Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

lucrezaborgia · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 02:12 PM by lucrezaborgia.)

(02-10-2012 01:59 PM)myotch Wrote: I don't "cherrypick". I've discussed plenty of situations where consenting adults cannot marry or be recognized by the state as married.

Those decisions are not because of tradition however. There are valid reasons to not allow incest relationships in any way. Lots of psychological and medical reasons. It's not merely because of tradition.

First cousins isn't banned on tradition either and, like I said before, that's not a nationwide ban. First cousins can marry in Wisconsin if the female is sterilized. Their marriage, however, is still nationally recognized in states that don't allow first cousins to marry in any capacity.

Quote:I just don't see a compelling case to retrofit thousands of years of the evolution of the institution of marriage for gays who want to marry.

Engage and compel me! Give me a reason to change my mind. If I am opposed to gay marriage, what is the undeniable logic that should change my mind? It just isn't there.

If marriage is an evolution, that means it is forever changing, so your argument that it can't be changed for homosexuals is now invalid.

As long as civil unions are not equal to marriage and as long as their marriages and unions are not recognized nationally just like all other unions, then you will have people fighting for it so they can protect each other and their property and any children if they happen to come along. The only difference in family unit for a homosexual family compared to a heterosexual one is that both partners are homosexual. For homosexuals who have children, the same rights as married hetero's is quite necessary. Otherwise, family members can swoop in and argue that the children are now abandoned and that they have a right to them. You do realize that unless you are married or are in a union recognized by the state that you practically have zero custody rights? Judges have a lot of leeway in deciding custody rights outside of marriage. Once you are dead, a judge will decide who your children will go to unless there is a married parent still alive. You cannot will children to certain people.

**myotch** · 02-10-2012, 02:46 PM

It's not invalid. Marriage has evolved to where it is today regarding heterosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships can at best be a parallel, but not the same, as heterosexual relationships. Different dynamics come into play. Societies that recognize homosexual relationships, where given the same recognition as heterosexual marriage, are few and short-lived, small footnotes in the history of civilization.

The issues you now bring up:

Civil unions not being equal to marriages: From what I've studied, civil unions are identical to marriage in every legal sense.

For homosexuals who have children...: Here's where it gets tricky. There are cases where the pregnant woman gives parental rights to her lesbian partner, only to later recognize she is not gay and dissolves the relationship. Who has the greater rights? The lady who wants nothing more to do with homosexuality, or the lady who was given adopted rights?
"Same rights as married hetero's is quite necessary" doesn't quite cut it when one's religious or speech rights in her own home is compromised by a former agreement made in a different mental state. What's needed isn't the same protections as heterosexual couples, but a totally different set of protections that are not so binding on married heteros.

Preference of the care of the children after death should be spelled out in a will. Even for heterosexual couples, relationship to the children isn't a clearly cut legality. My dad died when I was young. He didn't have a will. What should have been a simple transfer of assets turned into a weeks-long probate case that addressed, yes, who I would live with, among other things (and the issue wasn't even a contested one). So, yeah, I'm aware of custody rights; I was given an early education in the complexities of custody law.

lucrezaborgia · 02-10-2012, 02:47 PM

(02-10-2012 01:40 PM)myotch Wrote: Not to many laws are coming forward regarding traditional marriage. It's all pretty much set in stone. Aside from so-called gay marriage, there aren't any changes to marriage laws that I'm aware of. And yeah, they are all pretty much traditional.

You added this later so I'm now commenting.

Miscegenation was removed in the 1960's.

First cousin marriage wasn't seen as a bad thing until the ideas of eugenics started making the rounds in the 1800's.

Polygamy was quite legal in Utah before being accepted into the Union as a state. The US government refused them entry unless they got rid of it and all of a sudden the Mormon Church had a divine revelation that it was wrong. *rolls eyes*

Then there are divorce, custody, property, and inheritance laws all based off of the rights of marriage. These change all the time.

lucrezaborgia · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 03:01 PM by lucrezaborgia.)

(02-10-2012 02:46 PM)myotch Wrote: There are cases where the pregnant woman gives parental rights to her lesbian partner, only to later recognize she is not gay and dissolves the relationship. Who has the greater rights? The lady who wants nothing more to do with homosexuality, or the lady who was given adopted rights?

