how to have a marriage-like same-sex union in states that do not afford any legal protection?
467419
You have many options to combine finances.  Of all of these I would advise you to each start a separate trust with all of your worldly assets.  You can name your partner as the benefactor or the trust and vice versa.  I would not advise putting multiple names on loans, leases or credit cards.  If for some reason these things go sour the liability would be greater.  I would advise anyone (married or not) to keep credit cards with only one name.  This debit is forgiven with a death certificate in most states.  By creating a trust account (and making 1 person sole benefactor) you are showing that you are committed to your partner and that you're pennywise!
144590
I already keep the state out of my marriage. I would like to think I am responsible enough to maintain my marriage without the government butting in. But I think that a lot people need someone/thing to act as a mediator when their marriages dissolve, so they turn to the state. Doesn't mean they should, but...
641677
Your first misconception is that the burden is on people who want to keep marriage the same.  It is not.  The burden is on those who want to change it.\n\nI am not convinced more than a tiny fraction of homosexuals actually want to get married.  Aside from highly publicized stunts in which hundreds engaged in fake marriage ceremonies they knew to be non-binding, how many homosexual couples have actually gotten married in Vermont since it became legal?  Do you have any facts?  Not anecdotes, actual numbers from official sources.\n\nEvery reason I have ever heard offered in favor of homosexual marriage is disingenuous.  Gays have a right to pursue happiness.  Good, go, be happy.  But no one has a right to do just as he pleases to be happy.  I might find joy in robbing banks, but they won't let me anyway.  Gays want to live together.  Well, they live together now.  Gays want to express their eternal love and commitment.  Fine, do so.  Write poems to one another; exchange golden chains; get matching tattoos.  Gays want to own property in common.  Nothing could be simpler.  You merely have to both sign the car title or the deed.  Gays want to control each other's medical treatment.  Just give each other a medical power of attorney, or better yet, prepare a living will; you should do that anyway, its a lot cheaper than getting married and much more exact and likely to be honored than simply showing up in an emergency and saying you are married.\n\nYour second misconception is that the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage to all.  It does not.  It does not even guarantee equal rights to all.  Can a minor buy alcohol?  No.  Can just anyone practice medicine or law? No.  Can you carry a gun anywhere you choose?  No.  Can just anyone operate a motor vehicle?  No.  The \nConstitution permits, and even contemplates, the states to regulate all aspects of life in ways deemed reasonable by them.  Marriage is one of those aspects of life.  The states get to define it and they get to regulate who may participate.  In some states you can marry at 16, in others not until you are 18.  The 16-year-olds in the latter state are not thereby denied their constitutional rights.\n\nThere are perfectly valid, non-religious reasons to limit marriage to one adult man and one adult woman.  The principle public policy reason for marriage is the promotion of stable families.  When the institution of marriage breaks down, children tend to get inadequately supervised, poorly educated, badly acculturated, and insufficiently cared for.  A sad example of this in the US is in the black community where 2/3 of the babies are born out-of-wedlock and the crime and unemployment rates are horrible.  The state, therefore, has a vital interest unrelated to any religious stricture in regulating marriage in a manner calculated to strengthen rather than weaken the institution.\n\nCan you think of any principled reason to stop at homosexual marriage, once the monogamous, heterosexual line is broken?  If two men is OK, why not three men?  Three women?  Two men and one woman?  One man and 27 women.  Two men, a girl and a goat?  One man, three women and all their children (as sexual partners, not merely as a family)?  Don't they all have a right to be happy?  Should we permit our moral insecurities to interfere with that quest?\n\nYou want to open marriage to homosexual couples.  But what non-Biblical, non-religious argument would limit it to just couples?  There are, in fact, religious arguments for polygamy.  Mormons and Muslims both believe, for religious reasons, polygamy is a good thing.  Why not polyandry?  Why not pedophilia?  Why not bestiality?  What is your principled argument that would exclude these practices once gay marriage is allowed?\n\nThere is a wealth of sociological information demonstrating that children raised in a stable, heterosexual marriage are much more likely to be healthy, well-adjusted, well-educated, happy, productive adults.  Dr
767448
Hopefully sooner rather than later.  I have a link that outlines the recent history of the same sex marriage legal battle in California along with a collection of relevant links at the bottom.  Hope it helps!\n\nOh, and the second link is to a same-sex marriage advocacy organization in Cali.  Hope THAT helps too!
