Poetry Forum

Full Version: sex spouse benifits
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Federal worker sues for same-sex spouse benefits
are they right to do so?

i say a resounding yes. will they win.? i hope so. if they do i think it will affect the whole gay marriage laws as they now stand.

source
I think they're in the right, and I hope they win. But i don't know on what legal basis they can win the case if same-sex marriage is still illegal in the US Sad
(01-21-2010, 10:01 AM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]I think they're in the right, and I hope they win. But i don't know on what legal basis they can win the case if same-sex marriage is still illegal in the US Sad
i think they can win on the spirit of a what a partner is.

sometimes the spirit of the law takes precedent over the fact of law.
if a pension goes to a partner why does it have to be a married partner.

Benny2guns

I honestly don't think so. The states won't allow it. Just my opinion but they won't pay a shed of extra tax if they don't have to. If that case is won it will open the door for tax payers to cover them under the social net also. I can't see it happening but who knows.

mrmod

(01-21-2010, 11:01 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly don't think so. The states won't allow it. Just my opinion but they won't pay a shed of extra tax if they don't have to. If that case is won it will open the door for tax payers to cover them under the social net also. I can't see it happening but who knows.

You're right. Then every punter in the FBI with a girlfriend would claim benefits Undecided

It would be nice for it to happen but it just will not happen Sad
(01-22-2010, 02:15 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2010, 11:01 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly don't think so. The states won't allow it. Just my opinion but they won't pay a shed of extra tax if they don't have to. If that case is won it will open the door for tax payers to cover them under the social net also. I can't see it happening but who knows.
You're right. Then every punter in the FBI with a girlfriend would claim benefits Undecided

It would be nice for it to happen but it just will not happen Sad
i think it will eventually.

all they have to do is say prove you've been partners for more than two years or so. and bob's your uncle.

in the uk we call them common law mariages,...if they look like a marriage, and smell like a marriage thats how the unmarried partner gets treated. they claim social security for their whole family regardless of if their married or not. they have title to the dead persons propert and belongings even though they're not married.

Benny2guns

(01-22-2010, 07:09 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2010, 02:15 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2010, 11:01 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly don't think so. The states won't allow it. Just my opinion but they won't pay a shed of extra tax if they don't have to. If that case is won it will open the door for tax payers to cover them under the social net also. I can't see it happening but who knows.

You're right. Then every punter in the FBI with a girlfriend would claim benefits Undecided

It would be nice for it to happen but it just will not happen Sad

i think it will eventually.

all they have to do is say prove you've been partners for more than two years or so. and bob's your uncle.

in the uk we call them common law mariages,...if they look like a marriage, and smell like a marriage thats how the unmarried partner gets treated. they claim social security for their whole family regardless of if their married or not. they have title to the dead persons propert and belongings even though they're not married.

That only holds if you are allowed to get married. This is the main reason for the rights not being allowed so far.
(01-22-2010, 07:12 PM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2010, 07:09 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2010, 02:15 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-21-2010, 11:01 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly don't think so. The states won't allow it. Just my opinion but they won't pay a shed of extra tax if they don't have to. If that case is won it will open the door for tax payers to cover them under the social net also. I can't see it happening but who knows.
You're right. Then every punter in the FBI with a girlfriend would claim benefits Undecided

It would be nice for it to happen but it just will not happen Sad
i think it will eventually.

all they have to do is say prove you've been partners for more than two years or so. and bob's your uncle.

in the uk we call them common law mariages,...if they look like a marriage, and smell like a marriage thats how the unmarried partner gets treated. they claim social security for their whole family regardless of if their married or not. they have title to the dead persons propert and belongings even though they're not married.
That only holds if you are allowed to get married. This is the main reason for the rights not being allowed so far.
sorry benny but it doesn't really. a man can be married to one woman and live with another. he can claim for the woman he lives with but can't marry her.

