It is a heady time in California for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals both from California and from the rest of America. A landmark decision by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriages went into affect June 16 at 5:01 pm. Before same-sex couples head to the wedding altar, they should consider these four reasons not to get married, at least not right now.
1. Such marriages might be annulled in just over four months. California voters might repeal marriages between people of the same sex on November 4th. There is a referendum on the ballot this general election in California to amend that state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. In a prior post, I explained why I think that this amendment won't pass, but it is possible that it will pass. If it does, it will probably void marriages between people of the same sex celebrated in California.
2. Most states will not recognize such marriages. Many states won't recognize a marriage between people of the same-sex. Forty-four states have either a law or a constitutional amendment (or both) that deny recognition to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. If you are a resident of California or Massachusetts, then your home state will recognize your marriage to a person of the same sex. For now at least, the same is true for New York, but that could change if an appellate court decision in a case called Martinez v. County of Monroe is overturned by the New York Court of Appeals. That is possible, but also not likely. (For a discussion of why, see my prior post.) If, however, you live in one of the forty-four states (including, for example, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and Florida) that have laws and/or constitutional provisions that specifically deny recognition to same-sex marriages, your marriage will probably get little or no recognition or respect in your home state, which is what matters in terms of the various legal rights and benefits associated with marriage. If you live in a state that doesn't have such a law but also hasn't recognized same-sex marriage (such as New Mexico, Rhode Island, or Vermont), then the status of your marriage in your home state is at present uncertain. (For a map showing which states have such laws or amendments, see this. (PDF)
3. It might be difficult to get divorced if you don't live in California. Like it or not, about fifty percent of first time marriages end in divorce. A same-sex couple who gets married in California cannot, if they are residents of another state, go back to California to get a divorce. Most states are happy to have non-residents come there to get married, pay a fee for a marriage license, stay in their hotels, pay their caterers, and the like. But the situation is different with divorce. States require that one of the parties to a marriage be a resident in order for their courts to hear or grant a divorce. If a same-sex couple lives in a state that does not recognize marriage between people of the same sex, they may find that they cannot get divorced, not unless they take the extreme and perhaps expensive measure of establishing residence in another state that will recognize their relationship, at least for purposes of dissolving it. Some same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts (or obtained a civil union in Vermont) and then want to end their relationship when they are residents of another state may find themselves without access to a court willing or able to issue them a divorce. It is a big legal mess, a kind of hellish legal purgatory, to be trapped in a marriage that you want to get out of but can't.
4. Such marriages won't qualify for any federal benefits. Many of the important legal rights, benefits, and duties of marriage flow from federal law, including those related to federal taxes, immigration and naturalization, social security, ERISA, and bankruptcy, to name just a few. Thanks to a federal law passed in 1996, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriages are simply not recognized under federal law.
There remain reasons -- including important personal and symbolic reasons -- to get married in California. But it is a mistake to embrace these reasons without thinking carefully about the serious legal and financial implications of getting married. Everyone has the right to marry. The Supreme Courts in California and Massachusetts have taken the bold step of saying that the right to marry includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. But just because you have the right to marry doesn't mean that you should exercise that right, at least not in California at this moment.
Addendum:
Although I didn't say so in the above posting, I am a strong advocate of the right of same-sex couples to marry. Getting married to someone you love can be one of the most profound and moving acts of one's life. This is just one of many powerful reasons to get married. For LGBT people, marriage at this moment in time is even more socially and politically potent. The wedding stories of LGBT couples in California deeply move me. They are dramatic, beautiful, and important.
I celebrate the recent decision of the California Supreme Court. It is a landmark decision that all Americans who believe in equality and justice should applaud and embrace. My aim here is to caution people not to rush to the altar (or city hall) without thinking about the legal implications. By focusing on what marriage symbolizes, we may overlook or underplay the actual effects of getting married. Given the messy patchwork of recognition and non-recognition for same-sex relationships that currently exists in the United States, getting married in California, especially for non-Californians, is a serious decision with an assortment of complicated legal consequences.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As a straight married man, I am completely in favor of gay married. Gays and lesbians deserve every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us...
Calling a goat a cow does not make it a cow. I feel sad for all you GLBs, but marriage is not what you will have even if the state of California calls you married. I agree with an earlier post that this will only help McCain and bring out the Republican vote. Most citizens are fed up with courts deciding issues that should be decided in a Democratic manner. This is such a murky issue that it will drag down BO as he tries to dance around it. The GLBs I know do not want to get married since they get tax benefits for not doing so. It is just the busybodies who want to tell others how to think and act that are behind this.
Thanks for some interesting food for thought.
Some people here seem to miss his point, though. I don't think Stein is telling gays not to get married literally. He is simply giving you some reasons one might want to consider in planning or deciding on such an important event in one's life, particularly if one is not from CA, as CA is the first state that will not require a state residency for gay people to get married there. So while there might be 100 reasons in one's 'plus column' to get married now in CA, Stein gives us 4 reasons in the 'negative column' one should consider. As one might want to make a political, personal, or emotional statement with marriage, these are merely 4 additional consequences that a straight marriage don't have.