"Same rights as married hetero's is quite necessary" doesn't quite cut it when one's religious or speech rights in her own home is compromised by a former agreement made in a different mental state. What's needed isn't the same protections as heterosexual couples, but a totally different set of protections that are not so binding on married heteros.

I know the exact case you are referring to. No one was forcing the child to be homosexual or for the former partner to be homosexual. Vermont was simply following their own established laws. On the flip-side, I don't think this is common for homosexual relationships. I find it amusing that you consider it a "different mental state" instead of a woman who is obviously being used as a pawn in the ex-gay movement.

Now, since you know custody law, you know how fickle courts can be. Here is a similar hetero example:

I have a kid with someone who is devoutly religious. I decide to leave them but now he wants our child to follow his religion and I think his religion is a cult...who has the greater right to decide which religion the child is raised in? Religious issues aren't uncommon in divorce. The best answer I can give you is hope and pray the court makes the right decision in the best interest of the child.

edited to add:

Quote:Societies that recognize homosexual relationships, where given the same recognition as heterosexual marriage, are few and short-lived, small footnotes in the history of civilization.

That's a pathetic reason to deny it now.

C_Fresh · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 03:03 PM by C_Fresh.)

Quote:Once you are dead, a judge will decide who your children will go to unless there is a married parent still alive. You cannot will children to certain people.

Are you referring to homosexual partners or partners in general? According to what I'm read, you can appoint guardians for children and the courts only decide custody if this is not in place. Biological/adoptive parents both have automatic guardianship rights if the other partner dies. From what I see, the only thing you can't do is declare a guardian in place of the other biological parent.

http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-to-choos...1286759.bc most useful info is on p3.

lucrezaborgia · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 03:14 PM by lucrezaborgia.)

(02-10-2012 03:00 PM)C_Fresh Wrote:
Quote:Once you are dead, a judge will decide who your children will go to unless there is a married parent still alive. You cannot will children to certain people.

Are you referring to homosexual partners or partners in general? According to what I'm read, you can appoint guardians for children and the courts only decide custody if this is not in place. Biological/adoptive parents both have automatic guardianship rights if the other partner dies. From what I see, the only thing you can't do is declare a guardian in place of the other biological parent.

http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-to-choos...1286759.bc most useful info is on p3.

I'm referring to partners in general. With homosexual couples however, one of the children cannot be biologically related to the other. Not all states allow for homosexuals to adopt their partners children so adoption isn't a magic solution.

Your assertion, and that of that website, is false. A judge has the right to choose someone other than an appointed guardian.

http://www.ncbar.org/download/planningYo...ldren.html

This isn't a national site but it is reflective of family law nationwide:

Quote:With a will, you recommend to the court the person or persons you want to raise your children. The court considers your recommendation carefully and will appoint your choice unless your choice is disqualified or not in the best interests of your children. There is a strong presumption that the guardian named in a parent's will is in the best interests of the children.

If each parent names a different guardian, the court will consider the recommendation in the will of the last parent to die. If the parents die at the same time, the court relies on the most recently dated will in appointing a guardian for minor children.

A divorced parent with custody -- even sole custody -- does not have the exclusive right to name a guardian for the children. If the parent with custody dies first, the parent without custody remains a natural guardian of the children. The court does not appoint a general guardian or guardian of the person for a child who has a natural guardian unless that parent has wilfully abandoned the child. A parent cannot cut off the parental rights of an ex-spouse simply by naming someone else in a will as guardian.

**myotch** · 02-10-2012, 03:17 PM

Miscegenation has always happened as long as there have been different races. Laws regulating miscegenation had always been short lived. See: Germany, 1930's-40's.

Laws regulating the closeness of relationship prior to marriage are ancient, though not particularly universal.

Polygamy is ancient. We can see in the historical record of even Scripture that the practice was alive and well, even if merely tolerated. This is a clear case where marriage has been progressively regulated and limited, not opened up for more inclusion.

Divorce measures do not make a case for marriage. Seriously, was there an avenue - mediation, arbitration - for the divvying up of property and money upon the dissolution of a relationship prior to licensed gay unions and marriages? Certainly, if they existed before, they can continue to exist now. If they did not exist before, then there was no need for them.

