Carteret Title
DRN Title Search
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


William Pattison 's Blog

Civil Records, Probate, Title and Same Sex Marriage Collide at Supreme Court
by William Pattison | 2015/01/28 |

   Same-sex marriage, gay marriage, or any other name assigned to couples of the same gender living in a domestic union has given rise to a number of social matters that civil law is attempting to catch up with.  The US Supreme Court may lay some of these concerns to rest soon, as it has agreed to hear the matter of legalizing these unions across the nation.

William Pattison 's Blog ::

   With such unions legally valid in 34 states and many Western countries, it appears that the slow but inexorable tide of history is in favor of legalization.

 

  A case of a gay couple in New York who adopted a child born in Ohio demonstrates a need in one instance for an update to civil laws.  The new parents are unable to acquire a proper amended birth certificate from Ohio.  While their marriage is registered and proper in the State of New York, the State of Ohio on the other hand does not recognize gay marriage and as such will not effect the proper birth certificate amendment upon adoption that every other child is entitle to have.  This creates a tangle of problems for that child when he gets old enough to go to school, and engage in all of the assorted civic activities that others are allowed to do.

  Indeed, even his ability to act as nearest relative for a sick parent could be denied as has occurred in some cases with people bearing explicit, written power of attorney paperwork.   Furthermore, the right of inheritance could be called into question, given that a parental connection is not established by way of a simple, amended civic document.

  Let us be clear:  same sex marriage did not cause this problem.  The refusal of public officials to honor the affirmed, fundamental rights of a class of people contribute to this situation.  It will take bold action by the Court to move society into the 21st Century, but we'll all get there.

 




Rating: 

438 words | 4402 views | 14 comments | log in or register to post a comment


A "See I Told You So" Moment...


For those of you who believe that "slippery slope" arguments are without merit... 

Woman Plans To Marry Father After 2 Years Of Dating

Anyone want to venture a guess as to what "bold action" the courts will take on this one?

 
by Scott Perry | 2015/01/29 | log in or register to post a reply

Let me ease your troubled mind, Scott...

No bold action will be taken.  This hardly takes any guesswork on my part.  There is no constitutency for legalizing parent/child marriages, and no reason to believe that there will ever be one.  A marriage between a father and a child is invalid in all 50 states.  In some states, such a union is criminal.  It's hard to imagine a group of laws that is less likely to be changed-- ever. 

The apt comparison to same-sex marriage is miscegenation.  50 years ago, slippery slope arguments were being made against interracial marriages.  These laws were finally ruled unconstitutional in the famous Loving v. Virginia decision.  The slippery slopers were on the wrong side of history, then and now. 

Get over your unfounded fears, stop reading WorldNedDaily, and get on the right side of history-- plenty of room over here!

 
by Slade Smith | 2015/01/29 | log in or register to post a reply

Wasn't Homosexuality At One Time Considered Criminal In Some Jurisdictions?
 

Didn't same-sex marriages used to be invalid in all 50 states?  It wasn't that long ago that a) there was no constituency for legalizing same-sex marriage; and b) It was hard to imagine a group of laws that was less likely to be changed--ever.

Your argument that "there is no constituency for legalizing parent/child marriages" is absurd on its face.  Incest and polygamy advocacy groups have been waiting for years for legalization of same-sex unions as justification for their respective agendas.  Keep your head planted firmly in the sand and pooh-pooh the slippery-slope arguments all you want, but this is a court battle just waiting to be fought.


 
 
by Scott Perry | 2015/01/29 | log in or register to post a reply

Not true.

There absolutely was, and always has been, a significant and natural constituency for same sex marriage-- the 10 million or so LGBT people in the U.S.  That they did not lift their voices on the matter until fairly recently probably has a lot to do with the fact that doing so would have come with the high likelihood of a beatdown or worse from bigots.  Once their voice was heard, it was a logical progression that the same groups that had joined in the civil rights movement would also join the gay rights movement.

No such constituency exists for marriages between biological parents and children.  Their numbers are tiny, and their cause is one that virtually everyone finds to be repugnant for a variety of reasons.  Despite the fact that in the modern era our society has been willing to expand rights for minority groups, the needle just hasn't moved an inch in favor of parents that want to have sex with their biological children, for reasons that are obvious to everyone but you apparently.  Polygamists, by comparison, are vast in number and mainstream, and always have been-- and by the way, nice try on moving the goalposts to include polygamists to try to make your original argument seem a little more reasonable.

 

 

 

 
by Slade Smith | 2015/01/30 | log in or register to post a reply

OK, Skymutt, Have It Your Way...

