Gay Vet Wants To Be Buried With Her Wife
From an unbylined AP story:
BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- A U.S. Navy veteran filed a civil rights lawsuit Monday after the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery refused to allow her to be buried with the ashes of her late wife.Seventy-four-year-old Madelynn Taylor filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boise after she tried to make advance arrangements last year to have her ashes interred with Jean Mixner, whom she met on a blind date in 1995 and married in California in 2008 when gay marriage was briefly legal.
Though federal veterans cemeteries allow the spouses of gay veterans to be interred with their loved ones, Taylor said she was surprised to find the Idaho cemetery -- which is owned and operated by the state -- does not.
Taylor's situation is "among the most extreme examples of the harm caused by state laws that deny respect to the marriages of same-sex couples," said Craig Stoll, a senior attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing Taylor. "Denying these important protections to committed couples is not simply unjust, it is needlessly cruel."
...They chose the veterans cemetery because they knew it would be well maintained and decided on cremation and interment in a wall so their names and spot wouldn't get covered over with weeds or grass.
They wanted to be in Idaho, where their family could come to pay respects.
Appalling that this is how we treat vets -- or anyone. Two people want to be together after they die. You'd think that this would be nobody's concern but theirs.
Via @Drudge
"Taylor's situation is "among the most extreme examples of the harm caused by state laws that deny respect to the marriages of same-sex couples," said Craig Stoll,"
If this is the most extreme example they can come up with of discrimination against gays, I think we have some truly minuscule micro aggressions here.
Pick a federal veterans cemetery,g not a state one.
Unless this is just cooked up by a plaintiffs lawyer. That NEVER happens.
Isab at July 12, 2014 7:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/07/12/gay_vet_wants_t.html#comment-4839447">comment from IsabI think we have some truly minuscule micro aggressions here.
I'm getting sick of the specious overuse of this word.
They want a cemetery close to their relatives.
We have government forcing Christians to make cakes for gay couples.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/colorado-christian-baker-must-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couples-commission-rules-120680/
And the State of Idaho is going to ban two spouses from being buried together?
How in the world does having two gay spouses buried next to each other in a state cemetery that takes veterans (and their spouses) harm anyone else?
That should be the basis laws and rules are created on. We have far too many of each.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2014 7:18 AM
Pretty simple - they aren't legally married in Idaho.
ParatrooperJJ at July 12, 2014 7:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/07/12/gay_vet_wants_t.html#comment-4839516">comment from ParatrooperJJAnd how sick and absurd is that? We have two people who make a legal commitment to each other and are in a longterm committed relationship and we deny them the rights and protections that people with different sex practices have?
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2014 7:46 AM
How in the world does having two gay spouses buried next to each other in a state cemetery that takes veterans (and their spouses) harm anyone else
The test is not how does it harm anyone else.
The test is, does Idaho have to give full faith and credit to California's gay marriages, briefly performed in 2008?
They were not married under Idaho law.
If Idaho has to recognize marriages from other states and countries, should they also enforce tax liens from California?
How bout Muslim marriage laws from Pakistan? Enforce those too?
As soon as you recognize there are bigger principles of sovereignty here, we can get rational about this.
I bet there is a federal veterans cemetery in the region, but that would get them what they wanted without a lawsuit.
Isab at July 12, 2014 7:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/07/12/gay_vet_wants_t.html#comment-4839526">comment from IsabWe recognize marriages from France, Luxembourg, and other countries. But people from France, etc., aren't veterans of the US military.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2014 7:49 AM
There is no national cemetery in Idaho.
http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/cems/state.asp?State=ID
I agree with Amy, in general, about our system of governance. There are too many laws, they are too complicated, and they are occasionally used not to maintain order but rather to stigmatize.
On a positive note, I do think that we are getting better at realizing the difference. Substitute mixed-race for gay and think back 50-70 years, and you'd have the same arguments. The "maintain order" argument was used back then, too...
