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

General discussion

President Bush just gave a national address on TV about Gay marriage

Feb 23, 2004 11:58PM PST

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

- Collapse -
Looks like Mary Cheney will have to be a single mom if Bush has his way (NT)
Feb 25, 2004 7:03AM PST

.

- Collapse -
She can be a single mom if she wants. No one will force her to marry. (nt)
Feb 25, 2004 11:07AM PST

.

- Collapse -
NT- What's your point?
Feb 25, 2004 10:30PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Passing on Wealth.
Feb 25, 2004 10:20AM PST
If my survivor benes are $X what difference does it make to whom or how many that $X is distributed?

None, and marriage isn't necessary for that. Now you are in a totally different area speaking of passing on wealth, not about marriage nor about homosexual unions. So this is all about the money? Seems so by your arguments.
- Collapse -
Re: Passing on Wealth.
Feb 25, 2004 12:50PM PST

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!

- Collapse -
The term disinherited, implies, Dave...
Feb 25, 2004 4:29PM PST

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?

- Collapse -
Re: The term disinherited, implies, Dave...
Feb 26, 2004 2:57AM PST

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!

- Collapse -
one quibble, and I may be wrong
Feb 26, 2004 5:05AM PST
"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)."

I'm not sure, but most states recognize community property between spouses. So half the property belongs to the spouse before you start inheritance. That's in absence of any prenuptial type agreements.

After the spouse's half is exclude, the spouse receives an equal share with the children of the half that belong to the deceased.

At least, it is my understanding that is a common outcome, if there isn't contesting and court decisions otherwise.

This has no bearing on the issue of gay partners of course, just mentioning what I am under the impression is common as far as inheritance.


roger
- Collapse -
You missed the early part
Feb 25, 2004 10:33PM PST

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

- Collapse -
Re: O.K. Dan, that's clear...
Feb 25, 2004 12:14PM PST

Hi, J.

I've said elsewhere in this thread (good luck finding it, though Sad ) 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!

- Collapse -
Gee, Whiz, Dave...
Feb 25, 2004 5:04PM PST

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.

- Collapse -
This is different
Feb 25, 2004 10:40PM PST

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

- Collapse -
If that were the case, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 10:57PM PST

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?

- Collapse -
Now we're leaving the marriage question behind
Feb 25, 2004 11:15PM PST

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

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Going from gay marriage to NAMBLA is a pretty big leap.
Feb 24, 2004 3:47AM PST

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.

- Collapse -
I was really referring to this
Feb 24, 2004 3:51AM PST
Well, he did give stats on law votes and what the public wants and talked about laws being ignored. In every corner of the US and all religions it is overwhelming that marriage is for man and woman.

I see an ammendment to the constitution forbading homosexual unions as legislating religion.
- Collapse -
Re:I was really referring to this
Feb 24, 2004 4:07AM PST

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).

- Collapse -
You're saying that only
Feb 24, 2004 7:05AM PST

two people who produce children without medical intervention can be married? That's a limiting definition.

Dan

- Collapse -
Dan, you run a close 2nd to the 'woman' I'm married to in twisting what I say....lol (nt)
Feb 24, 2004 7:28AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Please explain why that's not what you said. -nt
Feb 24, 2004 10:15PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Well Mr. Attorney Wannabee...
Feb 25, 2004 6:05AM PST

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.

- Collapse -
The state has a compelling interest in the health of marriage. It
Feb 24, 2004 4:34AM PST

doesn't have anything to do with religion.

- Collapse -
Would you care to elaborate?*
Feb 24, 2004 4:42AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Sure, it takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world, and
Feb 24, 2004 8:03AM PST

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.

- Collapse -
Re: Sure, it takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world, and
Feb 24, 2004 11:08AM PST

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!

- Collapse -
I wonder if they had these same ridiculous arguments in Sodom and Gomorrah before the fall?
Feb 24, 2004 2:05PM PST

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.

- Collapse -
Lot was 'decent folks'?
Feb 24, 2004 10:18PM PST

Interesting definition. I'm pretty sure that using his family as the starndard wouldn't turn out very well.

Dan

- Collapse -
Obviously he was before the destruction of S&G, and that's when it counted! (nt)
Feb 24, 2004 10:58PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Offering your virgin daughters to rape gangs is bad parenting.
Feb 25, 2004 12:26AM PST

Just a tip to all the decent folks.

Dan

- Collapse -
Diversion. They were perverts, he knew that. He may have done it for the shock value in hopes it would shame them into going away.
Feb 25, 2004 10:30AM PST

For whatever reason he was saved, you are not arguing with me over his salvation, but with God.