Super Duper Tuesday Politics

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

You know, I want to thank all you people who have all these suggestions Bill and I can go through - at our own expense - all these hoops we have to jump through in order to even attempt to protect ourselves in the event of one of our deaths.

Of course, there's no suggestion(s) as to how we would pay the taxes - taxes we wouldn't have to pay... and hoops we wouldn't have to jump through... and lawyers we wouldn't have to retain... and paperwork we wouldn't have to file... and headaches we wouldn't have to go through... and fears that would be entirely baseless...

If we got married.

I am afraid that is just not so. I am surely no expert, but I hear all the time of wills that are contested by siblings, or children because they don't like the new wife, etc.

People who have no regard for others during their life, but come out of the woodwork after a death to grab some money are all over, and not restricted to the family of gay people.

I too have a problem with the 95% statements. Where are you getting this? You seem sure, and I do not have a reason to doubt that you believe it, but since it seems incredable, why not share your source of that number with us? It is you who keep trying to convince this forum that this situation is so bad, and many of us who are honestly not aware of this problem you state.

I have heard from several people as well as my own posts that suggested the law and a competent lawyer can write a legal contract that takes care of the things you want taken care of. You keep saying it will get overturned, but why? How? on what grounds?

One thing I do realize, is that if you are simply able to get "married" the fact that 95% of the legal contracts have been overturned may be a larger factor than that 'marriage' in the court's eyes. Legal precedent is a difficult thing to overcome, unless the new marriage law directly addresses the specific reasons those legal, binding contracts were overturned.

I perceive mostly support for your fear of a problem for your partner, in the event of your demise. You cannot expect people to understand what you know to be fact, if you do not share the information that led you to believe those conclusions...

And the last thing that I would say, is that this problem lies in what you expect your family to do. That is not a court thing, that is a family thing. As hard as it is, if you get them to come around, then this issue is moot.

I will not suggest how you should deal with your family, but a contract with them, even if it is a contract that declares you sane, or one that declares you out of the family, or one that declares you have no right to the family fortune, will all serve to tell the judge after your demise the fact that the will of these family members and your will are not the same.

Even a deposition from the friendly sister that your wishes are such and such, and the wishes of the other members of your family are contrary, all done while everyone is alive, will serve to set the stage for the judge to know the state of your relationship, and be able to make a more informed decision. It is just covering your bets...

If I was so sure that a legal contract only has a 5% chance of standing, I would take steps now, to try and increase that number. If it is important to me, I would do now, and not wait for the government to get something right, that I feel they have never gotten right yet, in the history of this country.

Just a way toward a solution, as you have made it clear to me what you think is the problem.

[Five-Flags]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

You know, I want to thank all you people who have all these suggestions Bill and I can go through - at our own expense - all these hoops we have to jump through in order to even attempt to protect ourselves in the event of one of our deaths.

Of course, there's no suggestion(s) as to how we would pay the taxes - taxes we wouldn't have to pay... and hoops we wouldn't have to jump through... and lawyers we wouldn't have to retain... and paperwork we wouldn't have to file... and headaches we wouldn't have to go through... and fears that would be entirely baseless...

If we got married.

Okay, you're bitter... We get that...

So if you're not interested in some suggestions that might be of benefit in the world as it exists today, no problem...

But the world you want ain't here yet -- and may not be here soon enough for your plans. Enjoy!

Originally Posted by KSagal

(i)f I was so sure that a legal contract only has a 5% chance of standing, I would take steps now, to try and increase that number. If it is important to me, I would do now, and not wait for the government to get something right, that I feel they have never gotten right yet, in the history of this country.

Just a way toward a solution, as you have made it clear to me what you think is the problem.

Karl,

The 95% figure comes from personal observation, tracking and from both Llambda Legal Defense and the Human Rights Campaign Fund.

In probate law, FAMILY always has the presumption, period. By law, a gay domestic partner is NOT family. The only times Estates of deceased homosexuals with partners have been upheld in Probate is when the FAMILY, as defined by law, have not contested the will or, as you pointed out, in those times when the legally defined family has been changed due to contractual and/or precedent court rulings.

But... again... I have to point out that is an ADDITIONAL requirement a same-gender couple has to go through, in order to simply obtain the appearance of safety.

