Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i have a legal contract for most of the stuff you say I don't need don't kid yourself everybody needs a lawyer and contracts to cover the simplest things.
I am a lawyer. I know what is and is not possible, and why even the best laid contracts are not as protective as rights automatically given by law.
Again, I provided for you above just a sample of SOME of the things that inure to the benefit of married people. How do you propose two non-married lesbians who have lived together for 20 - 30 years should CONTRACT to enjoy the right of spousal immunity for criminal cases, for example?
The question is not, "why don't gays just do a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i...." in order to get the benefits of marriage. The question is, why NOT give gays the benefit of marriage so they don't have to?
Are you married? If so, why? Why didn't you and the wife go and make your own contracts for each and every scenario that might pop up during your life together?
BTW:
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
Is there anyone saying gay people can't have ANY of those rights?
If you don't let gay people marry, then they do not have a majority of those rights. Or, they have to go through extra expense and process to secure those rights that are available to others automatically.
Again people, you either care about liberty, or you don't. Puritanism and morality policing is anathema and incompatible with freedom.
I am a lawyer. I know what is and is not possible, and why even the best laid contracts are not as protective as rights automatically given by law.
Again, I provided for you above just a sample of SOME of the things that inure to the benefit of married people. How do you propose two non-married lesbians who have lived together for 20 - 30 years should CONTRACT to enjoy the right of spousal immunity for criminal cases, for example?
A. Easy to throw out liberals are tolerant. We are not one person or one entity, although it's easier for you to demonize us if you look at it that way.
B. Christers are those who are hypocritical, living a lie that their fairy-tale sky daddy would be appalled at; they're the ones who don't want equal rights for all; the ones that run on platforms of "family values" while destroying those who aren't like them or living a lie. They're the oes who get caught in their hypocrisy and protected by the likes of christers on CD. I know the bible; there are christians, but they're not usually found on CD.
C. The christers have a religious agenda to push on our laws. I will fight that garbage with all that I have for as long as I'm alive.
D. Are you saying that you want this to be a theocracy? How are those theocracies working in the real world? Here's an example: Iran.
A: Same thing could be said of Christians but that doesn't stop you from throwing us all in to one group -- a group you hate so much you can't even take the time to spell it right.
B: I doubt you know anything of the Bible or Chritianity. For one thing we don't believe God lives in the sky. You must have gotten that from TV or something.
C: Actually, it is the other way around. Libs are trying to remove the Christian roots from our laws which would leave them with little or no moral basis. Laws without a moral basis have no legitimacy.
D: I definately DO NOT want to live in a theocracy. There is a BIG difference in laws based on a moral code and laws that implement a religion.
I'd write more but I'm on probation after getting in to it with a neo-Nazi on another part of the forum.
A: Same thing could be said of Christians but that doesn't stop you from throwing us all in to one group -- a group you hate so much you can't even take the time to spell it right.
B: I doubt you know anything of the Bible or Chritianity. For one thing we don't believe God lives in the sky. You must have gotten that from TV or something.
C: Actually, it is the other way around. Libs are trying to remove the Christian roots from our laws which would leave them with little or no moral basis. Laws without a moral basis have no legitimacy.
D: I definately DO NOT want to live in a theocracy. There is a BIG difference in laws based on a moral code and laws that implement a religion.
I'd write more but I'm on probation after getting in to it with a neo-Nazi on another part of the forum.
About C: Christian moral values are a joke and not worth any consideration. All that one needs to do is to observe the christians, especially those who claim to be claim to be very religious. Some of the most self-righteous, intolerant, hate filled, mean spirited people one could ever meet.
Probably because they, themselves, do not take any of god's laws seriously.
It's obvious you fail to COMPREHEND fully. It's obvious, because you don't even bother to address the facts and evidence before you, favoring personal anecdotes and your (unlearned) opinions on what can and cannot be contracted for.
It's OK. Many people who are against "the gays" tend to come from the left side of the bell curve, so it's not entirely unexpected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hydrophobia anyone?
