Are you married?

[+ purplekow]

Posters here frequently mention being married to a woman. A few posters have mentioned having a partner. in view of today's events, I am curious are there any male posters here with husbands? And to those who are single, do you envision yourself getting married to a man?

 

I was intellectually gladdened by today's decisions. i have not been emotionally moved by these decisions in the manner i would have expected. I believe this is so partially because although I firmly believe in the rights of same sex couples to marry, I do not ever envision myself marrying and therefore I do no feel a close personal connection to this issue. I suppose it is the difference one feels when his best friend calls "bingo" as to the feeling of calling "bingo" oneself.

[tyro]

Hey, as a straight broad, I still cried!!

But it's OK that you didn't, PK.

T

[+ purplekow]

Hey, as a straight broad, I still cried!!

But it's OK that you didn't, PK.

T

Tyro, I cry at Hallmark commercials, Home Makeovers and weddings of all kinds. I cried for joy with this, but it felt a bit disconnected.

[Decatur Guy]

I'm not married -- to a man or woman. And I feel a bit like you do. Residing in the Deep South, I'm still several legal and legislative decisions and probably decades away from doing it unless I move to a Blue State and fall in love.

[Diverdan]

I have many male friends who are married to other males and many male friends who would love to be married, but live in states that do not yet recognize gay marriage. I am not personally affected by this change, but I am so thrilled for my friends, especially those who have adopted children, are raising them in a loving household, and have the incomes to support these children through college, graduate school or help them start in a business. I do hope I live long enough for this to become the law in every state in the union, even if we have to kick Texas back to Mexico to make this happen... (sorry, Texas friends, but you have a nut for a governor and most of the state legislators also qualify for a similar title..IMHO of course.)

[Tommygunzz]

I have never been married. But, I have lived with my (same sex) partner for 33 years. We have lived in TX since 1988, and neither of us think that same sex marriage has much of a chance here. I'm really encouraged by today's Supreme Court rulings--it's epic. We have talked about tying the knot, but neither of us really think we need the recognition of our union to be sanctified by a marriage ceremony. We feel like we have covered ourselves legally in the progression of our estates to each other with wills, power of attorney and medical powers of attorney for each other. I'm supremely happy with today's events, but I don't see how much changes for us.

[Kevin Slater]

I was intellectually gladdened by today's decisions. i have not been emotionally moved by these decisions in the manner i would have expected. I believe this is so partially because although I firmly believe in the rights of same sex couples to marry, I do not ever envision myself marrying and therefore I do no feel a close personal connection to this issue. I suppose it is the difference one feels when his best friend calls "bingo" as to the feeling of calling "bingo" oneself.

 

One need not ever marry to benefit from today's ruling. By affirming fifth amendment rights of life and liberty upon the LGB community, the court establishes precedent against any manner of law which seeks to discriminate against gays. This case happened to involve marriage, but the protections affirmed therein likely apply just as well to employment discrimination, healthcare policy, criminal and family law, etc. Just as one doesn't need to use contraception to benefit from Griswold v. Connecticut's establishment of the constitutional right to privacy, one needn't walk down the aisle in order to benefit from the underlying rationale and precedent of this case.

 

Kevin Slater

[rvwnsd]

One of my heterosexual co-workers told me that her first reaction on hearing the news was "That's great! Today is a great day to be gay." Upon further reflection, she decided it was still great news, but that it was a great day for everyone because equality benefits all.

[uwsman2]

Depending how the Obama Administration interprets the DOMA decision, it may pay for some same-sex couples who live in states that don't recognize same-sex couples to get married anyway. (The states that do have same-sex marriage do not have residency requirements to get married.) The reason is that your marriage would be recognized for purposes of federal law even if your state does not recognize it - if the Obama Administration decides to interpret it that way. My understanding is that, for example, bi-national couples will benefit from the marriage rules under immigration law because they decide whether a couple is legally married based on the place where they married, not the place where they are living. Getting a green card under the marital rules is a big deal - a pathway to citizenship. Of course, one federal consequence of being married is the so-called "marriage penalty" that occurs when a couple's combined income puts them in a higher tax bracket than would apply to their single filings. So some careful analysis is needed.

