Thanks Marisa. I guess the fact that my partner died did not register with that poster at all. Because she had no insurance, she was forced to go to a hospital similar to charity in New Orleans. And they simply don't have the quality of care as others, nor the doctors that are top notch. Hell, she died and they 'forgot' to call me. I had to come in to see her and find the bed empty. It was devastating.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
A very good question flame. I just don't understand the religious right's objection to equal rights.
No, I suggested that you find a country that denies gays the same equal rights as you and move there. Apparently you are still living in a time when blacks are second class, where gays should be killed per the 'bible' and slavery was accepted. I don't have the same rights as you do or my partner would be alive today. It boggles the mind that you don't get that. And in a secular country, you don't get to define what marriage is. If marriage were equal, anyone of age could marry whomever they loved. It seems you wish to maintain 1900 credos that are not only outdated, they are archaic and unfair.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
It's an argument I have heard an infuriatingly large number of times whenever the question of gay marriage comes up: "Not all forms of discrimination are bad" was one example I heard. It's little more than an attempt at a red herring, and very poor one at that. It's no different to saying "I don't need to justify calling something wrong, all I need to do is assert that not everything is right and therefore nobody can argue". It's a way of conveniently dispensing with the need to actually justify a position. Little more than an act of moral cowardice.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
Oh my god, that's horrible. I'm so very sorry for your loss.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
So as I stated, homosexuals can already get any rights that married people get automatically, they just have to file extra paperwork.
If a hospital did that, then that should be fixed by law.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
You keep assigning things to me that I never said. Please stick to the facts and quote my posts exactly.
As part of your commitment to your partner, you should be able to arrange your affairs as you attest to. I do agree with making those sort of law changes. And it's true that I don't get to define marriage, the Supreme Court will be doing that. But I do get to have an opinion about what it should be. I want to maintain credos that have stood the test of time. All the derivatives that were posted only last temporarily, only given to those in positions of power, or had severe restrictions placed on them. They were never the societal norms. I would just as sad if the Supreme Court allowed multiple partners to get married.
Agreed flame. There would have been not one damned thing that would have hurt a freaking fly had I been able to marry Norma. Nothing! And that fact that jig headed morons didn't allow us...well. It p*sses me off. I'm quite sure you can tell this.
Thanks Marisa. It about killed me that my soul mate had to die because of wrongheaded Cristian bigots. And she was my soul mate. I have remained celibate and single because there will never be another partner for me like she was. That kind of love only happens once.
No, we don't. At that time, my partner was not allowed to be on my insurance as we could not marry. And you're repeated negative statements are insulting and rude. Yeah, I am biased with good reason. And while I never ignore people, you, sir, will be my first.
McBell
Unbound
It will be.
Once the Supreme Court rules that same sex marriage bans are illegal.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
NO, they can't.
ETA: Here, since I know you love learning something you didn't know before, following is a list of benefits marriage provides that same sex couples don't have equal access to:
Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. In June 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision inU.S. v. Windsor struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excluded same-sex married couples from recognition for all federal benefits and programs [1]. Because of this ruling, same-sex married couples across the country have been recognized for federal purposes for the first time. However, the persistent patchwork of state marriage laws continues to stand in the way of many couples fully accessing the federal benefits they have earned including Social Security and Veterans Benefits.
The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.
Social Security
Social Security provides the sole means of support for some disabled and retired Americans. Every worker contributes to this program through payroll tax, and receives payments upon retirement. Surviving spouses are eligible to receive Social Security payments. A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment. These benefits are only available to married same-sex couples living in states that recognize their marriage. This means that many couples will be denied access to these lifeline benefits simply because of their zip code. For example,, a married lesbian couple living in a non-marriage state would receive drastically unequal benefits despite contributing to the system over their lifetime.
Tax
In a revenue ruling issued in 2013, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service announced that legally married same-sex couples would be recognized for all federal income tax purposes, regardless of where they live. Under this ruling, the IRS will recognize married same-sex couples for the purposes of income tax, estate and gift taxes, and payroll taxes associated with many employee spousal benefits.
