Effective June 26, 2015, same-sex marriage is legal in all US states and territories, although most states started earlier as follows:
These non-state US jurisdictions have also legalized same-sex marriage:
Sadly, Gay Marriage is illegal in Thailand.
Yes. The state of New Jersey began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on October 21, 2013.
Currently there are also domestic partnerships and civil unions available within New Jersey. A civil union provides more rights than a domestic partnership. People in civil unions have all the same state benefits as married couples, but none of the federal benefits.
The most objective answer is that we haven't heard her take a stance on same-sex marriage at all. That's all.
In Western cultures you cannot force a person to stay married to you or to stay in a civil partnership. Your only option is to convince your partner to attend counseling in order to determine the reasons for their desire to leave and determine if the relationship can be saved. Otherwise, your partner is free to go.
The procedure depends on the laws of the state where you want to dissolve the union. If your jurisdiction recognizes civil unions or domestic partnerships then it will have dissolution laws, too. If you were registered in one state and moved to another you will need to check the laws of the state where you are presently domiciled. Keep in mind that state laws regarding civil unions differ and they have different procedures for dissolution. For same sex legally recognized relationships you must check the laws in your jurisdiction.
Some states do not recognize same-sex unions, and therefore will not grant legal dissolutions to such unions.
Many large companies these days offer insurance for a "significant other" instead of a spouse. Speak to the insurance company directly for this information.
This is possible, but there are some issues to consider: 1) If the employer group is purchasing their health insurance from a carrier, there will likely be state laws and carrier rules to this. Each state regulates the insurance carriers within their state.
2) If this is a large company of 300+ employees, they probably 'self-insure.' This exempts them from state insurance laws and the employer gets to make most of the decisions.
3) WARNING: IF the employer pays any portion of your premium, they are required by federal law to consider the amount of money that they (the employer) pay towards your (the significant other) insurance premiums as taxable income to your boyfriend.
For example, if the employer pays 50% of the cost for dependents and the premium cost for adding you is $300 per month, then the employer pays $150 and your boyfriend will have $150 per month deducted from his pay. But he will also have the income taxes on the $150 the employer contributes deducted, too.
There is a complex reasoning the fed gov't has for requiring this. It has to do with the fact that significant others are not afforded the same tax status as spouses.
yeah,that,s how God intended it to be!
Using the argument, "This is the way it's always been, and so this is the way it should always be," is an illogical argument. Just because things were done a certain way in the past is NOT a real reason to continue those things. In the past mothers put their babies to sleep on their stomachs, but scientific evidence has shown that this practice leads to higher rates of SIDS. So, now, mothers are encouraged to put their babies to sleep on their backs. Good thing! In the past, if a person showed signs of mental illness, a drill was taken to their skull to let the "bad spirits" out. Things change. Society changes. Marriage is a legal thing that has to go through a court licensing process to be recognized by the government. Then, many people have their religious ceremonies to celebrate the union. The government has no control over the religious aspect of marriage, as our government takes the stance of a separation of church and state. Whether you are a pagan, a Christian, or whatever, you can become married. So, God's opinion on marriage should not play into what the United States of America (or it's individual states) decides concerning marriage.
Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The ninth amendment implies that if the right to gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, that does not mean it is denied to citizens.
The implication is that since marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution (either directly or indirectly), it cannot be regulated by either the Federal or State governments, and remains an inherent natural right of the citizen.
The current legal reading of the Constitution with respect to marriage is that the 9th Amendment allows for regulation of marriage by the States, but, as of Loving v Virginia (1967), marriage is considered a fundamental right of the people, and thus, any attempts to regulate marriage by the States must pass the Strict Scrutiny test for Constitutionality. The question is whether or not restrictions on same-sex marriage can pass this Strict Scrutiny test which the 9th Amendment requires of the States.
Gay marriages tend to have fewer children. Therefore, overpopulation is slightly slowed by having more gay marriages, benefiting everyone.
Gay people in gay marriages statistically tend to be healthier and happier than single gay people. Married gay people provide less strain on health care systems and are more productive than single gay persons statistically.
This last piece is true because gay marriage is crucial for a fully efficient economy. If a whole section of society, gays and lesbians in this case, are left without marriage, then the economy isn't functioning at its peak.
If children are being raised by gay parents, the parents are less likely to separate if they are legally married. Children raised by multiple parents do better in multiple areas than those raised by a single parent.
Allowing gay marriage also provides the image of equality to all people, as well as furthering the idea of equality among all people.
Societal sanctioning of same-sex bonds decreases the likelihood that homosexual men and women are pressured to marry opposite-sex partners - a situation that has been the historical cause of huge levels of distress and misery. People marry because they want to, not because they feel they must.
Gay children of heterosexual parents need not feel alienated or isolated because there is an alternative relationship model available to them.
Cohabitation is more cost-effective, reduces pressure on housing and leads to economic stability.
The main-streaming and normalisation of same-sex relationships could reduce the ghetto-isation of homosexuality that has been a factor in some of the excesses of the gay 'life-stle' and resulting homophobic violence.
An inclusive society benefits all its members. "Civilisation is the encouragement of differences." Gandhi
Opinions from contributors:
Arguments For (Pros)
Yes. On May 9, 2012, President Obama announced that he supports same-sex marriage, three days after Vice President Biden suddenly announced that he was "perfectly comfortable" with marriage equality, and believed that gay men and lesbians should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. The president explained that he had "evolved" on the issue, and that his wife and daughters encouraged him to change his view.