 

My partner of 30+ years and I got married three years ago. We actually saved some money by filing our NY state income tax jointly. But we expect to pay the federal marriage penalty next year.

[Rapaz]

nope, I don't plan on getting married until after I turn 29 I guess.

[+ Robster]

My husband and I got married twice. Once in Canada back in 2006, after they legalized same-sex marriage, and then again here in California in 2008, when they briefly did the same. Fortunately, even after Prop. 8 passed, our marriage was still legally recognized. SO thrilled about the wonderful news today!!

 

Rob

[+ Charlie]

My partner and I have never felt the emotional need for marriage. However, as we grow old, we are becoming concerned about the financial and legal disadvantages of not being legally married. The DOMA decision is what decided us that we probably will take that step as soon as marriages start again in California. First we need to find a lawyer to draw up the pre-nup.

[leigh.bess.toad]

Being married to a woman and having a loving, committed partner, at the same time, seems to be unique. Would I love to marry him? You bet. I've asked him. But he's been out all his life and I guess the idea of marriage is a strange concept for him because it was never really saw it as a possibility. So for now, unless I can get that stubborn mule to change his mind, we won't. But it really doesn't matter because I do love him anyway, and I'll wait.

 

Robster -- I was thinking of you and your husband today.

 

We went out tonight. We were going to go to a bar with a party sponsored by one of our local gay groups. Instead we went to what has almost become our "home" bar. Our local neighborhood lesbian bar. Wednesday night is our night anyway, cause it's karaoke night. It's normally not too crowded but we know everyone (and they know us in spite of us being the odd old gay couple). But tonight when we walked in, it was wall to wall people. Gay, lesbian, packed. There was seemingly a need to get out, to celebrate, to be with "family". The smiles, the joy, the triumph tonight was simply incredible. Even though we didn't stay long, it was a night I won't forget for a long, long time.

[Irtwo]

My partner of 30+ years and I got married three years ago. We actually saved some money by filing our NY state income tax jointly. But we expect to pay the federal marriage penalty next year.

 

Even married, you can still file separately.

[sfguy]

I was intellectually gladdened by today's decisions. i have not been emotionally moved by these decisions in the manner i would have expected. I believe this is so partially because although I firmly believe in the rights of same sex couples to marry, I do not ever envision myself marrying and therefore I do no feel a close personal connection to this issue. I suppose it is the difference one feels when his best friend calls "bingo" as to the feeling of calling "bingo" oneself.

This is how I feel as well. I'm pleased with the outcome of the decisions, but they don't move me in the same way Lawrence v. Texas did when it was decided exactly 10 years ago, to the day. I think it's also in part because it doesn't feel as transformative as Lawrence did. The Lawrence decision overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, which was a major blow to the gay community which was already reeling from the AIDS epidemic. The Supreme Court does not take overruling its own precedents lightly so Lawrence was truly a major shift. Justice Kennedy's statement, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled," still fills me emotion. The Court refused to give Bowers any legitimacy. The Court did not simply say, "We've changed our mind," or, "Society has changed." Instead, the Court said Bowers was simply wrong.

 

Lawrence signaled that we were on the verge of a sea change with regard to gay and lesbian rights. And look how much has changed. Just ten years ago, our most intimate expressions were criminal. There is still a long road ahead, but the pace of change has been rapid.

 

Yet despite that quick pace, today's decisions feel like just another incremental step on that road to equality. So while I'm happy with the results, I just don't feel those emotions you feel when you feel like the entire world has just changed.

[+ deej]

Yet despite that quick pace, today's decisions feel like just another incremental step on that road to equality. So while I'm happy with the results, I just don't feel those emotions you feel when you feel like the entire world has just changed.

