Same sex couples need to disclose State marriage performed?

[Ben E N]

Personally, this is the sort of thing I never let go. Its appears to be a civil rights violation - those are a big deal.

As an off topic note - lots of houses end up in the wrong hands because when it was bought the house was titled so that their is right to survivorship with someone now pretty much out of the picture. If you get divorced or break up with your significant other - or get married but have your parents on the title because they helped you buy the house - make sure to get the title changed. It is likely to overwrite the intentions of your will.

These two comments are exactly why it is so important to get more information when presented with a situation like this. I am not an expert on the law, but it looks to me that all same sex marriage has been legally recognized as of 2015. I am pretty sure this does not backdate to other ceremonies that were not deemed 'legal' at the time. Otherwise, I would be able to forge some documents that were not required to be signed by any legal authority and claim that George Clooney and I were married back in 2002, and that I should be getting alimony from him.
My best guess is that the salesperson did not know whether the ceremony was performed before or after 2015 (sounds like it was after), and was checking to make sure that the marriage was legally recognized before checking off some box on a form. Perhaps not very tactful, but also not being done with malice.
It is also very possible that he was discriminating against a specific group of people, making it harder for them to get the same service that he affords others. If that is the case, it absolutely cannot be forgotten. Once we are humans allow one group to be considered less worthy than another, we set ourselves up to be discriminated against as well. It is not a world that I feel comfortable living in, so we must stand up against even the smallest amount of discrimination.

I am eagerly awaiting a response from the OP in order to see what the story behind this question is.

 

[crisi]

Yeah, you are not an expert in the law, cause that isn't the way it works, nor what the problem appears to be here.

 

[Ben E N]

Yeah, you are not an expert in the law, cause that isn't the way it works, nor what the problem appears to be here.

My only reading on the case has been a couple of legal documents from California about how to go about backdating marriages as far as issues like pension entitlements go, as well as Wikipedia readings, but I have never come across anything that said a private ceremony held in a state that did not recognize same sex marriage automatically counts as a legally binding agreement. That's why there were so many people running out and making their marriages official a couple of years ago, including the famous case where the Kentucky clerk tried to deny the two men their certificate.
The law did say that previously legally recognized marriages, such as those done in California or Ontario (what the Windsor case was based on) are now legally recognized anywhere. That's where the state that a ceremony was held in could still play a role. If someone got married in Kentucky in 2009, then never got the legal documentation to back it up, it is not legally recognized yet. If someone got married in California in 2006, then got a job in Kentucky today, their spouse would get the same benefits that any other spouse would get. The same rules could apply when filling out a beneficiary form, or some other sort of document, when signing a real estate contract.
We have run around saying that it should not matter if a marriage is legal or not, as I could sign the same contract with my brother. However, the salesperson could have been asking an innocent (and ignorant, based on the date of the wedding) question being asked in order to check off a box on a form.

 

[Disfam19]

Perhaps the person made an honest mistake. I’d hate to see someone lose their job because they’re not privy to the sensitive political nature of gay marriage. Making everyone pay who isn’t part of the movement doesn’t serve well for anyone.

 

[kboo]

It’s relevant when deciding how you hold title to real estate. Typically there are 3 ways to hold title (depending on the state) - here are examples which maybe explain it:....
Third example; You and your spouse want to buy a DVC contract and if something happens to one of you you want the other to automatically inherit the contract. Plus you’re a little worried that some creditors might try to collect on some debts you owed from before you were married (your separate debt.) You might want to hold as tenants by the entirety. Not only will you avoid probate, but your creditors from that debt can’t go after your DVC contract because your innocent spouse is protected from your separate debt when you hold title as tenants by the entirety.
There are other differences but those are the biggies in my mind. You can only hold title as tenants by the entirety if you are legally married. There are nuances which only real estate/probate/bankruptcy lawyers get excited about
There may be situations were married people choose to not hold title as tenants by the entirety, for example, if you have children from a previous marriage whom you want to inherit your interest you might prefer to hold as tenants in common, but generally by the entirety is most often chosen by married couples.

