Current or modern politics in the United States

[HugoHackenbush]

When you sift through the arguments for gay “marriage” what is evident is that the motivating factor is not “equality” but money.

As stated before, I live in an area of the US that has a huge gay population, and I’ve heard all the arguments. What was trotted out as the reasons why gay marriage was needed and indeed a civil right did not hold up under scrutiny.

The first was that “I can’t inherit from my partner” Total rubbish. Anyone can leave their money to anyone they wish through that device known as a Last Will and Testament, which has been done for what, 500 years? You can even disinherit your kids, but the only person you can’t disinherit is your spouse. Thus the reasoning is false and backwards. The only thing a gay “marriage” will prevent is one from disinheriting the other.

The next was “I can’t make health care decisions for my partner”. Again total rubbish. A simple one page health care directive gives them that right. No marriage required.

The next one was that these documents required a lawyer who would charge “thousands of dollars”. I actually read that in a newspaper opinion column. These forms are available from online legal services, and even if you did engage an attorney, a simple Will leaving everything to the partner and a healthcare directive should not top more that a few hundred dollars, not thousands.

Even cheaper, if the gay partners held all of their assets in joint ownership with what is known as “rights of survivorship” e.g banks accounts, homes and the like, no probate would even be necessary, as the property would pass automatically to the survivor, no Will required.

No the sad truth is that so many government programs and employers offer benefits to “spouses” that it was time to hop on the gravy train with everyone else. Now some employers (most notably the Walt Disney Company) already voluntarily extend their benefits to “domestic partners” regardless of sex, (c’mon where do you think Disney gets their male dancers for the theme parks from?). The push for gay marriage simply is an effort to make such provision of benefits no longer discretionary with the company but now mandatory for the government and all employers who offer employee benefits to “spouses”.

What’s the problem with this? Well, these programs cost the government and employers money. If they now must extend benefits to gay “spouses” this increases the cost of running the programs, particularly Social Security which has a host of benefits for “spouses”. So an employer must either absorb the cost, or reduce the benefits of the programs. The same goes for the government and Social Security.

Well what’s wrong with that? Because the Social Security program is not a funded pension investment or retirement plan. The current amount of money being paid into the system is used to pay current benefits. It is not a savings account run by the government. So if current benefits are increased, the taxes used to pay for them must be increased as well. Like all other forms of “insurance” it depends on a certain number of people NOT collecting. Now the base of people collecting is going to increase, with the amount collections remaining the same.

Now take the Plaintiff in the case that overturned DOMA. This was a lesbian couple that when one died the other had to pay inheritance tax because the IRS did not recognize their Canadian marriage, a tax she would not have to pay if their marriage was recognized as legal. Again the issue is money, not equality. Why?

Because if their marriage was legal, they would have had file their tax returns as a married couple and paid a higher tax rate than the returns they filed as single people. This rate would be even higher if they filed their returns as “married filing separately” which has an even higher tax. So the woman already inherited more money that she should have because their marriage was not recognized as legal and therefore did not pay the extra tax that would have been assessed. But now she turns around and argues that her marriage should now be recognized as legal when the opportunity presents itself to pocket the extra cash saved from not paying extra tax.

If the issue is truly “equality” then she should her refile all of her previous tax returns filed during her “marriage” and pay the extra tax. My guess is that this is not going to happen.

Now the real looming problem is this: if the concept of “marriage” is extended to same sex couples, on the grounds of “equal protection” (and I can appreciate this argument) then there is no reason why a man could not have more than one spouse. After all “love is love” (as the gay marriage proponents were fond of saying) and no amount of Bible-thumping will hold water since you can’t get by Abraham and his multiple wives.

So the prospects of multiple spouses, all drawing “benefits” from either their employer or better yet, the government, is real possibility.

At some point, you have to draw the line. That line was rather clearly drawn for thousands of years, but is no longer clearly drawn.

