Support marriage amendment

[HelloKittyGal]

Agree, Cheri.

 

[Oddball]

Not just that, but 1,049 benefits are denied to same-sex couples just because their relationship isn't recognised by the government.

Imagine a same-sex couple living together for many years, then one dies. The house is owned by the late partner, and the state takes it away from the living partner, just because their couple is not recognised by the law? Is that fair?

Also, if one of the couple goes to hospital, usually they let family only. Some hospital will refuse to let the other partner to visit, just because they are not recognised as family by the government.

Same sex couples cannot file for joint tax returns and so on on federal level.

Read here for more reasons:
http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/benefits.htm
These benefits are denied to same-sex couples. I think it's pretty sad.

Thank you for drilling into my wacky brain. Well said. I agree with you no more. I strongly consider that same sex couples have equality rights as hetrosexual couples do.

 

[Reba]

Imagine a same-sex couple living together for many years, then one dies. The house is owned by the late partner, and the state takes it away from the living partner, just because their couple is not recognised by the law? Is that fair?

Why didn't the partner have a will?

Also, if one of the couple goes to hospital, usually they let family only. Some hospital will refuse to let the other partner to visit, just because they are not recognised as family by the government.

If the proper legal paperwork is filed, the patient can choose who can visit.

 

[javapride]

Reba why don't u let this die now cuz we do not want to hear bible thumping coming from u im sick of it and yet u still perisists on and on and on U gve us the info and we chose our descions please for thel life of us leave ur bible thumping out of here and talk politics NOT reglions! this still REEKS of disciminations! :roll: So leave the reglions OUT of this and talk some sense thank u !

 

[kuifje75]

Why didn't the partner have a will?

If the proper legal paperwork is filed, the patient can choose who can visit.

Why do we have to do ALL THE NECESSARY WORK to acheive this? It would be granted automatically to us if we had equal rights as heterosexual couples.

Straight couples do not have to fill wills out and so on, and it is still automatically given to the spouse. Moreover, what happens if the partner dies all of a sudden before his "time"? You never know, one can die all of a sudden tomorrow in a car crash or something.

Also it is not simple about hospital visits. What if the patient is unconscious when he arrived at the hospital? He cannot fill "these legal paperworks" you suggested. Ultimately, his partner loses out.

 

[kuifje75]

Note to other members, although I no longer am a moderator for here, please keep your judgments in checks. Reba is right, this is a diverse board and downplaying other members' opinions should not be tolerated. What if people said gay and lesbian people were stupid and faggots, we cant tolerate that either right? Please take it easy. Stick to discussions on debating why it is important to have this amendment passed or not passed.

 

[Lasza]

Huh? Now where the fuck did you get that stat? I've never heard that.Virtually ALL lesbians like men....they just aren't sexually attracted to males.

I know sound strange to ya. In real life, I met one woman who is "Men-Hater". Herself, she is hard butch and talking bad thing about men, men, and MEN included her own father front of me and my friends. I see she become cold and unfriendly toward to any men. That's rare case. That was 10 years ago, I wonder if she accept or still doing for Today.

Thank you!!!! There's a bit in the Bible you should read Reba....it says " Judge ye that ye not be judged" I think you should read some pages by GLB Christians about their struggles. Maybe then you won't judge us so harshly!
We feel love for our girl/boyfriends. God is love....so how can love be wrong?
Besides, according to the Bible incest is OK, shrimp is a tool of the devil (there is even a website called " God Hates Shrimp") and wearing mixed fabrics and speaking in church if you're a woman is a sin. Most "Christians" I know don't even bother to really read the Bible but just pick n choose which verses suit them the best! I would bet you anything that you didn't know that Levicticus says that shrimp is evil and that parents can kill their kids for getting into trouble.

Your welcome By the way, "Shrimp" I never hear of that. Maybe something like other name than that one.

 

[Reba]

Not just that, but 1,049 benefits are denied to same-sex couples just because their relationship isn't recognised by the government.
Read here for more reasons:
http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/benefits.htm

I went to that link and read that page AND the full reference that it was based on. The linked reference was a GAO report from the Office of the General Counsel. That office did a search for all federal laws in which marital status was a factor. The report (if you really read it) showed that the marital status factor influenced various benefits in three ways; positively, negatively, or neutrally. There were many examples where being married actually reduced benefits.

Your statement "1,049 benefits are denied to same-sex couples just because their relationship isn't recognised by the government" is FALSE. It is a total misrepresentation of the facts. The sentence in the GAO report stated, "The result is a collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor." Note, marital status is a factor. That number had nothing at all to do with denied benefits.

