On a side note, SC is one of the most back-assward states in America when it comes to their laws. My dad retired down there and when he got sick I learned that he nor his wife had any kind of legal documents (wills, medical directives, powers of attorney). I found out that SC doesn't have an automatic right of survivorship for the home and other assets when one spouse dies. Luckily I got it all in place for them in time before he died, or she'd have ended up with nothing and the house and his retirement account would have gone to me and my brothers. We would have signed it over to her, but still, I'm sure there are people out there who might not.
That was just 12 years ago. I would have thought most states had those sorts of protections for spouses in place by now; I imagine oldsters who have no such plans/documents in place isn't completely uncommon. 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.
