Gay marriage ruling will keep the culture wars burning
Set aside for a moment your personal beliefs about gay marriage. What does it say about yesterday’s federal ruling on the subject, which struck down California’s constitutional amendment against gay marriage, that some of those who support gay marriage are nervous about the judge’s reasoning and his decision’s reach?
First, from Dan Blatt, one of the writers at Gay Patriot:
I find that the judge makes some good arguments for gay marriage, but doesn’t succeed in relating them to the constitution. His legal analysis is sloppy at best and dismisses the sex-difference argument for traditional marriage by flippantly referring to what he calls “discredited notions of gender” as if the assumptions about a supposed social construction of gender had been proven true when, in fact, all serious psychological, sociological studies have shown the opposite. Not to mention studies of the human brain.
He fails to cite a provision of the federal constitution which prevents states from making distinctions based on sex difference, primarily because there isn’t one.
(snip)
What I like is that he does make a strong case for the social benefits of marriage as an institution, the kind of arguments I believe gay marriage advocates should be making in legislatures and in courts of public opinion. (emphasis original)
Next, there’s Dale Carpenter writing at Volokh Conspiracy (note that I’m not sure whether Carpenter personally supports gay marriage, but he writes about that perspective here):
In reading so far, I think a notable feature of Judge Walker’s decision is its judicial maximalism — a willingness to reach out and decide fundamental constitutional questions not strictly necessary to reach the result. It is also, in maximalist style, filled with broad pronouncements about the essential characteristics of marriage and confident conclusions about social science. This maximalism will make the decision an even bigger target for either the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. If that’s right, it magnifies the potential for unintended and harmful consequences for gay-rights claims even beyond the issue of marriage. Think of a possible (but milder) anti-SSM [same-sex marriage] version of Bowers v. Hardwick, which had consequences far beyond the constitutional affirmation of sodomy laws.
Walker is the first federal judge to hold that states must recognize same-sex marriages. By doing so, he eschewed a potentially narrower ruling striking down only Proposition 8, which had been suggested by some commentators. … In theory, [such a ruling] would have left states free to retain traditional definitions of marriage not reinforced by passion-driven plebiscites. I think a narrow, strictly anti-Prop 8, decision would have tried to thread too thin a needle, but it was an option….
Few courts upholding a right to SSM have used a fundamental-rights rationale (not even the original SSM decision, Goodridge, did so). It’s an aggressive claim, especially given the composition of the federal courts and the Supreme Court. I see little enthusiasm in this Court for expanding fundamental rights. If the Ninth Circuit and/or Supreme Court decide to reverse Walker’s ruling, they will be more likely to deal with this issue in a way that will set broader precedent.
And finally, Hot Air’s Allahpundit:
[W]hile it’s no secret that I support gay marriage too, I think they’ve made a needless mistake in pushing this in the courts instead of doing it legislatively state-by-state. The optics are uniquely bad — a federal judge imperiously tossing out a public referendum enacted by citizens of one of the bluest states in America on the shoulders of a multi-racial coalition. If the goal of gay-rights activists is to make same-sex marriage palatable to the public, then embittering opponents by torpedoing a hard-fought democratic victory seems like … an odd way to go about it. The response to that will be that equality can’t wait, just as it couldn’t wait vis-a-vis school desegregation in the 1950s. Except that (a) no one, including gay-marriage supporters, seriously believes that the harm here is as egregious as the harm to blacks under Jim Crow, and (b) there was no assurance of a legislative solution to racial injustice in the 1950s the way there currently is for gay marriage. A strong majority already favors civil unions; as I noted earlier, opposition to same-sex marriage is in decline and down to 53 percent. When polled, young adults are invariably heavily in favor, guaranteeing that the legal posture on this issue will shift further over the next decade. The real effect of this decision, assuming it’s upheld on appeal, will be to let gay-marriage opponents claim that they were cheated in a debate that they were losing and bound to lose anyway. That’s what’s called a pyrrhic victory. Too bad.
