Hey Perp; It's the "Common Law"; as it was prior to Code....
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:29 PM, 'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum < [email protected]> wrote: > > 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] >> >> - >> >> <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> >> >> - >> >> - >> - 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/ne >> ws/local/article139540723.html#storylink=cpy >> <https://twitter.com/AndrewDysHerald> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> 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]> 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]> 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]. >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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]. >>> 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. > -- -- 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.