262057
There is usually some type of legal protection for "Common Law" marriages, which are people who live together for many years without marriage.  You will probably have to get a lawyer to help you, though.
494933
I think legal marriage is just a peice of paper. Being married is really in your heart.  whats stopping you from throwing a big party, exchanging vows and rings accompanied by your family and close friends? i believe there are churches geared toward the gay and lesbian community that can give you guidance. Either way. congratulations on finding that special someone in your life.
167927
In Ohio if you're not married it just got a whole lot easier.\n\nSince Ohio voters wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, no not by outlawing divorce, they enacted a consitutional amendment that stated that it is illegal to give the rights and benefits of marriage to anyone who is not married.  They did this so that homosexuals could not marry and could not get benefits and such.\n\nThe side effect was that if you beat up your live in girlfriend sinc you're not married you cannot have any rights of marriage, of which domestic violence charges is a protection of marriage.  Gotta love lawyers.  HAHAHA, I love this shiz.  That'll teach em.
608396
Marriage.  Sadly, even that isn't 100% secure for some.
30038
There are a couple of ways.  Some counties allow a person to be "ordanied for a day."  Basically, for one day only, they have the legal right to ordain marriages.  Go to the county marraige registar's office to find out if this can be done.\n\nOf course, the no-fail, yet very silly way is to have them ordained by the Universal Life Church, or one of the many like-minded "churchs."  It takes about an hour messing online, but one can easly be ordained by these churchs that don't really exist, but are legally recognized anyway.
531012
Right now, a lot of the state (so-called) defense of marriage acts (DOMA) say that they won't recognize same-sex marriages in other states. \n\nHowever, I think there will be a good case under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to recognize a valid marriage when the couple moves to another state, even thought that's what currently being used to support the federal DOMA. \n\nCurrently, a same-sex couple, married or recognized as domestic partners, are granted only state rights. They don't have federal rights. The GAO has found 1,138 federal benefits granted when a couple marries; all of these are denied to same-sex couples (link is on this page: http://www.thetaskforce.org/community/marriagecenter.cfm). So, if a couple of 18-year-olds go on a bender, go to Vegas and get married by Elvis, they've got those rights that a gay couple who've been together for decades, own property together, raise kids together, etc., will always be denied. \n\nIn some states, I believe Ohio, Utah, and Virginia among them, state law goes as far to say that couples can't contract in a way that suggests a marriage. That would mean wills and other estate planning, power of attorney or advance medical directives, etc.\n\nI really don't see the benefit to the state in denying all of this to a small percentage of the population. Especially since marriage and property ownership are shown to be good overall for a stable population, property transfer, etc.\n\nAs for the analogy to marijuana, over the last few years the federal government has definitely been going after the medical marijuana growers. (What's easier to find, a street dealer or a cancer patient at a pot club?) Again, seems like a lot of effort for the gain. Not that I want people driving around high, but it seems like something akin to how we treat alcohol is in order.\n\nFull Faith and Credit (US Constitution Article IV, Section 1): \nFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. \n\nThe Federal DOMA text:\n1 USC Sec. 7\nIn determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. \n\n28 USC Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof\nNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
1117067
Ok here is what I would do if I were you:\n1. You need to become a resident of Mass. That doesn't mean you have to live there but find the cheapest piece of property you can and make it your primary residence.\n2. Have him get a visitor's visa in order to get here.\n3. Go to Mass. and get married.\n4. Then file all the INS papers necessary for a married couple... fees apply btw.\n5. If you get denied, I would then sue the government based on the law that forces all states to recognize other state's heteorsexual marriages and sue INS for discrimination.\n\nIf you can't get him here in order to get married in Mass., the harder road would be to get married in his country then apply for a marriage certificate in Mass. Afterwards, go from there. This would be the harder road.\n\nGood Luck but I'd hurry because they are saying the rightwing is working very hard to get gay marriage overturned in Mass.