Marriage is a legal, civil, contract between two persons and the government to be seen as a single unit. In exchange for the two persons to be mutually responsible for any and all debts and obligations one of the persons undertakes during the course of their legal marriage, the government provides certain rights: The rights to automatic co-ownership of all properties obtained/attained, with the automatic right of reversion to single ownership to the surviving spouse, without incurring any tax liabilities on that "change" of ownership. The right to have the income of either/both spouses considered to be a single, joint income for purposes of taxation.

There is no requirement the marriage produce children, either naturally or adopted, in any state in this country. If there were then, in that state, the infertile and the elderly would be denied the right to marry and, it could be further argued, that any and all marriages are declared "null" at such time as the youngest child of a couple reaches the age of majority.

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled marriage was "a basic human right," and found that several states were unconstitutionally barring its residents from full access to that right via miscegenation laws.

In other rulings, the Supreme Court has upheld that, while the wording of the Constitution, itself, is "all 'men' are created equal," the term "men" is to be read as a collective pronoun for "all persons, of all genders."

The difference between an opposite-gender marriage and a same-gender marriage is one of the gender composition of the couple. Since marriage is, by precedent, a "basic human right," and, again by precedent, discrimination in full participation of equal rights based on gender is unconstitutional, then when a Mass. marriage case does finally agree to be heard by the Supreme Court, I have no doubt all state Defense of Marriage Acts, as well as the Federal DOMA will be overturned.

So do a majority of Republican lawmakers and the Extreme Right. That's why the screaming and fussing over the last few years about a federal Constitutional Amendment... because simply connecting the dots shows how what the ruling on a DOMA-challenge case should be.

Bill and I have been together for 14 years. We've gone through thousands of dollars putting legal documents in place. We've already discovered, first hand, that state and Federal law more highly values the spiritual beliefs of a hospital staff doctor than it does our relationship. His spirituality trumps us.

And I can appreciate the confusion - because you, and Desert_Seg, and Randy, and others know that's not how it's supposed to work; that's not what the law tells you is how it works. But, it does. You live in Boston, Karl. I know there's a few gay community centers there. I even believe the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has a satellite office there. I know there's some type of gay newspaper there, probably published on a weekly basis and distributed on a Thursday.

If you're really wanting to know the law is being applied unfairly in the circumstances I'm setting forth - and Karl, I truly believe you do want to know, and would be shocked, if not appalled, that what I'm recounting is true - call those places. Just ask. I'm sure they'll be more than willing to give you earful after earful of names, dates and judges.

Karl, just why do you think your home state allowed for same-gender marriages in the first place? Because a case was made that showed a repeated pattern of discrimination against same-gender couples in the area of partnership- and survivor's rights, and found that discrimination was so ingrained into the system that it couldn't be eliminated except by the total inclusion of same-gender couples into the system.

And even then, some county registrars and JPs refused to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples and were either fired, or assessed civil fines.

To this day, you've got people running around the state garnering signatures on petitions to both reverse the ruling, and subsequent action by the state legislature, and codify Mass' constitution to deny same-gender couples this "basic human right."

Hell... if half the people who have spent so much time and energy working to stop same-gender couples access to equal marriage rights in this country were to instead focus one-quarter of that energy into their own marriages and families, I'm sure the national divorce rate, instead of being just over 50%, would fall, dramatically.

[jryan]

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Come on Jeremy. Do you mean to tell me you have seen "at least 10 circumstances"?

I don't know of many people who have gone through this same situation but I do know two. Unfortunately one lost their partner in Afghanistan and the other was unexpected but a normal death (if death could ever be called normal).

Neither surviving partner had any problems and one lived in Texas (yes, that state again) and one lived in Maryland. I can't however, tell you if any of their family tried to have the will annulled

I will also state that ever since Eric and I had this discussion about 4 months ago I've been dusting off the law books and doing some research. While I'm not finished with the research I have to say that the law is on the side of the benefactor, who can name anybody they want in their will. Courts do NOT have the discretion of change beneficiaries and in no case that I have been able to find has the will been overturned.

Now, admittedly, I have not completed my research but what I've found so far is that if you have done your "homework" and prepared the groundwork then there will be no (or fewer) problems.

