.
critical of San Francisco, California and Mass. Urges Congress to immediately pass an amendment to the constitution concerning marriage between man and woman.
Bout time.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
critical of San Francisco, California and Mass. Urges Congress to immediately pass an amendment to the constitution concerning marriage between man and woman.
Bout time.
Discussion is locked
Hi, J.
Discriminatory inheritance laws is oone of the key reasons that at least civil unions are needed. In some states "relatives" have a right to sue if "disinherited" in favor of "non-relatives," which is the current status of a long-time partner. The legal costs can quickly eat up the estate, where if it's a married couple there's no question that the surviving spouse inherits and the in-laws have no claim. Similar problems have to do with who can make life-and-death decisions in states (like Texas) where there's no living will. Many hospitals have "relative-only" visiting policies in the ICU -- the long-time partner can't even visit a dying lover. And with AIDS, those situations are unfortuinately more common with homosexual couples...
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Dave, the term disinherited implies taking away an existing right of inheritance. The right of whom, Dave? If a life-long bachelor or a woman who never married dies, who is the relative has the "right" to his or her money, and should be, in your opinion, enabled to stop him or her from leaving their money to the person, organization or whatever that they please?
Hi, J.
In most states there's a presumed rule of inheritance that is used if someone dies w/o a will (even for a married couple -- it's often half to the spouse, the other half divided among the children, or if there are no children, among the relatives of the deceased according to a specified forumla). Many states go farther and say that if someone who would normally have a claim in the absence of a will is not mentioned in the will, they have a legal right to challenge the will, and the case is strengthened if the bulk of the estate goes to an "unrelated person." That's why wills often specifically leave Aunt Mabel $1 -- because that weakens her case if she tries to contest, as she can't claim that her "favorite nephew" simply forgot her. Even if there is a will and the above is done, the "disinherited" can claim that the major beneficiary "exerted undue influence" over the deceased. (Heck, that even happened with Anna Nicole Smith, and she WAS married!) Main point is that a vindictive family (one that didn't accept their child's life style, or worse yet, blamed his partner for giving him AIDS) can essentially destroy the estate with legal fees. Marriage (or civil union) greatly reduces that possibility, though again remember "poor" Anna Nicole!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
We were discussing benefits going to children. In any case, someone else brought up the question. I don't think decisions of who can/should marry should be made for financial reasons.
Dan
Hi, J.
I've said elsewhere in this thread (good luck finding it, though
) that I don't think that polygamy should be generally legalized. IAC, the "lighting off" (I've never heard that term, though recognized the issue when you defined it) involves a reduced pension for the primary pensioner. The cost is determined actuarily. If there were to be more than one potential surviving payee, the pensions paid to the primary and secondary would have to be decreased.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Gee whiz, Dave, you said that you were a "Southern boy" and never before heard someone use the term "light off" to start something?
But on to the case at hand. If 30 days after I had gone disabled I had suddenly died, do you think that that survivor benefit for my wife would have been almost nothing due to some figure determined actuarily?
If multiple spouses were to be allowed in the future, the decision could be one survivor pension split up, or possibly the ability to let the primary equally protect all of the spouses. That would have to be determined if the law changed and that new situation came up. Worth thinking about, although I get the feeling that the "pro" side in this new situation might not favor a full discussion of possible financial or other things that could have an effect on all the people in the country do to a change in the law. Such a change would not be just a ceremonial, name change, feel-good, thing, it could have an effect on the entire country, and bears a full discussion in all aspects before the fact of enactment.
In this case, as opposed the the support for children, the support is going to the remaining family unit to compensate, in small measure, for the lost provider. In current marriages that means to the remaining spouse. In group marriages the payments would go to the remaining spouses as a group.
Dan
Dan, if the goal was to compensate for my loss as a provider, shouldn't that level of support remain the same if I were to die? I am totally unable to work, and I get a combo of SS and a pension that currently provises support. When I die, that amount is greatly cut back. If the goal was to provide support, why would that support be cut back so drastically when I die?
I was addressing the portion of your post relating to the distribution of survivor benefits.
"If multiple spouses were to be allowed in the future, the decision could be one survivor pension split up, or possibly the ability to let the primary equally protect all of the spouses."
Dan
Re: "Government and religion don't mix. You can't/shouldn't/don't legislate religion. Seperation of church and state and all that."
The pres didn't talk religion in his long speech, except to casually mention (only once) that all religions base marriage as between man and women.
He was not mixing Govt & Religion. Read the transcript of his speech.
Re: "I see an ammendment to the constitution forbading homosexual unions as legislating religion."
Well, I see an ammendment to the constitution forbading homosexual unions as legislating what is and has been the basis for civilized society.
Two men cannot produce a child without a woman or a (PC) test tube in the future. There are many laws pertaining to married and unmarried persons. If homosexual want the bennies of marriage, then they should seek to get laws other than marriage to help them (like the pres indicated).
two people who produce children without medical intervention can be married? That's a limiting definition.
Dan
.
I did not say, "two people who produce children without medical intervention can be married?"
This is what I said and you can take it any way you desire. Gee, Mr. Cross Examiner are you baiting....or just like to gab a lot.
Quote:
Re: "I see an ammendment to the constitution forbidding homosexual unions as legislating religion."
Well, I see an ammendment to the constitution forbidding homosexual unions as legislating what is and has been the basis for civilized society.
Two men cannot produce a child without a woman or a (PC) test tube in the future. There are many laws pertaining to married and unmarried persons. If homosexual want the bennies of marriage, then they should seek to get laws other than marriage to help them (like the pres indicated). Unquote.
doesn't have anything to do with religion.
the child's best interests are served when the child has a mother and a father. Two men cannot 'mother' a child. Whether they can 'father' the child is an open question, certainly two women cannot do that. Certainly, the child would have limited contact with 'normal' human relationships. Yes, I know. What is normal? We all know what that is unless we choose to be obtuse. Think mathematics if you must.
Hi, KP.
First, through the wonders of modern science, it no longer takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world. Second, there's no proof whatsoever, other than in narrow minds, that a child in a loving homosexual household isn't much better off than a child of the many hate-filled and abusive heterosexual hoeseholds. Love is what really holds a family together and nurtures, not necessarily the gender of those in love. And if the ability to have children "naturally" is to be the defining point of whether marriage is permissible, then I guess post-menopausal women are just out of luck, right?
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Somehow I suspect at some earlier time they did. It seems except for Lot, most of those who were decent folks eventually got up and left, leaving few good behind.
Interesting definition. I'm pretty sure that using his family as the starndard wouldn't turn out very well.
Dan
Just a tip to all the decent folks.
Dan