. </p>
<p>If you read the arguments made in the various cases, the only one that doesn’t fall apart is the purely religious argument that you happen to believe this is God’s intent. For me, if this is indeed God’s intent, then it’s up to you to live up to that intent in your life and what others do is no business of yours. In other words, believe what you want about what God means for men and women but keep it to yourself. And if you say that gay marriage imposes a definition, that’s true only because we grant privileges to married people. So for example, you can’t necessarily visit your partner because you’re both women or men but a woman can visit a man because that is considered family. To insist on the same rights is not an imposition of belief. </p>
<p>The above is essentially the reverse of what Scalia argued; he over and over said that his beliefs aren’t hate - he intentionally mischaracterizes the majority opinion as saying this discrimination is “hate” - but that he has a right to discriminate just because his religious beliefs say he can.</p>