quote give your partner a Durable Power of Attorney for Medical Decisions (which you should have already done if you are as committed as you say) and include in that simple document the absolute right of visitation.

This may not be sufficient in every state, if only typed out, signed by both parties, and stamped by a Notary Public. We had one for our father, and because it was not a particular form, issued by the State of Texas, it was ignored by EMS personnel. In Texas there is also a separate re whether the person is hospitalized or outside a medical facility.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-10-2008).]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No one seems to mention the Creator part, they are not referring to your mom and dad I don't think. But you already skipped over that part, so I suppose if you ignore it, or even remove it then it never meant anything anyway.

Over the years eventually no one will remember it was even there. The parts that cause you to think about right and wrong may be so hard to deal with that its just easier to remove them. Sort of like moving out of the house, no parents to go home and be accountable to every day.

Suddenly it becomes freedom to disobey, we are all liberated from rules set in place for a reason. Seems we are already half way to the point where these things will be forgotten. The votes swing back and forth and eventually it will erode enough that it won't swing back.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-10-2008).]

Into the abyss.........

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: This is good advice. The main problem is that it costs a lot of money to do these things,

Didn't cost me anything. Willmaker Pro from Quicken came with my last Quicken upgrade and it has forms approved for every state with it. I let a friend of mine who is an attorney look at it and he said it was fine. Even if it DOES cost a few dollars, everyone should still have a DPOA for medical decisions in case you're not able to make the decisions for yourself. IMHO, it's as, if not more, important than a will.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: The word marriage is either a religious term or it isn't. If it isn't, then it should apply to everyone, not just those who are religious. If it is, then it should be removed from *law* because law in this country is supposed to be non-theocratic/religious/denominational.

On what do you base that comment? It's certainly not supported by the Constitution. It may be your opinion, but it's certainly not a fact.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: .... The word marriage is either a religious term or it isn't. If it isn't, then it should apply to everyone, not just those who are religious. If it is, then it should be removed from *law* because law in this country is supposed to be non-theocratic/religious/denominational. The simple solution to the arguments presented by the religious would be to simply substitute "civil union" for "marriage" and give all the same rights, and *responsibilities*, to those who want to be in a committed relationship outside of a religious environment. However, when "civil union" legislation is proposed, the religious go after it with full fervor even though it clearly has no effect or repercussions upon religion in any way. That, more than anything, shows what the real motivations are behind those who want to ban homosexuals from experiencing the full benefits of committed relationships. The basic truth is: Homosexuals entering into legally binding committed relationships with the full benefits of heterosexual couples do not threaten anyone, never did and never will. Again, I see this as just a projection of religious power and control, nothing more. JazzMan

The word "marriage" is NOT a religous word. The word marriage can be used for the joining of any two (OR MORE!) things. Be they humans, be they objects, be they ideas.

A Reeses Peanut Butter cup is the result of the marriage of peanut butter & chocolate.

A Hybrid Car is the marriage of electric power & internal combustion

Amtrak is the result of MANY marriages of railroads

GM is polygymal marriage of Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, Cadillac - and the recently deceased Oldsmobile - and having an affair with Saturn, Opal - etc etc

I dont care you a few of you want to limit your definition to suit your needs - but - a word is a word. much like Ho Ho Ho is now 3 b!tches. Monitor is now also the screen you are reading this on. Mouse is what I am going to use to hit the "Submit Reply" button below. Speaker is not just a person anymore.

marriage has NEVER been a "church word". people were married long before the church existed. and - finally - the church is NOT in english. it is translated in english for your conveinance. not one single character in ANY bible spoke english.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Neither, Bill.

There is no neither John, it is either true or it is false, black or white.

quote It is an ideal that we strive to secure. You should know that, you were a part of the military that is constantly attempting to secure it for us. John Stricker

No John it is an idea that "we" (does not include me) are trying to destroy for a certain select group of people whose lifestyle "we" (does not include me) do not agree with are BARRED from their pursuit of happiness.

