Comments on: Percentage of American Couples Protected http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:36:05 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jason Marsden http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37899 Jason Marsden Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:15:57 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37899 Hi Timothy, I don't know of any case law yet in Wyoming; the lesbian couple in Gillette, whose CS-T story appears to have dropped off the Web entirely, were trying to navigate the spousal benefits system with a private company some years back after being wed in Canada, but I don't recall it ever getting to court. And Wyoming has no income tax so there's no joint-filing issues possible under state law. It's still ripe to be ruled on but legislators who oppose gay marriage clearly feel that the "foreign marriages" statute potentially stands alone. So it probably is somewhere on the continuum from "undetermined" to "out-of-state-only recognized." Hi Timothy,
I don’t know of any case law yet in Wyoming; the lesbian couple in Gillette, whose CS-T story appears to have dropped off the Web entirely, were trying to navigate the spousal benefits system with a private company some years back after being wed in Canada, but I don’t recall it ever getting to court. And Wyoming has no income tax so there’s no joint-filing issues possible under state law. It’s still ripe to be ruled on but legislators who oppose gay marriage clearly feel that the “foreign marriages” statute potentially stands alone. So it probably is somewhere on the continuum from “undetermined” to “out-of-state-only recognized.”

]]> By: Aaron http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37898 Aaron Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:11:55 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37898 No state offers all the benefits of marriage by another name. Separate not being equal, if it's not called marriage, it doesn't offer all the benefits -- as that New Jersey civil unions commission study found last year. No state offers all the benefits of marriage by another name. Separate not being equal, if it’s not called marriage, it doesn’t offer all the benefits — as that New Jersey civil unions commission study found last year.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37887 Timothy Kincaid Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:36:27 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37887 grantdale and Jason L My wording is "...live in a <b>state</b> that offers..." States do not offer federal rights, priveleges, benefits, obligations, or protections. The states listed do, however, offer the same <b>state-level</b> rights to covenanted same-sex couples as they do to heterosexual married couples. grantdale and Jason L

My wording is “…live in a state that offers…”

States do not offer federal rights, priveleges, benefits, obligations, or protections. The states listed do, however, offer the same state-level rights to covenanted same-sex couples as they do to heterosexual married couples.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37886 Timothy Kincaid Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:29:57 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37886 Jason, It is not out of population size or status that I missed Wyoming. I'd simply never heard this before. Do you know if your friends (or any other same-sex married couple) have attempted to get any form of state recognition (perhaps jointly filing taxes) of their marriage? What was the response? And has any legal opinion been given about whether the language of the law ("Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female person...") specifically excludes foreign same-sex marriages ("marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted")? In other words, has the argument <i>"It's not a valid foreign marriage because </i>it isn't a marriage at all<i> as defined by this state"</i> been addressed? Perhaps we should consider adding Wyoming to the "not fully determined" category. Jason,

It is not out of population size or status that I missed Wyoming. I’d simply never heard this before.

Do you know if your friends (or any other same-sex married couple) have attempted to get any form of state recognition (perhaps jointly filing taxes) of their marriage? What was the response?

And has any legal opinion been given about whether the language of the law (”Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female person…”) specifically excludes foreign same-sex marriages (”marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted”)?

In other words, has the argument “It’s not a valid foreign marriage because it isn’t a marriage at all as defined by this state” been addressed?

Perhaps we should consider adding Wyoming to the “not fully determined” category.

]]> By: Jason L. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37864 Jason L. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:09:43 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37864 Timothy, A far greater inaccuracy than the ones discussed here is the one grantdale brought up. The way your post reads now, it leaves the impression that same-sex couples in the SSM states plus CA, OR, NJ, and NH have the same rights as opposite-sex couples, which is false. People ask me (here in MA) whether I intend to marry my (German) partner of five years, and I have to explain that our marrying would jeopardize his student visa, as it would indicate a desire on his part to immigrate to the U.S. permanently. U.S. citizens can sponsor their spouses for permanent immigration, but only if the federal gov't recognizes them as a spouse. With the federal DOMA, it is not possible for any state to recognize a same-sex union such that the spouses have the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Timothy,

A far greater inaccuracy than the ones discussed here is the one grantdale brought up. The way your post reads now, it leaves the impression that same-sex couples in the SSM states plus CA, OR, NJ, and NH have the same rights as opposite-sex couples, which is false. People ask me (here in MA) whether I intend to marry my (German) partner of five years, and I have to explain that our marrying would jeopardize his student visa, as it would indicate a desire on his part to immigrate to the U.S. permanently. U.S. citizens can sponsor their spouses for permanent immigration, but only if the federal gov’t recognizes them as a spouse. With the federal DOMA, it is not possible for any state to recognize a same-sex union such that the spouses have the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

