I'm torn on going to SF

[ronnykmarshall]

Michael and I are wanting to go to SF to get married. We are in a bit of a time crunch considering the possibility of the courts stopping them.

One of the issues is this. By getting married, we will be voiding out our current domestic partnerships with California and City of West Hollywood.

I don't know what to do. If we do and the marriages are voided by the courts, will we still lose our domestic partner rights?

[efhmc]

1. Would like to see you tie the knot but maybe consult an attorney first.

Goddess bless.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Talk to a lawyer

Don't do anything based on the best guesses of folks here, unless one of 'em is an attorney.

Good luck!

[meegbear]

3. Interesting

that could make a good court case. If you getting married nullifies your domestic partnership, would that entail it is because the marriage is legal? Else, you wouldn't lose the partnership because the marriage was not legal and couldn't nullify it.

[ronnykmarshall]

4. I've got a call into LAMBDA Legal about this.

Angela Alioto in SF told me that the marriage licences application itself state that it voids or over rides the DP.

City of West Hollywood says that we are protected under their laws and it will not be voided, but I want to know about the state.

[Gringo]

5. Can't address the legal aspects, but...

You should go to SF, even if just to go! SF is heavenly. LA is such a pit (no offense).

[ronnykmarshall]

6. I used to live in SF

I loved it.

[ronnykmarshall]

7. YES!!

Just got the answer. Lambda Legal says that legally if the state will not recognize the marriage, then they can not void our DP.



OOOOOOOOO, San-Fran-Ciso open you Golden Gate!

[BurtWorm]

10. Mazel tov!

I heard that the Green mayor of New Palz, NY, will be marrying something like six gay and lesbian couples today. It's like a wildfire may be spreading.

[radwriter0555]

8. Ronnie a "legal eagle' pal weighs in on your predicament, thusly;

"California law does provide that anyone registering a domestic partnership with the State must certify that they are not currently married, as of the time of entering the domestic partnership. And it also provides that a domestic partnership is terminated if one of the partners gets married during it. However, that was written in the expectation that the marriage would be to an opposite-gender partner, and not to the DP partner.

How that would be played out and interpreted by courts, if the marriage is to the DP partner, remains to be seen. It would only become an issue if the partners had some dispute, and it became relevant whether they were technically married or technically DP's. It would be up to a court to figure out which one applied.

That is all assuming that the courts will eventually permit and validate what San Francisco is doing. It is not clear that they will, and it's not clear they won't. Who knows.

On the other hand: the National Center for Lesbian Rights says that people who marry in San Francisco should also register as domestic partners with the State of California, so that they are guaranteed at least one of the sets of legal rights: either they will be treated as married, or treated as DPs, but they won't be treated as unrelated people anymore.

Also note: California law requires that to be married, people must not already be married. If people are married under the law of Canada, for instance, they should not also get married in San Francisco, because that would void the marriage in Canada."

[BurtWorm]

9. What a sucky dilemma!

I can't believe they would have the right to void your domestic partnerships if these marriages don't hold up in court. Of course I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it. But if the domestic partnership falls under human rights law, it would be supremely ironic--to use the mildest term--for the state to use an act of "civil disobedience"--because that's how they'll have to view these marriages if they're ruled invalid in court--against you. In my nonexpert opinion.