Yes John I know that which is why I am here explaining to you these things. The word "were" would infer past tense which is inaccurate. I live it, I breathe it, I drink it and I fight for it anywhere I am needed for those who have been deemed unworthy of it.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: No one seems to mention the Creator part, they are not referring to your mom and dad I don't think.

Just as life liberty and pursuit of happiness, it is for you to decide for your self who the creator is, you define it, it is yours. It is a personal issue which you must resolve for yourself. Many will try but I will not tell you who created you, however, I'm sure many of us are familiar with the process by which it occurred.

Personally, I do not stake a claim to any religion because I do not agree with their controls of the peoples choices. I can think for myself and I don't need anyone, not even a religion to do it for me. That is the difference between having faith and having someone tell what your faith is. You either have it or you get an allotment.

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: So would it not make a whole lot more sense to work on getting Civil unions Federally recognized and expanded to cover all the same rights as marriage instead of trying to subjugate other people's beliefs? Please tell me why should a minority group of people be allowed to tell the majority what they should or should not believe?

Because as a citizen of this country I strongly beleive that everyone should be granted the same rights and benefits. Unfortunately this does not happen. Civil Union laws had great intentions, but do not work.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Personally, I do not stake a claim to any religion because I do not agree with their controls of the peoples choices. I can think for myself and I don't need anyone, not even a religion to do it for me. That is the difference between having faith and having someone tell what your faith is. You either have it or you get an allotment.

Ya you can have it, but you weren't born with it. Thats the idea I get from your post. Over your life you learned what is out there, or what you think is out there. You can't just have "faith". You have it in something.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Ya you can have it, but you weren't born with it.

And the Constitution allowed me to define it for myself... However, my path differed from that of someone who desires a same sex partner. I am allowed to continue my pursuit, they are not and I have an issue with that. I do not agree and I do not share their values but I AM UNITED in their cause to have the fundamental element which birthed this nation of ours... Equality.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: This is good advice. The main problem is that it costs a lot of money to do these things, the above as well the other legal documents needed to try and give a same-sex married couple most (not all) of the various rights and benefits that different-sex couples get with a $25 marriage certificate.

This is a dangerous misconception, hetero couples MUST have these extra legal documents too. They do not become automatic with a marriage certificate. Except possibly visitation. Medical decisions and right to records are not included, along with many others. I have them, and yes they cost me some extra doe.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: This is not an issue. John Stricker

What is at issue is tax incentives for married couples along with the ability to have medical coverage as a married couple does. This legislation / Amendment seeks to bar same sex marriage from accessing all the same benefits that a hetero marriage has access to.

I.E. It makes inequality a law of the land as a penalty for being gay.


Might as well just say it out loud, "YOU ARE DIFFERENT and you aren't allowed to enjoy what the rest of us have." John Q Public - mindless peon of the new world order.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: And the Constitution allowed me to define it for myself... However, my path differed from that of someone who desires a same sex partner. I am allowed to continue my pursuit, they are not and I have an issue with that. I do not agree and I do not share their values but I AM UNITED in their cause to have the fundamental element which birthed this nation of ours... Equality.

Sounds noble, it wasn't equality but liberty though, (not that you can't use them the same way in this case.)
But if ones "pursuit" lead to pets or children would that not be wrong? Think how wrong that is to most people, and then know thats how many see homosexuality.
If I was asked should they be able to marry, my conscience could not let me say "sure". This is my input. My vote if I got one.
I don't need to change anyone, but I will not vote yes to something I don't believe. Alot of reasons have been set out to see by more than I , but if it cannot be seen it cannot.
Different starting points, Different viewpoints, Different ending points.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Sounds noble, it wasn't equality but liberty though,.

It doesn't just "sound" noble, it IS noble. Liberty is freedom and equality means we all get to share it EQUALLY. To deny someone their pursuit of happiness is creating an inequity and inequity will lead to strife... Especially in a Republic such as ours. I say more power to them.

Urbis incendia

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-10-2008).]

