You are a married gay couple on vacation in a state which banned gay marriage

[HockeyMom]

You are hurt and need hospitalization and an operation. Since they will not recognize you marriage, your spouse will not be able to make a decision on your care. They will have to notify your relatives in whatever state they live in, to make the arrangements, instead of YOU. We have already seen what happened in Florida where a married gay man was refused a driver's license in his married name. Far, far more serious consequences can happen when a state refuses to recognize other states marriages.

Since my daughter is getting married in NY, and I live in Florida, I have told her about this. My advice to her and her future wife? I will come to NY to visit you. Stay OUT of Florida as a married gay couple.

[riderinthestorm]

1. .

[Neoma]

35. 1+

[Fawke Em]

2. Isn't ironic that states have reciprocal gun laws, but

not reciprocal marriage laws?

[Orsino]

13. Marriage isn't enshrined in an Amendment.

Except in the stoopid sort.

[AlbertCat]

16. Marriage isn't enshrined in an Amendment.

It is in NC!






and there is no amendment that says you can carry a gun all over hell's half acre.

[badtoworse]

21. Your civil rights in respect of firearms are enshrined in the US Constitution

That would trump anything in a state's constitution. Marriage is an issue governed by the states..

[AlbertCat]

28. Your civil rights in respect of firearms are enshrined in the US Constitution

Also enshrined in the US Constitution is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,


This comes even before the largely misunderstood 2nd Amendment.

There is no other opposition to same sex marriage but religious dogma. It is 100% religion. There are no scientific reasons. There are no economic reasons. It is against the US Constitution to define anything by religious doctrine or dogma. So states have no right at all to codify a religious definition of marriage.

[badtoworse]

42. That is your argument, and a rather weak one at that.

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The constitution is silent about marriage. It does not grant the federal government any power to establish laws regarding marriage, nor does it prohibit the states from doing so. Under the 10th Amendment then, the power to establish laws concerning marriage are reserved for the states.

The states are required to provide equal protection under their laws under the 14th Amendment. The question of whether laws prohibiting same sex marriage violate equal protection and are thus unconstitutional has not been finally adjudicated. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that California's Prop 8 does violate the equal protection provisions, but stayed its ruling pending an appeal to the SCOTUS. I'm not sure if the SCOTUS has decided to hear the case or not. Perry v. Brown is the case in question.

To say that prohibiting same sex marriage establishes a state sponsored religion is just ridiculous. Virtually every major religion opposes same sex marriage and some people are opposed just because they don't want the definition changed. For whatever reason, same sex marriage usually loses at the ballot box. Nobody changes their religion as a result and there is no new religion created, so I don't see where a state religion is being established. People are opposed to other things that various religions also oppose (e.g. murder, rape, theft, etc.) but establishing laws prohibiting those things does not constitute establishing a religion, does it?

The SCOTUS may ultimately rule in favor of same sex marriage, but if it does, I doubt it will be for the reasons you state.

[nomorenomore08]

68. "Just because they don't want the definition changed."

Yeah, because they don't want to have to consider "the gays" their equals. Y'know, with like, equally valid commitments to one another.

And did you just implicity equate same-sex marriage with violent crime? That sort of thing is frowned upon here, as is opposition to marriage equality generally.

[badtoworse]

73. It's an analysis of why a 1st Amendment argument is a weak one.

You're reading too much into it.

[nomorenomore08]

77. Okay, fair enough. Maybe I did jump to conclusions a bit.

[apocalypsehow]

38. Your "civil right" to join a state-sponsored militia - what we today call the National Guard - is

indeed enshrined in the Second amendment. There is no individual right in the Constitution to own a firearm for any other purposes than that.

That's for starters.

For seconders, the anti-marriage equality amendments/laws passed by the states are unconstitutional, as they violate both the Fourteenth amendment in general and the specific ruling Loving v. Virginia in particular.

In anticipation of your thanking me for educating you, I say "you're welcome."

[badtoworse]

39. You are wrong on both points

The question of whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right is settled law. In 2008, the SCOTUS ruled that it does under the Heller decision. IRRC, the justices all agreed that RKBA is an individual right, but disagreed as to the extent that it could be regulated by the states.

Loving v. Virginia dealt with interracial marriage, not same sex marriage, so it does not apply. Perry v. Brown deals with the question of whether the 14th Amendment protects same sex marriage. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that it does, but the ruling has been stayed pending an appeal to the SCOTUS

[apocalypsehow]

50. I am correct on both points. (1) *Loving v. Virginia* is the USSC case pertinent to the constitution

-al question, not Perry, as that is what the high court would look to as precedent and potential *stare decisis* in any ruling regarding a case of this type coming before it.