As an aside, I have on occasion read through the FL statues to research an issue. The ones that get referenced (e.g. the ones that are used in practice) are actually fairly well-written, in English that is plain enough for me to understand both intent and implementation. We, rightly so, complain about too many laws, and badly written laws. But the body of laws as a whole seem not too bad, at least at the state level here. I've never attempted to read any federal statutes.
flbeachmom at July 12, 2014 8:06 AM
Of course, there are always exceptions.
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida
flbeachmom at July 12, 2014 8:07 AM
We recognize marriages from France, Luxembourg, and other countries. But people from France, etc., aren't veterans of the US military.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 12, 2014 7:49 AM
Yes, the law makes all sorts of pesky distinctions like this.
Those people cant get into the Idaho state veterans cemetery either.
But, as I tried to point out, the issue is full faith and credit.
Does the state of Idaho have the right to restrict burial in their cemeteries to veterans, and their spouses under Idaho law?
I am a veteran, and I can't get into Arlington, even if I wanted to. I don't meet their criteria.
I also don't believe having your name on the wall in some specific Veterans cemetery is any kind of civil right.
Isab at July 12, 2014 8:07 AM
People being people.
If you want people to do what you want then you need to be where people think like you.
Not the barrio, not the Indian Reservation, not the rural South, (for me) not Blue States, and so on.
LW is not entitled to WHATEVER because of her beliefs, military service, or her own desires.
Idaho requirements are like other requirements elsewhere. Stupid, irrational, not logical, and need to be changed by LOCAL agreement.
Go private or to Oregon/San Frisco to have your ashes be next to each other.
How many visits do you think your relatives are going to make to visit your urn? Is it about them or you? Are they visiting you? your spouse?
Right or wrong, people are people and change will occur in time but perhaps not in your time. Pick your battles and don't whine when you do pick a fight.
Bob in Texas at July 12, 2014 8:33 AM
It is true that we recognize marriages from other countries. But do we also recognize plural marriages from countries that allow those?
Patrick at July 12, 2014 8:42 AM
The anti-veteran hate is palpable.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 12, 2014 9:16 AM
Ms. Mixner is dead and her ashes interred at the cemetery. It is really petty of the State of Idaho to let one person be buried in the place then refuse a veteran the same privilege. The State may win this lawsuit (DOMA may apply) but that doesn't make them any less a bunch of public dickheads.
We have all heard the phrase, "Thank you for your service." I guess we can now complete that with, "unless you are a filthy lesbian in Idaho."
parabarbarian at July 12, 2014 9:19 AM
Pretty simple - they aren't legally married in Idaho.
Posted by: ParatrooperJJ
In point of fact they are. Interstate commerce clause. Otherwise your hetero marriage signed in California wouldnt be valid in Idaho either.
As soon as you recognize there are bigger principles of sovereignty here, we can get rational about this.
Posted by: Isab
And yet, Idaho does recognize the validity of marriages preformed in other countries
Those people cant get into the Idaho state veterans cemetery either.
But, as I tried to point out, the issue is full faith and credit.
Does the state of Idaho have the right to restrict burial in their cemeteries to veterans, and their spouses under Idaho law?
Posted by: Isab
They could if married to a vet. I wonder how many Korean or Vietnamese women are buried in that cemetery?
Does the state have the right? Yes, but not on religious grounds, which is the sole foundation of anti gay sentiment.
How many visits do you think your relatives are going to make to visit your urn? Is it about them or you? Are they visiting you? your spouse?
Posted by: Bob in Texas
This is why I advocate donating you body to science if possible, and a green burial if not. Cremation if you insists on haveng something to visis. Far to much real estate which could be used to grow crop, raise lives stock, or create wildlife abitias is wasted to venerate the dead that 99% of the time no one really gives a shit about
It is true that we recognize marriages from other countries. But do we also recognize plural marriages from countries that allow those?