Benny2guns

We are talking about apples and oranges. A man and a woman can marry and are entitled to social safty net. Hence a man and woman live together and are considered married after a certain point and entitled to the same.
A man and a man are married and are entitled to the same by law.
A man and a man live together and after that same time are considered married and are entitled to the same.
They want to stop the entitlement part because it cost's more money in tax's for everyone. Now listen I happen to agree with the tax part. I do not wish to pay more tax for anything period. Thats how most americans see it, only it's in their constitution that they can not be subject to unfare tax.
It may be in our constitution {somewhere?} but we are certainly getting screwed
for taxes in every damned state!
We have common law marriages in most states but what that entitles you to
is a different ballgame depending where you live.
If your partner doesn't have a health care proxy and a document giving them
legal guardianship or power of attorney in case of brain damage or dementia etc.
your partner will not be able to even visit you if you're in intensive care.
Forget about making legal or medical decisions for you they will find
a long lost, strange relative who may not even know you to make those decisions for you regardless of what you may have written down or told somebody.
These are the cases {generally speaking} that set the legal precedents for the push towards same sex marriage.
Do you know the hospital can even get legal guardianship of you if they don't like your "partner,lover,sister's decision making?
They aren't forced to tell the truth even about why they are seeking custody!
FWIW we do have same sex marriage in a few of our states
one of them being Massachusetts where I live.
My husband say this; "sure they should be able to get married and be miserable just like the rest of us!"
"Why shouldn't same sex couples get to lose everything like the rest of us when they get divorced?" He has since changed his views on marriage being between one woman and one man. Thank the Goddess!
Honestly why people feel such a burning need to deny couples who are slightly different from themselves basic rights such as whom they can love or marry is just incomprehensible to me.
It should concern no one but those couples involved.
I often ask those who would deny these rights to others this question:
How does it affect your personal life and your family's by voting "yes"
to let those in love marry? Does it harm you? Will it make you less of a man/woman, teacher,bank president,church goer?
There are several states who have passed laws for same sex couples, some are trying to overturn those laws and other states want to re-write the constitution to prevent same sex couples from having any kind of rights.
Why should we have to make new laws for them to be treated exactly
the same as you or I expect to be treated?
I thought the laws in the constitution were made for everyone
regardless of race,creed,color or sexual orientation yes?
Are they any less deserving of being treated like a human being?
I say no emphatically NO!
C.B.

Benny2guns

Yes my heart goes out to them. My pockets are empty though.
(01-23-2010, 11:34 PM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]Yes my heart goes out to them. My pockets are empty though.
i think the govs of the world will tax us all no matter if we're married or not.

@CB. well put. and your man is right. everyone should suffer
a divorce. why should only hetero's have to pay legal fees? lol.

if all the govs in the world said ;

from now on no religions can practice here unless they perform same sex marriage. the catholic church would have a message from god saying i've decided to change the rules...why, because the catholic church cannot function without funds. it would change its rules in an instant if it felt such fiscal pressure....which tells us more about the rc church than it does about society (i'm catholic btw :p )

. . . .

(01-23-2010, 08:27 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]We are talking about apples and oranges. A man and a woman can marry and are entitled to social safty net. Hence a man and woman live together and are considered married after a certain point and entitled to the same.
A man and a man are married and are entitled to the same by law.
A man and a man live together and after that same time are considered married and are entitled to the same.
They want to stop the entitlement part because it cost's more money in tax's for everyone. Now listen I happen to agree with the tax part. I do not wish to pay more tax for anything period. Thats how most americans see it, only it's in their constitution that they can not be subject to unfare tax.

For some reason I assumed you were a US citizen and resident

Benny2guns

(01-30-2010, 08:02 AM)Scrufuss Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2010, 08:27 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ]We are talking about apples and oranges. A man and a woman can marry and are entitled to social safty net. Hence a man and woman live together and are considered married after a certain point and entitled to the same.
A man and a man are married and are entitled to the same by law.
A man and a man live together and after that same time are considered married and are entitled to the same.
They want to stop the entitlement part because it cost's more money in tax's for everyone. Now listen I happen to agree with the tax part. I do not wish to pay more tax for anything period. Thats how most americans see it, only it's in their constitution that they can not be subject to unfare tax.

For some reason I assumed you were a US citizen and resident

Actually I am a citizen of the North American Union.