This last bit is the key point here imo. A judge who overturns a state constitutional amendment approved by a significant majority of voters, in an election with high turnout, creates resentment not only among those who disagree with the outcome of the ruling but with the process of it as well. Process isn’t everything, but in a nation ruled by laws it is very important.
Such an expansive ruling, one that all but guarantees a showdown over the issue at the Supreme Court, might as well eliminate two possible compromises that may have garnered majority support: first, a move to recognize civil unions and grant them equal legal rights without redefining the term “marriage”; or second, and trickier, a move to stop using marital status to grant those legal rights.
I read a comparison somewhere of this ruling to Roe v. Wade — implying that a judge’s insertion of himself in the legislative process means the culture wars will rage on for decades longer. Oh, joy.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
126 comments Add your comment
arnold
August 5th, 2010
12:40 pm
“A judge who overturns a state constitutional amendment approved by a significant majority of voters, in an election with high turnout, creates resentment not only among those who disagree with the outcome of the ruling but with the process of it as well. Process isn’t everything, but in a nation ruled by laws it is very important.”
How about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority? Ever heard that expression?
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
12:48 pm
Left wingers are in a bind. They are for Muslim rights AND gay marriage rights yet they don’t even realize that Muslims will kill gays faster than you or I can say Allah Akbar!!!!!!
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
12:49 pm
“How about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority?”
Oh, so you think black people are tyrannical? RACIST!
RainbowMittens
August 5th, 2010
12:51 pm
Just because the majority vote one way does not make a law Constitutional, and that is the ultimate law of the land. Isn’t that obvious to a learned person like yourself?
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
12:52 pm
Kyle, what separates you from Bookman and Tucker is the fact that you don’t contradict yourself.
1: Cynthia Tucker was all for majority vote when it came to Obama getting elected in 2008. Now she says that the majority doesn’t count.
2: Bookman calls right wingers bigots etc but says nothing about the fact that Muslims will kill gays on the spot.
Bottom line: Obama and the left wingers are in a big tough bind. Gay marriage has been voted against in every single state in the union when it’s been on the ballot. Obama himself said that he is against gay marriage and that will come back to haunt him.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
12:53 pm
“Just because the majority vote one way does not make a law Constitutional”
There is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. Nothing. The pursuit of happiness had NOTHING to do with marriage. Idiots.
CJ
August 5th, 2010
12:53 pm
“I read a comparison somewhere of this ruling to Roe v. Wade — implying that a judge’s insertion of himself in the legislative process…”
Complaints from conservatives about judge’s inserting themselves into the legislative process (i.e.,. judicial activism) rings hollow since they support the conservatives (so-called) on the bench of the Supreme Court who are among the most activist judges in history. Conservatives are against judicial activism, except when they’re not.
In addition, when these same whiners wake up one morning to oppose judicial activism, they’re ignoring Civics 101 where we were taught about the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. (Reminder: It says that the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.”) Electoral outcomes and the “resentment” factor are to be irrelevant to a judge’s decision. The judge has to ask, taking precedent into consideration, is the law Constitutional? Voters don’t get to override the Constitution, no matter how many turn out to do so.
And for the record, true conservatives (not to be confused with faux conservatives who hijack the label for marketing purposes) support this ruling. Faux conservatives, however, will use it to exploit another from of bigotry specifically to misdirect attention from their real agenda (steal from the middle class and give to the rich).
CJ
August 5th, 2010
12:56 pm
Corrections: Complaints ring hollow…another form of bigotry…
Bill
August 5th, 2010
12:57 pm
For some reason, heterosexuals seem to believe that their right to vote includes a right to harm law-abiding citizens with their vote.
It doesn’t.
That’s where the Constitution come into play, folks.
Matti
August 5th, 2010
12:58 pm
What is the point of continuing to wage “culture wars?” What constitutes victory, and what exactly is the benefit thereof?
