What is the legal definition of "marriage"? Specifically, "traditional", common law, and gay marriages. I cannot find short,...
Full Question:
What is the legal definition of "marriage"? Specifically, "traditional", common law, and gay marriages. I cannot find short, but accurate definitions.
07/08/2007 |
Category: Marriage |
State: California |
#7002
Answer:
Marriage is a legal contract entered into between a man and woman who intend to become husband and wife. Marriage creates a legal relationship between husband and wife with rights and obligations governed by state law. Requirements for marriage vary from state to state, but usually require a man and woman to pay a minimal fee and apply for a marriage license from a county court clerk in the state in which they plan to be married.
Marriage is both a legal and a social institution. The term "marriage" ordinarily contemplates a relationship between a man and a woman, and is used to refer to the legal contract that makes a man and a woman husband and wife. In this regard, the term "marriage" in a state marriage statute generally does not include same-sex unions. "Marriage" may be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman as husband and wife, for the discharge, to each other and to the community, of the duties legally incumbent on married persons. In this regard, marriage has been described as a legal state of wedlock or union of two persons of opposite sex associated together as husband and wife for the purpose of establishing a family. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. On May 5, 2005, A federal appeals court dismissed a challenge by two Orange County (California) men to a law denying federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples, saying a couple that isn't legally married under state law has no right to contest the federal definition of marriage. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the result urged by gay-rights groups, which opposed the federal suit because they are trying to overturn California's marriage law in state court. The appeals court also refused to consider the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it should be addressed first by the California courts. The central issue in the case was the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. The law reserved federal marriage benefits -- joint tax filing, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration status and numerous other marital rights -- to opposite-sex couples. Another provision allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in another state or a foreign nation. Both the federal law and the state law were challenged in a 2004 suit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Mission Viejo after they were twice denied a marriage license. The men, both 46, have been together since 1997. They argued that the laws violate their constitutional rights of equal protection, privacy and freedom of association. A federal judge upheld the federal law last June after ruling that Smelt and Hammer had the legal standing to challenge the law because they had registered as domestic partners with the state.