The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

[B_VinylBoy]

"straight" men have to suppress a wide range of feelings and urges throughout their daily lives, across the vast range of feelings and urges, else face the censure of society as well.

WOW....
Essentially, what is a straight man "suppressing"? Specifics, please?

 

[StormfrontFL]

Maybe this is too simplistic, but can't you just write a living will that says " i authorize X to make medical decisions for me if i am incapacitated, i want X to be able to visit me during normal hours, I authorize X to have my power of attorney, etc"? Social security benefits are then the next big thing...

Britney Spears gets drunk one night in Vegas and marries some guy. During the night she dies in her sleep. The guy he just met and married is now a very wealthy widower.
A gay couple has been together for 15 years. There is an accident and one of the men is killed. The family of the deceased man comes forward and evicts the surviving partner out of the house and takes everything. Are both of these scenarios hypothetical? Only part of the first scenario is fake. The second happened here in South Florida a few years ago. The deceased mans family had turned their backs on him after he came out but because the relationship between the two men wasn't recognized legally the family had the right of inheritance. Yes the men could have spent thousands of dollars to get some of the rights that Britney and her hubby gained for less than $30.

 

[B_Nick4444]

WOW....
Essentially, what is a straight man "suppressing"? Specifics, please?

you can't be serious

it's a well-known phenomenon, even among the masses only familiar with pop culture

A new psychology of men - Google Books

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

If the gay couple had been together for 15 years, why didn't they write each other into their wills? That is not the fault of the deceased's family, it is the dead guy's fault for not making his wishes known (assuming he wanted his lover to get anything of course).

 

[StormfrontFL]

If the gay couple had been together for 15 years, why didn't they write each other into their wills? That is not the fault of the deceased's family, it is the dead guy's fault for not making his wishes known (assuming he wanted his lover to get anything of course).

Are you honestly trying to learn something or are you just totally clueless?

Some precautions had been taken but because they could not legally be wed a will could not cover everything. But you seem to be missing the point. Why should a gay couple have to spend thousands of dollars and obsess over making sure that every eventuality is covered in order to obtain just a small measure of what a hetero couple gets for less than $30 with one small piece of paper?

At least you didn't throw the Bible into this. It has already been covered that marriage wasn't always about love and religion. The Bible even allowed a man to have as many wives as he could afford. So there goes the whole one man, one woman as God ordained argument.

 

[dreamer20]

If the gay couple had been together for 15 years, why didn't they write each other into their wills? That is not the fault of the deceased's family, it is the dead guy's fault for not making his wishes known (assuming he wanted his lover to get anything of course).

Indy already posted legal protections and privileges automatically afforded to spouses in a heterosexual union:
59

On the other hand the same-sex union partners face legal hurdles in jurisdictions and courts which don't recognize same-sex unions. And although they make what legal arrangements they can, including wills, these can be successfully contested by family members in those self-same courts:

25

 

[ericbythebay]

A number of benefits can't be contracted. Spousal privilage has no contractual equivalent, same-sex spouses can't be buried in a federally funded veterans cemetary, and medicaid and social security benefits are just a few benefits only available through opposite-sex marriage.

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

I understand it is not perfect, and I realize that there are a great many specific provisions that pertain solely to federal largesse and are thus out of any state's control. The point I was trying to make is that it is possible to accrue some of the same spousal priveliges through other types of contracts. It seems like MLB did everything right and still got screwed. That sucks, and I'm actually quite shocked to learn you can overturn contracts so easily in Utah, business or otherwise. Remind me not to set up shop there.

StormFront, if you and I went to Vegas and tried to get married, I bet we could find an Elvis impersinator to do it just as quickly as BS did. As contracts go, it would be equally shaky. Had she been hit by a bus the following morning, you can be certain that her family's team of lawyers would have made sure the new hubby got absolutely nothing apart from a posthumous anullment.

There is legal recourse for gay couples to get most of the same priveliges that hetero couples have, apart from Industrualsize's long list of federal tax exemptions and handouts that I, for one, don't think anybody should have in the first place.

I think anybody should be able to enter into any contract they want with anybody else. It is none of the state's business. It's true that it's more expensive, and that's not fair. But unfair is hardly the same thing as impossible. I can sympathyze over the things that are outright not currently possible, but I can't sympathize with anybody that chooses not to avail themselves of the means to get what priveliges they can and then complains about it when it's too late. Do you see the difference?

 

[D_JJzzkk11]

Whenever this debate comes up I have to suppress the urge to put in my 2c - that black people should not be allowed marriages as per white folk, but rather "civil unions". I'm frankly surprised there aren't parties out there pushing that agenda.

(Oh I would love to be suspended by the above comment, if only to make obvious that racism - even fake, to prove a point - is still a lot touchier then homohate...)

Sorry for interjecting.. back to the discussion.

 

[ericbythebay]

5_skin, the law is not as clear as you seem to make it out to be.

My husband and I have wills, healthcare directives, powers of attorney, a California registered domestic partnership, and a valid California marriage.

Even with all of that, we have still been discriminated against in the past and denied services. Your point is valid in theory, but in the real world things aren't so simple.

Marriage is a universally recognized contract that automatically extends benefits and most people understand it. It is much more difficult for someone to discriminate when people have a valid marriage license.

 

[dreamer20]

StormFront, if you and I went to Vegas and tried to get married, I bet we could find an Elvis impersinator to do it just as quickly as BS did. As contracts go, it would be equally shaky. Had she been hit by a bus the following morning, you can be certain that her family's team of lawyers would have made sure the new hubby got absolutely nothing apart from a posthumous anullment.

I envision those lawyers being disbarred or at the very least severely ridiculed for requesting an annulment after BS's death. While the couple lived they could mutually consent to an annulment. If that marriage was not dissolved while she lived, and she had died intestate, her surviving spouse would be entitled to a sizable share of her estate.