 

[kuifje75]

The sentence in the GAO report stated, "The result is a collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor." Note, marital status is a factor. That number had nothing at all to do with denied benefits.

Still, there are some benefits denied to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples enjoy. I think it would not be hard to see this being the obvious.

 

[Reba]

Why do we have to do ALL THE NECESSARY WORK to acheive this? It would be granted automatically to us if we had equal rights as heterosexual couples.
Straight couples do not have to fill wills out and so on, and it is still automatically given to the spouse. Moreover, what happens if the partner dies all of a sudden before his "time"? You never know, one can die all of a sudden tomorrow in a car crash or something.

Straight couples most certainly do have to fill out wills. Depending on the state, all is NOT "automatically given to the spouse." No one, straight or gay, knows when they will die, so they should all "take care of business" and have all their documents ready, will, living will, and child custody.

Also it is not simple about hospital visits. What if the patient is unconscious when he arrived at the hospital?

So, the partner goes to the hospital and says, "I am a member of the family." If the patient is unconscious, the hospital checks for ID that lists "emergency contact" or "next of kin". The prepared partner has the other person's name filled in. It's called "planning ahead". It's like having insurance, it's something responsible adults do.

 

[kuifje75]

So, the partner goes to the hospital and says, "I am a member of the family." If the patient is unconscious, the hospital checks for ID that lists "emergency contact" or "next of kin". The prepared partner has the other person's name filled in. It's called "planning ahead". It's like having insurance, it's something responsible adults do.

Not all hospitals will honour that statement if a partner goes in and asserts himself as "a member of the family," the parents or family might not like the partner and tell the hospital not to allow him to visit. Families can be strange sometimes in situations like this. It is a good idea to keep emergency contact and next of kin info in your wallet. However, if the wallet is stolen or lost through whatever reasons, then what?

Another example is that two lesbians lived together for a long time and raised a daughter. Then the mother died from cancer, and daughter was taken away from the partner. The court refused to recognise it and gave the daughter to the late mother's parents, who wants to have nothing to do with the partner, but shut her out. Even if it is on papers, some state refuse to recognise same-sex couples and judges against the wishes of the deceased partner.

 

[Reba]

Not all hospitals will honour that statement if a partner goes in and asserts himself as "a member of the family," the parents or family might not like the partner and tell the hospital not to allow him to visit. Families can be strange sometimes in situations like this. It is a good idea to keep emergency contact and next of kin info in your wallet. However, if the wallet is stolen or lost through whatever reasons, then what?

There are situations where hospitals don't allow legal spouses access also, so marriage is not an automatic guarantee for visitation. Each hospital handles it differently. Also, some hospitals allow access by non-family members such as clergy, interpreters, and close friends.

"California Code of Regulation, Section 70707 stipulates that hospital visitation rights may not be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation.

Even if the patient does not have decision-making ability, hospitals are obligated to consider the wishes of the patient as to who may visit, including anyone living in the same house as the patient.

So, if a gay or lesbian couple live together, and one is injured or becomes ill, state law
requires that their right to visit each other not be restricted.

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, (CCR), Section 70707

(18) Designate visitors of his/her choosing, if the patient has decision-making capacity, whether or not the visitor is related by blood or marriage.

(19) Have the patient’s wishes considered for purpose of determining who may visit if the patient lacks decision-making capacity and to have the method of that consideration disclosed in the hospital policy on visitation. At a minimum, the hospital shall include any person living in the same household."

for the full text:
http://www.library.ucla.edu/librari...l/primary/caprop/prop22/website/hospital.html

Another example is that two lesbians lived together for a long time and raised a daughter. Then the mother died from cancer, and daughter was taken away from the partner. The court refused to recognise it and gave the daughter to the late mother's parents, who wants to have nothing to do with the partner, but shut her out. Even if it is on papers, some state refuse to recognise same-sex couples and judges against the wishes of the deceased partner.

Are you saying that the judge voided a will? I would have to know more about the case before stating that the judge made that decision based solely on the fact that the lesbians were not married to each other. Many factors are involved in child custody cases. Did the judge actually say his/her decision was based only on the lesbian factor? Many people leave guardianship/custody of their children to non-blood-related people, such as godparents or close friends. Even in traditional married couples, sometimes guardianship goes to someone other than the spouse, so marriage is not an automatic guarantee of custody.

 

[VamPyroX]

Mod Note:

Due to flaming, bashing, and name calling... I'm closing the thread. This was meant to be one opinion from one person. Yet, everyone else goes expressing repetitive opinions back-n-forth and it's getting nowhere. If you have any further questions, please PM me. Thanks.