 

I think you underestimate the scope of the DOMA ruling and what it means going forward. As Kevin Slater said above:

 

One need not ever marry to benefit from today's ruling. By affirming fifth amendment rights of life and liberty upon the LGB community, the court establishes precedent against any manner of law which seeks to discriminate against gays. This case happened to involve marriage, but the protections affirmed therein likely apply just as well to employment discrimination, healthcare policy, criminal and family law, etc. Just as one doesn't need to use contraception to benefit from Griswold v. Connecticut's establishment of the constitutional right to privacy, one needn't walk down the aisle in order to benefit from the underlying rationale and precedent of this case.

 

Kevin Slater

 

This case will now be cited in every state-level battle against anti-gay laws, or in favor of pro-gay policies.

 

While I've never been particularly tempted by marriage, it was still galling not to be eligible. I still got a little misty-eyed reading the decision which very clearly says the government cannot discriminate against gays just because they're gay. That's a HUGE precedent.

[+ poolboy48220]

Depending how the Obama Administration interprets the DOMA decision, it may pay for some same-sex couples who live in states that don't recognize same-sex couples to get married anyway. (The states that do have same-sex marriage do not have residency requirements to get married.) The reason is that your marriage would be recognized for purposes of federal law even if your state does not recognize it - if the Obama Administration decides to interpret it that way. My understanding is that, for example, bi-national couples will benefit from the marriage rules under immigration law because they decide whether a couple is legally married based on the place where they married, not the place where they are living. Getting a green card under the marital rules is a big deal - a pathway to citizenship. Of course, one federal consequence of being married is the so-called "marriage penalty" that occurs when a couple's combined income puts them in a higher tax bracket than would apply to their single filings. So some careful analysis is needed.

 

My partner of 30+ years and I got married three years ago. We actually saved some money by filing our NY state income tax jointly. But we expect to pay the federal marriage penalty next year.

I heard the green card position on the radio this morning as well. I had been wondering about friends of mine, here in Michigan, who got married in Canada three years ago. Same-sex marriage is still illegal in Michigan. Sounds like they will be eligible for federal benefits, if not state. And there's a lot of talk about putting Michigan's ban on the ballot again in 2016.

[Phil_musc]

This is how I feel as well. I'm pleased with the outcome of the decisions, but they don't move me in the same way Lawrence v. Texas did when it was decided exactly 10 years ago, to the day. I think it's also in part because it doesn't feel as transformative as Lawrence did. The Lawrence decision overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, which was a major blow to the gay community which was already reeling from the AIDS epidemic. The Supreme Court does not take overruling its own precedents lightly so Lawrence was truly a major shift. Justice Kennedy's statement, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled," still fills me emotion. The Court refused to give Bowers any legitimacy. The Court did not simply say, "We've changed our mind," or, "Society has changed." Instead, the Court said Bowers was simply wrong.

 

Lawrence signaled that we were on the verge of a sea change with regard to gay and lesbian rights. And look how much has changed. Just ten years ago, our most intimate expressions were criminal. There is still a long road ahead, but the pace of change has been rapid.

 

Yet despite that quick pace, today's decisions feel like just another incremental step on that road to equality. So while I'm happy with the results, I just don't feel those emotions you feel when you feel like the entire world has just changed.

 

+1. It's a step forward, but my life hasn't really changed because of these decisions. On the other hand, this shouldn't be minimized - if the decisions had gone the other way, any progressive momentum would have been significantly set back.

[+ Charlie]

I was relieved rather than thrilled by yesterday's decisions. Sec. 3 of DOMA may have been the key issue for many of us, but the majority ruling left the other provisions of DOMA still standing, and they will provide ammunition for many future lawsuits, which could go against us. I was disappointed in the Prop. 8 reasoning if not the result: I thought Kennedy's argument in favor of granting standing to the proponents of Prop. 8 was correct, and would have given the court the chance to rule on the validity of the lower courts' arguments against Prop. 8. Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan bailed on that one, which leaves me wondering what they really think on the subject (Ginsberg had already hinted that she preferred a "political" solution, which sounds like support for Prop. 8 on its merits).

