The ruling means same-sex couples now have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, experts say. Those rights include alimony, health insurance, taxes, the division of property and others. ----
So now they get the *real* benefits of half the marriages - lawsuits! Interesting story. On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:29:58 PM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Therein you've adopted the redefinition of marriage. There is no such > thing as, "Heterosexual Marriage"; a marriage is between a man and a woman, > and has been for eons....Until our government, against the will of the > majority of people, decided to redefine it. > > Get ready for more headaches: > > http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html > > Same-sex legal groundbreaker: Judge says Rock Hill couple married in S.C. > for decades > > BY ANDREW DYS > > [email protected] <javascript:> > > - > > <http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html> > > - > > <https://twitter.com/share?text=Same-sex%20legal%20groundbreaker%3a%20Judge%20says%20Rock%20Hill%20couple%20married%20in%20S.C.%20for%20decades&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html> > > - <javascript:> > > - > - LINKEDIN > > <http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html&title=Same-sex+legal+groundbreaker%3a+Judge+says+Rock+Hill+couple+married+in+S.C.+for+decades> > - GOOGLE+ > > <https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html> > - PINTEREST > > <http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html&description=Same-sex+legal+groundbreaker%3a+Judge+says+Rock+Hill+couple+married+in+S.C.+for+decades&media=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2fv7is9s-Attorney-talks-about-York-County-groundbreaking-same-sex-marriage-court-ruling%2fALTERNATES%2fLANDSCAPE_1140%2fAttorney%2520talks%2520about%2520York%2520County%2520groundbreaking%2520same-sex%2520marriage%2520court%2520ruling> > - REDDIT > > <http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html> > - PRINT > - ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY <http://www.mcclatchyreprints.com/> > > ROCK HILL > > Debra Parks wanted to be treated the same as anybody else by the courts. > At 62, she’s disabled, and split from her partner of almost four decades. > She filed a lawsuit because she wanted her relationship, which ended last > year, to be considered a common law marriage under South Carolina law. > > Parks is gay. But until 2015, same-sex marriage was illegal. > > “I was in a same-sex relationship for all those years,” Parks said. “We > owned a house together. We were a family, even when society didn’t accept > it.” > ADVERTISING > > Now, in what legal experts and Parks’ lawyers say is a groundbreaking case > for South Carolina, and possibly for other states with common law marriage, > a Family Court judge in York County has ruled that Parks and her former > partner had a common law marriage under state law. And the state must > recognize that their common law marriage has been legal for almost 30 > years, the judge ruled. > > The ruling means same-sex couples now have the same rights as heterosexual > married couples, experts say. Those rights include alimony, health > insurance, taxes, the division of property and others. > > The ruling immediately becomes a legal precedent, and has the potential to > impact thousands of people in same sex relationships, experts and Parks’ > lawyers say. > > The ruling states a same sex marriage can be a common law marriage, and > backdates the period of effect to the beginning of the common law marriage. > > The order from Family Court Judge Thomas White states that, before the ban > on same sex marriage was lifted in 2015 by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, > there were no other South Carolina cases addressing same sex marriage, > whether licensed or common law. > > “Quoting William Shakespeare, ‘A rose by any other name would smell as > sweet,’” White wrote. “The law established by the U.S. Supreme Court in > Obergefell (the supreme court case overturning the gay marriage ban) should > be applied retroactively in South Carolina.” > > South Carolina allowed legal gay marriages in November 2015. > > The ruling is the correct legal ruling to protect spouses of the same sex, > now that the same sex marriage ban has been ruled to be illegal and > discriminatory, legal experts say. Common law marriage is a marriage > without ceremony or license but includes the other aspects of a marriage > such as living together and joint property. > > “This is definitely new,” said Marcia Zug, a family law and marriage law > expert and professor at the University of South Carolina law school. “It is > the first of its kind. And not only is it a new decision. It is the right > decision.” > > Zug said the ruling seems to be morally and equitably right and addresses > fundamental fairness, yet could face a legal challenge because it is a new > ruling. > > “The judge wants to be on the right side of history. It is a fact that for > all those years America did not let (same sex couples) get married,” Zug > said. > > South Carolina is one of eight states that recognize common law marriage, > according to the National Conference of State Legislatures Web site. Parks’ > lawyers, Jim Tucker and David Martin of Rock Hill, said the case is > important because same sex marriages were not recognized until 2015 and > left an entire group of people “out in the cold” without the protections > the law provides to heterosexual couples. > > “This is the first one we are aware of in South Carolina and nationally > where a case was tried and had a judge determine that the common law > marriage was valid,” Martin said. > > Tucker said the other part of the ruling that is equally important is that > it’s retroactive. Before this ruling in York County, gay people in common > law marriages had no recourse under the law to seek relief after a breakup, > Tucker said, and the years of relationship were not recognized by any court. > > The order states that Parks’ common law marriage is retroactive to the > time when Parks divorced her husband