Sentences with phrase «recognize same sex»

Collaborative law is ideal for Same Sex Couples desiring to separate since Florida does not currently recognize same sex marriages.

We welcome LGBTQ clients and recognize that same sex families enrich our community.

Since Florida does not recognize same sex marriages, and some judges are refusing to grant same sex divorce, they thought that my name tag was referring to «gay divorce» as the next generation of divorce.

Mariama Monique Changamire Shaw and Keiba Lynn Shaw have become «wed - locked,» an increasingly common problem for same sex couples living in states that do not recognize same sex marriage.

However, some insurance companies will recognize same sex partnerships in their own right, providing spouse riders to partners who meet certain qualifications.

If the Florida state does not recognize same sex marriages, that has to do with form, not personal capacity.

The federal government does recognize same sex marriages.

If you would be allowed social security benefits under your spouse's name, these benefits wouldn't be valid in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages.

Four community property states — California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington — recognize same sex marriages and apply that recognition to their community property laws.

Maryland absolutely does NOT recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

D - 76 Instruction Clarification: The District of Columbia (DC) recognizes same sex marriage.

Not exact matches

After courts in B.C. and Ontario ruled that same - sex marriages should be recognized under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Harper charged the Liberals «wanted to introduce this through back channels.

You were married in a state that recognizes same - sex marriage, you are considered «married» for Federal income tax purposes.

And if living in a county that values human rights and diversity is important to you, you should know that Panama recently confirmed its plans to comply with a landmark Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling that recognizes same - sex marriage and transgender rights.

Thus, the diocese would not have to support a same - sex partnership or recognize it as a marriage, thereby avoiding formal cooperation with sin.

And, as Weigel seems to recognize, Lawrence is also new terrain, the possible groundwork for imposing «same - sex marriage» on the nation.

President Barack Obama has come out in personal support of same - sex marriage, has encouraged states to recognize the rights of same - sex couples to marry and even led the movement to abolish Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but he has kept mum on whether or not he believes the Constitution gives gay people the right to marry.

On March 26, the Supreme Court will weigh the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (which forbids the federal government from recognizing same - sex marriages).

Every state limits marriage to male - female couples, and 34 states reaffirmed this do in the 1990s in stating that they would not recognize same - sex marriages contracted in other states.

(A decision for same - sex marriage by a state could as in the case of Massachusetts, preempts the debate in that state, but it is less far - reaching because it leaves other states to arrive at a different conclusion — unless, as some same - sex - marriage proponents have claimed, other states are required to recognize such marriages under the Constitution's requirement of giving «full faith and credit» to other states» proceedings.)

Lawrence contributed, at least to some degree, to the Massachusetts state supreme court's decision in November that the state must recognize same - sex marriages.

In May 2009, the city council approved a measure that amended the city's marriage act and said the city would recognize same - sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

It places the principle into law that if justice requires redefining marriage to include the same - sex couple, so too it could one day demand recognizing the «throuple» and quartet.

Though I am encouraged that Hill sees potential hazards in the use of terms like «gay Christian» and «homosexual Christian,» he, along with Gonnerman and Tushnet, may not sufficiently recognize the problems with describing or defining a person in terms of his or her affective desire for the same sex (whether that desire is relational, romantic, or sexual), in place of the clear definition of our sexual identity revealed to us by Scripture and the Church.

(They're not, because Nebraska does not recognize same - sex marriage, though of course in all likelihood the courts will put an end to that in fairly short order.)

«Recognizing same - sex partnerships does not open the door to changing fundamental marital norms.

(It also says states don't have to recognize other states» same - sex marriages; there is debate over how today's ruling will affect that part of the law.)

''» will, inevitably, be used to punish religious bodies that do not recognize any such thing as same - sex «marriage»: by taking away their tax - exempt status, denying their ministers the legal capacity to act as witnesses of marriage under civil law, or both.

The people of Maine voted on November 6, 2012 to legally recognize same - sex marriage.

But I recognize a dilemma in that... if you do instruct / suggest to people to whom you minister that they be open to and not fear a same - sex relationship, most likely they will one day fall in love and enter into a relationship.

It does not automatically establish a constitutional right to same - sex marriage, but rather said the federal government must recognize same - sex marriages if they are allowed by states.

In the case, the widow of a same - sex union recognized by New York sued to receive a federal tax refund on estate taxes she paid — something she would have received had she married a man.

Kateb is explicit that dignity overrides democratic process: «It is absurd that the voters of California, by majority vote in a referendum, could have decided that a judicially recognized right that allows people of the same sex to marry could be voided by their will.»

New York does not recognize same - sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination.

Recognizing same - sex marriage is necessary «in today's competitive workplace environment that values fairness and equal treatment.»

Perhaps, but the real question is whether Creighton (or anyone else) can disapprove of gay marriage while offering benefits to same - sex spouses — and do so in a state that doesn't even recognize gay marriage (which is the case in Nebraska).

Yet let us remind ourselves that for now, Section 2 of DOMA is intact, preserving the right of states not to recognize same - sex marriages contracted in other jurisdictions.

This morning, the US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether our Constitution requires states to recognize same - sex civil marriages.

But there are scores of millions of Americans who would choose not to recognize same - sex «marriage» as the real thing, if they were fully free to choose, as employers, educators, landlords, providers of goods and services, social service providers, and so on.

Becky, those of us who believe that «it is for freedom that Christ has set us free» would defend the right of religious institutions to refuse to marry same - sex couples as passionately as we defend the right of same - sex couples, as equal citizens, to have their spousal committments recognized by the secular State.

According to DOMA, states are not required to recognize a same - sex marriage performed in another state, meaning these couples are not eligible for Social Security survivors» benefits, insurance for government employees, immigration status, filing of joint taxes and more.

Let's say you run a camp and you don't want unmarried people (or same - sex couples even if they are married since you wouldn't recognize them as married) sleeping together in your camp since you consider that sinful.

Birth certificates will no longer list «father's name» and «mother's name» but «Parent 1 / Parent 2,» a change already made on certificates issued in some jurisdictions that recognize same - sex marriage.

Within the span of a decade, same - sex marriage has not only been legally recognized, but its acceptance has been declared an index of one's status as a citizen committed to liberty and justice for all.

As a nationally recognized leader in LGBT Healthcare equality by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation, we take great pride in the many years of helping same - sex couples and individuals become parents.

In light of a few things that happened of late — the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage for same - sex couples, the addition of the word cisgender into the Oxford English Dictionary, the rise of the transgender movement, with Germany leading the way for parents to register their baby as something other than just boy or girl, the increase in stay - at home dads and egalitarian marriages, universities recognizing a third gender, the desire by some to be called they versus he or she, the declaration that 2015 is the year of the gender - neutral baby, it's clear we are moving toward a society that is busting up traditional views of gender and what men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers look and act like.

As same - sex couples marry — and especially if the law changes so that their marriages are recognized under federal law — I think you might see them begin to specialize more.

I'm talking about the ballot initiatives in Maine, Maryland and Wisconsin where citizens finally pulled together and recognized the importance of granting the right to marry to same - sex couples.

Although love is the No. 1 reason for hetero couples, according to the Pew Research Center, following closely behind are lifelong commitment, companionship, kids, having the relationship be recognized by a religious ceremony, financial stability and, finally, legal rights and benefits (same - sex couples overwhelming cite the legal rights and protections).

Even a state that doesn't want to recognize same - sex marriages will still recognize an adoption order.