When older parents get remarried

This article from the Wall Street Journal/Smart Money gives some great information and helpful suggestions regarding property and estates when older parents remarry. Careful consideration should be given to how to provide for a surviving spouse, but also to leave whatever desired (by the parent) inheritance to the children of the prior marriage. A couple possibilities include a prenuptial agreement or a trust.

Without careful planning, the adult children and the surviving spouse may be at odds, even to the extent of fighting over an estate in court. For example,

Most lawyers and financial planners agree that the families that get cross-ways are those that don't communicate. [An Atlanta attorney] says there is a saying in the field: "People get over the loss of a loved one sooner than the loss of an inheritance."

Wisconsin domestic partnership law...

became effective August 3, 2009. Here is how the day unfolded in Madison, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. According to Fair Wisconsin's summary (pdf), registered domestic partners have 43 of the over 200 rights of married couples. Still, that has not stopped a conservative group from suing the governor, alleging that domestic partnership provisions violate the 2006 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman and prohibiting anything "substantially similar" to marriage. Here's the latest from the Wisconsin State Journal on that suit.

Forty years after Stonewall

Frank Rich, in this New York Times op-ed piece, gives a concise history of the Stonewall riots that launched the gay rights movement.

"Gay Americans aren't just another political special interest group. They are Americans who are actively discriminated against by federal law."

Taking President Obama to task, Rich quotes Oscar-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black: "There's a perception in Washington that you can throw a little bit of partial equality to gay people and that gay people will be satisfied with that."

But, the march of activism with continue for full civil rights in all states AND the federal government.

They're lining up at the courthouse...

Today was the first day for same-sex couples to marry in Iowa. Here's the Des Moines Register's web section on the topic. The Register's update from late April 27 said that over 360 couples have applied to be married.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but even state-permitted marriage for same sex couples only goes so far. On Reason's website, Steve Chapman makes "A Federal Case for Gay Marriage."

Here's the thrust of Chapman's essay:

It's at moments like this that the framers of the Constitution begin to look even wiser than usual. Somehow they anticipated that people in Massachusetts would not want to live under exactly the same laws as people in Mississippi. So they set up a system known as federalism, which allows different states to choose different policies. Thus we simultaneously uphold majority rule and minority rights.

This, at least, is how federalism is supposed to operate—letting subsets of the national population get their way in their own locales. There's only one hitch: In this case, it doesn't quite work that way.

Why not? Because of a huge imbalance created by that longtime nemesis of state sovereignty—the federal government. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), Virginia has complete authority to deny the privileges and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex partners. But Iowa doesn't have the complete authority to grant them.

And in a slightly related story, halfway across the country in California, the economic recession is prompting (heterosexual) couples to get hitched at the courthouse to save money. As the L.A. Times reports, the over-the-top weddings of the past two decades may be over.

"I didn't need to put on a frilly fairy tale wedding for everybody else," said [one bride in L.A.], who picked up a bouquet from a local florist on her way to the high-rise courthouse. "We really just wanted to get married."

. . .

In L.A. County, civil wedding ceremonies performed in government buildings were up 17% in 2008 over 2007. Nationally, the number of couples marrying in civil, rather than religious, ceremonies in the first quarter of this year increased by 60% over the same period last year.

Lots of hub-bub about same-sex marriage

First, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down that state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage on April 2.

Next, on April 5, the Vermont house and senate passed legislation, overriding the governor's veto, to allow same-sex marriage.

Check out today's New York Times article on the move toward equality flowing through Iowa, Vermont, and beyond.

Just for a bit more fodder, consider how the cultural definition of marriage is shifting, as discussed in this article from Slate.com. In looking at how various dictionaries have expanded their definitions of marriage, the article comments:

[F]or those judges who are open to the notion that statutory and constitutional meaning can change over time, the dictionary acceptance of same-sex marriage will offer evidence of a shift in public views. Instead of fending off or ignoring the dictionary, gay advocates will be able to cite the new editions in their briefs. The new entries in Webster's, Black's, and soon the OED signal that the idea of same-sex marriage has come of age. The Supreme Court cited an "emerging awareness" that gay people shouldn't be treated like criminals in striking down remaining state sodomy laws in 2003. Now the dictionaries herald the same kind of "emerging awareness" about gay marriage.

“Couldn’t be happier for two people I’ve never met!”

Consider this New York Times story about blogger Ann Althouse and Laurence Meade, one of her regular commenters. They are now engaged to be married! The Times article traces their online exchanges, in-person meetings, and the cyber-swirl that went on around them.

When the couple announced their engagement, another regular commenter commented, "Couldn't be happier for two people I've never met!"

By the way, Ms. Althouse is a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, from which I recently graduated. As it happens, I never had a class with her or even met her. However, I had read her blog frequently before applying to law school, and it gave me a window into both the law and blogging.

In her blog, Althouse also compiled links to her entries referred to in the Times piece.

Congratulations, Ann and "Meade."

Gay marriage in a positive religious light

Gay marriage is not going away as a national issue (rightfully so), and Newsweek takes a look at the frequently overlooked religious dimension of the pro-gay-marriage advocates. The author explores the biblical references to family, marriage, sexuality, and love, and how the biblical interpretation has evolved over the centuries.

