Dumb ass social conservatives

[ryoder 1,400]

Quote

Quote

At which point do a large percentage of people game the system because "you're a sucker if you don't"?

It may be the point at which people forget that the only legal way to terminate a marriage is divorce.

Shhh!!!
Are you trying to kill your revenue opportunities???

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ManagingPrime 0]

I think you are confusing the 40 credit (10 years of work) qualification.

While I feel the benefit is now a bit outdated should just be done away with in the interest of working to get the nations financial house in order, I could get behind a 10 year marriage requirement.

[ryoder 1,400]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference?

That's the trillion dollar question.

Half seriously and half in jest I suggested two friends marry each other for the financial aid benefits... they did. Since they were both gay it really was the perfect marriage considering the circumstances.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fraud.

No matter which side one is on this issue, every time someone does this, it makes it more difficult for those who are on the up and up.

If the fact they weren't having sex with each other makes it a fraud, then a lot of straight marriages would also be fraud.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I could get behind a 10 year marriage requirement.

Which is why I want gay marriage - why should they have all the freedom?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference?

That's the trillion dollar question.

Half seriously and half in jest I suggested two friends marry each other for the financial aid benefits... they did. Since they were both gay it really was the perfect marriage considering the circumstances.

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fraud.

No matter which side one is on this issue, every time someone does this, it makes it more difficult for those who are on the up and up.

If the fact they weren't having sex with each other makes it a fraud, then a lot of straight marriages would also be fraud.

The dude abides.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I think you are confusing the 40 credit (10 years of work) qualification.

While I feel the benefit is now a bit outdated should just be done away with in the interest of working to get the nations financial house in order, I could get behind a 10 year marriage requirement.

I was actually thinking of qualifying as a divorced spouse. The marriage has to have lasted for 10 years.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you are confusing the 40 credit (10 years of work) qualification.

While I feel the benefit is now a bit outdated should just be done away with in the interest of working to get the nations financial house in order, I could get behind a 10 year marriage requirement.

I was actually thinking of qualifying as a divorced spouse. The marriage has to have lasted for 10 years.

You may be right there. I don't come across that one very often.

[TriGirl 277]

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the disconnect here is that when you say 'equal treatment, single or couples' you are only talking about monetary issues - benefits, tax breaks etc - while Bill is taking you at face value and talking about everything else that comes with being part of a legally recognised couple such as medical decision making.

(not directed at you, Jakee, but your post was along the right topic)

The one "right" (benefit, entitlement? lawyers, speak up here) that hasn't been mentioned has also to do with legal proceedings. Is it still true that I can't be compelled to serve as a witness against my spouse? If so, why should it matter whether my spouse is the same gender or the opposite? There are no civil contracts that grant me the right not to be compelled to testify against someone else. IIRC, I can even be compelled to testify against a parent, sibling or child against my will (please correct me if I'm wrong). A spouse is the only one who enjoys that right.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Is it still true that I can't be compelled to serve as a witness against my spouse?

IMO - that one should be deleted, it's asinine. It's reflective of the attitude of wives as property, not a nation of individuals

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TriGirl 277]

Quote

Quote

Is it still true that I can't be compelled to serve as a witness against my spouse?

IMO - that one should be deleted, it's asinine. It's reflective of the attitude of wives as property, not a nation of individuals

Although it does work in both directions, does it not? A man cannot be compelled to testify against his wife?

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is it still true that I can't be compelled to serve as a witness against my spouse?

IMO - that one should. e deleted, it's asinine. It's reflective of the attitude of wives as property, not a nation of individuals

Although it does work in both directions, does it not? A man cannot be compelled to testify against his wife?

There are exceptions, but your general understanding is correct. It's much like attorney client privilege. In many ways a spouses are agents on behalf of the other. From a practical standpoint it is very usefull.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is it still true that I can't be compelled to serve as a witness against my spouse?

IMO - that one should be deleted, it's asinine. It's reflective of the attitude of wives as property, not a nation of individuals

Although it does work in both directions, does it not? A man cannot be compelled to testify against his wife?

absolutely. however, that's not pertinent to my point

(I should have written it "was" reflective of) - If an individual is in court for suspicion of breaking the law, why should there be a special class of citizen that is exempt from testifying in the case? it's silly

Of course, I also think that the nature of anyone's relationship is none of the business of the government. Marriage of any kind should be a private contract and government shouldn't be discouraging or encouraging (via benefits or whatever) in any way. People should be responsible for themselves and their relationships.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TriGirl 277]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is it still true that I can't be compelled to serve as a witness against my spouse?

IMO - that one should be deleted, it's asinine. It's reflective of the attitude of wives as property, not a nation of individuals

Although it does work in both directions, does it not? A man cannot be compelled to testify against his wife?

absolutely. however, that's not pertinent to my point

(I should have written it "was" reflective of) - If an individual is in court for suspicion of breaking the law, why should there be a special class of citizen that is exempt from testifying in the case? it's silly

Of course, I also think that the nature of anyone's relationship is none of the business of the government. Marriage of any kind should be a private contract and government shouldn't be discouraging or encouraging (via benefits or whatever) in any way. People should be responsible for themselves and their relationships.

