Gay Unions legalized in New Jersey.

[Rex Kickass]

The NJ ruling stops short of saying Gay Marriage is a requirement.... but it does say this.

 

Committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statues.

[jasonxctf]

does anyone know what those benefits are?

 

are we talking hospital visit rights, trust and will rights, etc?

[Soxy]

Consequently, I will not make a Jersey joke for 5 days. I will not even joke about my lab partner's Jersey Hair.

[Rex Kickass]

does anyone know what those benefits are?

 

are we talking hospital visit rights, trust and will rights, etc?

 

The Supreme Court that a civil union/domestic partnership/same sex marriage must be afforded ALL of the rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual civil union/domestic partnership/same sex marriage entails.

[jasonxctf]

as a married individual, i'm wondering, what are all of the rights and responsibilites afforded to me???

[Soxbadger]

The rights afforded to married people are very complex.

 

Some times its as simple as being the person who gets to make the call on health treatment, other times its as complicated as a wife having the option of a 1/3 forced share of the estate.

 

Most people take for granted the rights they get as married people.

[sox4lifeinPA]

as a married individual, i'm wondering, what are all of the rights and responsibilites afforded to me???

 

to be denied sex as frequently as possible?

 

The NJ ruling stops short of saying Gay Marriage is a requirement.... but it does say this.

 

 

Rex, do you have decent health coverage?

 

 

 

...maybe you and I can make an arrangment?

 

 

 

seriously though, aside from the social implications, what's to stop two guys, two girls, or two people in general from "getting married" simply to enjoy the benefits of employers, etc....? is this something that happens?

[jasonxctf]

i guess i answered my own question...

 

"Typically, marriage is the institution through which people join together their lives in emotional and economic ways through forming a household. It often confers rights and obligations with respect to raising children, holding property, sexual behavior, kinship ties, tribal membership, relationship to society, inheritance, emotional intimacy, health care, and love."

 

 

and honestly, do you know of 2 straight guys that would pretend to be gay and tell their boss that they are gay, have a civil union just to get health insurance. and if so, is that any different then hetrosexual couples doing the same?

[sox4lifeinPA]

i guess i answered my own question...

 

"Typically, marriage is the institution through which people join together their lives in emotional and economic ways through forming a household. It often confers rights and obligations with respect to raising children, holding property, sexual behavior, kinship ties, tribal membership, relationship to society, inheritance, emotional intimacy, health care, and love."

and honestly, do you know of 2 straight guys that would pretend to be gay and tell their boss that they are gay, have a civil union just to get health insurance. and if so, is that any different then hetrosexual couples doing the same?

 

 

no I don't, and I actually added the "two people in general" part because from a legal standpoint I don't see much of a difference between 2 men or a man and a woman.

[Texsox]

seriously though, aside from the social implications, what's to stop two guys, two girls, or two people in general from "getting married" simply to enjoy the benefits of employers, etc....? is this something that happens?

ghre

It happens for heterosexual couples, so a person should assume (or as one poster prefers ASSume , it would happen in this case as well.

 

But if an employer is willing to hire you and offer these benefits, why should they care who you extend them to? Could you imagine an employer making a statement I don't approve of your spouse and thusly will not extend benefits?

[jasonxctf]

so why would anyone be against offering these similar type of benefits to homosexual couples who are in a commited relationship together?

[Texsox]

and honestly, do you know of 2 straight guys that would pretend to be gay

 

[Rex Kickass]

so why would anyone be against offering these similar type of benefits to homosexual couples who are in a commited relationship together?

Apparently it demeans heterosexual marriage.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'm not trying to argue or imply anything other than what my question states. If there is a crisis for healthcare in america, couldn't civil unions open a gate for people to abuse the system?

 

why would you have to pretend to be gay? Could the granting state withhold a marriage or union license even if you were dead honest that you're only doing it to get tax, health, and other benefits?

 

or is it that we simply need to appear that love exists, in order for a union to be granted?

 

Furthermore, to continue on that thought, if I had a sister (I don't) and she needed health coverage, could they stop us from unionizing our relationship? I certainly love her (as my make believe sister) so the love "threshhold" has been met. so give me the damn license, right?

 

"Ok, PA, but....."

 

I know I'll hear the "siblings can't marry because of birth defects, etc" arguement, but that doesn't hold water in today's scientific age. If dudes can become chicks through an operation and marry dudes, then why can't brothers or sisters marry, if they get an operation to stop conception? besides the state does not require proof of sexual consecration of marrige, right?

 

so....here's what I'm not against:

 

I'm not against civil unions, even though you all might think that from my typical posts or even the questions in this post, I'm just about asking questions. I don't have much stake in it either way, honestly, so there's no reason to get hot headed about it.