(2) The Heller decision is "settled law" in the same sense that *Dred Scott* and *Plessy v. Ferguson* were once "settled law": get one more progressive on the court, and Heller and it's subsequent 5-4 supporting rulings are GONE.

Since you are, presumably, a "pro gun liberal," I'm sure you'll take this opportunity to join me in supporting a potential Supreme Court nominee appointed by President Obama who would be the progressive vote to overturn bad Scalia precedents like Heller and Citizens United, right? Right?

[badtoworse]

53. I would oppose any SCOTUS nominee that would overturn Heller.

No true progressive would support a justice that would take away civil rights.

[apocalypsehow]

54. Then you oppose the Democratic nominees last two progressive USSC justices, and will oppose any

future ones he gets the opportunity to make. That tells anyone looking at this thread everything they need to know about your supposed commitment to the progressive agenda. Of course, that was easy to figure out in any event.

I would oppose any SCOTUS nominee that would overturn Heller"

Heller will not last a fifth liberal/progressive justice. It is an outrageous twisting of the plain language of the Second amendment, which pertains to state militias aka National Guards, and is the Plessy v. Ferguson of our time. It will be overturned in due course, and consigned to the dustbin of bag legal decisions as it should be.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. The national guard is not a militia.

Not wanting to redirect this thread, possibly this OT discussion is better placed in a different forum or new thread.

[apocalypsehow]

56. In the current context of the 2nd amendment, the National Guard of 2012 IS the 18th century

equivalent of the "militia" as envisioned by the Founders in the plain language of the 2nd amendment. Period, end of discussion.

"Not wanting to redirect this thread, possibly this OT discussion is better placed in a different forum or new thread"


Fine: quit replying to my replies, and go have a discussion somewhere else with someone else. I'm not interested in talking or debating with you: you replied to me, not I to you. You quit replying to my replies, and all will be fine.

Got it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Eminently tolerant of you.

Thanks

[apocalypsehow]

64. Yep: I'm not "tolerant" of GOP/NRA talking points, or debating those who spew them.

"Thanks"

You're welcome.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. "Spew off, then."

[badtoworse]

61. There is only one context for our cvil rights and that is the one the framers intended.

I don't believe in civil rights being interpreted in the "current context".

I suggest you educate yourself on what the framers meant when they referred to the militia. Here's a link to get you started:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

[apocalypsehow]

63. You go "educate" someone else with the NRA talking points and dodges. There is no "civil right" to

own or possess a firearm, period. All the off-topic and changing-the-subject "links" in the world is not going to change that fact. Peddle it to someone who cares or is otherwise interested in such silly obfuscation and evasion - I am not.

[crazyjoe]

74. wow, on this board we discuss and debate, and we respect others opinions.

maybe there's a spot for you on that "other" site.....

[apocalypsehow]

75. Not quite: this is a progressive discussion board, and genuine progressives among us don't "respect"

GOP/NRA talking points about guns, period. Nor should we: the gun lobby and it's right wing shills are the enemy of everything decent in the human experience, and is about disgusting a movement as has ever had lobbying clout in Washington D.C.

There are certain things that are simply off limits for "debate," or should be. A woman's reproductive rights are one; marriage equality is another, just to name two. Due to the sheer number of trolls the gun debate brings to DU, it's been decided, more or less, to let them have their own forum to pimp for their Phallic Replacement Devices pretty much to their heart's content. I understand the logic, and understand the problems it would incur if the topic was moved out of the realm of "debate" as things like marriage equality are: DU would have to have a team of 24-7 MIRT people just to ban and reban and then ban some more the flock of "pro gun liberals" who would constantly register and register in order to keep cheering for the NRA's vision for America. But that doesn't mean I have to like it, or that we in the larger DU community have to put up with in General Discussion when we spot it.

[badtoworse]

57. Why should I have to choose between a progressive agenda and my 2nd Amendment rights?

[apocalypsehow]

59. Putting aside your mistaken interpretation of the 2nd amendment for the moment, the answer is simply

that the two are incompatible. Genuine progressives do not embrace or endorse the right-wing concepts and ideology behind so-called "gun rights." But, of course, you know that.

[badtoworse]

62. The right to an effective self-defense is right wing? Who knew!

I think we're done here.

[apocalypsehow]

65. Peddling nonsense about there being a "civil right" to own a gun is right wing: yep. And, of course,

no one said one word about "self-defense" until you injected it here, pretending they had. Typical.

[apocalypsehow]

66. "I think we're done here" - Good. We'll see how long it lasts. n/t.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. Because you disagree...

...with how your responder "feels" about the topic.

