The Latest News Same Sex Marriages

I, like many people, was hit hard by the loss of this national treasure and icon.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an incredible woman who sacrificed so much for others and our country.  Many people are not aware that RBG intended to retire in 2016 when she thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the election and wanted to turn over her seat to Hillary for the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice.  As we all know that did not happen and a very different future arose.  What most people do not realize is that at 83 years old she chose to still serve her country and work for what she believed in, rather than give up her seat to the present administration.  That is why it will be an absolute travesty if her seat is filled before the people have an opportunity to vote (the hypocrisy of those who changed the rules to appoint Scalia’s replacement while President Obama had 10 months remaining in office!).  To me it is not about your political views or who you would choose...it is about being an American and doing the right thing.  We should all be able to voice our differences of opinion and reflect our decision in our vote without that system being corrupted and our democracy undermined by a political party. 

The notorious RBG was  a beacon of light and hope.  She not only talked about making life better for minorities and the underprivileged who are marginalized by mainstream society, but she made it her life’s mission to benefit the plight of others and secure rights and justice for all.  She worked so hard and was an exquisite and thoughtful writer.  Whether or not you are into reading legal decisions as some lawyers are, some of her decisions are just wonderful to read.  This article shares some of her shining moments and gives us all a better appreciation of who she was.

When others were enjoying their retirement (as she should have been), RBG was still working every day and very hard for her country and the rights of people she didn’t even know. 

And finally, because RBG was Jewish, we do not say Rest in Peace, but rather, let her memory and life’s work inspire and live on.

Linked article courtesy of Chris Johnson at Washington Blade, America's LGBT News Source

I cannot believe it's 20 years ago that the first same sex marriage occurred.  It has taken so long everywhere for same sex marriages to be recognized. 

The first lesbian couple to be married took place in the Netherlands.  This couple originally met on a blind date 20 years before they actually reconnected and started their courtship that resulted in the first lesbian marriage 3 years thereafter.  However, their path to a true legal marriage took some time and like other countries, was not offered immediately.  Their first ceremony was technically a registered partnership, which was the best they could do at the time, while one of them was pregnant with their first child.  However, the partnership registry did not give parental rights to the non-biological parent, notwithstanding the “union”.  In fact, the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to this version of marriage as “a skim milk marriage”. 

When this first couple’s child was born, the non-biological mother had no legal connection, claim or rights to this child.  It wasn’t until the Netherlands enacted a new law, which came into effect on April 1, 2001.  This couple was the only lesbian couple to be married on the first day of the law’s enactment with a ceremony performed by the mayor of Amsterdam. 

Based upon the couple’s own recollections, they were thrust into the forefront of a media frenzy and actually saw a video of themselves on CNN. 

In 1999 most countries did not even offer a registered partnership, which obviously falls very short of full martial rights.  In the United States, Vermont became the first state to offer “civil unions”.  However, most people did not understand the significance that to undo that “civil union”, they would need to reside in Vermont, prior to the dissolution for at least one year.  This became very problematic for many who rushed to Vermont to get married. 

The Netherlands passed its law in 2001.  Belgium followed in 2003 and Massachusetts became the first in the United States to legalize marriage for same sex couples in 2004.  However, it wasn’t until June 26, 2015, that the United States allowed and recognized same sex marriages as a result and Order of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v Hodges.  At that time the United States was one of only 17 countries to change their national laws. 

Today same sex couples can marry in only 29 countries.  This is a stark contrast to the fact that nearly triple that number criminalized consensual same sexual behavior.  I remember as a law student, interning in the early 80’s, with then “Lambda Legal Defense”, on their project to help overturn existing sodomy laws in Texas and many other states. But change is slow!  Sodomy was only officially decriminalized in the United States in 2003.  It still carries the death penalty in some countries.  I find that incomprehensible when so many other heinous crimes have such minimal sentences!  Although many nations are moving towards decriminalizing same sex acts, and a few more countries have come on board in accepting legalizing same sex marriage, there is still a lot of progress that must be made. 

Even for the first married lesbian couple living in what is considered to be a very progressive country as the Netherlands, they have expressed that they feel that there is more aggression on the streets towards same sex couples today than 20 years ago.  The fact that hate and misinformation has been able to grow rather than decline is still very frightening.

Selected excerpt(s) and linked article courtesy of Sarah Prager, The Lily.  Photo courtesy of Unsplash (Royalty Free Photos).

