new thread
Hi Bill, Looks like I came out of the woodwork (full explanation higher up in threads) just in time to congratulate you both on your upcoming marriage!
I must admit that when I heard California would allow marriages I did wonder if anybody I knew would do so!
I sure hope that the referendum to end marriage equality fails but what happens to those who are married before the referendum is voted on? I hope the rest of California is as enlightened as your area, or enough of them anyway!
We've been together for 31 years, but I knew 30 years ago that he was the one I wanted to spend my life with. Yeah, when the right one comes along, it doesn't take long to just know it. After all these years we're still madly in love.
Polls are so close the result is now considered a toss-up. Most legal scholars feel a "yes" vote will not affect marriages prior to the vote. To go back and force divorces on people would be very messy and probably legally not possible in all cases. Some who have married have left the state and the state would no longer be able to obtain jurisdiction. Others will have died or had children, so the rights of heirs or others (mostly straight people) would also be affected. Property arrangements would have been made dependent on marriage. Then on top of that, the state has no record of the sex of those marrying since mid-June, so they would not even know which couples to drag into any divorcing process.
As for after the election, the state supreme court in its ruling in May left a hint that they might rule that the public cannot vote away the civil rights of others, and that a "yes" vote may well be thrown out.
If the referendum passes, it will most certainly go into litigation, and the court could take several years to rule on it. In the interim, they might allow marriages to continue or they might not.
No one knows any of the answers to all this, should the vote on the proposition be "yes". Of course if the vote is "no", the issue will probably in California be settled, as has been the case in Massachusetts.
We are domestic partners, which in California gives all the legal rights of marriage anyway, but the issue to a great extent is the same as "separate but equal", an argument that did not fly 50 years ago when states were sending black kids to different schools than white kids. Even if the black schools were equal, diplomas from them carried a stigma to some extent, and in a nation where we are all equal that was not allowed to stand.
Bill
Congratulations, Bill!
Mind you, I think that there's a lot to be said for living together without getting married, but I'm glad you have the right to get married. OTOH, a lot of things are easier if you are married, from the point of view of rights and paperwork. That's my experience, anyway. I've been married for 21 years, and lived with my wife for a couple of years before that.
We do know a couple of men who are married to eachother, but I've never asked where they got married, although I've often wondered about that. I assume either Massachusetts or Canada. Not in Maryland, anyway, although this is where they live, and where they lived at the time. It's a solid blue state, though, so in a way I'm surprised we don't have same sex marriage here yet, or at least civil union. Probably just a matter of time. I think back home in England they have civil union now, but I'm a bit vague about that.
I suppose Maryland isn't quite radical enough yet for marriage equality. We are such a humdrum state, we don't seem to stand out on anything. We will be an "also ran" I think when the tide turns and marriage equality starts spreading state to state. I like the term marriage equality (which I picked up from some liberal websites I hang around on) more than gay marriage. Maybe it will scare some people less :)