Posted by: Patrick
Yes
lujlp at July 12, 2014 9:54 AM
"And yet, Idaho does recognize the validity of marriages preformed in other countries"
Whether they do or not, isn't the point here. If you are 14 years old, and the third wife of some Arab Sheik, Idaho doesn't have to recognize your marriage as a valid one, just because Saudi Arabia does, or possibly some other state in the US.
Do you think they should have to, and perhaps apply Shira law?
Also, as I read it, the woman bringing the lawsuit is in possession of the urn with her wife's ashes.
It isn't buried anywhere, and she isn't asking to have her ashes added to an existing grave or a memorial.
Neither of them are currently in urned at the Idaho state veteran's cemetery.
I just don't see a civil rights violation here. Hope the federal judge agrees.
Isab at July 12, 2014 10:11 AM
"In point of fact they are. Interstate commerce clause. Otherwise your hetero marriage signed in California wouldnt be valid in Idaho either."
And you are wrong here. The interstate commerce clause doesn't apply.
It is full faith and credit that governs. This has many exceptions as states are not required to honor all laws in other states.
For example, concealed carry, or any other law that might violate public policy.
If your hetro marriage was incestuous because it was to a first cousin, or other close blood relative, it would not be honored in a state that prohibits those marriages.
Isab at July 12, 2014 10:18 AM
As a supporter of traditional marriage, I say this:
Let them be buried together.
Repeal any inheritance tax laws that keep her from leaving every penny to her partner.
Those of us who differ about the purpose and definition of marriage can agree there shouldn't be penalties when your closest relative who you entrust with and leave everything isn't an opposite sex spouse.
Losing loved ones is hard enough. They government shouldn't be there to take their money and tell them who to be buried with.
Trust at July 12, 2014 10:41 AM
"As a supporter of traditional marriage, I say this:
Let them be buried together."
Who are you addressing this plea to?
No one is forcing them to be separated. The government (Idaho) is just unwilling to pay for it or to destroy the state's ability to establish and defend its own policies free from federal interference, in other areas which may be more important.
The law is a blunt tool. Hard cases make bad law.
I can be entirely sympathetic to the plaintiff here, and still recognize that a court decision in their favor would be bad for the republic.
I don't like test cases like this. There is no civil right to be buried at federal expense with the loved one of your choice.anymore than you have a civil right to state provided free birth control.
I hope the state of Idaho makes an exception, and gives her what she wants, because that way, it never gets to court on the merits.
Isab at July 12, 2014 11:04 AM
I don't like test cases like this. There is no civil right to be buried at federal expense with the loved one of your choice
True enough, how ever the government doesn't get to say no to gay people "just because they are gay"
lujlp at July 12, 2014 12:27 PM
Pretty simple - they aren't legally married in Idaho.
Posted by: ParatrooperJJ
In point of fact they are. Interstate commerce clause. Otherwise your hetero marriage signed in California wouldnt be valid in Idaho either.
Lujlp,
You are wrong. A year ago or so there was a divorce of a lesbian couple here in Texas. They too married in California. In the end the Texas judge decided they were never married under Texas law and therefor could not be divorced. Alimony is not really a thing in Texas, but we do have community property. The judge ruled that didn't apply. So assets were divided by name on title or deed.
the government doesn't get to say no to gay people "just because they are gay"
The state of Idaho is not saying that. It is saying you are not married. And under current Idaho law they are not. If you don't like that change the law.
Ben at July 12, 2014 3:01 PM
And under current Idaho law they are not.
And the basis for this interpretation is? Recall it cant be based on religious grounds lest it be ruled unconstutional
lujlp at July 12, 2014 9:18 PM
And under current Idaho law they are not.
And the basis for this interpretation is? Recall it cant be based on religious grounds lest it be ruled unconstutional
Posted by: lujlp at July 12, 2014 9:18 PM
Another total mischaracterization of constitutional law.
Where to you get this stuff?
