Court orders Arizona to recognize one same-sex marriage


#1

A federal judge has ordered Arizona to recognize one same-sex marriage, determining Friday that the state must formally acknowledge that Fred McQuire and George Martinez were married.

McQuire and Martinez were together for more than four decades before they got married in California over the summer. In August, a month after they were married, Martinez died. But because same-sex marriage remains banned in Arizona, McQuire asked the court to make the state list him as Martinez’s spouse. McQuire argued that by leaving him off of Martinez’s death certificate, McQuire would suffer emotional harm as well as the loss of financial benefits.

washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/12/court-orders-arizona-to-recognize-one-same-sex-marriage/

Arizona same-sex marriage ban likely to fall
By Lyle Denniston on Sep 14, 2014 at 8:03 am

A federal judge in Phoenix has taken an initial step toward allowing same-sex marriage in that state, indicating that he is likely to strike down the state’s ban when he rules on it soon. Senior U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick, overseeing two cases involving some fifteen gay and lesbian couples, ruled Friday on only one part of that case, but left little doubt where his overall review was heading.

In his fourteen-page order, he ruled that state officials must treat a gay couple as having been married when one of the partners died this summer. Thus, the death certificate must show that they were married at that time, according to the decision. In the course of that ruling, though, the judge offered a range of observations that seem sure to doom Arizona’s ban when he does confront that issue directly.

Continue reading »


#2

I actually can understand the judge’s ruling, and think it is absolutely the right call. After FOUR DECADES of being together, the gentleman should absolutely be given spousal rights. This is from a purely compassionate, understanding view. In fact it’s very hard to rationalize how even the most strict “anti-samesex marriage” crowd would not understand why the judge did this and this is why more and more people are changing their views from opposing to “at least understanding”/supporting SSM.


#3

How does the fact that they cohabited for four decades change anything?

If I went around and demanded that I WAS Darth Vader, and pretended I was, and did this for four decades, would that mean I have earned the right to have “Darth Vader” put on my birth certificate or death certificate? No. No matter how long someone insists something that is false, it does not make it true.

For the same reason, these two men who pretended to be married for four decades, and sadly, sinned for four decades, never were and never could be married. Thus, the fact that they pretended for 40 years doesn’t mean we should publicly acknowledge and affirm their fantasy.


#4

]

:nope: :dts:

After FOUR DECADES of being together, the gentleman should absolutely be given spousal rights.

:rolleyes:

There’s more to it than that.

This is from a purely compassionate, understanding view. In fact it’s very hard to rationalize how even the most strict “anti-samesex marriage” crowd would not understand why the judge did this and

Natural law is a great start. I wish those who support so-called gay “marriage” would consider that for a change.

this is why more and more people are changing their views from opposing to “at least understanding”/supporting SSM.

Why combine understanding and supporting? Is the support just not as great as gay “marriage” activists claim?


#5

If I went around and demanded that I WAS Darth Vader, and pretended I was, and did this for four decades, would that mean I have earned the right to have “Darth Vader” put on my birth certificate or death certificate? No. No matter how long someone insists something that is false, it does not make it true.

:clapping:


#6

I’ll also point out the obvious once again. The media, in using the term “ban” consistently in these stories, is fully abandoning neutrality. By using the term “ban,” they are supporting the side of the issue that believes a “marriage” is actually subject to the pen of a politician. This is not objective journalism. It is choosing a side and reporting favorably to that side.

The pro-marriage side would say there is no “ban,” but that it is a reality, just as there is no “ban” on four-sided objects being called triangles. It is just not reality to say there is a 4-sided triangle.


#7

Well there’s literally nothing stopping you from changing your name to Darth Vader. If you changed your name to Darth Vader it wouldn’t be “false”, your name would just straight up be Darth Vader.

One thing you need to learn about the law is that it doesn’t pretend. If it’s the law, it’s the law.


#8

But that’s the point. You missed the point. If I went around “pretending” that my name was Darth Vader, WITHOUT going in and legally changing it, my name would still, LEGALLY, not be Darth Vader.

In a state where same sex “marriage” is illegal, no amount of pretending that the law doesn’t exist can negate the law. Just because some pair of men will have their feelings hurt because the law is the law doesn’t mean that the law should be removed, or ignored.


#9

One thing you need to learn about the law is that it doesn’t pretend. If it’s the law, it’s the law.

:ehh:

Actually, a law could be passed that said 2+2 =5. It would be a law, but factually incorrect.


#10

In your analogy you never legally changed your name. In this situation they legally got married.

For your analogy to work you’d have to legally change your name to Darth Vader.


#11

You’d have to use an analogy that is based on society, rather than fundamental math, for it to be of any relevance to this situation.


#12

But not in Arizona. Are you trying to tell me that in a state where same-sex “marriage” is illegal, it can be considered a legal action for the state to recognize a same-sex “marriage”?

Please, speak candidly. Since the virtue of analogy seems to be lost on you, I really do want to know what you think.


#13

Well yes if a federal judge orders it.

You’re just asking me if I consider what happened to have actually happened. They were legally married, and a judge ordered the state to formally acknowledge it.

Which part seems to be lost on me?


#14

Lord, have mercy! Amen! :(:mad:


#15

Could you actually look into the face of these men and tell them that for forty years they were “pretending” to be married. Does their commitment to each other literally mean nothing to you? Most straight marriages don’t make it that long. I think your response is a prime example why more and more states, and Catholics are starting to change their views on SSM.


#16

Do you believe that “gay marriage” ought to be legalized nationwide? It seems as though you do but I’d like to know for sure so please answer.


#17

40 years together means something! I am happy for this couple. I’ll be glad when we are no longer discussing this issue.


#18

I think dshix’s point, which I fully agree with, is that because it is impossible for to same gendered people to be “married,” acting out a married life does not convert the impossible to the possible. Whether or not they loved each other is not at issue here. Whether or not a judge wants to award financial monies to the survivor is neither the issue. They were never “married.” That is the position of many people in the discussion regardless of whether or not it is respected. And I think it is a rational position and not an emotional one.


#19

The disconnect here is that they are talking about metaphysical abstractions and you are talking about concrete reality.


#20

This statement sounds like nonsense. Do I dare ask what makes a person who thinks same-genders can be married is “reality” and those who believe same-genders cannot marry are dealing in metaphysical abstractions?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.