Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A License for Same-Sex Marriage
On November 18, 2003, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in a divided 4-3 decision, ruled that a city or town clerk may not deny a marriage license to a couple on the grounds that they are not man and woman. Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health et al. The basis for the decision of the court is that the Commonwealth may not deny “the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage of two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry” and still comply with the constitutionally safeguarded rights of due process and equal protection. The decision has far-reaching ripple effects that impact upon same-sex couples throughout the country and the attorneys who represent them, and is not limited to the geographical boundaries of the state of Massachusetts.
Immediate Impact
The immediate impact and obvious consequence of the right of same-sex couples to marry is the endowment to them of all of the marital rights (and obligations) of a heterosexual couple who marry. These include, among others: joint income tax return filings; tenancy by the entirety of real property; automatic extension of homestead protection; intestacy rights; rights of election; spousal survivorship rights of retirement and other deferred income plans; classification of a partner as a “dependent”; spousal rights in medical insurance coverage; access to veteran's spousal benefits; protection under housing laws; spousal Social Security benefits; equitable distribution of marital property and the right (and obligation) as to maintenance in the event of a dissolution of the marriage; the right to bring claims for loss of consortium and wrongful death in the event of an accident to a partner; the legitimacy of children brought into the marriage by adoption or medically induced means; rights as to child custody and visitation; legally protected spousal confidences and the protection of a spouse not testifying against the other; preferential rights as guardian of a spouse or a fiduciary of his or her estate; and the myriad of other benefits and obligations of heterosexual spouses.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.