 

Incest is already legal in New Jersey, which is why the couple mentioned in the WND article has chosen to live in that state.  And there is a growing constituency advocating for the mainstream acceptance of incest as a socially acceptable lifestyle whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.  By the way, nice try on moving the goalposts by narrowing the focus to include only parent-child relationships to make it seem otherwise.


 

 
by Scott Perry | 2015/01/30 | log in or register to post a reply

Sounds more like "Lawyers in Love" to me...

My own opinion is that we would have been done with this issue decades ago had some folks kept their Religious convictions out of Civil Law.

Civil Marriage, the sort "licensed" by the State, creates a freestanding corporate body known as a Marital Estate, and effectively nothing more than that Estate. The notion of Civil Marriage being some sort of blessing or approval by the State is based upon what, the ability to pass property (upon death by inheritance or by a statutory defined line of succession), and the exercising of certain "rights" in and to that "estate"by and between ONLY the parties to that estate? That and of course certain Tax benefits which can ONLY be applied in such an arrangement, again, between the parties to that Estate between themselves and the Government? If the aforementioned is true, that means that State Law, as written, is NOT discriminatory unless it specifically states that marriage only exists "between a man and a woman". That's the Law for ya. So, the real problem here seems to be that the folks enforcing what they consider to be the "spirit of the law" are doing so in a manner which bestows the "benefits" of the law exclusive to only those that qualify to THEIR interpretation of it and the actual public be damned.

In the case of a same SEX marriage, which would probably be better characterized in legal terms as a same GENDER Marriage, because the State isn't really supposed to have any interest in the former three letter word anyway between consenting adults, it is not the issue of the licensed CONTRACTUAL rights under Civil Marriage that is being "discussed", but rather, an issue of animal husbandry , reproductive biology, and ultimately, a form of cloaked Eugenics.

As far as the adoption issue is concerned, it DOES seem discriminatory that the State of New York would take a stance that a same gender couples ADOPTED child would say anything at all about the kids parental lineage with respect to attending school or participating in much of anything. Lots of kids have run away to New York lived with complete strangers, and attended both school and probably every extracurricular activity under the sun and nobody's been the wiser of it. But I can see where some folks on the front end of operating some of those programs/agencies might just attempt to enforce their own "interpretation" of what the law says on everybody else.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
by Donald Petersen | 2015/02/02 | log in or register to post a reply

If Some Folks Had "Kept Their Religious Convictions Out Of Civil Law"?

That's sort of like saying, "we would have solved that equation a long time ago if some folks had kept their old-fashioned arithmetic out of it."

This may come as a surprise to some, but American and western jurisprudence is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian ethos.  This fact is most evident in the artwork adorning the many edifices throughout our nation's capital.  Our House of Representatives, for example, contains 23 marble relief portraits of the great lawgivers, including Moses, who is the central focus.  The sculptures outside the main entrance to the Supreme Court building feature representations of Moses with the Ten Commandments. 

The central themes of Judeo-Christian justice are the sanctity of human life, personal responsibility and compassion for others.  It is best summed up by the Golden Rule, which Christ taught his disciples, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them [treat others as you would have them treat you]: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12, KJV)

Our marriage laws derive their origins from a system of moral values and beliefs.  It is quite impossible to separate morality from law. To argue that homosexual behavior should be viewed and treated the same as heterosexual marriage suggests that a person has adopted a moral position. To call me a bigot for not agreeing with that moral position vis-a-vis homosexual behavior is a moral judgment.  It is a method of demonizing those who disagree with the concept of same-sex "marriage."

No one has a "right" to get married any more than one has a "right" to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion.  Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege, even for heterosexuals (as evidenced by the fact that one must obtain a license to do so).  To argue that it is somehow discriminatory for government to place restrictions on who may or may not marry confuses the issue.  All persons are equal and must be treated equally; not so their behaviors.

State sanctioning of civil unions to confer special status and tax benefits to domestic partners of the same gender would be a better solution than redefining the parameters of an institution which has served the needs of humanity so well for thousands of years.





 
by Scott Perry | 2015/02/02 | log in or register to post a reply

Donald...

Ohio's marriage statute, ORC 3101.01, states that "[a] marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman."  Not much room for interepretation there!  And that's typical in all states.  Legislatures, not court and not agencies, are making the law.

Just for good measure here in Ohio, the legislature added a provision that "[t]he recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, ... that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio."  So, no civil unions here either.