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: It doesn't just "sound" noble, it IS noble. Liberty is freedom and equality means we all get to share it EQUALLY. To deny someone their pursuit of happiness is creating an inequity and inequity will lead to strife... Especially in a Republic such as ours. I say more power to them. Urbis incendia

One can't only be out not to upset anyone.

(not saying you are)

-UH Jazz...... ya.... MINE, ALL THE MARRIAGE IS MINE $$$$$$$$$

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-10-2008).]

quote Originally posted by aconesa: Because as a citizen of this country I strongly believe that everyone should be granted the same rights and benefits. Unfortunately this does not happen. Civil Union laws had great intentions, but do not work.

You know one of the great things about this country is if a law is not working out like it should you have the possible chance of trying to convince others to change it and get it to work right. Seeing as how a majority of people have voiced their opinon on this issue by voting either for or against it we have gotten the answer of how people feel about this issue. It would be a lot easier to fix the Civil Union laws than to continuously take a bigoted stance against the feelings and beliefs of the majority of people in this country. Can any of you think that making negative comments about people who don't and will more than likely never share your views or beliefs will do anything to positively help you?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Remember, some people like to share things more "equally" than others, hehehe... it's the basic condition of being human, regardless of gender orientation. "I want more, and if that means you get less, that's fine, especially if you're different from me and mine." JazzMan

Oh absolutely and there is a reason for that. This is where we start talking about beliefs. There is "good" and there is "evil" and I dont think anyone will disagree and say that they do not exist. Hate is the fundamental trait of evil, I personally have dealt with much of it and put it to rest. Joy and happiness is a trait of good, I personally have given much of it to as many as I can.

The more we unite, the more level or "equal" we become. It is not a great sacrifice to say to someone it's okay to be you and to enjoy your life but for some, they just cant bring themselves to letting that happen and they are not my friends.

At least you finally agree that IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and really nothing else.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: What is at issue is tax incentives for married couples along with the ability to have medical coverage as a married couple does. This legislation / Amendment seeks to bar same sex marriage from accessing all the same benefits that a hetero marriage has access to. I.E. It makes inequality a law of the land as a penalty for being gay. Might as well just say it out loud, "YOU ARE DIFFERENT and you aren't allowed to enjoy what the rest of us have." John Q Public - mindless peon of the new world order.

For some it may be about the money. But for most, it's not. It's about being given the same considerations as others.

I disagree.

90% or more is all about the money. Forcing employers to cover same sex couples under company insurance. Tax advantages for being married. Joint incomes treated as one. That IS what it is all about.

For the other 10%, the radical 10%, it's about FORCED ACCEPTANCE OF A LIFESTYLE CHOICE that the vast majority of US citizens do not agree is normal. You can argue whether it should be considered normal or not, I'm not going there, the FACT supported by the overwhelming majority of voters on these issues that it is NOT something that should be accepted as normal.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: For some it may be about the money. But for most, it's not. It's about being given the same considerations as others.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Oh absolutely and there is a reason for that. This is where we start talking about beliefs. There is "good" and there is "evil" and I dont think anyone will disagree and say that they do not exist. Hate is the fundamental trait of evil, I personally have dealt with much of it and put it to rest. Joy and happiness is a trait of good, I personally have given much of it to as many as I can.

Essentially those are emotions, not good and evil. One can sure feel good doing "evil" things. Hate is widely misinterpreted these days.

(I seem to have become just one line replies for some reason)

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I disagree. 90% or more is all about the money. Forcing employers to cover same sex couples under company insurance. Tax advantages for being married. Joint incomes treated as one. That IS what it is all about. For the other 10%, the radical 10%, it's about FORCED ACCEPTANCE OF A LIFESTYLE CHOICE that the vast majority of US citizens do not agree is normal. You can argue whether it should be considered normal or not, I'm not going there, the FACT supported by the overwhelming majority of voters on these issues that it is NOT something that should be accepted as normal. John Stricker

