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

[Indy Coug]

It would seem an equally effective way to gain access to these "benefits" would be to waive the marriage requirement rather than redefining the institution of marriage for benefits that are really unrelated or at most tangentially related to the institution of marriage itself.

[old_gregg]

To your first question, that was never my argument. I've said that gay people can get most, if not all, desired benefits from a simple document or contract no more complex than applying for a marriage certificate. Though you are right that many of the desired benefits are trivial and many others are not benefits at all to most people.

As to you second questions. I guess the answer is yes, I never said that. But I don't feel like moving on to something else. I remain unconvinced that a good reason exists to change the institution of marriage, which I think is a good institution.

heh. many of the desired benefits are trivial?

[UtahDan]

To your first question, that was never my argument.

You never argued that the rights involved here for gay people are trivial? I was going to cut and paste all the times you did, but then I decided to save some time and just direct you to the second sentence in your paragraph immediately below. You are in such a pretzel at this point you could bite your own nuts with no difficultly whatsoever.

I've said that gay people can get most, if not all, desired benefits from a simple document or contract no more complex than applying for a marriage certificate. Though you are right that many of the desired benefits are trivial and many others are not benefits at all to most people.

And I and others have demonstrated that this is completely wrong, though you keep asserting it. Are you ready to acknowledge that it is incorrect? If you aren't, then run down SoCal's list and my list and explain what simple documents and contracts can provide the same benefits or protections. The bare assertion does not improve through repetition.

As to you second questions. I guess the answer is yes, I never said that. But I don't feel like moving on to something else. I remain unconvinced that a good reason exists to change the institution of marriage, which I think is a good institution.

I'm glad I have found something I am good at predicting because I suck at the football prediction contest. Anyway, since the rights involved are not, in your mind, a very big deal I think it is fair for me to infer that your opposition to gays getting them is fairly weak. But gay people feel very strongly about them. So maybe we can resolve your opposition by reference to how important it is to them and how unimportant to you, since nothing important is really at stake.

[UtahDan]

What is tenancy in the entirety? I am licensed in multiple states and am unfamiliar with it. I dont really do real estate, but still . . .

It is like a joint tenancy in that it has a survivor benefit. What makes it unique is that the creditor of only one spouse cannot reach the jointly owned asset. So if you suffer a judgment for $1M, your judgment creditor will not be able to levy on your realty which you and your wife own as tenants by the entirety. It is usually only available for the primary residence. Some states have replaced it with a homestead deed that allows for anyone to protect a single dwelling from creditor process. Florida is one example, which is why numerous infamous people who owe a lot of money (like OJ Simpson) are able to maintain expensive homes there.

[creekster]

It is like a joint tenancy in that it has a survivor benefit. What makes it unique is that the creditor of only one spouse cannot reach the jointly owned asset. So if you suffer a judgment for $1M, your judgment creditor will not be able to levy on your realty which you and your wife own as tenants by the entirety. It is usually only available for the primary residence. Some states have replaced it with a homestead deed that allows for anyone to protect a single dwelling from creditor process. Florida is one example, which is why numerous infamous people who owe a lot of money (like OJ Simpson) are able to maintain expensive homes there.

Joint tenants with right of survivor?

[UtahDan]

It would seem an equally effective way to gain access to these "benefits" would be to waive the marriage requirement rather than redefining the institution of marriage for benefits that are really unrelated or at most tangentially related to the institution of marriage itself.

You could. That way you could have some thing that is separate, yet equal. That is an interesting idea. What should we name it?

[creekster]

You could. That way you could have some thing that is separate, yet equal. That is an interesting idea. What should we name it?

Nope. Indy's idea is different. Marriage is not a requirement, so to the extent you otherwise qualify, all are treated the same.

[UtahDan]

Joint tenants with right of survivor?

Yes.

[Jacob]

Yes.

No. I thought you knew what you were talking about here. JTWROS is what we typically refer to as joint tenancy and is not the same as tenancy by the entirety.

unlike a JTWROS, neither party in a tenancy by the entirety has a unilateral right to sever the tenancy. The termination of the tenancy or any dealing with any part of the property requires the consent of both spouses. A divorce breaks the unity of marriage, leaving the default tenancy, which may be a tenancy in common in equal shares. Many US jurisdictions no longer recognize tenancies by the entirety.[2] Where it is recognized, benefits can include the ability to shield the property from creditors of only one spouse, as well as the ability to partially shield the property where only one spouse is filing a petition for bankruptcy relief. If a non-debtor spouse in a tenancy by the entirety survives a debtor spouse, the lien can never be enforced against the property. On the other hand, if a debtor spouse survives a non-debtor spouse, the lien may be enforced against the whole property, not merely the debtor spouse's original half-interest.

[UtahDan]

Nope. Indy's idea is different. Marriage is not a requirement, so to the extent you otherwise qualify, all are treated the same.

I see now. Indy is suggesting removing all or most of the inducements to marriage that the government offers. Rather than extend special treatment to gays, you just eliminate the special treatment for everyone. I agree that it would work, but it is the opposite of "pro marriage."

[TripletDaddy]

No. I thought you knew what you were talking about here. JTWROS is what we typically refer to as joint tenancy and is not the same as tenancy by the entirety.

Someone did not do well in Property.

[Jacob]

Someone did not do well in Property.

Perfect grade actually. Why don't you correct me, oh wise one. You think JTWROS is the same as tenancy by the entirety?

This thread just proves that most lawyers don't know much about the law.

[UtahDan]

No. I thought you knew what you were talking about here. JTWROS is what we typically refer to as joint tenancy and is not the same as tenancy by the entirety.

You are having a tough time following the conversation. I said it was like a joint tenancy in that it has a right of survivorship (actually I said survivor benefit which may have been what creek was trying to get clarification on).

Now, we could wade into some deeper water here and talk about whether there is such a thing as a joint tenancy without a right of survivorship or whether that is just a tenancy in common, and what language must be used to create it, but the truth is that that different states treat that differently and in any case your understanding appears not to run any deeper than what you can find on an internet search.

The part you missed was that I said the above, and creek said "joint tenancy with a right of survivorship?" And I said "yes." Tenants by the entirety does have a right of survivorship. The question is was not whether they were identical in every way. Of course they are not.

[UtahDan]

Perfect grade actually. Why don't you correct me, oh wise one. You think JTWROS is the same as tenancy by the entirety?

This thread just proves that most lawyers don't know much about the law.

I'm sure after this thread that everyone will be rushing right out to hire you.

[Jacob]

You are having a tough time following the conversation. I said it was like a joint tenancy in that it has a right of survivorship (actually I said survivor benefit which may have been what creek was trying to get clarification on).

Now, we could wade into some deeper water here and talk about whether there is such a thing as a joint tenancy without a right of survivorship or whether that is just a tenancy in common, and what language must be used to create it, but the truth is that that different states treat that differently and in any case your understanding appears not to run any deeper than what you can find on an internet search.

The part you missed was that I said the above, and creek said "joint tenancy with a right of survivorship?" And I said "yes." Tenants by the entirety does have a right of survivorship. The question is was not whether they were identical in every way. Of course they are not.

You often misunderstand the question and give an unrelated answer in this thread. I think that is the case here.

Also, I'm not soliciting clients. I'm all booked up. Sorry!