Legal Benefits of Gay Marriage: Just What Does "Legal" Mean, Exactly?
15 Dec
So the recent discussions about whether Texas, in its fervor to protect itself against the plague of same-sex marriage, has in fact outlawed marriage altogether, have gotten me thinking:
Just what does “legal” even mean?
If you are lucky enough to live one of the seven countries which both perform and sanction same-sex marriages, what legal means to you is pretty straightforward. (And may I say, congratulations.) If you’re unfortunate enough to live in one of the 80 countries in which homosexuality is still illegal, you probably also have a solid idea about what your marriage certificate is ‘worth.’ But what about those of us in the places in between?
First, there are domestic considerations. Even if you happen to live in a state that thinks your marriage is swell, thanks to the patently unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, no other state has to be bothered acknowledging your rights. But even though the states get to fly willy-nilly in the face of the law (take that, Constitution!! How do you like that Full Faith and Credit Clause now, hm?), we mere citizens do not have the same privilege to, how do they say, “go rogue”. This leads to the conundrum I like to call “legal vs. legal-legal.” As in, ‘yeah, we got married in Iowa, it’s totally legal… it’s just not legal-legal.’
What’s the big deal about legal-legal? To start, there’s the 1,138 federally conferred rights which accompany the distinction ‘married’, but which only count if you’re ‘married-married’. There’s also another problem which hardly gets mentioned at all. What is the international status of your ‘legal’ marriage if it isn’t ‘legal-legal’?
This is the question I spend the most time mulling over. Some countries, especially in Europe, will accept couples on some version of a ‘spousal visa’, regardless of the relationship’s legal status in their home country, usually by asking that they prove previous co-habitation for (x) amount of time. But the standard international precedent for marriage law is that a marriage is only valid if it’s legally recognized by the country in which it is performed. Some countries go further and recognize a marriage only if it was 1) legally recognized in the country in which it was performed, and 2) legally recognized by the home countries (countries of citizenship) of BOTH partners in the marriage. So a Dutch man and an American man legally married in Canada could still be denied immigration rights EVEN in a country which generally recognizes same-sex marriages, thanks to America’s stubborn insistence that Jesus/MLK didn’t climb on a cross/take a bullet for no queers, or whatever they’re preaching these days. In these cases, it’s often better to have a civil union or domestic partnership than a contract titled “marriage”, since even though C.U.’s and D.P.’s differ enormously from place to place in terms of rights conferred, their legal status is usually more drama-free.
So what’s a queer couple to do? Get a legal-but-not-legal-legal marriage in the states? Head over to Canada or Belgium, or spend a few months in Spain or South Africa to establish residency? Screw the system and work out the appropriate health proxy/living will/beneficiary paperwork with your favorite LGBT-friendly lawyer? Have a ceremony with no regard for legal sanction? (After all, how much value do you attach to the legal approval of a government whose basis for denying your marriage is itself constitutionally illegal?)
This is obviously an area where we are all going to hold strong and maybe contradictory opinions. What do you all think? What choices have you made for your own weddings? How important are the different levels of distinction for you? Do you and your partner have different ideas about what ‘legal’ means, or how important it is? And has it been a source of friction?
At this point, we live in a state (PA) which neither allows same sex marriage/civil unions nor will recognize those performed in other states. We thought about traveling to MA or CT or even Iowa to get legally wed, but as depressing as it is to say… what’s the point, if it doesn’t mean anything in the state we live in? Our ceremony will have no legal basis whatsoever, and we’ll consult a lawyer to obtain as many legal rights as we can.
My plan used to look a lot like Alyia’s. That all may be changing today, when DC votes on gay marriage for the second time and sends the bill for the mayor to sign (he has already said he will sign it).
My to-be in law’s really pressed me on getting a legal but not legal-legal marriage in a state on the east coast. I was offended that people would make a big deal about me going to another state to get NO RIGHTS! No rights where we currently live in the deep south or in our future home out west, anyway. Plus, if one more person asks if my wedding in MD will be “real” I can’t be held responsible for my actions. How could anyone act like our religious wedding with all of our friends and family present isn’t real? Ahh!
I deeply felt like a religious wedding without a legal ceremony would be all that Ginger and I needed. Besides the ‘no rights’, and ‘my wedding is a real wedding’ arguements, I was also not interested in a legal but not legal-legal ceremony for more practical reasons. Everytime we started to plan a trip to MA or CT, it started as a fun, romantic elopment and grew into a second, destination wedding. I only wanted one wedding followed by Ginger and I collecting up all legal benefits that we could get through a lawyer or a state we were actually a resident of.
Now having said all that, it looks like today could be a turning point. DC, where I was born and not far from where both Ginger and I grew up, may be making gay marriage legal by Christmas with a second vote on the bill expected in just a half hour or so. A DC marriage is almost like getting legally married at home for us. It doesn’t require a big, organized destination wedding, which is good since I’m only up for planning one wedding. Just me, Ginger, and our parents driving to the court house, taking some pictures, and then heading to the welcome party in lieu of a rehersal dinner. And, it feels like a pretty awesome political stance to excersize my right to get married in the nation’s capitol.
I’m interested to see what everyone else’s take on this is!
@Wasabi: Good luck with DC! It’s definitely politically exciting, especially when it’s the place you live in/grew up in. I’m so with you though on the “is it real?” questions. It’s such a stupid question! Grrrr. Texas wouldn’t recognize our marriage even if it were legally performed in Canada and sanctioned by the Pope – does that mean a legal Canadian wedding isn’t “real”?
@Alyia: That’s basically our plan too; although I love that Spain has such progressive rights, they won’t actually have any legal bearing on our ceremony. We’re going to draw up all the paperwork with a lawyer in Texas (which, ironically, we’d have to do even if our Spain wedding was ‘legal’.)
I’ve been doing a lot of ceremony language and wording research lately, and quite a few ceremonies have sign-offs along the lines of “No one but you can declare yourselves married. You have begun it here today in speaking your vows before this company, and you will do it again and again in the days to come… Begin it now, with a kiss.” We’re definitely concluding with something along these lines, because I think it’s an affirmation everyone should remember. (Climbs off soapbox.)
“No one but you can declare yourselves married.” I love that!
It was really important to Dana that we have documentation that we were legally married *somewhere*, so that’s why we’re having the private legal ceremony in Connecticut. I’m more excited about the non-legal commitment ceremony in Pittsburgh, but the legal is important to her, and she’s important to me, so that’s what we’re doing.
But we need to make the appointment with the GLBT-friendly lawyer, and sooner rather than later since we own a house together. If something happens to one of us, I don’t want there to be a big hullabaloo because we’re not legally tied to each other.