1/2/2014 1:25 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
ND will have to refuse a marriage license based on the legal marriage in another state(thus recognizing it as a legal marriage).  Then it becomes a spousal benefit issue.

ND could issue a marriage license based on the fact that they don't recognize SSM in other states.   That would create a polygamy issue.

ND could just cave and allow SSM because they can't win the other two in court.


As for who would take ND to court, it would be the individual being denied or SSM advocates.
"ND will have to refuse a marriage license based on the legal marriage in another state(thus recognizing it as a legal marriage)."

How does that "recognize it as a legal marriage?" I think you're confused by what it means for a state to recognize a marriage as legal within its jurisdiction.
1/2/2014 1:34 PM
On what grounds would they be refusing a marriage license?     We've already been thru this so I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
1/2/2014 1:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
ND will have to refuse a marriage license based on the legal marriage in another state(thus recognizing it as a legal marriage).  Then it becomes a spousal benefit issue.

ND could issue a marriage license based on the fact that they don't recognize SSM in other states.   That would create a polygamy issue.

ND could just cave and allow SSM because they can't win the other two in court.


As for who would take ND to court, it would be the individual being denied or SSM advocates.
They win the first one, I would think.  They're kinda talking out both sides of their mouth, and I get that, but I think it's an easy loophole to close up one way or the other.  There's a solution there that isn't "allow SSM."
1/2/2014 1:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Bill:  "So you're saying I can't marry Jane because I'm married to Jim in MA.  Yet I can't give spousal benefits to Jim because I'm not legally married in the eyes of North Dakota?"

Yeah, no problem here. 
This.
1/2/2014 1:37 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 1:34:00 PM (view original):
On what grounds would they be refusing a marriage license?     We've already been thru this so I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Because the person applying is already in a marriage that is legal in California.
1/2/2014 1:39 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2014 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/30/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Bill:  "So you're saying I can't marry Jane because I'm married to Jim in MA.  Yet I can't give spousal benefits to Jim because I'm not legally married in the eyes of North Dakota?"

Yeah, no problem here. 
This.
It's funny when you "this" your own post. 

No gay couples can get spousal benefits in North Dakota. That's irrelevant, whether or not he can marry Jane has nothing to do with it.

Yes, Bill can't marry Jane because he already has a marriage valid in another state. If he wants to marry Jane, he has to dissolve his prior marriage in the other state.
1/2/2014 1:40 PM
What ND should do is just issue the ML for Bill to marry Jane.   Then he commits polygamy and that's illegal.   It's his problem.
1/2/2014 1:54 PM
I don't know why it's so difficult for BL to understand that ND "honoring" a SSM license from another state is a de-facto recognition of the validity of said marriage.  Which ND (a) does not, and (b) has no constitutional or otherwise legal obligation to do.

If Vermont allowed people to marry trees (because many of the trees in Vermont are better looking than the women in Vermont), then should North Dakota "honor" those as valid marriages also?
1/2/2014 1:57 PM
He understands.  Or he's very dumb.

The whole issue was created to get ND into court. 

"The issue came up when a man giving only his first name called Burleigh County Recorder Debbie Kroshus in September to ask if he could marry a woman in North Dakota if he were already married to a man in another state, she said.

"I didn't ask where this caller was calling from or where he planned on getting a marriage license," Kroshus said in a telephone interview, adding that it was not possible to determine if the man had applied for a marriage license.

The man could not get a divorce in North Dakota because of the state ban on same-sex marriage and he said the man he is married to also lives in a state that does not recognize gay marriage, Kroshus said."

It's a manufactured problem created by SSM advocates.

1/2/2014 2:31 PM
Let me ask this: If those in ND who believe that a SSM is not legitimate, then why do they have a problem with the person getting married? It's not polygamy if it's only one marriage. Right?  And if anything, it would **** off SSM advocates more.
1/2/2014 2:39 PM

The first two paragraphs of the article that revived this thread:

(Reuters) - A man already married to another man in a state that permits same-sex marriage could wed a woman in North Dakota without breaking state laws, the state's top attorney has found.

The finding raises potentially complex issues about Social Security and death benefits, tax exemptions and even possible prosecutions for bigamy or polygamy, said a constitutional law expert.

ND has no problem with issuing a marriage license to somebody already in a SSM in another state.  That's paragraph one.

The problem this creates is explained in paragraph two.

BL thinks (and apparently you agree) that ND should be forced to recognize the validity of SSM in other states.  There's no constitutional or otherwise legal basis for them to do so.  It's not their obligation to "fix" the problem.

1/2/2014 2:46 PM
OK...so if you're already getting benefits from a prior marriage/relationship or whatever, where that issue comes into play, you can't get married again. 
1/2/2014 2:58 PM
Are we going to play the "marriage is about benefits" card?

I argued earlier in this thread that civil unions / domestic partnerships with all the same legal benefits of marriage, just without the word "marriage", should satisfy most people.

I recall that BL said that benefits wasn't enough, they needed the term "marriage" too.
1/2/2014 3:10 PM
I don't think we're debating same sex marriage. It's legal in several states and isn't going away.

The debate comes down to how North Dakota handles its marriage license issuance. The state has three options:

1) It can do nothing and deal with the unlikely possibility that a gay person who is already married to another gay person in a different state will marry a straight person in North Dakota.

2) It can fix the loophole and deny a new marriage license to anyone with an existing marriage in another state without legally recognizing same sex marriage.

3) It can recognize same sex marriage.

I'm betting on 2 being the most likely scenario. Long term, 3 will happen but it will not be because of this.
1/2/2014 3:19 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2014 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Are we going to play the "marriage is about benefits" card?

I argued earlier in this thread that civil unions / domestic partnerships with all the same legal benefits of marriage, just without the word "marriage", should satisfy most people.

I recall that BL said that benefits wasn't enough, they needed the term "marriage" too.
The issue ND is having is about the ramifications of allowing people to get married who consider themselves married already through SSM.  Right?  That's what you said the issue is.  So...you can't get married if you already have something you call a marriage because of the issues stated re: benefits.  There is an entity that considers your SSM a marriage, so for that reason, we can't give you a marriage license because of the benefits you're getting.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.