 

 
by Slade Smith | 2015/02/03 | log in or register to post a reply

Reply to Mr, Perry

Scott,

With respect to your analogy via comparison to arithmetic, you've actually written the "proof" to MY equation.. Arithmetic is but one BRANCH of Mathematics, and Arithmetic is merely an interpretation of Mathematics Science along that specified tradition of study. Arithmetic is  the  organizational equivalent of a sect.

Our Marriage Laws may have a Judeo Christian moral background/tradition behind them, but there is no cite of any Religious text, be it from the Bible, the Tonakh or any other document claimed to be the Governing/authority instrument of any Religious Denomination or Sect contained in any State or Federal Law for a good reason; The First  Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states the following to wit;;"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...) etc. And the fact is that if anybody thinks they can impose Religious based restrictions or benefits based upon their belief system into Civil Contract Law, then in my opinion they will be shot down by whomever the final legal authority is going to be, because it ISN'T going to be settled in a Court of Canon Law which according to most Churches WOULD be the proper jurisdiction for hearing such an argument. And by golly, we don't have those in our legal system.

I can agree that the cite that you reference as being representative of Judeo-Christian tradition is such, what I will not agree with is the notion that this very same "tradition" is exclusive to only the Judeo-Christian tradition, so why make the definition itself exclusive? And if you want to get right down to the meat and potatoes of the Religious part of it, although under Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity Marriage is considered a Sacrament, it is NOT considered to be so under Judaism nor even most Protestant denominations. The underlying truth to this entire legal conundrum actually being that what the "Traditional Marriage" people are discussing is a matter of Religious Commitment, and everybody is in fact free NOW to practice their own Religion under Constitutional Law to whatever extent so long as it  does not encroach upon the "rights" of others. So why CHANGE any of it at all?

And although in peoples minds the concept of Marriage in this Country may date back to Biblical times, even beyond that,  any  requirement to REGISTER and license marriages through a Civil Authority does not. That's why for a long time our States actually accepted the rights of  claimed spouses based upon "Common Law" marriages. Even the Catholic Church did that for quite a while.

When my wife and I got married, many years ago, the requirement for a Civil Marriage License was made by the Church we were getting married in, not by the State. We could have co-habitated under State Law until the first of us kicked off and as far as inheritance. and all the rest of it NOTHING would have changed one bit. So where is the "benefit" or the "privilege involved in that?

My thought is that the ONLY people receiving any sort of benefit out of this entire argument are.) 1.) the folks claiming they're protecting everybody else's rights in some "institution" as opposed to protecting their OWN rights, and 2.) the Lawyers they are paying to do it FOR them.  How much did that proposition floated in Cali cost?

As far as me inferring anyone is some kind of Bigot because I disagree with an argument based on principles, I don't think I've ever done that.

In MY book, everyone is entitled to hold their own opinion, even if it happens to be wrong from MY viewpoint. (LOL)          

I think I'm at least smart enough to recognize that I can be wrong too, on the very same points EVERYBODY ELSE is wrong on..

 

 

 

 

 

 
by Donald Petersen | 2015/02/09 | log in or register to post a reply

Reply to Slade Smith

Hi Slade,

Not sure if I agree with you on the language being typical in "all" states.

The fact being, the "one  man and one woman language" has actually been a PROBLEM in a LOT of States, or rather the LACK of it, and that's what a lot of these Voter Referendum Initiatives were actually drawn up to correct. To enable the voters to OVERRIDE the failure of their own Legislatures to pass that very same verbiage to amend their existing law. Problem is though, that a lot of voter Initiatives that do make it get thrown out by the Courts eventually anyway. To tell you the truth, often times I'm not really sure whether these initiatives are actually an attempt at changing the law, so much as they are at trying to overturn opposing pieces of legislation passed in other states upon later review.

The "one" man etc. being some sort of attempt at limiting the possibility of the practice of bigamy/polygamy apparently, because it doesn't really speak to the other issue, which the rest of it DOES speak to..

 It seems to me though that the present actions relative to attempting to get the Federal Courts all the way up to the Supreme Court to "decide" the validity of various state's Marriage Laws is probably NOT something that Court will want to address directly anyway.  It really doesn't affect the Federal Government except maybe with respect to State contracts paid for with Federal Funding, which of course the Feds already are in the hammer position because they are holding the purse AND have the right to approve or reject the terms of any contract they might enter into without having to comply with state law anyway..

If it IS truly a States Rights issue, then why would any state have any sort of "RIGHT'  to change the law in ANOTHER state by using the Federal Court system to swing the hammer? Just Plain old Pretzel Logic as far as I am concerned..

Old adage I learned many years ago; NO one is required to do business with anyone.

On either side.