My sense was that OP wanted to hold title as tenants in the entirety. No heterosexual married couple has had to prove they were legally married in order to hold as tenants in the entirety; they title companies, brokers, everyone simply took our word for it. (I have bought both direct and resale). My same-sex married friends also have not had anyone question the validity of their marriage to buy DVC. So I am wondering (and thanks for the correction on Obergfell, @mustinjourney) why it is the sales persons "responsibility" to require a higher level of proof of the validity of a same sex couple's marriage. If it ends up being titled incorrectly, isn't that the risk that OP assumes?

Perhaps the person made an honest mistake. I’d hate to see someone lose their job because they’re not privy to the sensitive political nature of gay marriage. Making everyone pay who isn’t part of the movement doesn’t serve well for anyone.

If the person made an "honest mistake," then it's relevant to the training they've been given, and the employer needs to know so they can rectify the situation for the future, both for this salesperson and others who may be making an "honest mistake." And by the way, people are routinely found liable for civil rights violations when they're not "part of the movement;" otherwise any person who held honest racist beliefs wouldn't be liable for civil rights violations. The salesperson may not "believe in" same sex marriage, but equal recognition of those rights is the law of the land.

 

[frabjous]

Or just let it go

"Bad experience, just let it go" doesn't quite live up to:

"Welcome Home"
"The Power of Magic"
"The Most Magical Place on Earth"
"Where Dreams Come True"

 

[.landry]

Or just let it go

Yeah. you dont let go of a question about how to legally deal with property. Let alone your civil rights

 

[.landry]

Perhaps the person made an honest mistake. I’d hate to see someone lose their job because they’re not privy to the sensitive political nature of gay marriage. Making everyone pay who isn’t part of the movement doesn’t serve well for anyone.

I dont think anyone here asked for his job. But if you're going to dig your heels when given some facts in instead of saying, "you know what, let me just double check.", then maybe you need some retraining in customer service. ESPECIALLY disney CS

 

[frabjous]

Perhaps the person made an honest mistake. I’d hate to see someone lose their job because they’re not privy to the sensitive political nature of gay marriage. Making everyone pay who isn’t part of the movement doesn’t serve well for anyone.

No one should have to endure being made to feel as less than a person, and they especially shouldn't pay to be treated that way, intentional or not. It's the exact opposite of what a Disney cast member's job is supposed to be, to make the customer feel special, and have a "magical" experience. Misunderstanding happen, but this is much more than that, this is arguing with the customer, and making up nonsense on top of it all.

 

[Reuven Shechter]

We had no issues as a same-sex married couple purchasing resale. If DVD is trying to make you prove you're married, it sounds like a civil rights violation. We also have a guide who has been amazing in discussing adding-on direct. It sounds like an issue with this guide, but it should definitely be escalated.

 

[crisi]

Perhaps the person made an honest mistake. I’d hate to see someone lose their job because they’re not privy to the sensitive political nature of gay marriage. Making everyone pay who isn’t part of the movement doesn’t serve well for anyone.

Would you feel the same way if you were a single woman who wanted to buy and the sales person said "well, I don't think we can sell to single women without a special release?" That it was an honest mistake that wasn't worthy of correction?

I also don't think anyone is after this person's job - at the same time, if they are digging in their heels about this and won't take correction, then they can't do their job in a way that does not violate the law - and they'll need to lose their job.

 

[crisi]

My only reading on the case has been a couple of legal documents from California about how to go about backdating marriages as far as issues like pension entitlements go, as well as Wikipedia readings, but I have never come across anything that said a private ceremony held in a state that did not recognize same sex marriage automatically counts as a legally binding agreement. That's why there were so many people running out and making their marriages official a couple of years ago, including the famous case where the Kentucky clerk tried to deny the two men their certificate.
The law did say that previously legally recognized marriages, such as those done in California or Ontario (what the Windsor case was based on) are now legally recognized anywhere. That's where the state that a ceremony was held in could still play a role. If someone got married in Kentucky in 2009, then never got the legal documentation to back it up, it is not legally recognized yet. If someone got married in California in 2006, then got a job in Kentucky today, their spouse would get the same benefits that any other spouse would get. The same rules could apply when filling out a beneficiary form, or some other sort of document, when signing a real estate contract.
We have run around saying that it should not matter if a marriage is legal or not, as I could sign the same contract with my brother. However, the salesperson could have been asking an innocent (and ignorant, based on the date of the wedding) question being asked in order to check off a box on a form.

