The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Dr Maturin]

I guess this shows the difference between you and Mike. He said he'd be happy with a ledge making a law. You won't even be happy if SCOTUS makes a decision.

[WorkerCaste]

I know itÆs a risk to get involved in this conversation again, but I canÆt resist . I liked JanÆs idea û it seemed very reasonable.

Taxes û cannot file as married or claim spouse. The ômarriage penaltyö was mentioned as a reason why this doesnÆt matter. That ôpenaltyö only applies to a relatively small segment û dual income; no children; similar, mid to upper level salaries. There are benefits for other situations, especially when one spouse has no appreciable income.

Automatic inheritance rights. Most (all?) states accommodate the spouse if the person dies intestate. Also, as Jan asked but no one answered, what about situations where state law requires certain thresholds in inheritance, even in the presence of a will? In addition, I believe that marriage automatically makes some property joint by default so it need not go through probate and is not potentially subject to inheritance taxes. While executing all the proper paperwork can deal with most if not all of this, how is it equal if one party must do something special to gain the same effect that someone else gets for free?

Property Rights û Probably much the same type of situation as inheritance.

Adoption of, Custody of, and Responsibility for children û Again, in most states executing the proper additional paperwork will probably take care of this, but that is imposing an additional burden on the couple. Even so, if the couple splits, how can financail responsibility for the child be enforced through the courts?

Health and other benefits to cover families û even if, as has been suggested, most companies extend benefits to partners, that still doesnÆt make it equal since it is not all. I also have yet to work for a company that does that, so anecdotally I have trouble believing it in the first place. Most companies I have experience with really hate paying out benefits and only do it because they have too. Any excuse to avoid it. Some large companies are extending benefits because itÆs the only way to attract the employees they want, but, again, that doesnÆt make it equal. Unless IÆm mistaken, this affects children, too. If an unmarried couple wants to adopt, doesnÆt one or the other have to do the actual adoption? Then, if insurance is available to children, it has to be for the right person, or it doesnÆt apply, even if both are raising the child.

Visitation û cannot visit in ICU or SCU units. Depending on policy, might not be able to visit in some psychiatric units. While a conscious, coherent patient might obtain exceptions, that is often not possible in cases within these units. What about other visiting scenarios? Can they visit in higher security prisons? Conjugal visits?

BTW, IÆve worked for several companies that had a written discrimination policy and only one included sexual orientation.

Finally, going back a ways, the reasoning that since a gay man is free to marry any woman who will have him, he has the same rights as a straight man is flawed. It relies on the gender to work. Take for example:

Given: A has same rights as B
And A is allowed to marry C
Then B is allowed to marry C

This fails if A and B are opposite genders. Therefore to be true it must be restated as:

Given: A has same rights as B
And A is the same gender as B
And A is allowed to marry C
Then B is allowed to marry C

Thus, to make that statement work, you must constrain by gender, or to put it another way, you have to assume that marriage is only between a man and a woman in order to prove that marriage between a man and a woman does not discriminate.

[Der Mike]

I know itÆs a risk to get involved in this conversation again, but I canÆt resist . I liked JanÆs idea û it seemed very reasonable.

Taxes û cannot file as married or claim spouse. The ômarriage penaltyö was mentioned as a reason why this doesnÆt matter. That ôpenaltyö only applies to a relatively small segment û dual income; no children; similar, mid to upper level salaries. There are benefits for other situations, especially when one spouse has no appreciable income.

A large number of married couples file seperately.

Automatic inheritance rights. Most (all?) states accommodate the spouse if the person dies intestate. Also, as Jan asked but no one answered, what about situations where state law requires certain thresholds in inheritance, even in the presence of a will?

Such situations do not, in fact, exist. Wills are pretty much the end-all, be-all.

In addition, I believe that marriage automatically makes some property joint by default so it need not go through probate and is not potentially subject to inheritance taxes. While executing all the proper paperwork can deal with most if not all of this, how is it equal if one party must do something special to gain the same effect that someone else gets for free?