 

I'm about to get married and I'm juar interested in seeing where people draw their line in the sand for what's "acceptable" and what is not.

 

Here's what I am against:

 

I honestly think that there's an incredible special interest in this cause (hollywood) and that's why this topic gets the push it does. It's not about "universal equal rights" its about "gay rights". I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but just call it that.

 

Unfortunately, when you do call it that, you're once leaving groups of people out in the proverbial cold in regards to equal rights access. (as described above) Which is, sad to say, the very thing you're arguing in your favor.

 

at some point we all draw a line and bigot against the thing we "believe" is to be unacceptable. It's human nature.

 

So, in conclusion, there's really only two choices in the matter: Continue on the path we are and uphold the historical and traditional practice of a man and a woman being the definition of marriage (not unlike the pledge of alligence) or open the gates ALL THE WAY and allow ANYONE to enter into a civil union with another person. That is the only fair thing to do. And that's what all of this is about. Fairness, right? or just enough fairness to get your cause in the door of "civil rights".

 

 

This is just my opinion based on logic and experience and nothing I've heard or seen on tv or radio, so let's have an honest dialogue and forget the name calling.

 

thanks.

 

thoughts anyone?

[AbeFroman]

as a married individual, i'm wondering, what are all of the rights and responsibilites afforded to me???

 

right to hold property as tenancy by the entirety, right to renounce a will (take 50% of its a deceased spouses estate regardless of named beneficiaries), pension rights of your spouse, a number of tax rights associated with 401ks and 403bs and such,

 

there's more... many relate to taxes (i.e. a married person can give away 24k tax deductible to the recipient whereas a single person can only give a way 12k, etc)

[Rex Kickass]

Visitation rights in a hospital.

[Texsox]

PA,

 

I was thinking somewhat along your lines, and thought of this, If a couple isn't having sex, is their union/marriage invalid? The brother/sister thing is only true if they are having sex and possibly reproducing. It would seem, and perhaps I am ASSuming* here, that at their heart, all marriage debates assume that the couple would be having sex.

 

If a company hires you, they must ASSume at some time, they would have to pay spousal benefits. Why should they care who those are going to? Their costs are the same and should have been budgeted. If they would claim, we thought he was gay/ugly/shy/celibate and would never marry, that's why we hired him, that would be an interesting debate.

 

*I love that spelling

[Rex Kickass]

I'm not trying to argue or imply anything other than what my question states. If there is a crisis for healthcare in america, couldn't civil unions open a gate for people to abuse the system?

 

No more so than heterosexual marriage does. Love doesn't have to be demonstrated for a man and a woman to be wed. Maybe not brother and sister, but certainly close cousins could do the same thing. Even BFFs that are totally platonic.

 

why would you have to pretend to be gay? Could the granting state withhold a marriage or union license even if you were dead honest that you're only doing it to get tax, health, and other benefits?

 

or is it that we simply need to appear that love exists, in order for a union to be granted?

 

Furthermore, to continue on that thought, if I had a sister (I don't) and she needed health coverage, could they stop us from unionizing our relationship? I certainly love her (as my make believe sister) so the love "threshhold" has been met. so give me the damn license, right?

You don't need to say you're gay. To my knowledge, love has never been a requirement of civil marriage either. I think you're getting that confused with faith based marriage.

 

so....here's what I'm not against:

 

I'm not against civil unions, even though you all might think that from my typical posts or even the questions in this post, I'm just about asking questions. I don't have much stake in it either way, honestly, so there's no reason to get hot headed about it.

 

I'm about to get married and I'm juar interested in seeing where people draw their line in the sand for what's "acceptable" and what is not.

 

Here's what I am against:

 

I honestly think that there's an incredible special interest in this cause (hollywood) and that's why this topic gets the push it does. It's not about "universal equal rights" its about "gay rights". I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but just call it that.

 

Unfortunately, when you do call it that, you're once leaving groups of people out in the proverbial cold in regards to equal rights access. (as described above) Which is, sad to say, the very thing you're arguing in your favor.

 

at some point we all draw a line and bigot against the thing we "believe" is to be unacceptable. It's human nature.

 

I'm glad that you recognize that same-sex partnerships are valid and deserving of the same legal rights as heterosexual partnerships. But you are wrong about this being about gay rights.

 

It's always been about human rights. Period. By legislating discriminatory language against a class of people based on inherent traits, you leave the option open to do the same to other classes of people based on their inherent traits. Frankly, that's against everything that the America I was taught to believe in, believes in. We are a country which is supposed to be based on an equal opportunity for all. Equal rights for all. I firmly believe that heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry as much as I should be. And I wouldn't support taking their rights away from them if I had the same rights.