It's probably best to let it go. There are many topics from many perspectives that are pursued with a rather religious fervor.
It is best to respect the rights of all and their opinions. Cooperation can make steel out of jelly.

Pardon the intrusion and have a nice evening.

[obamanut2012]

44. Reciprocal gun laws aren't part of the Second Amendment

My CCW is good in many states, but not in most Northern states, CA, and a few others.

And, marriage in one state MUST, by FEDERAL LAW, must be recognized by every other state.

Try again.

[badtoworse]

46. You are correct about reciprocal gun laws

My point was that RKBA is protected by the US Constitution and no state can deny you those rights. States can regulate the exercise of that right in ways that do not infringe on the right. Currently, states are not required to recognize the regulations established by other state which is why your CCW isn't universally recognized. I think that is ridiculous and will ultimately be changed.

You are also correct about marriage laws, but DOMA created an exception for same sex marriage. That issue is still winding its way through the courts.

[apocalypsehow]

51. One more progressive Justice on the court, and Heller is GONE. That will happen in a second Obama

term, and I'm sure you'll join me in celebrating the day the high court goes 5-4 solidly liberal. Right?

[baldguy]

43. You've never heard of the 14th Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

and then there's Art IV, Sec I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

[radhika]

14. The NRA spends big $$$ for those reciprocal laws...

and has done so for decades.

Sad truth: when the marriage equality supporters start outspending the Catholics, evangelical Xtians, Mormons -- justice might be within reach.

[madinmaryland]

71. Sad that America values the rights of gun nuts over couples who want to get married.

[xchrom]

3. a day in our lives. folks just don't know what it's like with us. nt

[SoutherDem]

4. I live in a state which had done what NC did yesterday

So, of course we were not married, but when my partners father was sick (dying) in the hospital, even visiting him, without my partner being with me, or trying to get any info, over the phone, was all but impossible. This was true even after both my partner and his mother instructed the hospital to treat me as family. At times I felt if I would have lied and said I was a cousin or nephew that I would have received more cooperation.

[gaspee]

5. It's happened already

Do not let your daughter visit you in Florida with her family.

http://thelpkids.com/2007/06/19/miami-herald/

[HockeyMom]

27. They will have hell to pay if they cross MOM

and my DIL's sister who lives in Boca. We were just talking about this. They forget that gays have families who support them. We don't all think they need " conversion therapy". Don't cross us family members.

[blueamy66]

6. Just posted in another thread about this.

Don't come to AZ either!

[malaise]

7. Do not vacation in those states

It's quite simple - punish them.

[crazylikafox]

34. and make sure u contact the local chamber of commerce to let them know why you're going elsewhere.

Maybe we need to make a form letter to make it easier:

Dear ........

My partner and I had planned to spend our vacation at .......... but have decided to vacation & spend our money at ................... instead. Due to your state's non-support of same sex marriage/unions, we do not feel welcome and safe spending time in your area.

Sincerely, .............................

[YellowRubberDuckie]

8. Simple answer.

Give your spouse your power of atty prior to going on vacation. It's not expensive to do so and it will take care of this problem.

[Duncan Grant]

9. Not so simple.

Please see link in post #5; paragraph 6:

“Even after a friend in Olympia faxed the legal documents that showed that Pond had authorized Langbehn to make medical decisions for her, Langbehn said she wasn’t invited to be with her partner or told anything about her condition. She said she wasn’t allowed to see Pond again until a priest arrived to give . . . Last Rites.”

[YellowRubberDuckie]

10. That's when you go to a judge.

Most hospitals in this area do not have such strict rules, and I'm in one of the reddest states in the union: Oklahoma. They will let anyone the patient needs to be with them with them. I saw people back there with just random people. I heard them talking in the hall way. And this was a Catholic Hospital. Honestly, whatever is best for the patient should be allowed. I've never been to a hospital that behaves that way and if I were the patient I'd be pitching a fucking fit if I had to be put through that. And then if I were their family or their POA, I'd be suing the FUCK out of them.

[Duncan Grant]

19. A judge can't help you if the discrimination has been written into law.

I think it would be emotionally and psychologically difficult for people in the middle of a life-altering crisis (in a state/locale they do not call home) to seek a ruling from a judge while their partner is isolated from them.

Maybe I could pull that off. I hope I never have to find out.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

30. If you have been given power of attorney by the person in question...

...Then you are legally able to act in their stead, and if you are denied that right, you should fight. It is emotionally and psychologically difficult to be denied that right. This is a legal issue, not a gay one in the case of a POA.

[LeftyMom]

70. An increasing number of anti-equality states have rules to prevent that.

Same sex couples aren't allowed to enter into contracts that would establish rights normally associated with marriage.