The Supreme Court ruled last week that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status, a major victory for advocates of gay rights and for the nascent transgender rights movement — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court.

By a vote of 6-3, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status. It upheld rulings from lower courts that said sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.

Click here for more information on this landmark case!

Selected excerpt(s) courtesy of Pete Williams, NBC News.  Photo courtesy of The Atlantic.

Some of you may recall that this county clerk was sued after refusing to issue a same sex couple marriage license after the US Supreme Court ruling legalizing same sex marriage. 

A federal judge’s ruling decided that in addition to the $100,000 in damages this clerk was required to pay one couple, that she is now responsible for over $260,000 in legal fees and expenses to attorney’s who represented one of the couples.

Selected excerpt(s) and linked article courtesy of TheGuardian(dot)com
Royalty-free photo courtesy of Pixabay

Concetta Spirio.  A Compassionate Collaborative Divorce Attorney, Mediator & Peacemaker Providing The Highest Level of Legal Representation For Over 35 Years.

#Concetta #ConcettaSpirio #ConcettaLaw #SpirioLaw #Marriage #Divorce #RealEstate #Litigation #Wills #Trusts #Estates #Mediation #CollaborativeDivorce #LongIsland #Suffolk #Nassau #Islip #Sayville #LGBT

A bit of good news as a panel of Federal Appeals Court Judges have ruled that Kim Davis, the County Clerk from Kentucky who refused marriage licenses to same sex couples after marriage equality became law, did not have qualified immunity and could be sued in her personal capacity for her actions.

Ms. Davis may also have exposure when it is given to a jury to decide whether she will have to pay the seven years of legal fees that have been incurred by the two couples that have sued her.  This liability can total hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Selected excerpt(s) and linked article courtesy of Christopher Wiggins, Advocate(dot)com
Royalty-free photo courtesy of Pixabay

Concetta Spirio.  A Compassionate Collaborative Divorce Attorney, Mediator & Peacemaker Providing The Highest Level of Legal Representation For Over 35 Years.

#Concetta #ConcettaSpirio #ConcettaLaw #SpirioLaw #Marriage #Divorce #RealEstate #Litigation #Wills #Trusts #Estates #Mediation #CollaborativeDivorce #LongIsland #Suffolk #Nassau #Islip #Sayville #LGBT

Same sex couples face many of the same challenges as mixed-gender couples when planning for marriage.

Same sex marriages are recognized by Federal law and in many states, including New York, but there are still issues to think about before heading to the alter.

Same sex couples face many of the same challenges as mixed-gender couples when planning for marriage. As laws continue to change and more and more same sex couples decide to legally tie the knot, there are several things they must consider. This is especially true for future spouses established in their careers and financial lives. Like any couple planning to marry, the more assets and possessions you bring to the marriage the more you have at risk. Before taking the marital plunge, discuss with your partner the following:

Same sex marriages: Finances
Most experts agree it is important for same-sex couples to truly take initiative when it comes to financial matters. This is especially the case if they will live in a state that does not yet recognize same-sex marriage. A few of the most important financial questions to ask include:

• What is our current financial situation and what are our mutual financial goals? Make sure you each understand one another’s debt situation, as well as your general attitudes toward money.
• What are our retirement plans and what can be done to prepare for retirement? At the moment, social security benefits are available only in states where same-sex marriage is legally recognized, so you should create an alternate plan for income if there is a risk you will not qualify to receive benefits under your spouse. Alternative retirement savings is a smart decision regardless of your state’s specific laws, but even more so when there are no guarantees. Laws are likely to change, but for now it is best to prepare for the worst case scenario.
• Is marriage the best practical decision? Marriage changes how taxes are filed and might not be the smartest financial option depending on your circumstances. Speak with a tax attorney about how marriage will change your tax situation. Marriage could cause ineligibility for certain benefits, such as financial aid for education.

A prenuptial agreement can be a good tool for avoiding conflicts should your marriage end. Consider the same questions same-sex couples consider when determining if a pre-nup is right for you:

• Do either of you own substantial property?
• Is there a significant wealth discrepancy between you and your partner?
• Do you or your partner own a business?
• Do you or your partner have children from a previous marriage?