does it matter why? and - yes - it is "not normal" obviously. gun ownership is "not normal" either. yet, many of us non gun owners fight for the right to own guns.
maybe we should turn it around, and not provide these financial incentives to married couples. cant play nice, take ALL the toys away. that way, there will be no more reason for this junk. but, we all know the reasons for the incentive is to help in the raising of children. so - hows' about we dont allow the "marriage" benifits, unless they have kids?
I have no personal stake in this at all. but, I really think this is all just something to deny "they gays" for being gay. because the word "marriage" really is irrelavant. a Reeses Peanut Butter cup is the marriage of chocolate & peanut butter. GM is a polygamist marriage of many auto companies.
and - next - who is "harmed" by a pair of fags getting hitched? in what way does anyone suffer because of this?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I disagree. 90% or more is all about the money. Forcing employers to cover same sex couples under company insurance. Tax advantages for being married. Joint incomes treated as one. That IS what it is all about. For the other 10%, the radical 10%, it's about FORCED ACCEPTANCE OF A LIFESTYLE CHOICE that the vast majority of US citizens do not agree is normal. You can argue whether it should be considered normal or not, I'm not going there, the FACT supported by the overwhelming majority of voters on these issues that it is NOT something that should be accepted as normal. John Stricker

With respect, just because the majority approves doesn't make it right. That's why we have laws to protect minorities.
That aside, I agree that a lot of it is about the money. And that doesn't minimize the argument. There are monetary benefits for straight couples to marry. If gays wanting the same is a threat to marriage, then those monetary incentives are a threat to marriage for straight people as well.

You see it as the employer or public being "forced" to accept them or provide benefits. From their perspective, they just want the same rights and considerations as hetero couples. A lifelong gay couple has no legal right to speak for one another in the event of medical emergency. They aren't considered "family" by law. Insurance and death benefits are a real issue.

I would also wager the vast majority don't care if anyone "accepts" them or not - they just want to be able to go about their lives without more obstacles in the way because they're gay.

I really don't see the problem. I can understand the religious argument, but freedom of religion should take precedent. Think about it. Why is homosexuality considered abhorrent or abnormal? It's because religious doctrine have taught that it's wrong. Well, you made a CHOICE to follow your religion, and you have that right guaranteed by the Constitution. Your right to your religious views does not allow you to force your religion on others. Forget whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" or if they're born that way. The only reason you think it's wrong is your religious "choice" says so. They have the same freedom of religion you do and if their religious views says it's not wrong, then who are you to condemn them?

This is much like the early days of the civil rights movement. Inter-racial marriage was also a hot topic at one time, and I don't doubt some felt it must be outlawed to protect the sanctity of marriage, yet today that attitude is considered out of touch with the times.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 11-10-2008).]

This is getting hard with two threads, I keep saying the same things in both it seems.
Ya, I know what you mean not putting my views on others. But really this is about a vote right? I would vote to keep marriage man and woman. My reasons are as I stated, in both threads. Whatever happens happens, but you sure won't hear otherwise out of my mouth.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: This is getting hard with two threads, I keep saying the same things in both it seems. Ya, I know what you mean not putting my views on others. But really this is about a vote right? I would vote to keep marriage man and woman. My reasons are as I stated, in both threads. Whatever happens happens, but you sure won't hear otherwise out of my mouth.

yes, it is a sticky one. it is a matter of preferance. noone is making anyone marry someone of the same sex. you are still allowed to marry a woman. the church created its own definition. "marriage" is the bringing together of ANY two or more items or ideas. thru conveinance law used the same word "marriage" in its legal dealings. I dont even see why "the law" has ANYTHING to do with it - other than financial aspects - divorce & death.

but, I fully understand the arguement. much like if someone made an offensive statue, and called it "christ" or put a bra & panties on a crucifix. which is why the term "civil union" is what should be used on the legal side. let both sides be tasteful & respectful of one another. noone can do anything about what individuals call things privately. but, on paper - nothing is wrong with the law saying "civil union" is their? that does not affect the church's private definition in anyway, while allowing "the gays" their peace.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, it is a sticky one. it is a matter of preferance. noone is making anyone marry someone of the same sex. you are still allowed to marry a woman. the church created its own definition. "marriage" is the bringing together of ANY two or more items or ideas. thru conveinance law used the same word "marriage" in its legal dealings. I dont even see why "the law" has ANYTHING to do with it - other than financial aspects - divorce & death. but, I fully understand the arguement. much like if someone made an offensive statue, and called it "christ" or put a bra & panties on a crucifix. which is why the term "civil union" is what should be used on the legal side. let both sides be tasteful & respectful of one another. noone can do anything about what individuals call things privately. but, on paper - nothing is wrong with the law saying "civil union" is their? that does not affect the church's private definition in anyway, while allowing "the gays" their peace.