1017285
For sure Maryland ,Massachusetts, New Jersey & Vermount...  i heard that California but i am not sure about that... But in Maryland u do not have to be state resadance to get married there. my 1/2 sisters aunt went to maryland a couple years ago and married her partner\nI remember them saying that it is not recanised as marrige here in pa but they were considerd life partners or a civil union they would not be able to collect from the goverment from one another or file income tax together but just the same they did not care.... it was kinda cool one wore a white! wedding dress and the other a tux and got married right in a gay church. It was something to see i can tell you that much. Her partner ended up dying just 16 months after they were married and she was gay since she was a early teen she had a son from a one night stand with a guy just to see what it was like.. anyway... all she ever wanted was to get married to the right woman  and her dream came true..and her son has a parent in his life he would not of had one because his father was no where to be found. the son lives with the aunt and thinks of her as his mother and is not afraid to tell anyone that his mom is dead but his other mom is raising him now. Now rather i agree with the life style is another story..
1068992
I personally think it is silly to want the state involved in any marriage either straight or gay. Marriage is a formal ceremony stating your intentions before God it is a travesty and an abomination to invite the state to take part in such a union. I have a marriage license but only because my minister required it. I think if I was to get married now I would find a minister who would agree to do it with out the states intrusion. Regardless of if I was marrying a man or a woman. Although as a bisexual I don't think I would ever get married again.
500328
the ULC (and all like organizations) is great but it has legally questionable status for the ablity to solemnize marriage in a few states such as New York, Virginia, and North Carolina.  A state in which the marriage would occur would help
729898
Find an argument for gay marriage that I cannot use for bigamy, incest, etc.\n\nO.K. Me and my Mother are two consenting adults who want to marry each other. Why can't we? By your standards we should be able to also.\n**************************************************\nAll I'm stating is that once you change the definition of marriage, there is no stopping it. Gay people CAN get married, so long as it's with someone of the opposite sex. \n\nIf you're argument is that the definition of marriage is two consenting adults who love each other, then anyone can argue that they can marry their relative. Why can I not marry two women? If we are all in agreement and we all love each other, why can't we all get married?\n\nWhat is your argument for changing the definition of marriage? Every argument leads to other types of marriage such as incest bigamy etc.\n\n***********************************\nI also can't believe how Separation of Church and State has been so distorted. Separation of C&S was designed to keep the government out of the church not the Church out of the Gov't. There is nothing that says people cannot make laws that coniside with their religous views.\n\n************************************\n*******************\n"I certainly hope this person is kidding, because if they aren't, we should all be very afraid. There is a vast difference between two consenting adults engaged in a loving relationship and incest or bigamy. They are very different things and frankly there is no logic in this answer what so ever. "\n\nExplain why it is different? Is it because you think incest is wrong, unnatural, immoral? I think gay marriage is wrong, unnatural, and immoral. Why is your standard better than mine? If you want marriage to be b/w two consenting adults who are the same sex, what difference is it that someone wants to marry multiple wives or their relative? Again, I'll say it again. Any argument that can be used for gay marriage can be used for big./incest. Why homosexual and not incest? Once you open that door there is no shutting it.
1103199
In response to Pieceo..whatever, are you comparing gay men and women to monkeys?  You probably don't think Americans of African descent should be allowed to vote either huh?  Our present government is a fascist regime that feels the need to micromanage its subjects.\nCivil unions are not an exceptable substitute.  Why?  Because they do not come with the tax breaks and financial advantages that marriage does.\nPeople say that the "sanctity of marriage" should not be tainted by gay love.  I challenge that.  I think that the "sanctity of marriage " is tainted by people who are abusive, and in loveless marriages because society says you should not get a divorce, or society says you should be married by a certain age.  Isn't love the basis for marriage?  To have and to hold for better or for worse?  What part of those vows can a homosexual not fulfill?  \nBIG BREATH. okay, I need to stop ranting now.  sorry  Oh and by the way, the reason people first came to live in this great country was to get away from oppression, because there ARE countries that are much worse.  Let us never forget this is the Land of the FREE and Home of the Brave.\nI'm really done now.
959301
In the UK we have recently started to accept civil partnerships, which I hope is the first step towards a better gay marriage law.  The difficulty is that a lot of pople think that "marriage" can only be between a man and a woman and a lot of people think that gay people don't deserve the same human rights as straight people, I hope that these views fall out of favour because there is no real difference and surely two people in a happy, commited relationship are better off than two single people that are living alone and miserable!