Same sex marriages: Estate Planning
Some of the issues addressed in a pre-nuptial agreement could also be addressed in a will. It is important to create a clear legal plan for your estate that will govern what happens to your assets once you die. You should create a will that states your intentions, regardless how much your estate is worth. Planning your estate also gives you an opportunity to assign power of attorney to your partner and share information about medical directives. Also make sure you have listed the correct beneficiaries for your retirement accounts and life insurance policies.

Same sex marriages: Children
If you or your partner has children from a previous relationship, you need to know who will be responsible for the children if something happens to either of you. Some choose to legally adopt their partner’s children to eliminate any questions. If your state does not allow co-parent adoption, consider co-guardianship or co-parenting arrangements.

Same sex marriages: Practical Matters
Whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in your state has little bearing if you are otherwise not eligible to legally marry. In order to marry, you must meet certain age, family relations, and mental capacity criteria. Laws vary from state to state, but in general, you must be of sound mind, legally an adult or emancipated from parents or have parent permission, and not be closely related to your spouse. Individuals must also end previous marriages before they can enter into a new one.

Choosing to marry your partner is a big decision and should not be taken lightly. As tempting as it is to be swept up in romance and the new opportunities unfolding throughout the country, it is important to take smart, well-planned steps on your way to the alter.

This is an update of a prior article.  It is important to note, the importance of everyone’s vote and how it affects not only who sits in the White House and the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, but the appointment of Federal Court Justices that affect citizens everyday lives, rights and privileges. 

We previously reported about an article where the New York State was challenging New Hope Family Services, a Christian adoption agency, licensed by New York State, decision to refuse to provide services to married same sex couples.  US District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino, issued an Injunction on Oct. 5, 2020, after be directed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider her prior denial of a Preliminary Injunction, and dismissal of New Hope’s lawsuit.  The Second Circuit panel reversed her decision.

In 2010, the legislature complying with the states highest court practice of recognizing second parent adoption for same sex couples since the 1990s, amended the law to allow authorized agencies to place children for adoption with an adult unmarried person, an adult married couple together or any two unmarried adult intimate partners together. 

The New York State Office of Child Family Services in turn adopted a non-discriminatory regulation and informed all authorized agencies that they could not discriminate against same sex couples or unmarried couples. 

After New York Marriage Equality Law went into effect in 2011, of course same sex married couples were automatically covered by the amended statute and authorized agencies were so advised.

In 2015, the US Supreme found that same sex couples had a constitutional right to marry and their marriages are entitled to the same treatment under state laws as all marriages.  Notwithstanding the regulation and the directive given them, New Hope retained its long standing policy of limiting its service to married heterosexual couples or unmarried adults not living in intimate relationships with another adult rather than placing a child with a lesbian or gay couple, married or not.

New Hope stands on an allegation of discrimination, based upon their religious beliefs.  New Hope filed this law suit, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a leading anti-LGBTQ religious litigation group, arguing that OCF’s regulations went beyond the statute.  The State moved to dismiss their law suit, which was granted by Judge D’Agostino, ruling that the regulation was in the scope of the statute and did not violate New Hope’s constitutional rights.  This Decision was appealed to the Second Circuit, which reversed Judge D’Agostino’s dismissal in July and sent the case back to her.  The three (3) Judge Circuit panel, concluded that New Hope’s allegations were sufficient to put into play its constitutional claims as well as its claim about limited scope of the adoption statute as permissive, rather than mandatory and noted that any Appeal of Judge D’Agostino’s new Decision would return to it.  Given those directives, Judge D’Agostino’s new Injunction was inevitable, though it is clear from her opinion, that she did not change her mind about her original analysis.  However, Judge D’Agostino is bound by the Second Circuit Court. 

That is why it is very interesting to note, the appointment of, not only Supreme Court Justices, but Federal Court Justices to the bench, can drastically change the decisions and climate of our country.  What is further interesting to note, is that the New Hope case is very similar to a case that was argued in the Supreme Court on November 4, 2020, the day after the election, where Catholic Social Services sued the City of Philadelphia over the city’s refusal to renew their contract to participate in the city’s Forster Care System.  Similarly to New Hope, they have refused to provide its services to same sex couples seeking to foster parents.  This is just another demonstration of how important our votes are in shaping not only who sits in the White House, but who regulates our lives through laws and statutes and the court system.

Selected excerpt(s), photo and linked article courtesy of Arthur S. Leonard, GayCityNews.com