Kern County Clerk to Stop Performing Marriages

[ponderingturtle]

I guess that gay and lesbian couples from the Netherlands are now welcome to come to Palm Springs, CA for a friendly and welcoming wedding ceremony combined with a wonderful honeymoon in our refreshing desert climate.

I realize they could be married at home, but I've been to Holland, so I know why they might want to come here

I realized that it might not have been a reaction to the debate over the appropriateness of how holland was dealing with this, but that seemed to be the main area of recent debate over job description.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If a public service is being a public bigot, is the NUMBER of people they are inconveniencing really relevant?

It does when you are looking at how many people will be voting against them because they messed with their wedding plans.

 

[Patsy]

It does when you are looking at how many people will be voting against them because they messed with their wedding plans.

I'm not sure why you think only people whose plans were messed with would vote against them. Note I said they might want to PROMOTE a different candidate. In other words, campaign for, and perhaps get organizations they belong to to campain for a public servant that will agree to actually serve the public.

For example, my wedding plans would not be messed with, but I would campaign against this person. I would likely attempt to involve any local gay and lesbian organizations like PFLAG, any freethought or atheist groups I belonged to, etc. I might contact liberal religious groups that I felt might interested, poverty groups that might see this as an undue burden placed on low income couples.

Another relevant point to me is that this person is a public servant, not a private sector employee. I would not, for example, expect that my local Baptist church be forced to accomodate same sex weddings. However, when this gal chose to feed at the public trough, she took on an obligation to serve the public, all of it, not just those she feels warm and fuzzy about. She is discontinuing this service, not because it isn't part of her job, but to avoid serving a particular segment of her constituents.

 

[bluess]

Well said, Patsy.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Then how do you do that?

Wills, living wills, whatever.

It seems pretty simple, actually.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wills, living wills, whatever.

It seems pretty simple, actually.

So we need to break all that is done in marriage apart and make them all seperate?

One letter to make someone able to have standing in a wrongful death suit, one for not testifying in court, and do on?

So what interpersonal relationships need is more lawyers and paperwork.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

So we need to break all that is done in marriage apart and make them all seperate?

Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.

That way, anyone can grant the control over their medical care and whatnot to anyone they wish, no matter who they are. Why should the "rights" conferred by marriage be confined only to people who have managed to find someone willing to put up with their bull**** for the rest of their life?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.]

You are increasing the amount of government interference, and certainly increasing the amount of private interference with all the additions lawyer fees for each aspect.

 

[ddt]

Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.

That way, anyone can grant the control over their medical care and whatnot to anyone they wish, no matter who they are. Why should the "rights" conferred by marriage be confined only to people who have managed to find someone willing to put up with their bull**** for the rest of their life?

Sorry to bring up Holland again as an example. We had lots of people in the 70s and 80s who were out of principle against marriage - there still are such people, but the pendulum has swung back a bit so now there are less of them.

These people would indeed go to a notary public to make a kind of "civil union" contract. So such contracts exist and you can arrange about anything in it. The only thing I could think of that would be a problem is inheritance, as the Civil Code describes what minimum has to go to next of kin. I'm not sure about things like medical care - a thing like pulling the plug when the partner is in coma could indeed be a problem too - but the more mundane things like visitor's rights have never been a problem.

But then, in everyday life here there's not much difference between people living together (with or without contract) or married people - you get the same tax cuts, the same rights when applying for housing, etc.

As to costs of such a contract: I'm sure it's cheaper than a full-blown wedding.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As to costs of such a contract: I'm sure it's cheaper than a full-blown wedding.

Weddings are not nessacarily expensive. You can get one in vegas for $50.

Having lawyers draw up a contract would be much more.

It is that people like to make weddings a big party, but that is really seperate from what it costs to get married.

 

[ddt]

Weddings are not nessacarily expensive. You can get one in vegas for $50.

Didn't think about that. Just looked at the prices at "my" city hall. For free on Monday morning (but that's really without any ceremony), up to EUR 536 on a Saturday.

Having lawyers draw up a contract would be much more.

Having some "standard" contract where you mainly have to tick off a couple of things and fill in some names saves a lot. This site lists some Dutch notary publics who offer such a contract for EUR 200-250. That's cheap compared to a prenup; wiki says that costs between EUR 500-1000.

It is that people like to make weddings a big party, but that is really seperate from what it costs to get married.

When I add up the costs of a marriage (including a prenup), a marriage is more expensive even before considering the party and the dress.

ETA: Of course, in the US costs may be different. But it must be possible to find a lawyer who won't ask you an arm and a leg for a standard contract, not?

 

[DoubtingStephen]

This talk of replacing marriage with a self-made contract seems quite a bit simplistic.

From Wikipedia:

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are over a thousand federal laws that treat married people differently from single people. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars Same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.