So, I guess black people should just resign themselves to being slaves, too, since it is still legal in some countries!
I'm not seeing how the DOMA can get past the constitution's 'full faith and credit' clause, particularly as Scalia is already on record (in Laurence v Texas) as saying that it's likely to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
Separate the Church and State in this issue of marriage. Take all the marriages on the State's books and change them to Domestic Partnerships. Have the State for legal purposes, issue Domestic Partnership licenses to all who apply, heterosexual, homosexual, platonic, mutiple partners, etc. Let the Churches marry people as this is supposed to be covenant with God. No one is offended but it is time for this separation of Church and State to occur.
Better idea: withdraw from clergy the right to act as an agent of the state.
The clergy may bless, or withhold their blessings, from marriages as they choose.
They may not, however, sign that government document known as a marriage license.
Well said
Ed erroneously says that the Cal. amendment "will probably void marriages between people of the same sex celebrated in California." The better view is that it will not. Retroactive interpretations are strongly disfavored in the law, and nothing in the amendment purports to make the ban retroactive. It may be that Cal. would not be able to extend benefits to same-sex couples married during this period, but that it different from retroactively voiding marriages -- which would raise serious constitutional questions. If the marriages are not voided, then other states -- such as New York -- will continue to recognize them.
Ed also fails to recognize that some other states will recognize the California marriages -- but will recognize them as civil unions. Guidance to that effect exists already in New Hampshire and New Jersey, and other states, such as Vermont and Connecticut, might end up taking the same approach.
Lastly, I object to his rather aggressive lobbying against the decision to marry. He's right to point out potential problems. At the same time, however, if the amendment passes, we have no way of knowing how long it will be before another opportunity opens for Americans who do not live in Massachusetts to celebrate a same-sex marriage in the United States, something that gives them a few legal advantages, such as availability of Full Faith and Credit arguments. The decision is one for the couples to make, not Ed or Lambda Legal.
Actually, every gay person who is in a position to get married should do so, if only for the political impact. The more happy normal people you see on tv, with our smiling families and normal lives, the better. When an unjust law exists, we should all get out of our confort zone to change it.
No, I am not being naive. We should be working for marriage rights AND divorce rights. This whole post, while informative, is basically saying, why bother? I say: bother.
Hey listen: For once, the evening news is showing people's smiling faces, not that stock shot of the two guys' butts walking away from the camera hold hands. I'm so sick of that shot.
Does anybody else see the timing of this as extremely convenient? Wasn't it like four years ago about this time of year that a nearly identical situation occurred? That resulted in a flurry of same-sex marriages and photo images of kissing gay couples on the covers of magazines and all over the news. It was just in time to get a bunch of gay marriage ban proposals on the November ballot and draw out the Republican base on election day. I get the feeling that this is not just happening by itself. It almost looks like a lot of people with the best of intentions are playing out roles in a play written by Karl Rove.
Excellent point!
Many of us not in the GLB grouping kinda' see it that way...Seems rather orchestrated to give incentive to that core GOPerited far right who NEED incentive ore than ever this year with their party pick of McCain most especially. Look for various COURT DECISONs to be highlighted...and the USSC age related issues as well...Latest addition is the off shore drilling issue--as IF THAT is the answer to our present fuel woes...the Bush/Cheney regime are in their last throes, pushing anything and whatever they can of their wretched agenda ..The next Dem leaders are going have tremendous clean up...and frankly, this current issue of "marriage" in the gay community is more of a thorn at the moment than IS needed. Someone, please, define "marriage" ...it has had so many definitions and first started with women used as barter/chattel for families/tribes unity/etc....Today, more a party situation and is JUST a piece of paper with trappings of various ceremonies and makes NONE over another more sacred if the indivicuals decree themselves coupled with or without paper or ceremony. Better off with perhaps a legal document establishing partnership and desired "rights" be it in regards to whatever property or shared responsibilities and duties and abilty to partner in various life aspects of looking out for one another. Marriage certificates /ceremonies themselves do NOT spell much out distinctly enough presently and lots of hazards as well as lets face it, when relationships change
Seems easy for someone who has full rights in this society to tell those who don't how unimportant those rights really are. Or to wait for a better time.
In America,to be fair and just a law must be equal. If a law says that only a certain segment of the population is affected or protected then it's an unjust law.The deny gays the right to marry discriminates against a certain segment of that population. Do we pass laws that say after a certain age seniors can't marry? Or blind people? or those with diseases that will shorten their life spans? If laws are allowed to pick and choose who are eligible to be protected by them then we open up a Pandora's box because we allow those who's idealism we may or may not agree with define who will be chosen to recieve the rights of those laws. The Bill of rights was drawn up to protect EVERYONE.
