POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: Joe K on October 23, 2008, 01:34:13 pm
-
Almost everyone knows, a same sex couple, devastated by the sickness or disability of one partner, who enters a hell pitting him or her against whatever family, may exist. How many times, have thoughtless families, swarmed like locust in their attempt to take everything and throw the remaining mate, to the wolves? This issue affects anyone, who is unable to get married, as defined by the U.S. government and it denies them, 1,138 rights granted to couples permitted to marry. Those rights are far reaching and have major consequences. They include rights that affect your health, your legal rights and the right to designate, whomever you choose, as your primary caregiver.
According to the research I did, there are currently 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. Spouses have or are entitled to:
Visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will.
Benefits for federal employees – many of which are also offered by private employers – such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans.
Some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will.
The ability to create life insurance trusts.
Tax benefits, such as being able to give tax-free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns.
The ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran’s benefits for a spouse.
Discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance.
Immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad.
Visiting rights in jails.
Because you cannot marry, you lack the equal rights guaranteed, in the U.S. Constitution. You lack the civil rights to form a union and have the power to protect that union, as married people can. In a non-married couple, you are not legally related, and for many of us, we have had to fight, to exercise our wishes. Those issues relate to health care, property, financial, inheritance and a myriad maze of issues, faced by those couples with children. The hoops we must jump through are endless, they vary by state, and the cost to protect you both, can easily run into the thousands of dollars.
When Stephen and I became a couple, we spent over $3,000, in partnership agreements, durable power of attorneys, durable power of health care, specific directions on end of life issues and wills. If we could marry, we would need none of these protections, save for the wills. However, since we could not marry, we could not provide survivor rights for one another. We pay the same taxes as everyone else, but we are not equal, in federal programs, under current law. So why are we denied, the right of marriage? Let me dispel any notion that same sex rights are no big deal. They are a very big deal, and while I want true equal rights, in the meantime, I will settle for marriage rights.
Let me also be clear, that I am speaking of marriage, in reference to the civil ceremony and not a marriage, sanctioned by any religion. All religions have the right to choose whom they will marry in their church, but the federal government has no such right. There is nothing in our founding documents, which relegates Americans degree of rights. We are all granted inalienable rights, including those for the pursuit of our happiness. Why does it matter, who we love? Why is civil marriage restricted at all?
Opponents of gay marriage, claim that protecting the institution of marriage is paramount, because only through marriage, can you procreate and raise a family with both a mother and a father. When I hear that argument, I have to wonder, that if we want marriage to only support the “traditional family”, then we should deny marriage licenses, to those couples who are sterile, unable to conceive, or beyond childbearing age.
I hope you agree that the last statement was straight out of the stone ages. Yet, that is exactly how non-married couples are treated. Civil unions or same-sex marriage is a blatant attempt to relegate gays to a second-class citizen status. In addition, the lack of similar rights, for any couple, outside of “legal” marriage, remains a minefield as well. Saddest of all, however, is the fact that most gays cannot become foster parents or adopt a child. With all the unplanned pregnancies and hundreds of thousands of parentless children, you would think we would encourage adoption by any and every loving couple.
I admit that I am hopeful, that equal rights are coming, when another state legalizes same sex marriage. However, I cannot escape the feeling, that same sex marriage remains a distraction. It smacks to me, of throwing us a tolerance bone, the same way, you might give a sweet, to an insolent child, just to make them be quiet. Gay marriage is double-speak to me. On one hand, it signifies tolerance and recognition, yet on the other, it codifies us as supposedly, separate but equal. Huh? Either you have equal rights, or you do not. This issue is black and white; there are no shades of gray here.
I believe that equal rights will come to America and for now, our best hope is to change people’s minds. Those who can must live their lives honestly and in the open, to show others that we share the same wants and fears. Yes, gay marriage matters, but only as a prelude to full equal rights. This is not an issue of more or special rights, for any citizen. Rather, it is the next great step that this country must take, if we are to be as inclusive, as our founding fathers envisioned.
-
The only thing I can add to what you have stated is ' I TOTALLY AGREE 100%'.