However, this ruling does not affect whether the state in which you live recognizes your marriage, meaning you may be recognized as married by the federal government but still considered single by your state government. In some cases, your state may instruct you as a taxpayer to use your federal filing status (e.g. “single,” “married filing jointly,” etc.) when preparing your state tax return. With the IRS’s ruling, this could create conflicting requirements, and navigating them can be complicated and confusing.Couples living in states without marriage recognition will also continue to go unrecognized for purposes of state estate tax and gift tax and transfer tax. Different sex spouses are able to “gift” stocks, bank accounts, or real estate either while living or through a will to a spouse without incurring a state tax. Because same-sex spouses are considered legal strangers, they are required to pay a state tax on these gifts and inheritances as if they were income. Similar burdens accompany transfer of property – which in some cases can include just adding a spouse as a second mortgagee.
Immigration Law
Currently, U.S. immigration law recognizes any legal same-sex marriage if it was legal in the place where it was celebrated. Approximately 75% of the one million green cards or immigrant visas issued each year are granted to family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection also broadened the definition of “members of a family residing in one household” to include long-term same-sex couples and other domestic relationships. This change allows LGBT families traveling abroad to create only one custom declaration form as a family when re-entering the United States.
Employee Benefits for Federal Workers
According to the GAO Report, marital status affects over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges. Following the Windsordecision, LGBT federal workers may enroll their same-sex spouse in health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The Office of Personnel Management has also published a revised regulation regarding enrollment of step and foster children in FEHB coverage. This regulation now clearly allows federal workers to enroll a same-sex partner’s child in the FEHB program.
Continued Health Coverage (COBRA)
Federal law requires employers to give their former employees the opportunity to continue their employer-provided health insurance coverage by paying a premium (the requirement was part of the consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; hence the common name COBRA). Same-sex spouses, regardless of where they live, now have access to federal COBRA protections.
Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign
Last edited:
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I posted a huge Wiki article on the history of marriage and you continue to regurgitate this tripe? Well, I suppose there is nothing so comforting as refusing to learn something that might prove you wrong.
gsa
Well-Known Member
Why do you insist on saying things that are not true? Indeed, the exact opposite of what you assert? Most rights secured by marriage cannot be obtained by filing extra paperwork. I mean, where would one file this paperwork? An unmarried couple cannot file paperwork to get social security rights upon the death of a partner, nor can they take family leave to care for a sick partner or their partner's child. They cannot sponsor their partners for immigration purposes. Unmarried couples cannot claim privilege if the government or another party wants them to testify against their partner, nor can they file a wrongful death suit if their partner is murdered by someone. If they die without a will, they cannot pass the property onto their partner through intestate succession.
Your argument also assumes that animus and discrimination can never obstruct recognition of this "extra paperwork." For example, the case of In re Kaufmann's Will, involving two gay men, one who died leaving property to his partner. The family contested the will, and the courts found that his partner had exercised "undue influence," although a dissenting judge rightly pointed out that the "verdict in this case rests upon surmise, suspicion, conjecture and moral indignation and resentment, not upon the legally required proof of undue influence; and it cannot stand." But that was the dissent.
The other problem of course is that you want a high cost, high barrier entry solution for gays, but a low cost option for straights. Which is to say, you want gay couples to have to jump through these loopholes, hire consultants and attorneys to plan their lives in a way that could mirror some of the rights and obligations of marriage, and then you would subject the enforceability of these arrangements to a level of uncertainty that could only be overcome with marital status.