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
12:58 pm
“right to vote includes a right to harm law-abiding citizens with their vote.”
No one has been harmed, ma’am. Gays like to pretend that they are in the same struggles as blacks were in the 60’s. MLK would laugh at gays if he were alive today.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
12:59 pm
CJ
What are you gonna write when gays are murdered by Muslims?
Kyle Wingfield
August 5th, 2010
1:04 pm
CJ, if you’re going to invoke the Supremacy Clause, tell me which part of the Constitution was contradicted by Proposition 8. Because, as one of the above quotes points out, the judge didn’t do that, and, as another of them points out, no one before him has claimed that it’s a fundamental right to have the government recognize your personal relationships.
Matti
August 5th, 2010
1:11 pm
Grand Forks,
Gays ARE murdered by Muslims in Muslim countries — for the “crime” of being gay — all the time. I hope we’re better than that, and realize that the law, whether federal, state, or local, should not discriminate against any subset of citzens simply for being part of a subset.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:16 pm
“Gays ARE murdered by Muslims in Muslim countries — for the “crime” of being gay — all the time.”
I KNOW THAT!!!!!! That’s why I am confused by left wingers who support Muslims yet say nothing about Muslims who kill gays.
“should not discriminate against any subset of citzens simply for being part of a subset.”
There will always be discrimination. Affirmative Action discriminates as well as other government programs. Anything government sets out to do it ends up causing strife and conflict.
Matti
August 5th, 2010
1:29 pm
That’s why I am confused by left wingers who support Muslims yet say nothing about Muslims who kill gays.
I don’t know the people to whom you refer. I support the freedoms prescribed in our Bill of Rights, including the right to choose (or reject!) religion w/o government interference. It’s not my place to tell another American where or how to worship. It is the marriage of government and religion in those countries that makes it illegal to be gay, and legal to execute gay people. I have no control over those governments, but I hold this country to a higher standard. Don’t you?
jonnyQuest
August 5th, 2010
1:31 pm
Memo…Culture wars have always been burning and will continue to burn until the last man/woman on Earth takes their last breath.
Will
August 5th, 2010
1:37 pm
We are a nation of laws, not popular opinion.
One another subject. Did I hear this correctly? Republicans are now saying that the 14th Amendment needed to be “re-interpreted”? Senator Sessions said that he doesn’t know what the 14th Amendment was supposed to say but he says he doesn’t think it was intended to allow a woman from Brazil to come to America and have a child who would then be a American citizen.
Huh? Have republicans become the dreaded “judicial activists” they so fear? I thought republicans wanted application of settled law, not interpretation of law.
I guess judicial activism is bad only when it isn’t!!
What a hoot!
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:37 pm
“I don’t know the people to whom you refer.”
Cynthia Tucker, Jay Bookman, MSNBC etc….
“I support the freedoms prescribed in our Bill of Rights, including the right to choose (or reject!) religion w/o government interference.”
Uh huh, and I bet if the KKK were to set up operations next to the MLK center you’d be ok with that…
“Don’t you?”
Yep, which is why it’s stupid that the government ruled in favor of something that is religious. Marriage is not a government entity.
Hypocrisy: Left wingers got angry when Bush called for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Fast forward: Left wingers are happy when government ruled in favor of gay marriage.
Hypocrisy at it’s finest.
jasperite
August 5th, 2010
1:38 pm
This case is dripping with irony.
What I find ironic is that the opinion is by a Republican judge appointed by President Reagan.
And even more ironic, his confirmation was held up 2 years by pressure from the gay community because of his successful handling of a case preventing a group of gay olympians from starting a “Gay Olympics”. He was seen as “anti-gay”.
More irony. The brains behind the constitutional argument and the plaintiff’s case are Ted Olson and David Boies, the opposing attorneys in the Bush v Gore Supreme Court case in 2000. Olson was the attorney for Bush and, of course, won the case for Bush & put him in the White House.