And BTW, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Not a word. Which make the laws of the Bible against homosexual conduct a Jewish position, not necessarily a Christian one as is painted by the news media, but that is probably a debate for another day.

[scoundrel]

If the United States did not delegate the provision of healthcare to employers and to private insurance in a way in which almost no other country does, and if the United States had a national health service of some description. then the question of how many spouses and ex-spouses are recognised on someone's healthcare plan would not arise.

As for single sex couples having the same legal treatment as heterosexual couples, they do not. “I can’t inherit from my partner” is not rubbish at all; under conventional intestacy rules it is fact. The intestacy rules do not acknowledge same sex relationships and it has in the past been quite usual for Partner B to be thrown out of the house by bailiffs when Partner A dies, so that Partner A's third cousin twice removed can sell the house and go to Vegas for a great weekend. This can't happen to married couples, because if one partner dies intestate, the other partner is the closest surviving relative. All the stuff about how the same sex couple can get around the intestacy rules by making wills, powers of attorney etc etc ignores the whole reason why intestacy rules exist; people don't do the paperwork. It's a fact; millions die intestate and it happens all the time.

My own point, in the British case, is that civil partnerships were created in order to give same-sex couples the opportunity to give their relationship the same rights and duties, including divorce and intestacy, as a conventional marraige. There is no legal necessity for same sex couples to get married to have equal treatment in British law. But they evidently do want to be married. There is anther motive here, nothing to do with law or property.

[haroldeye]

Perhaps they want their big day flopping around in a frock. No objection to gays and I think the idea of civil partnerships where they have exactly the same rights and duties as a married couple is an excellent move.

The idea of calling it a marriage by politicians disturbs me though. I'm not heavy God squad but I am a communicant of the Church of England. Marriage is a holy estate of the Church. Taken over by the state because it was so very much part of the fabric of life. For politicians to claim they own the rights over it for electoral profit I do not like.

The Church should not involve itself in politics and politicians should not interfere with the church.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Perhaps they want their big day flopping around in a frock. No objection to gays and I think the idea of civil partnerships where they have exactly the same rights and duties as a married couple is an excellent move.

The idea of calling it a marriage by politicians disturbs me though. I'm not heavy God squad but I am a communicant of the Church of England. Marriage is a holy estate of the Church. Taken over by the state because it was so very much part of the fabric of life. For politicians to claim they own the rights over it for electoral profit I do not like.

The Church should not involve itself in politics and politicians should not interfere with the church.

I agree. By all means give any couples the same rights as a married couple already have. That's fine and being treated equally. Just find another word to describe it and leave the long established meaning alone.
And like a club, don't expect full privileges unless you join.There was a case a year or two ago where a woman lost her soldier partner and went on to try to claim the widow's pension. They had been free to marry and chose not to ; with marriage some things come with the territory and some things don't.If you opt out don't expect the benefits, if you opt in take the benefits but accept the responsibilities.

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

If the United States did not delegate the provision of healthcare to employers and to private insurance in a way in which almost no other country does, and if the United States had a national health service of some description. then the question of how many spouses and ex-spouses are recognised on someone's healthcare plan would not arise.

As for single sex couples having the same legal treatment as heterosexual couples, they do not. “I can’t inherit from my partner” is not rubbish at all; under conventional intestacy rules it is fact. The intestacy rules do not acknowledge same sex relationships and it has in the past been quite usual for Partner B to be thrown out of the house by bailiffs when Partner A dies, so that Partner A's third cousin twice removed can sell the house and go to Vegas for a great weekend. This can't happen to married couples, because if one partner dies intestate, the other partner is the closest surviving relative. All the stuff about how the same sex couple can get around the intestacy rules by making wills, powers of attorney etc etc ignores the whole reason why intestacy rules exist; people don't do the paperwork. It's a fact; millions die intestate and it happens all the time.