If "marriage" refers to the religious union and "civil union" refers to the legal union, there shouldn't be a problem. It could be done in such a way that a religious marriage is also a civil union, so you get the religious and legal union, but not all civil unions are marriages - they are legal unions under the law. Separate the legal and religious aspects of it. (separation of church and state FTW!)

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: If a hetero spouse dies the surviving spouse automatically gets everything, no muss, no fuss. If a gay spouse dies the other one gets nothing unless there's a very well constructed series of documents including trusts, power of attorney, etc, and something done up from a $19.99 software box probably ain't going to survive the others' angling for the estate. Things that this applies to includes pensions, retirement accounts, bank accounts, life insurance, etc. If a relationship isn't recognized by law then the people in that relationship are going to be excluded from a lot of things by law, and that's why the people wanting to ban gay marriage are doing it. To exclude, punish, and ostracize. Heck, under common law in many states you don't even have to get married to be married, but only if you're hetero. JazzMan

I understand why you think that and you are not alone by any stretch. At least in my state WA, it is not so. I think what you are refereeing to is called community property and this is not recognized in all states. Even living in a state with community property laws it is by no means cut and dry. And without a specific will you can be in a fight with your spouses parents (first in line)and then their kids (if they have any that are not yours) In a community state you are entitled to half what your spouse owns and then 1/2 of the community property. Another words if the kids step up you will owe them, or they are legally entitled to 12 1/2 % of your spouses estate. If it is not, you can get left totally high and dry.

The ONLY way you can avoid this is through a community property instrument. This document also totally avoids the probate period. My wife and I have this agreement.
If you are not in a community property state it has to pass through the court and without things exactly specified in a last will and testament.

We have both wills and property agreements and they ARE NOT 19.99 box top. I come from a long line of lawyers and even a Federal Judge (chief justice for the united states court of appeals 2nd circuit). I have a lawyer and I PAY big when I use him, worth every dam penny. Gay or straight this is an absolute must. Sit down and talk with a lawyer and find out just how much you don't know, I did

No, the gays at present will not be able to get any government benefits, As you mentioned pensions, retirement accounts, bank accounts, life insurance, other than the pension I think they could get the rest through a will.

Do I think it is fair to the gays the way things are? no I do not.

I really don’t care if Gays can marry but I am concerned how the lawyers handle it. One case always set the precedence for the next in a Lawyers mind.

Groups that are proponents of polygamy are watching this quite closely.

Once changes are made they now have a case of “me too” for other minority groups.

Canada already allows this and several groups already receive government benefits for multiple wives.

The plain and simple fact is this: People can have their opinions, and that's fine. But that's all they are, opinions. Unless you have LIVED both lives and know what it's like first-hand, an opinion is of limited value. It stinks, but it is what it is.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: At least you finally agree that IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and really nothing else. John Stricker

It is all about the money. My partner and I have worked very hard in the past six years to get what we have jointly now. At the time of one of our death, currently there is no guarantee that the other will receive the other's property with out a battle. Full civil marriage equality would prevent that battle. I could are less what the rest of the population thinks of me and my orientation. This comes down to equality and only that. There are those on both sides that what to make more of it.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I didn't come here to be tested so stop testing me.

C'mon Bill, give the new guy a break. I like him. He is just like you, .

quote Originally posted by jstricker: At least you finally agree that IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and really nothing else. John Stricker

LOL, You mean "we" finally agree.

Has been a gripe of mine for many years now.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-11-2008).]