They can get the same effect. As you said yourself.

Property Rights û Probably much the same type of situation as inheritance.

Wills are your friend.

Adoption of, Custody of, and Responsibility for children û Again, in most states executing the proper additional paperwork will probably take care of this, but that is imposing an additional burden on the couple. Even so, if the couple splits, how can financail responsibility for the child be enforced through the courts?

Wills, again, are your friend.

Health and other benefits to cover families û even if, as has been suggested, most companies extend benefits to partners, that still doesnÆt make it equal since it is not all.

Name one who doesn't.

I also have yet to work for a company that does that, so anecdotally I have trouble believing it in the first place.

I've worked for four quite large companies. All did so.

Most companies I have experience with really hate paying out benefits and only do it because they have too. Any excuse to avoid it. Some large companies are extending benefits because itÆs the only way to attract the employees they want, but, again, that doesnÆt make it equal. Unless IÆm mistaken, this affects children, too. If an unmarried couple wants to adopt, doesnÆt one or the other have to do the actual adoption? Then, if insurance is available to children, it has to be for the right person, or it doesnÆt apply, even if both are raising the child.

Which means the "right person" should apply for the adoption. Really, not hard to follow.

Visitation û cannot visit in ICU or SCU units.

Pure, unadultered BS.

Depending on policy, might not be able to visit in some psychiatric units.

Also incorrect. At psychiatric hospitals (I have family who are nurses at a major one), NO FAMILY visits in the room. They visit in certain areas. And anybody can do it.

While a conscious, coherent patient might obtain exceptions, that is often not possible in cases within these units. What about other visiting scenarios? Can they visit in higher security prisons? Conjugal visits?

Conjugal visits shouldn't be legal for hetero prisoners. Shouldn't be legal for homo ones, either. Expanding idiotic social policy is never a solid idea.

BTW, IÆve worked for several companies that had a written discrimination policy and only one included sexual orientation.

I live in the Deep South. I've never worked for one who didn't explicitly forbid it.

Finally, going back a ways, the reasoning that since a gay man is free to marry any woman who will have him, he has the same rights as a straight man is flawed. It relies on the gender to work. Take for example:

Given: A has same rights as B
And A is allowed to marry C
Then B is allowed to marry C

This fails if A and B are opposite genders. Therefore to be true it must be restated as:

Given: A has same rights as B
And A is the same gender as B
And A is allowed to marry C
Then B is allowed to marry C

Thus, to make that statement work, you must constrain by gender, or to put it another way, you have to assume that marriage is only between a man and a woman in order to prove that marriage between a man and a woman does not discriminate.

No.

One more time, slowly.

Any man can marry any woman.

Any woman can marry any man.

The attempts by the gay marriage crowd to compare it to interracial marriage is laughable. You can try playing semantic gymnastics to make a case --- but the case isn't made.

In terms of marriage, there is nothing straight people can do that homosexuals cannot.

That, again, is equality.
-=Mike

[Jan]

Such situations do not, in fact, exist. Wills are pretty much the end-all, be-all.

So you're saying that the way my brother-in-law broke my sister's will was all in my imagination? You're flat wrong, I'm afraid. She didn't leave a certain percentage to her husband and that state's law required her to and so the entire will was invalidated. If she'd set up a living trust, it would have been different but a living trust is *not* a will.

Pure, unadultered BS.

Assuming you mean that the visitation restrictions don't exist, wrong again. There may be different policies in different hospitals but there are relationship restrictions in the intensive care wards.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

A large number of married couples file seperately.

So? They have the choice and make it to their benefit. Gay couples don't have the choice. You're answer doesn't address that inequality.

Such situations do not, in fact, exist. Wills are pretty much the end-all, be-all.

I haven't dealt with wills in all 50 states, so I can't speak authoratively. Of course, the intestate issue, by definition, means there is no will.

They can get the same effect. As you said yourself.

I also said that it is unequal to place additional burden on one group.

Wills are your friend.