]]> By: Jason Marsden http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37852 Jason Marsden Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:35:34 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37852 Timothy, For starters take a look at a key portion of Title 20 of Wyoming State Statute (the Domestic Relations title): http://michie.lexisnexis.com/wyoming/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm: § 20-1-111. Foreign marriages. All marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state. (C.L. 1876, ch. 81, § 17; R.S. 1887, § 1557; R.S. 1899, § 2971; C.S. 1910, § 3907; C.S. 1920, § 4971; R.S. 1931, § 68-117; C.S. 1945, § 50-118; W.S. 1957, § 20-21; Laws 1977, ch. 152, § 1; Rev. W.S. 1957, § 20-1-111.) ---As a note, "country" by separate Wyoming case law under this Title is considered to include "state" within the U.S. as well as countries such as Canada etc., where of course same-sex marriages have been issued to Wyoming couples (I know one couple personally who have done so, and another via Casper-Star Tribune story, which I won't link to for sake of their privacy). Secondly I would point you to this separate Casper Star-Tribune article, and specifically the third paragraph, which represents the general consensus about the meaning of the above statute: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/02/07/news/wyoming/4358731527d0459f87257556000617e0.txt "Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states." Hope that is along the lines of what you were looking for. And many thanks for your interest, Timothy. We are a bit overlooked here by blogs and media, I daresay, because we are so small and have such a small media presence. Timothy,
For starters take a look at a key portion of Title 20 of Wyoming State Statute (the Domestic Relations title):
http://michie.lexisnexis.com/wyoming/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm:

§ 20-1-111. Foreign marriages.

All marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state.

(C.L. 1876, ch. 81, § 17; R.S. 1887, § 1557; R.S. 1899, § 2971; C.S. 1910, § 3907; C.S. 1920, § 4971; R.S. 1931, § 68-117; C.S. 1945, § 50-118; W.S. 1957, § 20-21; Laws 1977, ch. 152, § 1; Rev. W.S. 1957, § 20-1-111.)

—As a note, “country” by separate Wyoming case law under this Title is considered to include “state” within the U.S. as well as countries such as Canada etc., where of course same-sex marriages have been issued to Wyoming couples (I know one couple personally who have done so, and another via Casper-Star Tribune story, which I won’t link to for sake of their privacy).

Secondly I would point you to this separate Casper Star-Tribune article, and specifically the third paragraph, which represents the general consensus about the meaning of the above statute:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/02/07/news/wyoming/4358731527d0459f87257556000617e0.txt

“Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states.”

Hope that is along the lines of what you were looking for. And many thanks for your interest, Timothy. We are a bit overlooked here by blogs and media, I daresay, because we are so small and have such a small media presence.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37839 Timothy Kincaid Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:13:10 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37839 Jason, There seems to be a bit of ambiguity but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Wyoming" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia article</a> does not leave one with the impression that out of state marriages are or may be recognized. Nor does the <a href="http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/states/WY.cfm" rel="nofollow">Marriage Watch</a> site. Do you have a source I can link to which will clarify that Wyoming does (or may) recognize out of state marriages? Jason,

There seems to be a bit of ambiguity but the Wikipedia article does not leave one with the impression that out of state marriages are or may be recognized. Nor does the Marriage Watch site.

Do you have a source I can link to which will clarify that Wyoming does (or may) recognize out of state marriages?

]]> By: Jason Marsden http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37833 Jason Marsden Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:17:44 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37833 With our tiny population, it doesn't affect the statistics at all, but you may not be aware that Wyoming is still among the states where out-of-jurisdiction marriages not legal by Wyoming law but legal where issued, are still legal here. You left us off the list. Check out Google on the 2007 statutory, and 2009 constitutional, bans that both failed in the Legislature. It was amazing, and the audio of the extremely moving floor debate is archived online at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2009/audio/house/h0206am1.mp3. The debate starts at 1:41:50 and ends at 2:45:34. With our tiny population, it doesn’t affect the statistics at all, but you may not be aware that Wyoming is still among the states where out-of-jurisdiction marriages not legal by Wyoming law but legal where issued, are still legal here. You left us off the list. Check out Google on the 2007 statutory, and 2009 constitutional, bans that both failed in the Legislature. It was amazing, and the audio of the extremely moving floor debate is archived online at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2009/audio/house/h0206am1.mp3. The debate starts at 1:41:50 and ends at 2:45:34.

]]> By: Dara http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37829 Dara Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:10:33 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37829 Washington State is I think... one vote away from moving from category three above up to category two, with SB 5688 amending the existing DP law to theoretically equal treatment across all state law. The governor is expected to sign the bill once it passes the House after second reading. You can follow status on that here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009#documents Washington State is I think… one vote away from moving from category three above up to category two, with SB 5688 amending the existing DP law to theoretically equal treatment across all state law. The governor is expected to sign the bill once it passes the House after second reading.

You can follow status on that here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009#documents

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/07/10486/comment-page-1#comment-37821 Timothy Kincaid Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:52:14 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10486#comment-37821 BobN, There's nothing wrong with insisting on accuracy... providing that you are correct. It has been my understanding that over the past few years the CA legislature and governor have been tweaking the law to track down any final previously unidentified differences and resolving them. I believe that they are currently unaware of any rights, benefits, obligations, or priveleges that are present in marriage that are not present in Domestic Partnerships. (There are some difference in requirements to enter a DP) You, however, may know better. So please kindly provide a list and I'll forward it to Sacramento. BobN,

There’s nothing wrong with insisting on accuracy… providing that you are correct.

It has been my understanding that over the past few years the CA legislature and governor have been tweaking the law to track down any final previously unidentified differences and resolving them.

I believe that they are currently unaware of any rights, benefits, obligations, or priveleges that are present in marriage that are not present in Domestic Partnerships. (There are some difference in requirements to enter a DP)

You, however, may know better. So please kindly provide a list and I’ll forward it to Sacramento.

]]>