-
I don't know if the TV commercials are seen outside of Calif, but the YES On * Committee claims, NO on 8 means churches lose their tax exempt status and public schools will teach second graders "boys will marry Boys and Girls will marry girls. Yes on 8 signs are popping up, even here on the Russian River, a community which is financially sound because of gay dollars. ;D Have the best day
Michael
-
And once again, just as a reminder to Florida Residents, to vote "NO" on Amendment 2, on November 4th !! (If you haven't voted already)
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=23275.0
http://www.fairnessforallfamilies.org/template.aspx?id=306
Ray
-
And still once again, focus on the family has created yet one more assult on Arizona with prop 102. It proposes a constitutional amendment that states "Marriage will only be recognized bedtween a man and a woman". The religious right is estatic once again, but I would suspect that in a state which already voted for spousal rights will squash this one also. By the way, this is also the state which has passed Medical Marajuana three times. I hope that fucus on the family is finally going to give up with this one when it also fails. Otherwise there will be a constitutional fight to equal the one in California on Marriage rights.
Funny thing about this is that the Gay community in Arizona has never been aggressive about Gay Marriage rights since the beginning. Only the good Christians who want to make sure we are surpressed. God bless the ignorant.
-
God bless the ignorant.
Hey Moffie,
Ignorance is alive and well here on the Russian River. I have spotted some YES on 8 signage on Mirabel Road, right next to the McCain/Palin support signs. Today, I was driving on Railroad Ave (a neighborhood where rich conservatives DO NOT live) and there was a sign right across the street from Food for Thought. Ignorance lives on and is running strong ;D Have the best day
Michael
-
Dear Joe
It took me some time to respond to your post because a lot of what you wrote about "throwing the remaining mate to the wolves" resonates with what I have been struggling with for the past 3 1/2 years. During the last months of my partner's life , somewhere in the back of my mind I was preparing myself for the inevitable. Even though he had a will and I had durable power of attorney, my focus was on him, not on what could possibly happen to me after he was gone.
We talked about becoming domestic partners, we talked about "what if we could really get married?" We even exchanged rings while he was in the hospital, right in front of his mother. But truthfully, when you are in crisis mode, you can only focus on the "right here and right now."
I've learned a lot of hard lessons over the past few years, especially in regards to legal issues surrounding relationships. Domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. Unless you have a living trust, you are only allowed 50% of the estate. Health benefits are considered taxable income. Your name will not appear as spouse on the death certificate (since you are not family). Property taxes are not waived when you have to sale the house to divide the estate (since you are not a spouse or family). The list goes on and on.
I am not focusing on the "What if?" or "only If we..?" I just want this estate crap to be over and done with. It takes up way too much time and energy that could be spent on healing. I know his memory, our memories together will always be there. I am certainly in a much stronger emotional state than I was in 3 years ago. But seriously, I really need all these legal issues behind me, so that I can begin to get on with my life.
oh by the way, the new Yes on Prop8 slogan is Protect Freedom of Speech. I also saw supporters holding signs saying "Stop discrimination against christians!" oh my
-
Joe, I totally agree with you.
A comedian recently said "Why shouldn't homos suffer like the rest of us" when talking of marriage.
Thought that was funny.
Moff, 102 Will fail , I'm sure of it.
-
I personally do not agree with Gay marriages but, I thought Civil Unions would provide the same protections as marriage... unforntunately I guess they do not... How many other countries around the world allow for Gay marriages? just wondering...
-
I personally do not agree with Gay marriages but, I thought Civil Unions would provide the same protections as marriage... unforntunately I guess they do not... How many other countries around the world allow for Gay marriages? just wondering...
As far as I know:
South Africa
Belgium
The Netherlands
Spain
Canada
... and more to come hopefully!
Pat (who just got married)
-
Thanks for the replies and I know that all of you, in states with referendums against gay marriage, will do your best to insure their defeat.
Sharkdiver, please accept my heartfelt sympathies, for the hell you have been living, these past few years. My post was written, for people just like you, who have experienced firsthand, the damage a lack of equal rights brings. Your story illustrates my point, in a way that my words could never achieve. Thank you for sharing and I wish you all the happiness, as you regain your life,
As for gay marriage versus civil unions, they are not the same, because they only apply at the state level. A civil union, will not entitle you, to any federal benefits, like those given to married people. That is why I am so opposed to civil unions, because they mean relatively nothing, and while they are a step, in the right direction, they are not equal rights.
Canada supports true equality and that is why Stephen and I left the States. For years, while living in Florida, we were subject to discrimination and harassment, due to our sexual preference. During the last three years there, we were gay bashed, by a neighbors 14 yo son, which ended in his threatening to murder us. At the hearing, for Orders of Protection, against this kid, the father claimed that we could be PEDOPHILES and were making it all up, even though we had witnesses. We obtained the OPs, but the police would not enforce them and the family has tried to appeal the OPs, twice now, with both requests being denied. I know that, if we had been a married couple, our treatment, would have been very different. But we are not and in being so, we were denied equal protection, under the law.