Silly person. Brother and sister can't marry. 3 year olds can't marry. 20 people can't marry. Marriage is a religious tradition that the state co-opted, hence the push-back. In my opinion, the state has no business "recognizing" any marriage. Marriage is a private contract between people... period.
In some Nations, you must marry in a secular setting before being allowed to marry in a religious setting ( France, for one).
People have had only secular marriages, in this country..
There is nothing strange about two people who have been together for years to marry.
The State has interest in the marriage because of tax codes, etc. I think its mainly about money.
Thanks for posting information that some of us may not have given much thought to in the excitement. There are many issues we do not think about in the excitement of getting married. Gay or not.
"1. Such marriages might be annulled in just over four months."
Even more reason to do it ASAP.
"2. Most states will not recognize such marriages."
Let's compare this to blacks and whites marrying.
"In all, 30 states passed anti-miscegenation laws that stayed on the books until the advent of the civil rights movement. Of these, 16 kept their laws on the books until the Supreme Court threw them out in 1967...Another 14 states passed anti-miscegenation laws, but repealed them in the 1950s or 1960s..."
Blacks and whites didn't get the right to marry in every state at the same time. It was a gradual process.
"3. It might be difficult to get divorced if you don't live in California."
If the marriages aren't recognized in other states, then they wouldn't NEED a divorce. They could simply walk away from the relationship.
"4. Such marriages won't qualify for any federal benefits."
See my response to #2.
Exactly my thoughts.
The reasons listed in the post are hardly even close to reasons to not get married.
The only reason not to get married in California is if you don't want to get married (yet).
Thanks, Edward. We're gay, not stupid.
The ruling did not "legalize" it. Neither did the court. The court ruled that it had always been legal under the California Constitution.
The California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 which defined marriage as between a man and a woman and was passed by the electorate in 2000 by 61.4% of the voters. Prop 22 was an initiative statute that the California Supreme Court was called on to determine its legality. Just because the people of California want and even vote for something does not make it legal. That's what the Justices get paid the big bucks for.
However, they were most certainly aware of the pending November constitutional amendment that has since garnered enough signatures to be on the ballot. Talk radio, which is leading the passage of the amendment is rightfully pissed off that the Justices did not stay the ruling until the election. Ironically, the exact same wording of Prop22 is now the proposed amendment which would overturn the Supreme Court ruling.
It has been awhile since a really ugly Initiative has been on the ballot. Whether this one reaches the heights (or nadir) of Prop 187 or the Briggs Initiative remains to be seen. It could. Neither side can claim a 60% approval or disapproval yet, so any predictions are pure guesswork at this point.
"Like it or not, about fifty percent of first time marriages end in divorce."
Total B.S.
This chestnut gets trotted out every time anyone talks about marriage -- but if you don't have a cite, don't use the stat. Anyone who has tried to find a source for this bogus claim has come up dry. If you have a substantial study that shows 50+% of marriages, first-time marriages or whatever ending in divorce, then please post it. Otherwise, don't spread pseudo-science. Truthiness=crap.
The exact rate of divorce is hard to measure, but various studies do suggest that approximately fifty percent of first-time marriages do in fact end in divorce. I could offer dozens of citations for this claim (although I admit that some reputable scholars have questioned it), but instead I offer three different types of citations to support this statistic.
Rose M. Kreider & Jason M. Fields, U.S. Census Bureau, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996 (Feb. 2002), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
Jeffrey G. Sherman, Prenuptial Agreements: A New Reason to Revive an Old Rule, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 359, 372-73, 373 nn.67-68 (2005) (citing various sources that support this statistic)
Lydia Saad, Divorce Doesn't Last, Gallup Poll (Mar. 30, 2004)
BTW, I should have known better than to think a Yale J.D. would get taken in by the echo chamber -- bad on me for not doing my own homework....
Thank you -- that's the first time that I have ever seen a real citation to actual research!
And whether the research has been questioned or not doesn't particularly concern me. My understanding had been that this was a baseless claim that had been legitimized by uncritical repetition rather than an arguably accurate result of research.
Being debunked isn't pleasant, but I would rather find out that I'm wrong sooner than later -- or at least before I repeated my criticism again.
Thanks again, and best regards.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm) for the year 2005....
Number of marriages: 2,230,000
bullet graphicMarriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
bullet graphicDivorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)
I couldn't quickly find data distinguishing divorce in first time marriages from divorce in serial marriages (Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich come immediately to mind) but 50% doesn't appear to be "pseudo-science" so much as slight exaggeration.
My parents and grandparents had one marriage each, as have I, and I believe we are under represented in the statistics. We stay(ed) married, year after year, but only counted once, in the year we married. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Taylor, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Mickey Rooney got counted about 25 times.
Loading comments…
Posted June 17, 2008 | 08:21 PM (EST)