The fact that Ted Olson went on to serve as Solicitor General of the US under George W. Bush is even more ironic.
Is this true bi-partisanship at work?
And Kyle you need to read the opinion. The opinion in fact weighs in heavily on the due process and priviledges & immunities clauses.
Olson & Boies have a strong constitutional case regardless of your opinion of gay marriage.
From Article IV of the Constitution: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immuniities of Citizens in the several States.”
From the XIV Amendment to the Constitution: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Kyle…”no one before him has claimed that it’s a fundamental right to have the government recognize your personal relationships.”
This is wrong Kyle. Read the opinion. There are quotes from a pile of Supreme Court majority opinions stating just that – that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
I do agree the culture wars will continue. And I believe the Constitutional “war” will continue.
People are people and as such they want to Constitution to say only those things they want it to say. The current discussion on the 14th Amendment is a perfect example; it says one thing and some wish it did not say that.
This is going to be a wonderful case to follow as it winds it way through the system.
Aquagirl
August 5th, 2010
1:39 pm
Burning in the AARP crowd maybe. When you get to the under 25 crowd, there’s not even a smolder. This issue is self-limiting.
And Kyle, citing in the last paragraph you read something somewhere that implied something else is not really a strong finish.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:39 pm
“Republicans are now saying that the 14th Amendment needed to be “re-interpreted”?”
The 14th amendment doesn’t say anything about marriage. I guess left wingers can’t read.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:41 pm
“When you get to the under 25 crowd, there’s not even a smolder. ”
Do you always get your talking points from Keith Olbermann? He said the exact same thing last night.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:46 pm
Irony
A failing president stumps for a scandal filled politician in Chicago. LOL
Obama Returns to Illinois for U.S. Senate Campaign Dominated by Scandals
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-05/obama-returns-to-illinois-for-u-s-senate-campaign-dominated-by-scandals.html
Aquagirl
August 5th, 2010
1:49 pm
Really? No, I don’t watch Keith Olbermann. I have a low tolerance for rants, left or right.
But it’s not a talking point, it’s an observation. If the culture wars are to continue, as Kyle says, they need fuel.
CJ
August 5th, 2010
1:51 pm
“CJ, if you’re going to invoke the Supremacy Clause, tell me which part of the Constitution was contradicted by Proposition 8.”
That’s a discussion I’m happy to have, Kyle. However, I want to emphasize again that arguments that legislation is unconstitutional are entirely separate from arguments that a judge should ignore the Constitution and constrain his or her decisions to the whims of the electorate and/or their elected officials.
You quoted the following from Blatt, “[Judge Walker] fails to cite a provision of the federal constitution which prevents states from making distinctions based on sex difference, primarily because there isn’t one.” Blatt is flat out wrong. The decision directly addresses how the California amendment violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Walker also relies heavily on precedent which, of course, references the Constitution.
Blatt might not have agreed with the decision or how it was reached, but to write that it “fails to cite a provision of the federal constitution” is nonsense.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:53 pm
“Really?”
Yeah, I’ve heard that talking point more than a few times on MSNBC. Anyway, do you have any proof that the under 25 crowd doesn’t care about the issue?
“I have a low tolerance for rants, left or right. ”
Can’t blame you there.
“If the culture wars are to continue, as Kyle says, they need fuel.”
Fuel huh. Well, the left wingers just threw C4 into the fire yesterday. That’s all the fire the right needed. Get ready for the revolt.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:54 pm
CJ
Where in the US Constitution does it mention the word, marriage?
Baffled
August 5th, 2010
1:54 pm
How this topic went from gay marriage to lefts wanting to protect Muslim rights is beyond me.
Matti
August 5th, 2010
1:54 pm
Grand Forks,
How about we remove from our government the sale of marriage licenses entirely? It certainly fits in with the “smaller government” mantra to cease the pointless hocking of pre-packaged “marriage” rights. Then citizens, gay, straight, or ambivalent, can ALL marry however they choose and hire lawyers to secure property rights and so forth. (I mean, EFF Crate & Barrel. Seriously.)
