Marriage Equality and the Indiana State Fair

[cwalner]

While some of you remember the horrible accident last month due to the stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair, the ordeal is now quite literally adding insult to injury for one survivor.

Huffington Post Article

Beth Urschel, who was injured during the event also lost her partner of 10 years, Tammy VanDam, in the same incident.

However, she may not be able to sue for wrongful death because Indiana does not recognize their status as partners, despite having registered as such in Hawaii nearly 10 years ago.

While I think she may be seeking excessive damages ($60 million) that is for a court to eventually decide, but she may not ever be allowed to bring this to a courtroom if she is declared as not having standing to sue.

This case is just one of many examples why I favor civil rights over states rights.

 

[Alt+F4]

It's terrible that her partner can't sue on her behalf, but why can't her 17-year old daughter?

 

[cwalner]

It's terrible that her partner can't sue on her behalf, but why can't her 17-year old daughter?

Not sure. However, that is not a good solution either. If the suit is in the daughter's name, then she has no legal obligation to share any reward with her stepparent. It would be best for the family to be able to sue as a unit, like they would if were a husband and children, instead of a same-sex partner and children.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not sure. However, that is not a good solution either. If the suit is in the daughter's name, then she has no legal obligation to share any reward with her stepparent. It would be best for the family to be able to sue as a unit, like they would if were a husband and children, instead of a same-sex partner and children.

True, but officially there was no unit. I think if you give her standing, you open up a whole can of legal worms.

It wouild be nice if there was gay marriage, but there isn't.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Besides, if they hadn't been living in sin, God would have never blown the stage over. So it's sort of their own fault.

 

[ponderingturtle]

True, but officially there was no unit. I think if you give her standing, you open up a whole can of legal worms.

It wouild be nice if there was gay marriage, but there isn't.

Yea having to obey the constitution and recognize their union in Hawaii is too hard legally.

 

[Alt+F4]

Not sure. However, that is not a good solution either. If the suit is in the daughter's name, then she has no legal obligation to share any reward with her stepparent. It would be best for the family to be able to sue as a unit, like they would if were a husband and children, instead of a same-sex partner and children.

It may not be a good solution, but in this case it looks like the best one. Sure, the girl is under no obligation to share the money with her stepmother but the girl had been living with them as a couple since she was 7. There was nothing in the article indicating that it was not a happy family. On the flip side if the partner were able to sue do you think she would shut out the stepdaughter?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yea having to obey the constitution and recognize their union in Hawaii is too hard legally.

Union <> marriage.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Union <> marriage.

Not according to the NY supreme court.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not according to the NY supreme court.

Indiana <> New York

 

[cwalner]

Union <> marriage.

Indiana <> New York

Which is exactly why this needs to be resolved at the federal level. I will fully admit that a federal ban will accomplish this, although it is clearly not what I intend, but it will resolve the problems created by some states having marriages and/or civil partnerships that others don't recognize.

That might have worked in the 1800's but modern transportation means that travelling from state to state is trivial now. I, myself, have lived in 4 separate states in about 40 years. Even back then, though, the framers actually forsaw issues similar to this, which is what the full faith and credit clause is meant to resolve.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Which is exactly why this needs to be resolved at the federal level. I will fully admit that a federal ban will accomplish this, although it is clearly not what I intend, but it will resolve the problems created by some states having marriages and/or civil partnerships that others don't recognize.

That might have worked in the 1800's but modern transportation means that travelling from state to state is trivial now. I, myself, have lived in 4 separate states in about 40 years. Even back then, though, the framers actually forsaw issues similar to this, which is what the full faith and credit clause is meant to resolve.

Yep. I think it's heading for a SCOTUS showdown at some point.