Believe it or not, this OP saga continues. Yesterday, I got a call, from the father of this kid, who wanted us to contact the court and request that the OPs be rescinded. He claims that we all did things, as kids, that we regret and his son should not have this on his record. Funny guy. Personally, I do not know anyone, who had a record at 14, because they threatened to murder two people. As they say, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
-
Oh geez, he actually called you?
Part of me thinks he should continue to be reminded of his actions and then part of me thinks he should demonstrate some real remorse. Maybe you there could be a compromise if he clocked in 200 hours with an AIDS agency or something? I think you are right, and I've witnessed this before "the nut does not fall far from the nut tree."
-
Unless you have a living trust, you are only allowed 50% of the estate. Health benefits are considered taxable income. Your name will not appear as spouse on the death certificate (since you are not family). Property taxes are not waived when you have to sale the house to divide the estate (since you are not a spouse or family). The list goes on and on.
Sharkie, and all of you gay couples reading this; please pay heed here. Knowing this fact, my sweetie and I motored out to San Francisco in 1995, to create our own "Living Trust". We tried to find an attorney in New Mexico to do one, but none would even touch it because we weren't worth $600,000 dollars. I argued with all of them that it didn't matter and I was willing to pay the $3500 to create the trust. We found a couple of attys. in San Francisco who were creating trusts for those families affected by HIV for cost, so that is why we went there. I cannot tell you how much peace that has brought us over the last 13 years when my health was very tenuous from month to month, because of the fact that both of us have aggressive families who would immediately step in if there was no such document. We owe our partners a sense of stability when and if we pass, and this is the only legal way I know to completely assure that there will be no outside interference when one dies. Everything we own of value, including our "collections of stuff" are named and under the ownership of the trust. Therefore, if a person is not listed in the trust, they have no say at all.
Anyone here can PM me for the names of these Attorney, but I don't know if they are still doing it. I can tell you, I would have paid full retail even if I never found them, because the peace we have together is worth twice the price.
-
I personally do not agree with Gay marriages
Why not, exactly?
-
I personally do not agree with Gay marriages but, I thought Civil Unions would provide the same protections as marriage... unforntunately I guess they do not... How many other countries around the world allow for Gay marriages? just wondering...
I don't argee with Gay Marrage as well, maybe I would, if I had a VERY GOOD Income and owned a Home, but sence I don't, why would it matter to a person like me, ( I own nothing of vaule, or at least nothing anybody would really want, not even my family members) I do understand that if I do marry (while I'm on Disibility) I'd loose almost all of my benefits, ( like Medicaid, Hud Sec 8, that's right they would combine both our incomes and we would LOOSE most of the benefits we get now) if I should marry.......Gay Marriage is Great , if you both work, and have Very nice Imcomes, and you both own Property, if you don't, (like we do) then, I wouldn't recommend it ??? .......just sayin
Gay Marriage is all about MONEY $$$, that's why the Federal Govt. is against it, that's why all of the Ins, companies don't want it, it would cost too much money to have to change EVERYTHING, and no politican in America wants to touch that one ::) Gay Marriage has nothing to do with Civil-Rights.....it's about MONEY$$$
if passed it would protect YOU and YOUR Partners ASSESTS ( If you have any) but, if you don't, what is the point
we both have Life Ins policies, and both of us are the sole benefators, if we should die, and most Life Ins, Companies don't give a rat-ass, if your benefator is your Partner when you die.........
-
Gay Marriage is all about MONEY $$$, that's why the Federal Govt. is against it, that's why all of the Ins, companies don't want it, it would cost too much money to have to change EVERYTHING, and no politican in America wants to touch that one ::) Gay Marriage has nothing to do with Civil-Rights.....it's about MONEY$$$
Of course there is a money component to it but it is more about people's values. The average conservative American is not getting worked up about the money aspect. They are getting upset because for a lot of people homosexuality still equals immorality. Two women who don't need a man, two men raising a child, goes against their view on how the world should be. Gay marriage is very threatening to some people. It is right up there with abortion.
-
Of course there is a money component to it but it is more about people's values. The average conservative American is not getting worked up about the money aspect. They are getting upset because for a lot of people homosexuality still equals immorality. Two women who don't need a man, two men raising a child, goes against their view on how the world should be. Gay marriage is very threatening to some people. It is right up there with abortion.
