I am so sorry that this woman is even being given air time

[Uncle Remus]

So it's not all about love, got it, thanks!

Have a good night everyone, and don't get mad it's been fun!

Yeah, it's about that ol' equal rights stuff.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Hey Chuck, thought I'd leave this for any other tourists y'all got back here:

Legal and Financial Effects

Civil marriage is a legal status through which societal recognition and support are given to couples and families. It provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one's will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent only the "best guesses" of the legal community and may not withstand challenges from extended family members of the couple. Such challenges are not rare given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples.

As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections. In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status.

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

* legal recognition of the couple's commitment to and responsibility for one another;
* legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;
* legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents;
* joint or coparent adoption (in most states);
* second-parent adoption (in most states);
* foster parenting (in some states);
* eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;
* ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);
* protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);
* automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner;
* access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);
* access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);
* ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;
* ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;
* recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;
* ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one's partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);
* ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;
* recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child's education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;
* ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;
* access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation;
* ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;
* privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;
* immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
* protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);
* access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);
* visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;
* children's rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;
* legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;
* domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;
* automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* children's right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;
* surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;
* exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
* automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
* access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits;
* ability to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and
* right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined in 2004 that allowing civil marriage for same-gender couples would have a positive effect on the federal budget. The CBO found that allowing same-gender couples to marry would increase federal income tax revenues by $400 million annually to the end of 2010, resulting largely from the "marriage penalty tax." Although Social Security payments and spending on insurance coverage for partners of federal workers would rise over time, other expenditures such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would decrease. The net result would be a savings of nearly $1 billion per year. The Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, had similar findings on the federal budget and for several state budgets.

SOURCE

And smart folks vote No to Hate!

 

[ConcKahuna]

Actually, not all of the founding fathers were Christians, in fact, probably the majority were Deists. Deists acknowledged the probable existance of a supreme being, or beings, but also that there is a "natural order" of laws based on science and physical properties.

There was quite a divide in the founding Fathers, with a large minority being "fundamentalist Baptists" (a milder form than what the word implies today), and those Deists that believed in a supreme being or beings as well as more liberal Christians (some of which evolved into something similar to Christian Scientists and in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Christian Spiritualists.)

This divide is what prompted the founding fathers to insist upon the the First Amendment and the heavily implied separation between church and state.

Many founding fathers believed that morality was not the result of religious beliefs, but a natural order of right & wrong and good & evil that applied to all, without religious overtones.

Great post!

What does "In God We Trust" mean?

The only place that is found that has any bearing on our government is on our currency. You'll notice that the Seal of the United States doesn't say anything about Christianity. The pyramid is very pagan in symbolism, and the All Seeing Eye over the top can represent any divine or guiding force. Annuit Ceoptis over the top ("Favors Undertakins") shows that the guiding diety favors the US, and Novus Ordo Seclorum means "A new order for the ages".

It was meant to be a symbol that shows America's power without having ties to any one religion.

 

[RickinNYC]

That's one point we can agree on!

Even though I haven't shared my opinion, I'm always open to somone else's point of view, even if I don't agree; that's the great thing about these boards we can both be right/wrong and respectfully disagree!

Then BE respectful, stop being sarcastic and enough with the pot stirring. Should anyone need it, I'd be happy to supply the link to the DIS board guidelines that we all agreed to when becoming members.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Thanks Rick.

Amendment 2 is a "marriage is a one man one woman" legislation, here in Florida.

 

[Grumpy3]

Thanks, I learned something!

 

[NikkiPants]

Mike, that letter rocked!

I really don't like Sarah Palin. I actually know several people who were thinking of voting McCain until Palin came into the picture. She's swinging his votes the wrong way. Although it does scare me to think that she could possibly end up being president because McCain is ancient.

 

[Grumpy3]

I don't think you will have to worry about that Obama has a pretty good lead going into the home stretch!

 

[Grumpy3]

Then BE respectful, stop being sarcastic and enough with the pot stirring. Should anyone need it, I'd be happy to supply the link to the DIS board guidelines that we all agreed to when becoming members.

Rick I haven't been disrespectful in any of my posts; did I take the opposite side? Yes I did, but I could have just as easily taken the other side of this post but how boring would that be. I'm not sure how you can call this the DIS Discussion Forums if the moderators are not going to allow people to disagree and debate other people's posts.
Please tell me that you sent a PM to the people that responded sarcastically to me also!

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Nikki, those sorts of thoughts cause me to lose sleep. The thought of Palin running the country makes my blood run cold.

I'm not one for walking out on a hard fight, but Canada beckons. I love the country anyway. It's just the winters I can't deal with.

Palin would send me running for a four wheel drive, Uggs, and an anorak.

 

[Grumpy3]

Yeah, it's about that ol' equal rights stuff.

The debating was fun; I didn't say equal rights issues were funny as you seem to be implying