Steven

Yes, Steven, I have personally seen 10 circumstances in my own eyes, maybe more! Do your research Steven, but unfortunately the fact remains! A will, no matter how well it is crafted, has the potential to not be honored for homosexuals the same way it is for heteros! I have seen nothing to prove otherewise and have personally seen 10 circumstances to support! Now if we want to go on just what I've heard of the number would be much larger!

You have to remember Steven that Madison has TONS of homosexuals and is viewed as one of the most gay friendly cities in the U.S.! With my mom, I have been in the middle of the gay community, although straight myself! Most of the people I was around growing up were homosexuals! To me 10 is a low number but I rest my case here!

Jeremy Ryan

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by jryan

Yes, Steven, I have personally seen 10 circumstances in my own eyes, maybe more! Do your research Steven, but unfortunately the fact remains! A will, no matter how well it is crafted, has the potential to not be honored for homosexuals the same way it is for heteros! I have seen nothing to prove otherewise and have personally seen 10 circumstances to support! Now if we want to go on just what I've heard of the number would be much larger!

You have to remember Steven that Madison has TONS of homosexuals and is viewed as one of the most gay friendly cities in the U.S.! With my mom, I have been in the middle of the gay community, although straight myself! Most of the people I was around growing up were homosexuals! To me 10 is a low number but I rest my case here!

Jeremy Ryan

My law studies and research prove otherwise. In most cases that I read the reason for one partner (and it wasn't always a same sex partner) to have lost their "rights" under a will is due to improper paperwork or improper filing.


[/FONT]Steven

Originally Posted by Five-Flags

Okay, you're bitter... We get that...So if you're not interested in some suggestions that might be of benefit in the world as it exists today, no problem...But the world you want ain't here yet -- and may not be here soon enough for your plans. Enjoy!

True, the "world ain't here yet."

But all it would take for the United States to be there is to live up to the Constitution of the United States, live under the confines of Freedom of/from Religion and of "all men are created equal," and as such enjoy "certain inalienable rights."

And since marriage has been ruled to be a basic human right, we should have the same access to the responsibilities and privileges of the civil marriage contract.

Problem solved. See how easy that is?

[KSagal]

I am afraid I am just going to step away from this one. I honestly believe you completely believe what you have said. I just do not see the same thing you see.

Many states have recently passed legislation defining Marriage as a man and a woman, these are not old laws.

Massachusetts is a horribly corrupt place, that is run by a small clique of hateful, disrespectful people only interested in furthering their own ambitions. The same sex rulings came from a split court, had no legal precedent, and has been acted upon to be overturned in compliance with the state's constitution, yet the corrupt legislature refuses to do what the electorate tells it to do.

Telling me to educate myself so that I come to the conclusions you have is not likely to work. I know for fact things that you refuse to accept. You know for fact things that I refuse to accept. We have different lives, different perspectives, and believe different people.

Regardless if the system is fair or not, if Massachusetts is a visionary place, or just corrupt, if the country is ready for same sex marriage or not, life today is what it is.

I offered what advice I could, in telling what I would do, and that seems to not be good enough.

I believe that the society is on a serious downhill slide, and this is a further indication of it. You may not. You may feel that society is fine, or destroying the current definition of marriage is a good thing.

I do not think we are going to get much closer on this at this time, so... Good luck. I hope an accomodation can be reached where all parties get what they want. I doubt it.

[nora k]

I did not see that coming.

Originally Posted by nora k

I did not see that coming.

Steven Colbert did.

[jryan]

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

My law studies and research prove otherwise. In most cases that I read the reason for one partner (and it wasn't always a same sex partner) to have lost their "rights" under a will is due to improper paperwork or improper filing.


[/FONT]Steven

I have not seen this! In my expierience out of the 10 people I know 4 of them I personally went to court proceedings with! My mom figured it would be good education and would open my mind to what was really going on! In these circumstances the will was declared proper and filed proper!

Unfortunately they still did not get the rights! So, you may ask, how have homosexuals in Madison prevented this? I know of 10 couples who married each other and this has worked out well! This way they both get the legal rights not with who they truly love, but they have rights within the couples! Only one of these people has passed on since then and the "wife" took what was owed and left it to the "partner"!

That being said, it is a temporary fix if you can trust another homosexual couple enough! I do not believe this should have to be done! I believe Steven that we will have to agree to disagree! I am going off what I have seen and you, research! We will come to our conclusions based on the evidence we have!


Jeremy Ryan