Yea I agree with you on that point, but, Please explain to me, how someone like me, has anything to gain form getting Married? I just don't see the gains form getting married to my partner of 15 yrs. as were both low income, and will never gain anything form being married to each other while on disability? if anything we would be opening up a HUGE CAN OF WORMS.now if we won the lottery, and became VERY RICH, then maybe we would consider getting married to each other, (so, that we can protect our Assets)....................but yes, there are people who are still very much threatened by the immorality of Gay Marriage............ and, I don't think thats gonna change any time soon.............no matter who wins the White House..............
-
Please explain to me, how someone like me, has anything to gain form getting Married? I just don't see the gains form getting married to my partner of 15 yrs. as were both low income, and will never gain anything form being married to each other while on disability?
it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with issues surrounding the death of a partner when you're married. Sharkie been struggling with the probate issue for over 3 yrs. and I lost the car and our house when my partner recently died.
but since I'm on disability, like you, let me tell you that it's more important than just the material possessions. Even though many of the hospital staff were quite nice to us while Jim was in the hospital, I had to pull out the medical power of attorney more times than I could count and literally scream at the staff and doctors at times to just enter the same room as Jim. No marriage and no family relationship means you are nothing to that patient. The MPOA sure helped by giving me some rights, but it didn't make anything easier and I still had to fight to be with Jim and make decisions when he couldn't.
I never cared too much about following the "straight plan" and getting married (though I still have my rings from being with Randy and with Jim); but several nights sitting by Jim's side while he was unconscious, I thought about how much easier it would have been dealing with the hospital if only we had been a married couple.
-
I don't see why you just can't say "I don't want to be married, instead of saying you are against gay marriageit?" If it was legal, then I would have a choice to be married or not.
Frankly, for me it's not about the money, it's about RESPECT.
What makes you think that another Briggs Initiative is not waiting in the wings in the California's legistlature. (remember that? Proposition6? just 30 years ago?)
I'd rather not have to sit in the back of the bus
-
leatherman.........Yes, your situation was a little different then mine was, I had my former partners Life Ins. and I was the sole benefactor when he died back in 92, but I didn't have a problem with any of that, my problem was his family ,they wanted the life ins. but I didn't give it to them, so, they didn't like me for that, but, they also couldn't do a dam thing (to me legally) about it, also, he had no assets, no home, and didn't own any property, I did offer to bury him, but his family declined my offer, and even today, we aren't on very good terms about any of this, just the other day ( I saw one of his sisters) and she told me to rot-in-hell ??? but this didn't bother me.....I still have very good lasting memories about my former partner, and no body can ever take them away form me ;D
-
I don't see why you just can't say "I don't want to be married, instead of saying you are against gay marriageit?" If it was legal, then I would have a choice to be married or not.
Frankly, for me it's not about the money, it's about RESPECT.
What makes you think that another Briggs Initiative is not waiting in the wings in the California's legistlature. (remember that? Proposition6? just 30 years ago?)
I'd rather not have to sit in the back of the bus
Sweetie... :-* I never said I was against Gay Marriage, and I do hope you get thur all of your legal matters, as I'm sure you will ;D and I only wish the best outcome for you hon.........I know this must be VERY hard for you not to have any of this settled after 3 yrs. I'd go all the way to Sacramento RIGHT NOW just to give you a heartfelt HUG, but, I cannot, so, for what it's worth heres a cyber naked Bear HUG :-* I do know how you feel, I lost 2 life partners.........even tho both had NO ASSETS or Property (only had Life Ins.) and personal possessions they left for me to keep.........
-
I don't see why you just can't say "I don't want to be married, instead of saying you are against gay marriageit?" If it was legal, then I would have a choice to be married or not.
He didn't say he was against it, he said he didn't agree with it and listed his very valid reasons why. I'll list some more. Starting with Gay Divorce. Who gets what? Who gets the kids? Already I'm seeing plenty of lesbian divorce hearings where the natural birth mothers are having to fight to keep their kids because "They were married." Who gets the house? The one who paid for it or the house husband who spent the most time in it? Yeah there are a lot of rights that go with marriage, but there are also a lot of negative responsibilities and those appear to be getting ignored in all of this.
As for me, I just don't care. Maybe if I was in a relationship where it mattered I might, but I don't see that happening and I don't think I'd appreciate loosing all my health and disability benefits if it did happen.
-
Allowing same-sex couples to get married would allow them to enjoy the same benefits of straight couples, should they choose to get married. And the great news for some of the posters in this thread is that when states do make gay marriage legal they don't force gay couples to marry, it is just an option that treats all couples equal. So the good news for gay couples is that can live together much as their straight counter parts do.