I agree that this is a ridiculous loophole.

For the rest of the reading audience: I mention this in regard to those who talk only of "benefits" and "entitlements," meaning monetary compensation, for hetero married couples. Things that some argue otherwise could be solved for same-sex couples by some other type of legal contract (keeping "marriage" a separate state of affair).

Additionally, it is still impossible to get a fiance visa, or apply for citizenship, to the US, on the basis of a same-sex relationship.

So, are these examples counted as a rights, benefits, or entitlements? Or something else?

Discuss.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[Andy9o8 0]

Wiki article on spousal immunity, for your reading pleasure.

[rehmwa 2]

no one said there would be homework

so I read it anyway - still think it's a silly exception. Unless your spouse is acting as your lawyer. As far as the gov is concerned, the spouse should just be another individual and testimony should be subject to verification just like anyone else.

lot's of 'shoulds' in there.

thanks for the background though

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Additionally, it is still impossible to get a fiance visa, or apply for citizenship, to the US, on the basis of a same-sex relationship.

So, are these examples counted as a rights, benefits, or entitlements? Or something else?

First - my perspective is that the government protects the rights of their citizens, so they are the ones I speak to. The immigrant doesn't have any rights here. It's about special treatment for a certain group of citizens (those with the intent to marry).

Second - as stated, I don't think marriage should be any type of gov sanction and that benefits shouldn't change just because of partnering status.

clearly it's special benefit - not a right - and based on an emotional attachment for that matter - silly.

If there must be a method for a citizen tobring an immigrant to the front of the line, then, to be equal and ignore partnering issues of any kind, then why can't any individual 'sponsor' someone to enter the country with that same priority but for any reason they want? hetero or homo, why is the fact that they want to live together matter more than bringing in your best friend, a business ally, etc..... Why should the reason matter so much?

If we want to give a benefit of this nature, it has to be constructed that anyone can do it - there can be 300 million different reasons as far as I'm concerned. If we want to have a process to assess those reasons, then fine.

Approach rights and benefits as needing to be equal for all "citizens" and stop pissing around with special demographics, and it becomes easy. rights for some and not for others is the standard procedure today and we wonder why there's all this angst. It's pretty easy to then identify groups that have benefits that other don't - then it's one of two paths - extend them to ALL (at which point, if it's money based, then that's silly, you should just delete it in the first place and let people take care of themselves); or get rid of it in the first place and stop playing favorites.


edit: of course - if we delete marriage like I mention or M-Prime mentions (and a few others) then of course there'll be a big movement for reparations for all those unfair benefits the descendents of married people unfairly enjoyed.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Quote

...Second - as stated, I don't think marriage should be any type of gov sanction and that benefits shouldn't change just because of partnering status.

clearly it's special benefit - not a right - and based on an emotional attachment for that matter - silly...

Well, there are some societal benefits to marriage. Or some sort of stable partnership for raising a family.

Too many studies, and just basic observation show the benefits of raising kids in a stable, 2 parent environment.

So even though I'm not married, and I don't have any kids, I think having some level of "special treatment" for married couples is a good idea.
FWIW, I also happily pay property taxes that support public schools because I believe that there's a benefit to educating the little monsters, even though none are mine.

And I really don't care if it's a "right" a "benefit" or an "entitlement" that the married couples receive. Call it what you like.

What does matter is that certain groups are excluded from those things, simply because some people don't like it.

That's where I see it as a "civil right." Not because the benefits, entitlements or whatever are "rights", but because one group gets them and another doesn't.

60 years ago, any pair who was of different races were excluded.
Now it depends on the sex of the partners.

I find it odd that a man can gain these things by marrying a woman, but a woman can't (not by marrying a woman anyway, she has to marry a man).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[TriGirl 277]

Quote

Wiki article on spousal immunity, for your reading pleasure.

Thanks, Andy -- good read. I usually stay away from citing Wiki as a primary source if it is a subject outside my lane, but I'll take it from you since it is within your lane (I'll consider this "peer reviewed" in this case).

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[promise5 17]

Quote

Quote

...Second - as stated, I don't think marriage should be any type of gov sanction and that benefits shouldn't change just because of partnering status.

clearly it's special benefit - not a right - and based on an emotional attachment for that matter - silly...

Well, there are some societal benefits to marriage. Or some sort of stable partnership for raising a family.

Too many studies, and just basic observation show the benefits of raising kids in a stable, 2 parent environment.

So even though I'm not married, and I don't have any kids, I think having some level of "special treatment" for married couples is a good idea.
FWIW, I also happily pay property taxes that support public schools because I believe that there's a benefit to educating the little monsters, even though none are mine.

And I really don't care if it's a "right" a "benefit" or an "entitlement" that the married couples receive. Call it what you like.

What does matter is that certain groups are excluded from those things, simply because some people don't like it.

That's where I see it as a "civil right." Not because the benefits, entitlements or whatever are "rights", but because one group gets them and another doesn't.