Custody, inheritance, property - these can be taken care of by adoption, wills and contracts. There's not need to retrofit the wheel, here, in regards to marriage.

C_Fresh · 02-10-2012, 03:21 PM

I'm not seeing a significant difference between what I indicated and what the NC Bar says. If you name a guardian, barring any extenuating circumstances, the court will grant guardianship.

Perhaps its an issue of semantics. As in, the court only choses between A B or C if the parent never named a guardian. If A was named guardian the parental wish will be fulfilled unless there is a reason A is not fit in which case the court decides another option.

**Presbygirl** · 02-10-2012, 03:27 PM

(02-10-2012 03:09 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:
(02-10-2012 03:00 PM)C_Fresh Wrote: Are you referring to homosexual partners or partners in general? According to what I'm read, you can appoint guardians for children and the courts only decide custody if this is not in place. Biological/adoptive parents both have automatic guardianship rights if the other partner dies. From what I see, the only thing you can't do is declare a guardian in place of the other biological parent.

http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-to-choos...1286759.bc most useful info is on p3.

I'm referring to partners in general. With homosexual couples however, one of the children cannot be biologically related to the other. Not all states allow for homosexuals to adopt their partners children so adoption isn't a magic solution.

Your assertion, and that of that website, is false. A judge has the right to choose someone other than an appointed guardian.

http://www.ncbar.org/download/planningYo...ldren.html

This isn't a national site but it is reflective of family law nationwide:

Quote:With a will, you recommend to the court the person or persons you want to raise your children. The court considers your recommendation carefully and will appoint your choice unless your choice is disqualified or not in the best interests of your children. There is a strong presumption that the guardian named in a parent's will is in the best interests of the children.

If each parent names a different guardian, the court will consider the recommendation in the will of the last parent to die. If the parents die at the same time, the court relies on the most recently dated will in appointing a guardian for minor children.

A divorced parent with custody -- even sole custody -- does not have the exclusive right to name a guardian for the children. If the parent with custody dies first, the parent without custody remains a natural guardian of the children. The court does not appoint a general guardian or guardian of the person for a child who has a natural guardian unless that parent has wilfully abandoned the child. A parent cannot cut off the parental rights of an ex-spouse simply by naming someone else in a will as guardian.

Haven't we had this discussion before? True, that it doesn't not HAVE to be honored. But, It is highly UNLIKELY for a judge to decide to rule against the wishes of one or both parents in the case of death, especially when the guardian choices are capable and willing to perform the office of guardian. The court is not interested in claiming children as welfares of the state when family members are waiting to step up.

@Luc. Would you please explain what the exceptions would be where a judge would rule against the wishes of parents spelled out in wills? If it is as tentative as you seem to be making it sound, what is the point of doing a will?

lucrezaborgia · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 03:47 PM by lucrezaborgia.)

(02-10-2012 03:27 PM)Presbygirl Wrote: Haven't we had this discussion before? True, that it doesn't not HAVE to be honored. But, It is highly UNLIKELY for a judge to decide to rule against the wishes of one or both parents in the case of death, especially when the guardian choices are capable and willing to perform the office of guardian. The court is not interested in claiming children as welfares of the state when family members are waiting to step up.

@Luc. Would you please explain what the exceptions would be where a judge would rule against the wishes of parents spelled out in wills? If it is as tentative as you seem to be making it sound, what is the point of doing a will?

It's unlikely, but not impossible. The bar for removing parental rights from a natural parent is much higher than for anyone else in the system so yes, natural parents will be considered first and unless their rights have been terminated, they will most likely receive custody. The court isn't going to tell everyone to shove it and put the kid in foster care unless there are serious issues with everyone attempting to gain custody.

The exceptions are so varied that there is no way I could possibly list them all. It all hinges on "best interest" which can vary wildly from judge to judge. If a competing interest can somehow prove that they are more suitable parents for the child, they can gain custody over named guardians. The point of a will is to streamline the process. It it not an ironclad guarantee.

myotch...we're arguing in circles. I've already answered your latest issues more than once in previous threads.

edited to add: The state is more than willing to keep children in state custody. There are large federal subsidies for children in foster care and the state of Missouri has kept my husband's daughter in foster care for more than a year even though he has been more than willing to obtain custody AND we have passed all of the requirements for placement.