In support of gay marriage, the following excerpt summarizes the article:

People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."

(Photo by tico24; used by permission.)

Same-sex marriage proponents reflect

For at least a couple decades, gay-rights proponents have made strides by comparing discrimination based on sexual orientation to discrimination based on race. However, such a comparison seems to have fallen short in California's recent passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (after the state's supreme court had ruled last spring to allow gay marriages under California's constitution).

Now, proponents of same-sex marriage are reflecting on what prompted the majority of voters to vote for Barak Obama but vote against gay marriage. For one, the "homophobia is like racial discrimination" argument did not hold up with enough voters.

A recent piece on Slate.com reconsiders the anaolgy, especially in terms of gender roles, including this comment:

If we avoid the tempting but misleading analogy to race and look at what's directly at stake, the combination of widespread opposition to same-sex marriage and equally widespread support for other gay rights is easier to understand. Gay rights in employment and civil unions don't require the elimination of longstanding and culturally potent sex roles. Same-sex marriage does. And while a lot of people reject the narrow and repressive sex roles of the past, many others long for the kind of meaningful gender identities that traditional marriage seems to offer.

Across the nation today, many people rallied in support of same-sex marriage. Here's the coverage from the New York Times.

(Photo by Jeff Belmonte; used by permission.)

Reluctance by Robert Frost

Out through the fields and the woods

And over the walls I have wended:

I have climbed the hills of view

And looked at the world, and descended;

I have come by the highway home,

And lo, it is ended.

The leaves are all dead on the ground,

Save those that the oak is keeping

To ravel them one by one

And let them go scraping and creeping

Out over the crusted snow,

When others are sleeping.

And the dead leaves lie huddled and still,

No longer blown hither and thither;

The last lone aster is gone;

The flowers of the witch hazel wither;

The heart is still aching to seek,

But the feet question, "Whither?"

Ah, when to the heart of man

Was it ever less than a treason

To go with the drift of things,

To yield with a grace to reason,

And bow and accept the end

Of a love or a season?

When the "Supremes Court" rules on a break-up

"It is our opinion that stopping in the name of love is not only the compulsory duty of the philandering party, but it would be irresponsible for him to do otherwise, pursuant to the aforementioned instances in which we have been both good and sweet to you, as well as the imminent risk of breaking the court's heart. Think it o-o-ver."

This is an excerpt of an Onion story, "Supremes Court Upholds Stopping in the Name of Love in 2-1 Decision."

I can't wait until Tina Turner joins the court and they rule on "What's Love Got to Do with It."

Connecticut now has same-sex marriage

From the Washington Post: "The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a state ban on same-sex marriage [on October 10], ruling that it 'discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation' in violation of the state constitution." Read the entire article from the Post.

The Human Rights Campaign offered this jubilant announcement of the decision. Now, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California have full marriage equality for all couples.

(Photo by _www.alvaroarriagada.com ; used by permission.)

Who gets the engagement ring when a couple breaks up?

First-year law school property class included the topic of who gets the engagement ring when a couple breaks up before the wedding. As in many cases, the answer is "it depends." In such a case, it depends on state law; but many states consider an engagement ring a conditional gift, which must be returned if the condition (of getting married) is not met.

A recent story in the New York Times, looks at the various aspects of this question. For many lay people, the question is not always a legal one, but rather an emotional and personal question of who deserves the ring, i.e., whether the jilted party should have some consolation prize.

In exploring the topic more deeply, the article also considers whether the ring should be returned if one of the parties dies before the wedding (which still technically prevents the condition from being met).

Also, paralleling a recent listserv query of family law attorneys in Wisconsin, the article asks whether the ring becomes marital property subject to division in case of divorce. In discussing Wisconsin law, some attorneys considered it a completed gift because the wedding had occurred, therefore it would be the wife's individual property. Others cited state statute that property brought to the marriage or acquired during the marriage was subject to property division. Still others noted that the statute also excludes gifted or inherited property. BUT, yet another attorney noted that the statute applies to gifts from someone OTHER than one of the parties. Obviously, if you ask two attorneys any question, you're likely to get three or more opinions.

As the article mentions too, often the value of the ring is not enough to warrant the legal fees to litigate over who gets it, except for the case in which the ring was worth nearly a quarter million dollars!

(If the couple (or one of the parties) had assets like that, wouldn't you think they would have had a pre-nup? But, that would interfere with the romance, huh.)

(Photo by Somma, used by permission.)

Is this the opposite of a big, fat, Greek wedding?

Move along, nothing to see here...

Nearly anything in society that get big enough creates a negative and opposite reaction. Hence, the anti-wedding. It is not for those who don't want to get married, but for those who think the "Wedding Industrial Complex" has taken over how couples exchange their nuptials. The two woman who began the idea by offering free (anti-)wedding planning services placed a classifed ad reading "We hate weddings. Let us plan yours (free)." In the first five days, they received over 40 responses.

Del Martin is a shining example...

Del Martin, who married her partner of 55 years this past June, died last week. Often, an obituary tells the story of a person's life with a certain formality, but also with perspective on what was important to that particular person.

I can think of no better way to begin my blog that to pay tribute to a life well-lived, especially with so much dedication to the cause for human equality.