If you are married - in any state and you and your partner are of any gender or combination thereof - without a marriage license issued by the state, you are not legally married. But no one asks straight couples if their marriage was legal or if it was done nekkid in the woods and officiated by the couple's dog without bothering to file a license. Plenty of straight couples go through their lives being "married" without having the legal piece of paper, and they are generally never called on it (I've had to produce my marriage license once in 22 years - when we adopted a child - most people will never need it. I've never needed it to get my husband's insurance. I've never needed it to put him on my insurance. I've never needed it for a mortgage. And I sure as heck didn't need it to buy DVC.) To ask one class of people for additional documentation, and not another class of people is discrimination - a civil rights violation of federal law.

 

[rg35]

Or just let it go

Standard straight cis-male response.

 

[Ben E N]

To ask one class of people for additional documentation, and not another class of people is discrimination - a civil rights violation of federal law.

This is absolutely true and is exactly why I think the OP needs to assertively and strongly find out more information about the scenario. It is possible there was an ignorant misunderstanding, which would require reteaching to that staff member, or purposeful exclusion and/or giving one group a harder time than others, which obviously requires a much stronger response. Without knowing the intent behind the question, it is hard to figure out why it was being asked in the first place.

 

[Ben E N]

Yeah, you are not an expert in the law, cause that isn't the way it works, nor what the problem appears to be here.

So you said this wasn't the way that law worked. I then stated how I saw it worked. Where was I misunderstanding things?

 

[crisi]

My best guess is that the salesperson did not know whether the ceremony was performed before or after 2015 (sounds like it was after), and was checking to make sure that the marriage was legally recognized before checking off some box on a form.

This part. It doesn't matter if the ceremony was held before 2015, as long as they had a marriage license prior to 2015 they are golden - regardless of state of residence. The ceremony is legally meaningless in a marriage. Its the license that counts. If they didn't have a marriage license - which states that didn't legalize same sex marriage wouldn't have issued them, then they wouldn't have been legally married. Just like straight people who don't bother to get a license. But if they'd crossed state lines and gotten married in any of the states where they could have gotten a license, then they were married. No one needed to get remarried after 2015 from a legal standpoint.

(Exceptions for states that allow common law marriage disregarded - although I'm willing to bet that at this point if a state recognizes common law marriage for straight people, they need to recognize it for gay and lesbian couples. That hasn't been tried in court to the best of my knowledge - and probably won't be

 

[nordkin]

We bought direct as a married same sex couple and did not get asked anything concerning our marriage. I would definitely be asking for a different guide if buying direct or salesperson if buying resale.

 

[Tattylou]

Ok, I just followed up with my cousin. Her and her wife bought DVC direct this past November when they were in WDW on their honeymoon. She told me that she does not remember being asked which state they were married in or anything out of the ordinary concerning their marriage.

 

[kboo]

Just looked at our deeds (resale and direct)... hm... The resale deed says, per my request, "as tenants in the entirety," with no mention of husbands or wives. The direct deed says "wife and husband" (because my name comes first).

 

[bumbershoot]

Then said , well Ijust have to ask what’s on the form.???????

So the big huge question is....”what form?”

Perhaps the person made an honest mistake. I’d hate to see someone lose their job because they’re not privy to the sensitive political nature of gay marriage. Making everyone pay who isn’t part of the movement doesn’t serve well for anyone.

When someone makes a mistake at their job, a correction is needed. If they don’t get the correction and correct knowledge, they will continue to make the same mistake.

Making the same mistake repeatedly WILL lead to losing their job. One correction and learning from it should not.

No one here has said to make the salesperson pay. They just want to understand what form and why he’s asking the question, and to help him see that it’s a mistake if it's a mistake.