 

I also disagree with you based on your idea of an "incredible special interest" in Hollywood. My political ideas and my thoughts about equality don't come from a Hollywood studio. They come from my parents, my faith and my personal experience. There are millions of GLBT people in this country who feel the same way. They aren't - by and large - motivated by Hollywood. They are - by and large - motivated by a lack of equality. I don't anticipate a lot of people to understand it. Everyone's experience is a different one.

 

So, in conclusion, there's really only two choices in the matter: Continue on the path we are and uphold the historical and traditional practice of a man and a woman being the definition of marriage (not unlike the pledge of alligence) or open the gates ALL THE WAY and allow ANYONE to enter into a civil union with another person. That is the only fair thing to do. And that's what all of this is about. Fairness, right? or just enough fairness to get your cause in the door of "civil rights".

This is just my opinion based on logic and experience and nothing I've heard or seen on tv or radio, so let's have an honest dialogue and forget the name calling.

 

I don't have a problem expanding marriage to anyone. The reason a brother/sister combination isn't necessary is because being "next of kin" entitles you to nearly all of the same rights as a married couple. But ultimately, any two consenting adults who would like to enter into a civil union - should be allowed to enter into a civil union. A civil union (or civil marriage) is a legal contract.

 

As for a faith-based marriage, that's based on the people involved and their faith. Or so I believe anyway.

[sox4lifeinPA]

As long as it's clearly stated that any two people can enter into a civil union, then I don't have a problem with civil unions. If its human rights, then it should be any two consenting adults. I mention the brother/sister thing because insurance benefits, under the current system, would not cover each other. i understand the next of kin thing from a tax/legal stand point, but it's not as inclusive as husband/wife.

 

 

I do have a problem with Faith-base gay marriage, but I don't want to discuss that online.

[Texsox]

As long as it's clearly stated that any two people can enter into a civil union, then I don't have a problem with civil unions. If its human rights, then it should be any two consenting adults. I mention the brother/sister thing because insurance benefits, under the current system, would not cover each other. i understand the next of kin thing from a tax/legal stand point, but it's not as inclusive as husband/wife.

 

 

I do have a problem with Faith-base gay marriage, but I don't want to discuss that online.

 

I'll bet we agree down the line. I don't think every faith has to marry anyone that wants to be married in their Church. I too would disagree if the law prevented Churches from deciding their own membership standards. If the government allowed a civil union there would be no pressure on the Churches. I think "marriage" or whatever name makes y'all happy should be thought of in two areas. The legal aspects and realities of our legal system and the religious covenant.

[NorthSideSox72]

if you take government out of marriage and personal relationships entirely, this whole issue becomes really simple.

 

You want to pass on your assets on your death? Fine. Write it in a will.

 

You want to associate with who you choose, in the way you choose? Go right ahead.

 

You want to declare someone your confidant/spouse/best friend or whatever in some legal way? Fine. Its basically a living will. Hospitals, for example, would honor it.

 

I just fail to see any benefit in gov't involvement in marriage. My marriage is no more or less healthy because we're legally recognized as being such.

[sox4lifeinPA]

if you take government out of marriage and personal relationships entirely, this whole issue becomes really simple.

 

You want to pass on your assets on your death? Fine. Write it in a will.

 

You want to associate with who you choose, in the way you choose? Go right ahead.

 

You want to declare someone your confidant/spouse/best friend or whatever in some legal way? Fine. Its basically a living will. Hospitals, for example, would honor it.

 

I just fail to see any benefit in gov't involvement in marriage. My marriage is no more or less healthy because we're legally recognized as being such.

 

 

to me, I keep going back to health insurance because personally i shot the gambit and was without insurance for a year. I'm not saying I would take this route, but...

 

if GLAD or whomever is making this fight wants equal rights access for two men or two women, then it shouldn't stop there, it should include ANY two people. therefore, if two brothers want to become "unionized" for the benefit of taxes, benefits, etc, then I think it should happen.

 

I of course think this is a terrible idea, but from a logical standpoint, this is technically the only FAIR way to handle it. Then its not a sex thing, a gender thing, or an anything thing.

[Texsox]

The other route, btw, is to eliminate any benefits of marriage and treat everyone as individuals. I'm not certain that is any better, but could offer some interesting possibilities.

[jackie hayes]

The Supreme Court that a civil union/domestic partnership/same sex marriage must be afforded ALL of the rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual civil union/domestic partnership/same sex marriage entails.

Now THAT is a rare institution.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Now THAT is a rare institution.

 

 

lol, heterosexual same sex marriage?