My own point, in the British case, is that civil partnerships were created in order to give same-sex couples the opportunity to give their relationship the same rights and duties, including divorce and intestacy, as a conventional marraige. There is no legal necessity for same sex couples to get married to have equal treatment in British law. But they evidently do want to be married. There is anther motive here, nothing to do with law or property.

I still must respectfully disagree, Scoundrel.

Your argument ignores the passage of my post concerning the creation of joint ownership. Joint ownership of assets with “rights of survivorship” (in the United States at least) means that upon the death of one owner the entire property in legally transferred to the possession of the other owner. Property which is titled in this manner passes to the other owner regardless of what the Last Will or laws of intestacy say. There are no legal proceedings whatsoever. This is accomplished with mere stroke of a pen, and with much less effort than getting married. Indeed banks much prefer this method of ownership as it greatly simplifies the question of who is entitled to the money upon the death of one of them.

The same is equally true for the purchase of real property. Regardless if only one party puts up the money for the purchase, if both partners are listed on the deed as co-owners “with rights of survivorship” then the property immediately transfers upon the death of one to the ownership and possession of the other. Again this is regardless of what a Last Will says, or what the laws of intestacy say. So no one’s third cousin twice removed is coming to evict anyone.

Even further, with such assets as annuities, mutual funds, brokerage accounts and the like, there is usually the option to provide for TOD or POD, “transfer on death” and “payable on death” respectively. No need for joint ownership at all. Again this is accomplished with the stroke of a pen. Again the stockbrokers greatly prefer this method, as it avoids legal proceedings.

If the property in question is owned solely by one party, and this arrangement is not changed by a new deed, new account, or POD designation to include the other partner, chances are (in my experience) it is because the owner of the property likes it this way, for the reasons of lack of trust with the other partner, power, etc.

And having committed matrimony on more than one occasion, I am well aware that getting married is not without its own costs and paperwork requirements. I recall having to take a blood test and later having to produce certified copies of my divorce decree to assure the authorities I was not committing bigamy, not to mention the creation and execution of the marriage certificate, the payment of a license fee, etc. The creation of a Last Will or health care directive is certainly no more onerous or time consuming than these requirements.

So, in sum, there is nothing legally preventing a same sex couple from arranging their affairs in such a manner as to protect the other financially, whether they are legally allowed to get married or not, all accomplished in a manner that is usually as simple as checking a box on a form.

The only “benefits” that are currently absolutely denied same sex couples because they cannot get married are the financial benefits provided by their employer or the government to “spouses”, which was the point of the initial post.

[scoundrel]

Everything which you explain Hugo is about ways in which same sex couples can work around the basis assumption that is made in intestacy law, which does not acknowledge relationships outside marraige, regardless of sexual orientation, except blood family relationships. Here is an example where the former wife of the deceased man sued the man's current (female) partner for 50% of the value of their house. They were joint tenants in the manner which you describe but the ex-wife was able to sue because she was the guardian of the two children in their marraige. Had the new couple been married, this could not have happened. Marraige (or civil partnership) is a necessary protection for a couple's property rights against intestacy rules.

I believe that intestacy rules are much the same in the United States?

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Everything which you explain Hugo is about ways in which same sex couples can work around the basis assumption that is made in intestacy law, which does not acknowledge relationships outside marraige, regardless of sexual orientation, except blood family relationships. Here is an example where the former wife of the deceased man sued the man's current (female) partner for 50% of the value of their house. They were joint tenants in the manner which you describe but the ex-wife was able to sue because she was the guardian of the two children in their marraige. Had the new couple been married, this could not have happened. Marraige (or civil partnership) is a necessary protection for a couple's property rights against intestacy rules.

I believe that intestacy rules are much the same in the United States?

OK, Scoundrel, I had to read that article three times, and still had to delete my reply as being off target on the facts of the case. Now I think I’ve got it.

No, the laws of intestacy in the US are different, and vary from State to State.