 

By the way, has anyone seen any info on what these decisions mean for those who are in registered domestic partnerships or civil unions in those states that don't allow marriage?

[+ deej]

By the way, has anyone seen any info on what these decisions mean for those who are in registered domestic partnerships or civil unions in those states that don't allow marriage?

 

IIRC, the decision contains some pretty precise language that the federal government will now recognize same sex marriages in states that allow it. IOW, not applicable in the rest of the states.

 

Activists have been activisting for several years that civil unions are the modern equivalent of "separate but equal" and not acceptable. Civil unions are not marriage.

[uwsman2]

This decision provides strong arguments to use in civil union/domestic partnership states that those statuses violate equal protection because they will not have federal rights recognition. In fact, I read on-line today that Lambda Legal, which has a same-sex marriage lawsuit going in N.J., is going to file a motion for summary judgment making that argument. Now that marriage gets federal rights, N.J. civil unions are plainly inferior to N.J. marriages.

[trilingual]

Yes, I'm married now. I met my Brazilian husband online on Gaydar. At the time I was in the U.S. for several months. My initial interest was strictly sexual -- he was exactly my type, and, to my surprise, he was willing to consider a 60 year old when he was just 28. Fortunately, the distance obliged us to get to know each other as we kept chatting online. After a few weeks it was becoming apparent that we were both looking for the same things in life and with another person, and the initial physical attraction began to turn into something more serious. We agreed to meet in his hometown when i got back to Brazil to see if this was for real or if we were just fantasizing. The visit went wonderfully and we realized that this WAS for real. A few months later he moved to Rio and moved in with me and, seven years later, we're still together! For most of that time he was unsuccessful in getting a U.S. visitor's visa so I had to go to Brazil to be with him after I had to move back to the U.S., but he finally got one last year after Pres. Obama ordered the consulates to ease up on the denials. While he was here last summer we went to New York and decided to get married there, figuring that DOMA was likely to be overturned and he'd be eligible for a permanent residence visa as my spouse when that finally happened. Well, it did happen on Wednesday and we'll be starting the visa application process soon. And there you have one guy's story!

 

As it happens, I live in a non-marriage state, so for the time being we will not enjoy any of the legal benefits of marriage that arise from state law. But we will have virtually all the 1000+ federal benefits. There are a few, like eligibility for Social Security survivor benefits, that are determined by your marital status under the law of your state of residence. In the case of Social Security that's part of the statute, so it'll be difficult to change that immediately with this Congress. But for the vast majority of federal benefits eligibility is simply based on whether or not you're legally married, so my husband will be able to get his green card as my spouse and, if it's advantageous, we can file our federal taxes jointly. Since I'm a retired federal employee I'll also be able to add my husband to my health plans and perhaps set up a survivor's benefit on my pension for him (if it doesn't reduce my current pension too much -- it may not be advantageous because the reductions are calculated based on the difference in ages, I understand). But until our state anti-marriage amendment is overturned, we won't have the automatic inheritance rights or next-of-kin rights for health care purposes that other married couples have. If we absolutely decide we need those, or if we were in the position of needing Social Security survivor benefits, we'd have to move to a marriage state to be fully equal in all ways. But it's very likely that full equality in all states will come in the next five years or so -- maybe less! It's a shame that U.S. law doesn't absolutely require states to recognize the marriages of other states (as is the case in virtually all other countries with a federal system) but we'll get there soon enough!

[dfw2sfo]

I'm not married yet but suspect I will. I am about 3 years away from retirement and have a pension. In order for my surviving spouse to get benefits should I die first, we would need to be married. It's more of a practical thing for me. Until it is federally recognized, there wasn't much incentive to do so.