Why gay marriage matters...

[netrox]

"Heterosexuals are protected by $40 license, but wills and legal safeguards for same-sex couples cost thousands"

"If Howard Wax and Robert Pooley Jr. were a heterosexual couple, they could've gone to their nearest Cook County clerk's office, paid $40 for a marriage license and been wed.

That would have provided them an array of legal protections -- the right to make medical decisions for one another, the ability for one to inherit the other's property.

Instead, the couple paid $10,000 for an attorney to help them roughly simulate -- using wills, trusts and powers of attorney -- the protections that marriage affords. It was a price the men, parents of 3-year-old twins, were willing to pay for peace of mind, though they admit it's far from perfect."


'Marriage' benefits costly for gay couples - chicagotribune.com

That's why it is MORALLY, LEGALLY, AND ETHICALLY WRONG to deny marriage to gay couples.

 

[TXgolfer]

"Heterosexuals are protected by $40 license, but wills and legal safeguards for same-sex couples cost thousands"

"If Howard Wax and Robert Pooley Jr. were a heterosexual couple, they could've gone to their nearest Cook County clerk's office, paid $40 for a marriage license and been wed.

That would have provided them an array of legal protections -- the right to make medical decisions for one another, the ability for one to inherit the other's property.

Instead, the couple paid $10,000 for an attorney to help them roughly simulate -- using wills, trusts and powers of attorney -- the protections that marriage affords. It was a price the men, parents of 3-year-old twins, were willing to pay for peace of mind, though they admit it's far from perfect."


'Marriage' benefits costly for gay couples - chicagotribune.com

That's why it is MORALLY, LEGALLY, AND ETHICALLY WRONG to deny marriage to gay couples.

They overpaid. I used a Top 5 firm in Dallas. I have a will, durable PoA for health, durable PoA for posessions, a living trust for myself, an educational trust for my daughter, a living trust for my daughter, a charitable trust, a family incorporation and a will for my daughter. It was less than $10,000 (although the charitable trust has an operational cost).

That is way more than most people would need. Fact is for most people the could get everything they need through a notary at their bank, a state legal aid office and their closest law school and it would be free or cheap.

As your article states most straight couple get the same legal paperwork done. It's pretty irresponsible not to have these things especially with children.

But financials aside. Your title asserts that "gay marriage is necessary" but even the article mentions civil unions as an option. I still haven't given my opinion on gay marriage in any of these threads. My problem with these threads has been the recurring theme that "gay marriage" is necessary. People WANT "gay marriage". Fine. But saying it is necessary is a weak point when civil unions can provide the exact same thing.

 

[netrox]

I understand you're thinking, "why not "civil union" and frankly, a lot of Americans support that concept but they don't realize that marriage IS a civil union. It's a matter of semantics. Marriage has been redefined a few times and marriage should ALWAYS be viewed as a legal recognition of union, NOT HOW you think marriage should be defined based on your religious belief. If atheists can marry, why can't gays marry? And if it's religious, then why do government refuse to recognize unions that are "blessed" by their own churches?

You said you paid all for less then 10,000... the difference is you're married legally and that is enough to cover all legal issues. But for gay couples, they have ALWAYS been historically denied the right to inherit their surviving partners, the right to have their child collect their benefits, and so forth. Because courts have often refused to recognize their relationship, it costs a LOT of money to make sure they are recognized and in that case, it's often "business" - you get tax breaks while they have to pay more taxes.

 

[TXgolfer]

I understand you're thinking, "why not "civil union" and frankly, a lot of Americans support that concept but they don't realize that marriage IS a civil union. It's a matter of semantics. Marriage has been redefined a few times and marriage should ALWAYS be viewed as a legal recognition of union, NOT HOW you think marriage should be defined based on your religious belief. If atheists can marry, why can't gays marry? And if it's religious, then why do government refuse to recognize unions that are "blessed" by their own churches?

You said you paid all for less then 10,000... the difference is you're married legally and that is enough to cover all legal issues. But for gay couples, they have ALWAYS been historically denied the right to inherit their surviving partners, the right to have their child collect their benefits, and so forth. Because courts have often refused to recognize their relationship, it costs a LOT of money to make sure they are recognized and in that case, it's often "business" - you get tax breaks while they have to pay more taxes.

I agree it's semantics. That's why I have said in other threads we need new legal terminology to describe all unions and just leave the term marriage out for everyone as a legal term. Then allow people to define marriage as they wish. A federal judge (i believe in San Francisco) suggested the same thing.

One big advantage to doing it this way is that the "union" or whatever we decide to call the legal contract would be less "fluffy" than the term marriage. The advantage of that is that people might understand they are entering into a serious legal contract. Marriage Certificates are pretty vague. At least they were in my county when I got mine years ago. It was basically Name, age, parents name and address then pay $25 and congrats. Maybe a new certification could be more informative.