 

 
by Donald Petersen | 2015/02/09 | log in or register to post a reply

Donald

Actually, what I said was that the fact that there was no room for interpretation was typical. The language varies a bit.  Here's a rundown of all the state marriage laws: http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions.  I don't think any of them are ambiguous as far as whether they allow or do not allow same-sex marriage.

 

 

 
by Slade Smith | 2015/02/12 | log in or register to post a reply

Government and your sex life

Marriage "Licenses" are simply a marriage TAX.  No different than having to get your dog licensed in the municipality where you live.

Unfortunately, we Americans have bought into the over-taxing government bodies and figured, oh heck, if the government says it's ok, we'll buy into it.

We should have established CO-HABITATION LAWS YEARS ago where in ANY couple could claim themselves as spouses and a household.  If you want to dissolve the union, you do it via divorce.

Colorado has Common law marriage.  No 7 year bs, you simply declare yourselves as spouses to the world, (Hey, we're married now or hey, guess what?  We're spouses now" )and you are legally "married"  The union can be dissolved by an actual divorce, not just the couple splitting up.   No licenses involved.

So, we missed the boat on the "marriage" issue.  Now we have to have "specialized" marriage defined by your sex.  Why?  What business is it of government or your work place?

As to religious, Church-based marriage, that's between you and your Church.  And as we all know, government has no business in our religion either.   Otherwise, they'd be taxing you for attending your Church of choice.

As to same-sex marriages, there will always be a moral factor to it for some people based on their religious beliefs.  Deal with it.  It is what it is and you have to decide what you believe as a person.  No one is going to change that.

As to same-sex marriages and the law, we are making slow progress.  It's a new legal territory as mentioned to adoptions, work benefits for spouses, etc.  

It would be so much easier if the laws were straight across the board for ALL couples, regardless of sex, age, religion, etc.

But our government is smart enough to know if they ever made sense and made things easy, they'd lose that golden revenue called "Marriage Tax"

Just think if we REJECTED the government's involvement in our personal rights and decisions? 

Just think if we stood up to our employers and demanded equality for all. 

But, the reality is that most people just post stuff ON line and never take the FRONT line

Off the soap box for now. . . 

 
by Victoria Moate | 2015/02/16 | log in or register to post a reply

I respectfully disagree.

YOU ARE INCORRECT. Same sex marriage is the cause. It requires the legal redefinition of marriage. instead of redifining the lawful word. A new word to define a gay couples union should have been created and made lawful. say a word like Melded, Melding: a thing formed by merging or blending etc... They should have brought that to the Surpreme court and legalized it so they can have their own unigue lawful union.

But this is not the AGENDA. The agenda (from the Political point of view, not the personal or individual who is ignorant to the machinations of those who are in power and desire to control and manipulate the politics and industry of the world), is to destroy cultural, societal norms and destroy the strength of every country, which is the family and population growth, among many other motives which I won't delve into at this point.

 
by Michael Russo | 2015/05/18 | log in or register to post a reply

I respectfully disagree.

YOU ARE INCORRECT. Same sex marriage is the cause. It requires the legal redefinition of marriage. instead of redifining the lawful word. A new word to define a gay couples union should have been created and made lawful. say a word like Melded, Melding: a thing formed by merging or blending etc... They should have brought that to the Surpreme court and legalized it so they can have their own unigue lawful union.

But this is not the AGENDA. The agenda (from the Political point of view, not the personal or individual who is ignorant to the machinations of those who are in power and desire to control and manipulate the politics and industry of the world), is to destroy cultural, societal norms and destroy the strength of every country, which is the family and population growth, among many other motives which I won't delve into at this point.

 
by Michael Russo | 2015/05/18 | log in or register to post a reply
William Pattison 's Blog

 

Links

Recent Comments

Dan: Yes it is the same Shane who used to work in the recorder's office.  Thank you for your th...
by William Pattison
I am sorry to hear about Shane's passing.  My condolences also. Is this the same Shane tha...
by Daniel Silverburg
My condolences on the passing of Shane.  Thank you for your contributions to Source of Title an...
by Robert Franco
It certainly appears to be an attack on local title companies and examiners and outlines what he ha...
by David Bloys
YOU ARE INCORRECT. Same sex marriage is the cause. It requires the legal redefinition of marri...
by Michael Russo
YOU ARE INCORRECT. Same sex marriage is the cause. It requires the legal redefinition of marri...
by Michael Russo
Great article Mr. Pattison, very well put....
by Daniel Silverburg
 Donald Peterson,  I agree with everything you stated and would like to add that ; in addi...
by Sal Turano
Categories

     
    © 2007, Source of Title.