As for the KKK, as long as they don’t infringe on the lawns or rights of others, I don’t give a *bleep* what those cowardly, bedsheet-wearing morons do!
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
1:59 pm
“How this topic went from gay marriage to lefts wanting to protect Muslim rights is beyond me.”
Not my problem if you can’t read.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
2:00 pm
“How about we remove from our government the sale of marriage licenses entirely?”
Fine with me.
“As for the KKK, as long as they don’t infringe on the lawns or rights of others, I don’t give a *bleep* what those cowardly, bedsheet-wearing morons do!”
Ok, I highly doubt blacks would agree to that, but glad you do. Thanks.
Matti
August 5th, 2010
2:06 pm
Grand Forks,
Most black people I know are too busy to waste their energy worrying about how ignorant white trash entertain themselves.
artatlarge
August 5th, 2010
2:06 pm
Wingfield, you are just as responsible for furthering the Culture War as anyone else. You and your conservative trolls simply believe that gay people are inferior or somehow sick, and that they don’t deserve the same civil rights as anyone else.
You make me sick, and I am proud to embody the kind of secular humanism and liberalism that makes your ilk so very afraid.
You don’t even seem to realize that it is very likely that someone in your own family is gay, you bigot, and having to hide who they are from everyone.
The culture war will end when people like you finally come to their senses, or are simply overwhelmed by tolerance and love.
But, you still disgust me.
JF McNamara
August 5th, 2010
2:06 pm
Kyle,
Being African American, I have no problem at all with how the gays are achieving their rights. Achieving our freedom was a literal battle(civil war) and against the Southern majority. Achieving a semblance of equality in schooling and fair treatment in the courts was against the majority in the Southern States, but America did the right thing anyway.
The courts are there to ensure that the all men are created equal and that the majority can not oppose tyrannical rule over the minority. Only 2% of the population is gay and in order for them to gain any freedom, feelings will have to get hurt because they will never have the votes. The court decision is fine because progress is painful. It was for women, it was for Blacks, it was for Italians, it was for Irish, it was for Jews, it will be for gays.
Finally, people need to understand what true freedom is and what our forefathers wanted for us. Freedom is not living under the rules of majority. It is all men, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, etc being able to live their lives in the manner they see fit so long as they do no harm to others in our society. I can’t think of any way someone being married and gay hurts me, because I have the option to not be married or gay. The opposers today are nothing more than the same as those that fought against every other minority segment getting anything. I don’t care one iota how they feel.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
2:07 pm
“Most black people I know are too busy to waste their energy worrying about how ignorant white trash entertain themselves.”
Uh huh. Tell that to the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world.
Aquagirl
August 5th, 2010
2:09 pm
Grand Forks, I’d cite this. http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Public-Opinion-on-Gay-Marriage-Opponents-Consistently-Outnumber-Supporters.aspx
I’m not sure why you’d characterize Ted Olson as a left-winger, he certainly threw a big ‘ol figurative firebomb at the anti-gay marriage crowd.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
2:10 pm
“The opposers today are nothing more than the same as those that fought against every other minority segment getting anything.”
So you’re calling your fellow blacks out? Blacks were the ones who voted against it in California.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
2:11 pm
“I’m not sure why you’d characterize Ted Olson as a left-winger, he certainly threw a big ‘ol figurative firebomb at the anti-gay marriage crowd.”
I didn’t call him a left winger. Your words not mine.
As for the poll, I don’t buy into it simply because gay marriage has been voted down in every single state in the union where it’s been on the ballot.
Trust me, this won’t end well for gays.