Now,

The lady cohabitant in the linked article did receive her share of the house outright, by operation of law in exactly the manner which I have described. Even if they had been married, she would have received a bit more than she did, but still the fact that he had children meant that the kids would inherit 50% of his wealth, regardless of any marriage to the cohabitant.

Now if he had made a will, under US law he could have disinherited the children, even if he wasn’t married to the brazen hussy.

This is where it gets to be apples and oranges. Anytime there are children involved, especially minor children of a divorce, things get complicated. Apparently the major part of the claim was that the former husband died owing child support. And the article has no information of how this support was to be guaranteed or secured by the former husband. A rather important fact, I think. Perhaps it was by the mentioned insurance policy Now just because someone makes a claim does not mean they have a firm legal ground for making the claim. The article is clear she had taken the house outright, by survivorship. This makes the claim against it very shaky. If you look to the resolution of the case, the dispute was settled on terms very favorable to the cohabitant.

“A lump sum payment was to give the children all the child support they would have received had their father survived. The children were nearing their 18th birthdays, and we included some provision for university education within the calculation. The rest of the estate went to my client – including the house, which she kept.”

In other words, in the end the cohabitant came out as good as, if not better, than if they if they had been married.

Judging from the outcome, the claim against the house was fairly groundless. Again, anyone can a file a claim and institute legal proceedings. Prevailing in Court is another matter.

It seems that the cohabitant prevailed in just the manner which I have suggested, by arranging for joint tenancy with right of survivorship.

Which back on topic is exactly what same sex couples can do. As well as making a Last Will, which would have helped greatly in the case cited.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Saw something of interest I think last night on the Daley Show. Forget exactly what happened but he showed how John McCain was lamenting the rise of the tea baggers. Stewart stopped the tape right there and started yelling at McCain that a lot of this was McCain's fault. After all, it was McCain that introduced the world to the Tea Party queen; Sarah Palin.

I disagree with that. Sarah Palin wouldn't have been on even the long list, let alone the short list, for VP candidates if the Tea Party wasn't already a major faction of the Republican Party. McCain didn't put her on the ticket because he liked her or agreed with the Tea Party. The Republican Party put her on the ticket to appease the Tea Party faction.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by knobby109

that a gay partnership isn't the same thing as a heterosexual one (not being homophobic, they are just different things and why pretend otherwise?)

How is a homosexual partnership different than a heterosexual partnership other than the genders of the people involved?

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

If the United States did not delegate the provision of healthcare to employers and to private insurance in a way in which almost no other country does, and if the United States had a national health service of some description. then the question of how many spouses and ex-spouses are recognised on someone's healthcare plan would not arise.

As for single sex couples having the same legal treatment as heterosexual couples, they do not. “I can’t inherit from my partner” is not rubbish at all; under conventional intestacy rules it is fact. The intestacy rules do not acknowledge same sex relationships and it has in the past been quite usual for Partner B to be thrown out of the house by bailiffs when Partner A dies, so that Partner A's third cousin twice removed can sell the house and go to Vegas for a great weekend. This can't happen to married couples, because if one partner dies intestate, the other partner is the closest surviving relative. All the stuff about how the same sex couple can get around the intestacy rules by making wills, powers of attorney etc etc ignores the whole reason why intestacy rules exist; people don't do the paperwork. It's a fact; millions die intestate and it happens all the time.

My own point, in the British case, is that civil partnerships were created in order to give same-sex couples the opportunity to give their relationship the same rights and duties, including divorce and intestacy, as a conventional marraige. There is no legal necessity for same sex couples to get married to have equal treatment in British law. But they evidently do want to be married. There is anther motive here, nothing to do with law or property.

And even in cases where the deceased HAS left a will, that is no guarantee that it will be respected. Wills are thrown out by the courts every day because "the closest living relative" was cut out of the estate or "too much" was left to a friend, employee, etc. An executed and recorded will is NOT the same as marriage nor are the inheritance "rights" (for lack of a better word) as strong legally.