He didn't say he was against it, he said he didn't agree with it and listed his very valid reasons why. I'll list some more. Starting with Gay Divorce. Who gets what? Who gets the kids? Already I'm seeing plenty of lesbian divorce hearings where the natural birth mothers are having to fight to keep their kids because "They were married." Who gets the house? The one who paid for it or the house husband who spent the most time in it? Yeah there are a lot of rights that go with marriage, but there are also a lot of negative responsibilities and those appear to be getting ignored in all of this.
Well fortunately thanks to a high divorce rate among straight couples, gay couples won't have far to look to find examples of how to end marriage.
-
Frankly, for me it's not about the money, it's about RESPECT.
I'd rather not have to sit in the back of the bus
It amazes me to see fellow sodomites sell themselves down the river so easily. The issue is NOT about the word "marriage" but about the word "equality" -- and frankly the gay rights movement did themselves a gross disservice by framing the discussion with the word "marriage" as it seems to imply that they wish to force churches to perform services/rights against their wills, which is not the case.
The issue is also not whether you are personally in a relationship or not, as that should not impact your views on constitutional equality. Then again, I'm eternally aghast at viewpoints expressed on these forums as being largely uninformed.
-
The issue is NOT about the word "marriage" but about the word "equality" -- and frankly the gay rights movement did themselves a gross disservice by framing the discussion with the word "marriage" as it seems to imply that they wish to force churches to perform services/rights against their wills, which is not the case.
I agree totally. I think marriage, which is so closely related to the religious ceremony, should be taken out of the discussion and attack the issue from an equality standpoint. Strictly based on legal points the arguments against allowing a same-sex couple to enter into a legal arrangement equivalent of marriage seem to be hard to find.
-
At any rate, this issue will ultimately be settled in the same manner, and by the same judicial logic, as miscegenation laws were in 1967 with the Loving v. Virginia decision. Keep in mind that isolated state decisions came first in 1948 (California, Perez v. Sharp) and then it took 20 more years for a case to make it's way to the Supreme Court, which finally overturned the remaining 16 states (notably all "red" states with the exception of Delaware) that still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books.
If you study how all of that came about it provides a blueprint for what will happen with gay marriage/equality -- it just may also take 20 more years. That's how things work in a large country where half of the states are knuckle dragging neanderthal-like and attempt to decide social issues based on Biblical readings instead of the US Constitution.
-
Wow, this is really interesting.
Personally, I don't want marriage either, because the straight population (ie Christians) have already ruined the "sanctity of marriage" by the number of devorces this country currently has on the books.
However; I do want the same, exactly the same, number of benefits that marriage gives a couple. The country can call it anything they want, but I want the legal benefits to apply to my sweetie of 20 years, and myself. That shouldn't be rocket science, but it seems like it must be, because we are one of the only industrialized and democratic countries on the planet that still refuses to give GAys the same respect and legal standing as our loving straight couples have.
What a load of crap that we are refused anything. It smacks of prejudice of the worst kind and worst smelling.
Quit paying your taxes, and see how soon they come into an understanding that we need our equality!!!!
-
The country can call it anything they want,
Unless it's called the exact same thing, there will be loopholes applied somehow. Do NOT accept anything other than the EXACT same wording. Equality is not equality unless it's exactly equal.
-
The issue is also not whether you are personally in a relationship or not, as that should not impact your views on constitutional equality. Then again, I'm eternally aghast at viewpoints expressed on these forums as being largely uninformed.
It does boggle the mind. So sad that some are forever locked in their little world of black or white.
-
If same-sex marriage survives California's ballot challenge, it will largely be due to state Attorney General Jerry Brown.
The original propositon read: "Prop. 8 asks voters to affirm that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" The orginal title was "Limits on Marriage"
What we see on our ballots is " "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"
It might seem like just a matter of semantics, but one reading asks people what they believe and the other reading ask us to take away something from somebody else. When it's presented as a equal rights issue, more people are apt to be in 'favor' of gay marriages (By the wording of the proposition, if you vote 'YES', you are against gay marriages and if you vote 'No', you are for gay marriages.) So we're looking for the propositon to be defeated.
Another factor in its favor is voter turn-out. Check out today's headline from the SF Chronicle: Poll predicts Obama landslide in California (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/30/MNPR13QI21.DTL&tsp=1). That's a good sign.
By the way, more than $60M is being spent on this proposition, with a little more than half being spent by 'opponents' (that's us.)
robert