[Zorra]

11. Thank you, HockeyMom.

It's very important that everyone understand that there are many profound negative ramifications to a state voting to not recognize marriage equality, issues that are not immediately obvious.

The nature of this evil runs deep, metastasizing like a cancer on the collective of humanity.

[MineralMan]

12. Very good points.

I wouldn't travel to any of those states in those circumstances.

[Kaleva]

15. Michigan banned it a few years ago.

Amended the state constitution to declare that marriage is a union between a male and female. Thus Michigan is one of those states that will not recognize a gay marriage even if it is considered valid in another state.

[rbixby]

17. I've got a question then.....

Is there a clause anywhere in the constitution that says that there is a reciprocity between states with laws like that? Like a 'straight' marriage in any state will be reciprocal, correct? Is that a constitutional thing? Could it be challenged on those grounds?

[bornskeptic]

22. There's Article IV: Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[HockeyMom]

24. These laws need to be challengated on the basis of that

We will only recognize SOME of the marriages in other states. They cannot do that. The SC used that as an argument in Lawrence v. Texas. ONLY gay couples, not straight ones, were targeted under these Sodomy laws.

I wonder if the states which have passed Marriage Equality can challenge these marriage discrimination laws in other states.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

37. I don't know why full faith and credit doesn't apply here.

If you are married and straight, your marriage does not become invalid if you move to another state.

[tammywammy]

40. I've always wondered the same. n/t

[Kaleva]

41. Not in all cases

Michigan doesn't recognize common law marriages that are valid in some other states. Also states vary on the minimum age requirement.

[rbixby]

48. This seems like something the court needs to clear up

It could be a tough nut to crack though, where do you draw the line about laws and regulations and stuff then? Do you validate every law across every state, or invalidate it altogether? This would definitely be an interesting issue to see the court handle.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

18. Wow.

smart advice.

I once tried to explain why gay marriage is good and right to a conservative christian couple. I don't know if he got the human aspect of it--he seemed to listen to what I was trying to say...maybe he did get it: he's heavily heavily christian, but not a total neanderthal. The wife however, literally said she didn't care. She's conservative and not interested in hearing about it.

Later, she got caught in a yicky affair with his "best friend", accused him of all kinds of untrue nastiness, and in general, acted like a total repuke.

[liberalhistorian]

31. What drives me crazy about that is that, as a

seminary student, I can tell you that contemporary biblical scholarship shows that the passages fundies use to demonize gays and justify their hatred of them have all been misinterpreted and taken out of context. There is NO religious or biblical reason to be against and discriminate against gays. Hell, at my seminary, more than half the students are GLBT as are many of the faculty, staff and administration; many are even involved with each other. The faculty can run circles around fundies in debates regarding this issue, and they have done so.

[LynneSin]

20. Vacation in Delaware - we have lovely beaches here

We're still working on overturning the DOMA laws passed back in the 90s but we did get Civil Unions passed and it was worded in such a way that eliminates any questions about what it covers. Since we still didn't have the votes yet to overturn the DOMA, they passed what they could to at least give same-sex couples all the benefits and rights.

[cali]

23. better to vacation in Vermont

no ocean beaches but tons of lovely lake beaches. We were first in the country to institute civil unions and our legislature was the first to institute marriage equality. Plus we have great mountains and unspoiled scenery- no billboards. Come to think of it, just about all of New England has marriage equality and there are fantastic beaches on the Cape.

[druidity33]

25. my favorite Vermont event

is the Strolling of the Heifers in Brattleboro...

http://www.strollingoftheheifers.com/

[cali]

33. It's a great event

did you ever go to Bread & Puppet. That was my favorite event for many years- the domestic resurrection circus and pageant.

[HockeyMom]

26. Oh, I LOVE Vermont

including your Senator. We spent many a time for Hockey Tournaments in Vermont. Lovely state.

[Marrah_G]

29. I am in love with this lake!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=

I still have hopes that I will be able to move near there eventually. The water is crisp and cold and crystal clear. It's natures perfect summer remedy.

[cali]

32. South Beach, Lake Willoughby. Fantastic spot

there used to be a great rope swing to the left and of course it's the clothing optional beach.

[Marrah_G]

36. omg I had no idea about the clothing optional beach!

We stop at this little spot across from a campground every time we go up. Even when we don't have suits with us, we always roll up take off the shoes, roll up the pant legs, etc and wade in. It's become one of my most favorite places. We also stop at this organic ice cream place on the way, soooooooooooo yummy.

