The Church's Changing Position on the Legalization Same-Sex Marriage

[Jacob]

estate taxes (eliminate them, only affect people > $10m net worth) 401k and ira. (name them your beneficiary) social security benefits. fmla protection. insurance. hospital visitation (not a real problem, also medical powers etc). taxation (despite your extremely thorough analysis) (demonstrate that my analysis is wrong. I don't think it is). etc...

You are right (as far as I know) about certain applications of SS, though I'm not sure what you are suggesting re: insurance. But overall, these things are easily resolved via a simple document or contract, no more complex than a marriage license.

[Jacob]

This is the exact question. One could argue that segregation deprived African Americans of no benefits too, and many people did at the time. In retrospect that seems ridiculous.

I don't know what people argued at the time. There were certainly many, many bad arguments. But the race issue boils down to the law making a racial distinction. The law can't do that. Here, the law doesn't mention sexual orientation and is entirely unconcerned with it. The argument here, I suppose, is one of gender discrimination, But the race analogy doesn't hold, IMO.

[Pheidippides]

I don't know what people argued at the time. There were certainly many, many bad arguments. But the race issue boils down to the law making a racial distinction. The law can't do that. Here, the law doesn't mention sexual orientation and is entirely unconcerned with it. The argument here, I suppose, is one of gender discrimination, But the race analogy doesn't hold, IMO.

It does in mine. And many others. Or isn't that clear to you yet?

The law currently, in many places, absolutely does make a distinction based on sexual orientation. That it may be my effect and implication rather than explicit words is wholly irrelevant. Do you deny this?

[Jacob]

It does in mine. And many others. Or isn't that clear to you yet?

The law currently, in many places, absolutely does make a distinction based on sexual orientation. That it may be my effect and implication rather than explicit words is wholly irrelevant. Do you deny this?

I deny that it is wholly irrelevant. I am without sufficient information and knowledge regarding the remaining allegations and therefor deny them.

[Pheidippides]

I deny that it is wholly irrelevant. I am without sufficient information and knowledge regarding the remaining allegations and therefor deny them.

Then I have nothing more to say, as you are (apparently) both too ill-informed and uneducated to carry on this discussion. Per your own admission. Not that this is a great surprise to us.

[SoCalCoug]

My question is simple, and I've asked it several times. What significant legal benefits ("rights" as you say) are you looking for that a gay couple desiring to "merge their lives together" can't get in the state of Utah, for example.

I've been asked what I'd do to give them those legal benefits. I can't respond unless I know what benefits you are looking for.

Well, here's a pretty good list:

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Were you truly ignorant of the legal benefits of marriage, or are you just trying to be obtuse to make a point?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html

[Jacob]

Then I have nothing more to say, as you are (apparently) both too ill-informed and uneducated to carry on this discussion. Per your own admission. Not that this is a great surprise to us.

Sorry. I don't know why I do it. Some sort of masochism I guess. It always starts and ends with the more tolerant folks insulting me though.

[Jacob]

Well, here's a pretty good list:



Were you truly ignorant of the legal benefits of marriage, or are you just trying to be obtuse to make a point?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html

Mnay, if not most, items on that list are not benefits, except in extreme cases, or are entirely avoided with a simple document no more complex than applying for a marriage certificate.

[TripletDaddy]

Well, here's a pretty good list:



Were you truly ignorant of the legal benefits of marriage, or are you just trying to be obtuse to make a point?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html

OK, but BESIDES these? Why do you people bring up the same ones over and over?

[RobinFinderson]

Mnay, if not most, items on that list are not benefits, except in extreme cases, or are entirely avoided with a simple document no more complex than applying for a marriage certificate.

ALL of these are benefits in a non-legal sense, and SOME of them are benefits in a legal sense. Why are you ignoring both meanings of the word benefit?

[The Rambam]

Mnay, if not most, items on that list are not benefits, except in extreme cases, or are entirely avoided with a simple document no more complex than applying for a marriage certificate.

So you admit that there are legal protections that are not available outside of marriage? If there is only one, it is enough to qualify as a violation of equal protection clauses on constitutions to deny it to same-sex couples.

[UtahDan]

OK, but BESIDES these? Why do you people bring up the same ones over and over?

All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what have the Romans done for us?

[Blueintheface]

Mnay, if not most, items on that list are not benefits, except in extreme cases, or are entirely avoided with a simple document no more complex than applying for a marriage certificate.

Is this your first trip to London and are you posting this while on vacation?

[Jacob]

ALL of these are benefits in a non-legal sense, and SOME of them are benefits in a legal sense. Why are you ignoring both meanings of the word benefit?

probably because benefits is a bad word to use. many of these are legal incidents to marriage which cannot be described fairly as benefits. when we list all the legal incidence of marriage we see that there are many obligations which are also not benefits but rather detriments to any given individual. this fight is and about a few minor legal incidence that are not easily remedied by contract law that virtually nobody cares about.

So you admit that there are legal protections that are not available outside of marriage? If there is only one, it is enough to qualify as a violation of equal protection clauses on constitutions to deny it to same-sex couples.

no it is not, you have your law wrong. and everybody wants to keep slipping back and forth from legal to moral arguments. I admit that marriage law requires many things of the individuals who take advantage of it and that our laws are also structured in such a way as to take into account the fact that families exist. none of this is an admission that gays are legally entitled to be married, or the to individuals in other types of relationships are entitled to be married.

[UtahDan]

probably because benefits is a bad word to use. many of these are legal incidents to marriage which cannot be described fairly as benefits. when we list all the legal incidence of marriage we see that there are many obligations which are also not benefits but rather detriments to any given individual. this fight is and about a few minor legal incidence that are not easily remedied by contract law that virtually nobody cares about.

Tenants by the entirety protection.
Benefits of family oriented civil and criminal laws and courts and as well as divorce courts (this one is HUGE).
Protection of the law at death (marital share for one, also intestacy laws).
Ability to add spouse to health insurance.
Military benefits only available to family members.
Social security benefits only available to family members.

The only one on that list you can contract around is intestacy. The problem with arguing that things can be contracted around anyway, is that this argument necessarily applies to everyone. Since everyone has the ability to make a will, let's just get rid of intestacy laws right? Since anyone can execute a medical power of attorney, let's just get rid of power of attorneys all together and let doctors make life and death decisions instead of family members.