60 years ago, any pair who was of different races were excluded.
Now it depends on the sex of the partners.

I find it odd that a man can gain these things by marrying a woman, but a woman can't (not by marrying a woman anyway, she has to marry a man).

I just wanted to say that that is a common misconception. It was not all regions/areas of the Untied States. It was very regional on people of different ethnic backgrounds getting married. But, people don't like to hear that.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[TriGirl 277]

Quote

Quote

...Second - as stated, I don't think marriage should be any type of gov sanction and that benefits shouldn't change just because of partnering status.

clearly it's special benefit - not a right - and based on an emotional attachment for that matter - silly...

Well, there are some societal benefits to marriage. Or some sort of stable partnership for raising a family.

Too many studies, and just basic observation show the benefits of raising kids in a stable, 2 parent environment.

So even though I'm not married, and I don't have any kids, I think having some level of "special treatment" for married couples is a good idea.
FWIW, I also happily pay property taxes that support public schools because I believe that there's a benefit to educating the little monsters, even though none are mine.

And I really don't care if it's a "right" a "benefit" or an "entitlement" that the married couples receive. Call it what you like.

What does matter is that certain groups are excluded from those things, simply because some people don't like it.

That's where I see it as a "civil right." Not because the benefits, entitlements or whatever are "rights", but because one group gets them and another doesn't.

60 years ago, any pair who was of different races were excluded.
Now it depends on the sex of the partners.

I find it odd that a man can gain these things by marrying a woman, but a woman can't (not by marrying a woman anyway, she has to marry a man).

^ This. Hopefully we can keep this positive dialog going.

Other changes in recent decades: As the active-duty military member, I would not have been eligible for base housing or the "with dependents" housing allowances three decades ago. As recently as the late 70s (and IIRC into the 80s), only the men in the military could receive those things. Married women were not considered the providers of the family, and therefore their family members (spouses and kids) were not considered "dependents."

Still, as you noted, Joe, I can marry a man to give him my education benefits, get a housing allowance, give him access to military medical care, get family separation pay (I'm stationed abroad), and access to other base facilities. I can do this regardless of religious affiliation, true affection, whatever, and it's all perfectly legal. I can be judged by my peers (socially), but there is nothing that can be done about it as long as the law is followed. Why can't I do this for a woman?

ETA: that last question was rhetorical, not directed at you, Joe!

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

60 years ago, any pair who was of different races were excluded.

I just wanted to say that that is a common misconception. It was not all regions/areas of the Untied States. It was very regional on people of different ethnic backgrounds getting married. But, people don't like to hear that.

Well, that's because you are factually and historically incorrect.

What Wolfriverjoe is referring to is the US's history of "anti-miscegenation laws" - laws that prohibited interracial marriage, and sometimes interracial sexual relations.

In fact, of the 50 eventual states in the US, 42 had anti-miscegenation laws on the books at one time. Many of those states were well outside the Deep South and did not repeal their respective laws until the 1948-1967 time period. (They're the ones in yellow on the map.)

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#Anti-miscegenation_laws_enacted_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies_and_the_United_States

[ryoder 1,400]

Quote

Quote

Quote

60 years ago, any pair who was of different races were excluded.

I just wanted to say that that is a common misconception. It was not all regions/areas of the Untied States. It was very regional on people of different ethnic backgrounds getting married. But, people don't like to hear that.

Well, that's because you are factually and historically incorrect.

What Wolfriverjoe is referring to is the US's history of "anti-miscegenation laws" - laws that prohibited interracial marriage, and sometimes interracial sexual relations.

In fact, of the 50 eventual states in the US, 42 had anti-miscegenation laws on the books at one time. Many of those states were well outside the Deep South and did not repeal their respective laws until the 1948-1967 time period. (They're the ones in yellow on the map.)

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#Anti-miscegenation_laws_enacted_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies_and_the_United_States

The name of this case just amuses me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[promise5 17]

Quote

Quote

Quote

60 years ago, any pair who was of different races were excluded.

I just wanted to say that that is a common misconception. It was not all regions/areas of the Untied States. It was very regional on people of different ethnic backgrounds getting married. But, people don't like to hear that.

Well, that's because you are factually and historically incorrect.

What Wolfriverjoe is referring to is the US's history of "anti-miscegenation laws" - laws that prohibited interracial marriage, and sometimes interracial sexual relations.

In fact, of the 50 eventual states in the US, 42 had anti-miscegenation laws on the books at one time. Many of those states were well outside the Deep South and did not repeal their respective laws until the 1948-1967 time period. (They're the ones in yellow on the map.)

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#Anti-miscegenation_laws_enacted_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies_and_the_United_States

Sorry, I'm not. Talk to families that have married and have long histories of marriages between different backgrounds. Families married in California, New York, Illinois. Oh and my grandparents were married in Mississippi in 1957 and my mom even though she's as blonde as I am would be considered"black" according to some. Her older brother is almost as dark as my youngest sister that is of Somalian descent.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[oldwomanc6 38]

But, yer so blonde!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

But, yer so blonde!

Now now no need to call names.

she means well.