Property rights involve more than inheritence. Wills do not establish division of property at a parting of the ways. Other legal documents/agreements can be executed, but again, additional burden for one class of citizens beyond what works for others. Unequal.

Wills, again, are your friend.

Um, wills only apply when someone dies. Child support. Custody after a seperations. These are different things.

Name one who doesn't.

Why turn things into an anectdotal debate? The only ones I could speak to are ones I have personal experience with, and I prefer not to post my work history. I will point out that large companies are more likely to extend those benefits, but even so, it is generally news when one of them decides to do so.

<Edit>I did a quick search and found this news article that's relevant to some of these points, this one in particular. It relates specifically to Alaska, but talks about other states as well.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPa...ontentId=94925

I've worked for four quite large companies. All did so.

So? I believe you. Doesn't change the fact that it's not universal.

Which means the "right person" should apply for the adoption. Really, not hard to follow.

And if something happens that the person initially selected loses his or her job and the partner can't cover the child becuase it isn't legally his or hers? To me, that doesn't seem hard to follow.

Pure, unadultered BS.

While this kind of statement does have the virtue of being difficult to respond to, it doesn't make it so. I've seen the signs in hospitals and I've been excluded from an ICU.

Also incorrect. At psychiatric hospitals (I have family who are nurses at a major one), NO FAMILY visits in the room. They visit in certain areas. And anybody can do it.

I don't have enough experience here. I'll accept your assertion barring any additional information.

Conjugal visits shouldn't be legal for hetero prisoners. Shouldn't be legal for homo ones, either. Expanding idiotic social policy is never a solid idea.

Applying governmental policy, idiotic or otherwise, consistently is required in an equal society.

I live in the Deep South. I've never worked for one who didn't explicitly forbid it.

So? Doesn't make it universal.

No.

One more time, slowly.

Any man can marry any woman.

Any woman can marry any man.

The attempts by the gay marriage crowd to compare it to interracial marriage is laughable. You can try playing semantic gymnastics to make a case --- but the case isn't made.

In terms of marriage, there is nothing straight people can do that homosexuals cannot.

That, again, is equality.
-=Mike

You can't make your argument without restricting it by gender, no matter how many times or how slowly you type it. You are making gender-based distinctions. BTW, gender is a protected category. I'm not sure where interracial comes into this. I'm also unaware of how my analysis was "semantic gymnastics". They were pretty small words and their meanings not terribly ambiguous. Nothing I said requires the meanings of the words to be any different than standard usage.

When you get to the point where any person can marry any other person who is willing, then you'll have equality.

[Karachi Vyce]

I still don't think Mike has explained what's so harmful about gay marriage (other than to keep trotting out the "judicial activism" argument). At least what's so harmful about it that we need an amendment to the constitution to BAN it like it's some sort of horrible, seditious act.

It's kind of sad when John Stewart has the best line on the issue:

Bill Bennett: Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

[Der Mike]

So you're saying that the way my brother-in-law broke my sister's will was all in my imagination? You're flat wrong, I'm afraid. She didn't leave a certain percentage to her husband and that state's law required her to and so the entire will was invalidated. If she'd set up a living trust, it would have been different but a living trust is *not* a will.

But --- as you said --- you can rectify the problem.

Assuming you mean that the visitation restrictions don't exist, wrong again. There may be different policies in different hospitals but there are relationship restrictions in the intensive care wards. Jan

Jan, that is factually wrong.

I still don't think Mike has explained what's so harmful about gay marriage (other than to keep trotting out the "judicial activism" argument). At least what's so harmful about it that we need an amendment to the constitution to BAN it like it's some sort of horrible, seditious act.

As I've told you more than once, Vyce, the problem is not gay marriage.

The problem are fringe activists using specious legal logic to get what they cannot get through legitimate, legislative means.

Again, if they go state-by-state and get it passed --- I will applaud the efforts.

I will oppose --- VEHEMENTLY --- their decision to go the non-democratic route.
-=Mike

[frulad]

Again, if they go state-by-state and get it passed --- I will applaud the efforts.