Kyle Wingfield
August 5th, 2010
2:22 pm
For all our newfound constitutionalists: How do you square this ruling with the one in a Massachusetts federal court saying the Defense of Marriage Act violates states’ 10th amendment right to define marriage as they wish?
artatlarge: It has nothing to do with inferiority or hatred, at least not for me. I think there is an important principle at stake when government tries to redefine a social institution to correct the problem that arises when government bases the granting of certain legal rights on that social institution.
In other words, if the problem is that government grants certain civil rights based on marital status, then change what government *does*, not what marriage *is*.
Aquagirl
August 5th, 2010
2:27 pm
Grand, then who was throwing the C4 yesterday? The judge based his ruling on the case co-presented by Ted Olson. It’s not like the people testifying against prop 8 just wandered in. Olson and Boies are the ones who constructed the case.
I know it’s terribly inconvenient someone having a conservative record would side with the “left-wingers” as you call them, but pretending Mr. Olson doesn’t exist is kinda strange.
Matti
August 5th, 2010
2:36 pm
Mr. Wingfield,
if the problem is that government grants certain civil rights based on marital status, then change what government *does*, not what marriage *is*.
Exactly. Don’t sell that license to Don and Betty while refusing to sell one to Roger and Matthew. One solution is to stop selling licenses. Another is to sell it to Roger and Matthew. “What marriage *is*…” — well, that’s up to each person who enters into it, don’t you think? Personal responsibility applies.
Kyle Wingfield
August 5th, 2010
2:53 pm
The license is not the point, Matti. Why is the license useful?
Drew
August 5th, 2010
2:56 pm
TRUE conservatives (i.e. libertarians) think the government should stay COMPLETELY out of the marriage business. It is a financial contract entered into by two or more consenting adults, and the government should have NO say in the matter.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
2:58 pm
“I know it’s terribly inconvenient someone having a conservative record would side with the “left-wingers” as you call them, but pretending Mr. Olson doesn’t exist is kinda strange.”
I’m not arguing that, girl. All I was stating was the fact that in every state where gay marriage has been on the ballot, it has been voted down by people who know it’s wrong.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron simply because it doesn’t make any sense. Even the president and vice president are against gay marriage. Their words.
No matter what anyone says or does, gay marriage will never be considered “normal” by any means. It’s also interesting that every major religion is opposed to gay marriage.
CJ
August 5th, 2010
2:59 pm
“For all our newfound constitutionalists: How do you square this ruling with the one in a Massachusetts federal court saying the Defense of Marriage Act violates states’ 10th amendment right to define marriage as they wish?”
Kyle,
The ruling that you refer to was made in favor of the plaintiff, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, seeking to retain it’s authority to recognize same-sex marriages. In a separate ruling, the same judge found that DOMA violated the due process provisions of the Fifth Amendment.
In short, there’s nothing to square.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
3:00 pm
“TRUE conservatives (i.e. libertarians) think the government should stay COMPLETELY out of the marriage business.”
Yep, and we can all thank Bush for making it a huge priority to win votes in 2004. He called for a constitutional amendment which never happened.
The next fight will come when gays try to marry in churches that are against it. What will be interesting is when government steps in and tries to make churches marry gays which will be a total contradiction of Separation of Church and State.
Kyle Wingfield
August 5th, 2010
3:04 pm
CJ: I find it hard to believe that the 10th amendment could grant one state the right to recognize same-sex marriage and not grant another state the right not to do so.
Grand Forks
August 5th, 2010
3:06 pm
“I find it hard to believe that the 10th amendment could grant one state the right to recognize same-sex marriage and not grant another state the right not to do so.”
It can’t and won’t. Again, this so-called “win” for gays is noting but a mirage. But, either way, gays can’t reproduce.
Matti
August 5th, 2010
3:08 pm
Mr. Wingfield,
Why is the license useful?
The marriage license, once purchased, signed, and duly executed, carries with it an inherent, pre-packaged set of rights. Partners not legally married must hire a lawyer to draft contracts for some of these rights. Others are simply not available to them. Here’s an abbreviated list: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims’ recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
I think we can safely assume the license is “useful.”