It requires an affirmative act in a state to make gay marriage illegal. The default position is not legal till we say it isn't,
It works the other way around.
Isab at July 13, 2014 2:26 AM
Should have been 'legal'. It is early here.
Isab at July 13, 2014 2:30 AM
Isab - The full faith and credit clause does not require states to honor other states' legal acts. It provides that congress may pass laws regulating the honoring of legal acts. Congress has done so and federal law states that states do NOT have to honor gay marriages from other states.
ParatrooperJJ at July 13, 2014 8:00 AM
Lujlp and Isab,
You are both just wrong here. If gay marriage was legal is the default position then there would be no need for various states to pass laws or lawsuits on federal grounds to force the issue.
10 seconds of Google got me this from Idaho:
TITLE 32
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHAPTER 2
MARRIAGE -- NATURE AND VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE CONTRACT
"Provided that if the male party to the contract is under the age of eighteen (18) and not less than sixteen (16) years of age, or if the female party to the contract is under the age of eighteen (18) and not less than sixteen (16) years of age, the license shall not be issued except..."
Pretty clear the law is talking about a contract between an adult man and a adult woman. As I said, if you don't like it get the law changed. Laws get changed every day. It is really not that big a deal.
And heck, there is even a bit about foreign marriages there too.
TITLE 32
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHAPTER 2
MARRIAGE -- NATURE AND VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE CONTRACT
32-209. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN OR OUT-OF-STATE MARRIAGES. All marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the state or country in which the same were contracted, are valid in this state, unless they violate the public policy of this state. Marriages that violate the public policy of this state include, but are not limited to, same-sex marriages, and marriages entered into under the laws of another state or country with the intent to evade the prohibitions of the marriage laws of this state.
Pretty clear there that same-sex is not covered. So, since the whole same sex marriage was not even a common concept 50 years ago that says that someone changed this law to be explicit it was not covered. Once again, I am not defending this on moral grounds. Someone else changed this law. People do that every day. So if you don't like this law work to get it changed.
Ben at July 13, 2014 8:44 AM
"We have government forcing Christians to make cakes for gay couples.
"And the State of Idaho is going to ban two spouses from being buried together?"
And which is cause and which is effect? Or does it matter? What we have in both cases is a group trying to use the power of government to force their beliefs on the other group. What makes eiher one of them more "right" than the other? How is either of them anything more than just a crony group seeking special privileges?
Don't lose sight of the goal.
Cousin Dave at July 13, 2014 7:21 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/07/12/gay_vet_wants_t.html#comment-4843341">comment from Cousin DaveWhat's the goal? Keeping gay veterans from being buried with their spouse? Noble! Important! Righteous!
Amy Alkon at July 13, 2014 10:14 PM
Amy, c'mon. Did I say that? As far as I'm concerned, someone can be interred any damn way they want to, within reasonable sanitation limits. The Idaho law is a pointless intrusion on individual rights. So are the court decisions telling bakers and photographers which wedding couples they are required to do business with. Both are the results of groups seeking power to force their beliefs on other groups.
If Madelynn Taylor wants to be buried with the ashes of her sweetheart in a Boeing 737, and she can find a cemetary that has the room, I say go for it.
Cousin Dave at July 14, 2014 7:59 AM
Here's an idea, we could all try act like decent human beings.
> The test is, does Idaho have to give full faith and credit
No, the officials don't 'have to' act like decent human beings by law, but they should. Stop parading pointless hate as if it's just some sort of noble adherence to letter of law - BS.
Lobster at July 15, 2014 7:35 AM
Letting bureaucrats do whatever they feel like so they can be 'decent human beings' is a recipe for disaster.
Under Idaho law she is not married, period. She is taking some of the right steps to change that. She can also petition the governor or legislator. Many states allow governors to make exceptions because there will always be exceptions.
There are ways to change the law. Just saying you shouldn't follow it because you don't like it is a really bad idea.
Ben at July 15, 2014 8:26 PM
Leave a comment