So I take it you would be against any roadblock that would stand in the way of them getting such things passed legitimately state by state, like oh say, a Constitutional Ammendment definig marriage?

[Der Mike]

No. If an Amendment gets passed, I'll applaud THOSE efforts as well.

Democracy is a good thing.
-=Mike

[David Panzer]

And people once thought Prohibition was a good thing...

Until organized crime started to flourish

[Der Mike]

Yet a cigarette jihad is a good idea to many. Odd.

As I said, my concern is the PROCESS.
-=Mike

[David Panzer]

If someone smokes, it should be their choice.

I've never encountered anyone who was forced to smoke

[WorkerCaste]

Jan, that is factually wrong.

Would you please provide links to sources for this absolute statement of fact that covers all hospitals in all 50 states? I mean, for you to be so sure and to tell Jan that her experience either didn't happen or happened because she didn't understand what was going on, you must have some pretty substantial sources.

No?

Well, tell you what. I took 30 seconds and did a search. I found a website for a hospital that included visitation policies. Low and behold, in the section on critical care units... never mind. Just go ahead and read for yourself.

http://www.middlesexhealth.org/go/15...1491D601BC54A/

I apologize in advance if I have confused the issue with facts.

[Jan]

But --- as you said --- you can rectify the problem.

Yep. By going to lots of trouble and expense, one can find a way to ensure that one's chosen partner can have the same benefits as are given automatically to a spouse.

Let's look at a similar situation and apply your 'solution': Once upon a time, not very long ago, everybody had an equal right to vote. Except in some areas black people had to pass tests or pay a 'poll tax'. But as you say, they *could* rectify the problem by going to the trouble and expense, so there wasn't really any problem, right?

Jan, that is factually wrong.

Show me your data.

As I've told you more than once, Vyce, the problem is not gay marriage.

Mike, it's a simple question and it's related to the issue so either answer the question or admit that no possible harm could result.

Jan

[Der Mike]

Would you please provide links to sources for this absolute statement of fact that covers all hospitals in all 50 states? I mean, for you to be so sure and to tell Jan that her experience either didn't happen or happened because she didn't understand what was going on, you must have some pretty substantial sources.

No?

Well, tell you what. I took 30 seconds and did a search. I found a website for a hospital that included visitation policies. Low and behold, in the section on critical care units... never mind. Just go ahead and read for yourself.

http://www.middlesexhealth.org/go/15...1491D601BC54A/

I apologize in advance if I have confused the issue with facts.

Wow, a visiting policy that treats everybody equally. Stunning. You might want to re-read your link.

Show me your data.

There is not a hospital on Earth that gives family members special visiting rights they don't give others. If the patient requests it, they allow it.

Let's look at a similar situation and apply your 'solution': Once upon a time, not very long ago, everybody had an equal right to vote. Except in some areas black people had to pass tests or pay a 'poll tax'. But as you say, they *could* rectify the problem by going to the trouble and expense, so there wasn't really any problem, right?

Actually, they couldn't as that whole game was rigged to make certain they could not.

Again, comparing this to the civil rights movement is incorrect and insulting to the civil rights movement.

Mike, it's a simple question and it's related to the issue so either answer the question or admit that no possible harm could result.

And as I've said, I don't CARE about gay marriage.

I care about the process.

If you're expecting me to pull my hair out at the concept of gay marriage, you'll be sorely disappointed.

As I've said --- and this is at least the 3rd time here --- If gay marriage advocates get it approved via the legislative branch, I'll APPLAUD it. If the opponents get an Amendment passed, I'll APPLAUD that.

It's ALL about the process. Democracy is a beautiful thing and I approve of anybody who goes that route. Which is why I have less of a problem with the Christian right than most, even though I disagree with them on a great many issues. Because they got their voice into policy the legitimate way --- legislatively.

I've simply shot down the theory that it is legally unequal, which is incorrect.
-=Mike