[mumma1010]

78. What is the name of the campground?

Do you know what the name of the campground happens to be? We used to camp at the southern end every summer when I was growing up... I want to take my kids there now but we live out of state... I remember the view from the previous photo, and the nude beach to the left as you looked out towards the lake. White Cap campground is the only one I can find there, but I recall a trek through the woods to the beach, not it being located adjacent to a roadway... Any help is greatly appreciated. I know a lot can change in 25 years!

[Marrah_G]

79. I have no idea what the name of it is.

its right at I think the southern tip of the lake.

[csziggy]

45. A Florida hospital blocked a lesbian from seeing her dying partner

Janice K. Langbehn (born September 22, 1968) is a gay American activist and social worker, who became an activist as a result of the events surrounding the death of her partner, Lisa Marie Pond (October 8, 1967 − February 19, 2007).
Janice K. Langbehn

In February 2007, Langbehn and Pond, along with three of their four children, were in Miami, FL to depart on a cruise. Pond collapsed before the cruise departed and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital's (JMH) Ryder Trauma Center. When Langbehn and their children arrived, a JMH social worker told Langbehn she was in an “anti-gay city and state” and required a health care proxy to see Pond. Langbehn had a power of attorney (POA) which was faxed to the hospital within an hour of Pond’s arrival. However, Langbehn and their 3 young children were kept from Pond’s side for eight hours. Pond slipped into a coma from a brain aneurysm and died without her partner of 18 years or her children by her side.

<SNIP>

Langbehn continued to speak on the topic of hospital visitation and equality for all Americans. Langbehn spoke publicly about her partner's death for the first time at an Olympia, WA Pride gathering on June 18, 2007, just four months after Pond’s death. Langbehn continued to speak out, despite the outcome of her lawsuit. Langbehn’s perseverance caught the attention of the New York Times writer Tara Parker-Pope.[5] As a result of the article, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel brought the article to the attention of President Barack Obama. On April 15, 2010, President Obama called Langbehn from Air Force One to apologize for the treatment her family received at Jackson Memorial Hospital and to inform her about the Presidential Memorandum he signed earlier that day. President Obama’s Memorandum[6] directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius to create a rule allowing hospital visitations for same-sex couples comparable to those of married and opposite sex couples. Following Langbehn’s phone call with President Obama, she spoke live to CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper on the show Anderson Cooper 360°.[7]

On June 22, 2010, Langbehn and her three children met with Secretary Sebelius and then attended a gay pride reception at the White House. Prior to the reception, President Obama met with Langbehn and the children to again offer his apology. While speaking at the reception, President Obama described the struggles the Langbehn-Pond family faced and the impact of his memorandum. The President said, "Just a few moments ago, I met with Janice Langbehn and her children... And when Janice's partner of 18 years, Lisa, suddenly collapsed because of an aneurysm, Janice and the couple's three kids were denied the chance to comfort their partner and their mom -- barred from Lisa's bedside. It was wrong. It was cruel. And in part because of their story, I instructed my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to make sure that any hospital that's participating in Medicare or Medicaid -- that means most hospitals -- (laughter) -- allow gay and lesbian partners the same privileges and visitation rights as straight partners”.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Langbehn

[ck4829]

47. k&r, homophobes sure get their jollies in some pretty strange ways

[myrna minx]

49. K&R

[sylvi]

52. How about durable power of attorney for health care?

One shouldn't have to jump through the hoops, not to mention the possible expense, of obtaining this, but wouldn't it be effective in any state regardless of whether they recognize your marriage? I'm pretty sure it can include things like visitation as well as actual decision-making. DPOAHC needn't be a blood relative. Maybe someone with legal knowledge can advise.

[Lars39]

80. Those aren't full-proof either.

I've had one ignored by my father's doctor. Acted like it did not exist at all. Trying to get it recognized in a hurry might be very difficult.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. If the state in which you live recognizes your marriage...

...all other states are required to recognize your marriage as well. If this right is being denied by some state, I'm sure that there is pending litigation and a forthcoming decision requiring such recognition.

[alarimer]

72. Yet straight marriages are recognized, no questions asked.

It is true that marriage is not a federal issue, or at least it hasn't been. But if you are straight, all states recognize marriages. If you are not, then what happens in Massachusetts is completely different from what can happen in North Carolina. I am not a lawyer but probably the equal protection clause should apply here.

[jmowreader]

76. The Constitution-lovers have a serious problem with gay marriage

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires states to respect the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Including the public acts and records they don't like, such as the marriage license of two guys.

And y'know, the same fuckers who claim Obama hates the Constitution because of (fill in the blank) are usually the ones who come up with these "gay marriages performed in other states are not recognized in this state" laws.