President Obama now favors the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." In the past, Mr. Obama had stated that he was opposed to same-sex marriage, a view he continued to express when he was campaigning for the presidency in 2008. He had stated previously that his religious belief led him to a traditional view of marriage, that it should be between a man and a woman only. On the other hand, Mr. Obama did support civil unions at that time. It should also be noted that although the president now supports marriage equality, he does not believe religious institutions should be forced to perform ceremonies that run counter to their beliefs. What he supports is civil marriage.
Yes, Yahoo offers the same benefits to domestic partners (both same-sex and opposite sex) as it does to spouses.
No. In fact, homosexual activity is illegal in Malaysia.
I believe that currently no insurance companies HAVE to extend benefits for partners. That is one of the many issues concerning gay marriage because by legalizing marriage between couples of the same gender, it would give recognition to the spouse. This would therefore require insurance companies to offer insurance coverage for the recognized significant other. However, that's not to say that forward thinking insurance companies don't exist in the United States. Browse websites for insurance companies in your area, many of them will include information on benefits for same-sex couples. For example, my car insurance company (Geico) offers the same discounted insurance rates given to married couples to myself and my significant other. While they may only be seeing the dollar sign and not the politics, it's nice to know there are companies out there that can be ahead of the curve. It is not a legal requirement for any insurer to offer such choices. Insurers are not legally bound to insure anyone and can avoid discrimination laws by the use of the company's definition of who qualifies as insurable. This is one of the reason for so many "redlining" suits and similar litigation. In some state (like California) there are domestic partners laws that do require extension of benefits. There are precise definitions and guidelines that must be followed however. For instance, if a medical insurance policy is issued in CA then they must offer domestic partner coverage. However, if you work for a company headquartered out of CA and the polciy is issued in that state, even though it is insuring individuals in CA it does not have to extend the coverage since the policy was not issued there. �California Insurance Equality Act,� provides additional benefits to the registered domestic partners of employees in California and imposes additional benefit requirements on insurance companies. The law requires all health care service plans and health insurance policies, as well as all other insurance policies regulated by the California Department of Insurance, to provide benefits to registered domestic partners of employees equal to the benefits that are offered to spouses of employees. The law is effective for health care service plans (HMOs) and health insurance policies issued, amended delivered or renewed in California after January 1, 2005, which means the law will be effective for calendar year insured health plans January 1, 2006. However, the law applies to all other insurance policies issued on or after January 1, 2005, so it would apply for the 2005 year for such policies. A.B. 2208 does not apply to self-insured plans or to insurance policies that are not regulated by the California Department of Insurance.
its a relationship between two people, that aren't married. Usually domestic partnership is referring to a relationship of homosexuals
Two people that are not married, that have set up a home together. It can be a heterosexual couple (a man and a woman), or it can be a gay or lesbian couple.
Registered domestic partnerships were created to address parties that were living together in a committed relationship but were not legally married. Depending upon the laws governing the partnership, parties could acquire certain rights and benefits by entering into such a partnership agreement. These partnerships are used mostly by municipalities although a few states do have statewide registries. Most commonly used by same-sex couples, a registered partnership is basically a public declaration of the union between the two parties. Some partnerships contain extremely broad language, providing for adoption rights, health benefits and other legal rights normally granted to married couples. Still others however are considerably narrow, acting as nothing more than an acknowledgement of the union with little to no legal rights.
Absolutely not! Scripture spells out marriage as a union between one man and one woman.Answer
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to same sex marriage. Apparently the church (along with many people, such as the first contributor) only has a shallow understanding of the scripture. The parts of the Bible that seem to condemn homosexuality don't. Go to the following page to find out why. I don't feel like writing it all out if it's readily available already somewhere else. See link below:Catholic AnswerAttached below are some documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it was headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected to the chair of Peter as Pope Benedict XVI. This reflect orthodox Christian teaching and the doctrine of the Church as it has been held for the entire twenty plus centuries of its existence. In particular the Holy Father noted, in his releases, that all people, including homosexuals are made in the image and likeness of God, and that we are all responsible for our fellow man, and his welfare. Therefore homosexual individuals are to be treated with compassion and respect. However, as with all sin, and all sexual acts that are performed outside of marriage and outside of the dual objectives of God, to further the love between a man and a woman, AND to beget new life - all other sexual activities are sins; and, in particular, homosexual acts are "gravely disordered." Thus the Holy Father is trying to instruct both those who are trying to find a way to deal with their disordered passions, while at the same time those who are dealing with the homosexuals, whether in their family, their neighborhood, friends, or country. The Catholic Church can never condone sin either in the homosexual or in the person dealing with the homosexual. Please see the links below.
Same sex marriage is legal in 21 countries as of 2016:
In addition, it is recognized but not performed in 7 countries/jurisdictions:
No, civil unions and domestic partnerships are not legally defined in Missouri.
No, there is no legal recognition of same-sex unions in Panama, a civil unions bill having been defeated in 2004. In 2014, Panama enacted a law specifically denying recognition to same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Yes. Same-sex marriage is legal in Delaware effective July 1, 2013.
Previously, same-sex couples were able to obtain Civil Unions in Delaware effective January 1, 2012.
The following countries have legalized same-sex marriage in all locations:
-The United States of America
-Finland (The law was signed in 2015, but will not be effective until 2017)
-England and Wales
No. There is no specific legal recognition of civil unions, although some heterosexual domestic partnerships are recognized.
Although there are some Democrats who oppose same-sex marriage, most Democrats now support marriage equality.
In 2012, the official Party Platform of the Democratic Party included the legalization of same-sex marriage.
No. The Liberal Party of Australia does not support same-sex marriage. The Liberal Party, under former PM John Howard, amended the Marriage Act in 2004 to define legal marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples who marry legally overseas are thus not recognised in Australia. The present Liberal leader, Tony Abbott, opposes same-sex marriage.
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.