Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The State of the Gay Union
In President Bush's January 20th State of the Union Address, he spoke of a need to halt the movement toward allowing same-sex couples to marry. If activist judges insist on changing the traditional characterization of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he said, a change to the U.S. Constitution will be needed to preserve the “sanctity” of the institution of marriage. Judges have “begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people or their elected representatives,” he stated, apparently alluding to the November 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that it is contrary to that state's constitution for gay couples to be denied the right to marry.
Soon after the President declared his intention to push for a Constitutional amendment, an Ohio Senate committee approved a bill that would declare marriage between same-sex couples to be “against the strong public policy of the state.” The bill, passed by the Ohio house in December and introduced to the full senate January 21, would keep some state employees from receiving benefits for their partners and would allow Ohio to refuse to recognize gay marriages entered into outside Ohio. The U.S Supreme Court has held that each state must give full faith and credit to marital relationships arising in another state or territory of the United States unless a particular marriage is polygamous, incestuous, or otherwise declared void by a statute of the state in which the full faith and credit issue is presented. Although current law and the holdings in several Ohio court decisions confirm that only heterosexual marriages may be entered into there, the state's Marriage Law does not explicitly deem same-sex marriages void. As a result, under current law, Ohio might have to recognize such marriages if obtained, for example, in Massachusetts. The bill seeks to foreclose that possibility by explicitly deeming same-sex marriages void.
Lawmakers in Ohio have proposed gay marriage bans in each of the last several years, but have never before come close to getting the measure passed into law. The Massachusetts ruling seems to have given the Republican-led Ohio house and senate the impetus this time to push the bill through.
In New Jersey, Governor James McGreevey last month signed into law a bill that will give same-sex domestic partners some of the same rights that married couples have — such as the right to visit each other in the hospital and be covered under a partner's medical insurance — but will not give them the right to actually marry. Under the new law, New Jersey will also recognize same-sex partnerships entered into in other states. The new law gives the state 180 days to devise a procedure for domestic partners to register.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported January 21 that caterers in Provincetown, MA, are beginning to experience an economic boom. Provincetown, a popular gay tourist destination even before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's November ruling, is apparently the chosen site of several same-sex weddings scheduled to take place this summer.
In President Bush's January 20th State of the Union Address, he spoke of a need to halt the movement toward allowing same-sex couples to marry. If activist judges insist on changing the traditional characterization of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he said, a change to the U.S. Constitution will be needed to preserve the “sanctity” of the institution of marriage. Judges have “begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people or their elected representatives,” he stated, apparently alluding to the November 2003 ruling by the
Soon after the President declared his intention to push for a Constitutional amendment, an Ohio Senate committee approved a bill that would declare marriage between same-sex couples to be “against the strong public policy of the state.” The bill, passed by the Ohio house in December and introduced to the full senate January 21, would keep some state employees from receiving benefits for their partners and would allow Ohio to refuse to recognize gay marriages entered into outside Ohio. The U.S Supreme Court has held that each state must give full faith and credit to marital relationships arising in another state or territory of the United States unless a particular marriage is polygamous, incestuous, or otherwise declared void by a statute of the state in which the full faith and credit issue is presented. Although current law and the holdings in several Ohio court decisions confirm that only heterosexual marriages may be entered into there, the state's Marriage Law does not explicitly deem same-sex marriages void. As a result, under current law, Ohio might have to recognize such marriages if obtained, for example, in
Lawmakers in Ohio have proposed gay marriage bans in each of the last several years, but have never before come close to getting the measure passed into law. The
In New Jersey, Governor James McGreevey last month signed into law a bill that will give same-sex domestic partners some of the same rights that married couples have — such as the right to visit each other in the hospital and be covered under a partner's medical insurance — but will not give them the right to actually marry. Under the new law, New Jersey will also recognize same-sex partnerships entered into in other states. The new law gives the state 180 days to devise a procedure for domestic partners to register.
Meanwhile, The
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.
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.
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?
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.