There would be a whole lot of contracting going on to replace this rich cornucopia of privileges. It does not seem feasible.

The fact of the matter is that, in California and Massachusetts for now, the battle is over and equality has won.

In Massachusetts the last ditch effort of the Jesus industry went down in flames when the legislature shot down the idea of putting intolerance into the Constitution. Of course this does not mean that churches will stop fanning the flames of intolerance, it really fills up the pews. But it seems clear the issue is as dead as the invisible guy they eat on Sundays.

Despite the best efforts of those so fond of their religious delusions that they feel compelled to force them on everyone, equality and justice have won out.

I was saddened to hear this morning that certain groups afflicted with especially nasty religious delusions were demonstrating outside some California county clerk offices. It seems they are finding it difficult to adjust to reality, but then their delusional lifestyle choice might suggest that reality is already a challenge for these individuals. In the long run they'll get over it, or else they won't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When I add up the costs of a marriage (including a prenup), a marriage is more expensive even before considering the party and the dress.

ETA: Of course, in the US costs may be different. But it must be possible to find a lawyer who won't ask you an arm and a leg for a standard contract, not?

Wouldn't the prenup be the same for both? Or do you not get asset dividing in a contract case?

 

[Paulhoff]

Not necessarily. I'm sure some enterprising individual will come up with a standard contract so we can do away with unnecessary government interference.

That way, anyone can grant the control over their medical care and whatnot to anyone they wish, no matter who they are. Why should the "rights" conferred by marriage be confined only to people who have managed to find someone willing to put up with their bull**** for the rest of their life?

And who enforses the control, you, your neighbor.

Paul



I think that would be the state.

 

[luchog]

I don't think so. The two castaways on The Blue Lagoon had the right of it - they are married if they freely choose to do so. This is upheld by all state law that I know of (see common-law marriage) and by the Catholic church (the only one that I know closely enough to make the statement); reference the Baltimore Catechism on the definition of marriage.

Correcting a potentially misleading statement.

Common-law marriage is only recognized by 9 US states: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas. There are a number of qualifications and restrictions on the nature of the relationship affecting official recognition. Co-habitation by itself is insufficient to create a recognized common-law marriage.

5 others -- Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania -- have grandfathered in common-law marriaged existing prior to a specified date, but will not recognize new ones. New Hampshire recognizes them only for the purpose of probate; and Utah only recognizes those which have been officially validated by a state agency.

There are no states in which common-law marriages are recognized for same-sex couples.

Common-law marriage is recognized throughout Canada, including same-sex common-law marriages. Although requirements for recognition vary substantially by province; there is no province which hasn't recognized at least a double-digit number of common-law same-sex marriages.

 

[luchog]

This talk of replacing marriage with a self-made contract seems quite a bit simplistic.

From Wikipedia:


There would be a whole lot of contracting going on to replace this rich cornucopia of privileges. It does not seem feasible.

Of course it does. One would simply replace the standardized "one size fits all" Federal and State license with a similarly standardized private contract. The only difference would be that each partnership could modify the contract if they saw fit; without the requirement that they must do so.

The obvious comment here would be that without lawyers reviewing it, those involved in a marriage partnership under a private contract would not necessarily understand what all was involved in the contract, what their rights and privileges are. The obvious answer is that under the existing cornucopia of Federal and State laws regarding marriages, that is already the case. Few married people truly understand what all of their legal rights and responsibilities are, simply due to the sheer volume and complexity of all the laws relating to marriage; so there wouldn't be any change there. In fact, many more legally-savvy couples already sign private pre-nuptial contracts for this very reason; and making it a private rather than a government contract could be an impetus for partners to gain a better understanding of what should be involved in such a contract. It's certain that many matters could be greatly simplified without any loss of legal protections.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course it does. One would simply replace the standardized "one size fits all" Federal and State license with a similarly standardized private contract. The only difference would be that each partnership could modify the contract if they saw fit; without the requirement that they must do so.

The obvious comment here would be that without lawyers reviewing it, those involved in a marriage partnership under a private contract would not necessarily understand what all was involved in the contract, what their rights and privileges are. The obvious answer is that under the existing cornucopia of Federal and State laws regarding marriages, that is already the case. Few married people truly understand what all of their legal rights and responsibilities are, simply due to the sheer volume and complexity of all the laws relating to marriage; so there wouldn't be any change there. In fact, many more legally-savvy couples already sign private pre-nuptial contracts for this very reason; and making it a private rather than a government contract could be an impetus for partners to gain a better understanding of what should be involved in such a contract. It's certain that many matters could be greatly simplified without any loss of legal protections.

But all kinds of changes to how other things work. For example you would be getting rid of the estate tax to a large degree. Just sign a co ownership contract similar to a what a married couple has with your children and then it never becomes an estate, it just smoothly transfers.

Being able to get the priviliges associated with marriage through basic contracts would have very far reaching effects.