while already living with her same sex > partner. As a young adult Parks was married to a man and had two children. > She and her female partner became a couple in 1977. In 1987 Parks divorced > her husband, the order states, and the common law marriage began. > > Susan Dunn, legal director of the South Carolina American Civil Liberties > Union, said the ruling is the first of its kind in the state she knows of. > Yet the retroactive part of the ruling might face the toughest legal > challenge, Dunn said, because there is no other case to compare it to. > > “This is new,” Dunn said. “And important.” > > Parks and her partner split up last year, testimony showed. Parks filed > the suit so she so could seek a division of property and spousal support. > But her former partner fought the lawsuit, saying she never asked Parks to > marry and never intended to be married, court documents show. The partner > said, both she and Parks were free to leave the relationship at any time, > court documents show. The partner argued she did not consider the > relationship marital, court documents show. > > The spousal support part has not yet been ruled on but will be heard in > the coming weeks, Tucker said. > > Parks’ former partner cannot appeal the ruling until the second part of > the case concerning assets is finished, Tucker said. > > The Herald is not naming Parks’ former partner because court documents > show the woman is worried about negative repercussions on her job and at > the Catholic church she attends. The lawyer for Parks’ former partner > declined comment on her behalf. > > White’s decision is not surprising, said Miller Shealy, a professor at the > Charleston School of Law. > > “Once the courts recognized same sex marriage, everything else from the > marriage follows including rights of the parties,” Shealy said. “That > includes marital property, alimony, divorce, all of it...It is clear all > rights and duties of marriage now apply to same sex couples.” > > Gay couples have became more socially acceptable over time, but for years > the couple’s seemingly obvious relationship was shielded, White’s order > said. > > “Non-acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships was the > prevailing environment and atmosphere of the community at large during the > majority of the parties’ cohabitation,” White wrote. > > The couple was monogamous, court documents show, and clearly held > themselves out as married to some friends and family -- even if some family > objected. In a court hearing Parks’ family, including one of her grown > children, testified that Parks and her partner were “just like any married > couple.” > > Current York County property records show Parks and her former partner > listed as owners of the home they bought in Rock Hill. Parks and her > partner also bought other property together, had joint bank accounts, used > each other on tax documents, and lived together until 2016, court documents > show. > > “I want people in my situation to know they do have rights, and can get > help,” Parks said. “We were married.” > > Andrew Dys: 803-329-4065, @AndrewDysHerald > <https://twitter.com/AndrewDysHerald> > > Read more here: > http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html#storylink=cpy > <https://twitter.com/AndrewDysHerald> > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> expose their kids to such depravity. >> >> That is how you perceive it, many people understand there are all kinds >> of people with different relationships out there ... if heterosexual >> marriage was so good, why do more than half of them end in divorce!!! >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Regan <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >>> There is no need to do anything other than inform people of the content >>> and message. Then they can decide whether to go spend their hard earned >>> dollars on it and expose their kids to such depravity. Disney only cares >>> about profit, they don't give a crap about "Promoting equality and >>> diversity": itself a mindless statement devoid of any substance or >>> intellectual scrutiny. >>> >>> *Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid* >>> On Mar 20, 2017 4:48 PM, ImStillMags Mags <[email protected] >>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>> >>> You were very happy when Disney touted "morality" that agrees with your >>> views of the world, which they have done since the beginning. >>> >>> Now you're not happy when Disney holds up ethics and morality you deem >>> unacceptable, like acceptance of people as they are. >>> >>> Like I said, your problem. >>> >>> What do you want to do about it? Control what Disney does? Make laws >>> against Disney? Force Disney to only produce what YOU deem acceptable? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:07:23 PM UTC-7, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> I'll go back to my original post, which is accurate, supported by the >>> articles I posted and even to the article that you attempted to post but >>> didn't read: >>> >>> >>> *"I'm aggravated that Disney feels the need to direct our moral compass >>> and generate what ethical standards should be in Western Society."* >>> >>> You should be too, unless you're an Anti-American who wishes to see our >>> Nation become a third world or fourth world Nation-State.....Which one is >>> it? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 4:04 PM, ImStillMags Mags <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> When you are tired of posting articles about how Disney touted morals in >>> the past maybe you can re read my sentence that Disney has been doing this >>> for eons. Of course back then it was "acceptable" if the morality Disney >>> touted agreed with you. Now, if you don't like the fact that Disney is >>> promoting equality and diversity.....that's your problem. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 11:09:22 AM UTC-7, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> Hey Mags! >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> brine >> http://brineb.blogspot.com/ >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