It was a great article Marisa. I think the problem here is that some people hold views and opinions without the evidence to back those beliefs. We, as a whole here, have provided myriad reasons why this is not only unfair, but in some cases illegal based on the constitution yet that poster refuses to listen or try to defund his opinions with facts, it like its a gut thing based on an antiquated bpview of marriage. Or based, which I tend to believe, on the Bible. We will likely never change the opinions of people with such obviously closed minds. It was a very nice try and appreciated but I wonder if we are spitting in the wind here.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
The legal standard is that all rights must be available equally. That means that it shouldn't be legal to deny someone access to a marriage license because the person they want to marry has the same parts they do. It's the same thing as denying someone access to a marriage license because the person they want to marry is of a different religious faith. Or of a different race. The latter two, we completely understand. Interestingly, it took a SCOTUS decision (Loving v Virginia) to teach us that it's discrimination to deny people marriage licenses based on their race, and to establish marriage as a basic right. It never ceases to amaze me how many anti-same sex marriage people are ignorant of this fact, but I have yet to converse with one that already new of the case.
The legal standard to deny someone their basic rights is that for that person to exercise that right harms another person's right. I.E. when I swing my first, it makes contact with your face. When I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the ensuing stampede causes people to get injured or killed. Which is why I keep asking Akivah to tell me who is harmed when gay couples marry. Akivah knows no one is harmed and chooses to repeat that same sex marriage is immoral. Morality is subjective. I think it's immoral to dress little girls up like 30 year olds and parade them around grown ups telling them if they shake their *** well enough, they can earn money for college. But that's not illegal, either.
It's not about changing minds like Akivah. Akivah thinks same sex relationships are icky. Generally speaking, the things I find icky I just don't think about, but honestly my "icky" bar is pretty high. The only reason for engaging with one like Akivah is to let him/her know just how far outside the mainstream that thought process is becoming. That's why racism, which no one used to hide, is now so utterly covert.
After reading the post by JoStories, and knowing other similar tragic stories and countless examples of injustice it seems very clear to me that the limited definition of marriage that you want to maintain has actually failed the test of time in so many horrific ways.
Thank you fantome profane. That means a lot to me.
While I love love to totally agree with you Marisa, I can't. Racism is alive and well in this country, one only read some of the comments that people make about our president to see how alive and well it really is. And in my travels across this country and world, I can unequivocably state that it's one of the things about this country I find most sad. People continue to have cartoon images of Obama with his head on a monkey. Or they have confederate flags they have in open places with swaztikas out in the open. In Hawaii I was called a howlie openly- the Hawaiian racist word for not anyone Hawaiian. And so on. It's far from covert.The legal standard is that all rights must be available equally. That means that it shouldn't be legal to deny someone access to a marriage license because the person they want to marry has the same parts they do. It's the same thing as denying someone access to a marriage license because the person they want to marry is of a different religious faith. Or of a different race. The latter two, we completely understand. Interestingly, it took a SCOTUS decision (Loving v Virginia) to teach us that it's discrimination to deny people marriage licenses based on their race, and to establish marriage as a basic right. It never ceases to amaze me how many anti-same sex marriage people are ignorant of this fact, but I have yet to converse with one that already new of the case.
The legal standard to deny someone their basic rights is that for that person to exercise that right harms another person's right. I.E. when I swing my first, it makes contact with your face. When I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the ensuing stampede causes people to get injured or killed. Which is why I keep asking Akivah to tell me who is harmed when gay couples marry. Akivah knows no one is harmed and chooses to repeat that same sex marriage is immoral. Morality is subjective. I think it's immoral to dress little girls up like 30 year olds and parade them around grown ups telling them if they shake their *** well enough, they can earn money for college. But that's not illegal, either.
It's not about changing minds like Akivah. Akivah thinks same sex relationships are icky. Generally speaking, the things I find icky I just don't think about, but honestly my "icky" bar is pretty high. The only reason for engaging with one like Akivah is to let him/her know just how far outside the mainstream that thought process is becoming. That's why racism, which no one used to hide, is now so utterly covert.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean to imply that racism is over, only that overt, burning crosses in people's yards racism is mostly over. It now hides behind things like birtherism, and #whitelivesmatter.