Gay MO Highway Patrolman killed in the line of duty, survivor benefits denied

[Bignugget 0]

Thought this was interesting in light of the thread discussing homosexual parents atm.

An interesting local story just popped up, related in a sense, A MO Highway Patrol Officer was killed in the line of duty, and his partner (in the biblical sense) was seeking survivor benefits.

Denied because they weren't legally married, which they can't be under MO law it is illegal and there are laws specifically prohibiting it.

http://www.bnd.com/2013/10/29/2874600/mo-court-rules-against-troopers.html

He served his state with honor, died in the line of duty,but since its illegal to get married in MO as same-sex....too bad so sad for the surviving member of the relationship.


""If Glossip and the patrolman had been of different sexes, Glossip would have still been denied benefits no matter how long or close their relationship had been," the Supreme Court wrote. "The result cannot be any different here simply because Glossip and the patrolman were of the same sex. The statute discriminates solely on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation.".......

"Glossip and Engelhard lived together since 1995."


The irony of course is that the OTHER statute discriminates based on sexual orientation.

But since the one discriminating on sexual orientation disqualified them from being able to marry, this one applies, and the survivor is screwed.

[grue 1]

Just another casualty of religion and government mixing.

Government should not recognize marriage between ANYONE. NOBODY. If people need to be able to have a legal status for tax crap or insurance/benefits, whatever, they can have a registered domestic relationship which can be between any consenting adults.

cavete terrae.

[Southern_Man 0]

Bignugget

The irony of course is that the OTHER statute discriminates based on sexual orientation.

But since the one discriminating on sexual orientation disqualified them from being able to marry, this one applies, and the survivor is screwed.

That's some catch, that catch 22.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[ryoder 1,406]

Southern_Man

That's some catch, that catch 22.

It's the best there is!

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

[Stumpy 256]

I agree with you in principle however yours is really a semantic argument.
"Marriage" as far as gay couples are concerned and the recent push for legislation, is synonymous with your "registered domestic relationship". For the vast majority, all they want are exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples, rather than the recognition of any given church. (there are always outliers of course)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[grue 1]

Stumpy

I agree with you in principle however yours is really a semantic argument.
"Marriage" as far as gay couples are concerned and the recent push for legislation, is synonymous with your "registered domestic relationship". For the vast majority, all they want are exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples, rather than the recognition of any given church. (there are always outliers of course)

Yes, but the problem is that the bible thumping dipshits are all herping the derp over the sanctity of marriage, not the sanctity of registered domestic relationships.

cavete terrae.

[Stumpy 256]

I couldnt agree more.
And on another note, herping the derp is my new favourite phrase of the day

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[grue 1]

Stumpy

I couldnt agree more.
And on another note, herping the derp is my new favourite phrase of the day

cavete terrae.

[champu 1]

My thoughts on the "government should just get out of marriage" argument from a couple years ago... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083290;#4083290

Also, regarding this quote in the OP...

Quote

"If Glossip and the patrolman had been of different sexes, Glossip would have still been denied benefits no matter how long or close their relationship had been," the Supreme Court wrote. "The result cannot be any different here simply because Glossip and the patrolman were of the same sex. The statute discriminates solely on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation."

...this is not the court being obtuse, as people claiming that homosexuals have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people are. Rather, this is the judge saying, "hey, from this bench I can't duct tape you up a solution here. You need to take it up with the legislative branch."

[grue 1]

champu

My thoughts on the "government should just get out of marriage" argument from a couple years ago... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083290;#4083290

My suggestion absolutely works, or would anyway.

cavete terrae.

[champu 1]

grue

***My thoughts on the "government should just get out of marriage" argument from a couple years ago... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083290;#4083290

My suggestion absolutely works, or would anyway.

Trying to piece together equality is a fools errand, particularly on something as entrenched in law and policy as marriage.

/edit: articles make sentence better

[grue 1]

champu

******My thoughts on the "government should just get out of marriage" argument from a couple years ago... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4083290;#4083290

My suggestion absolutely works, or would anyway.

Trying to piece together equality is a fools errand, particularly on something as entrenched in law and policy as marriage.

/edit: articles make sentence better

This goes back to one of my favorite ways of expressing my political opinion:

"Every law that needs to exist already does, and most of the laws that exist need to be struck down"

cavete terrae.

[Bignugget 0]

grue

***I agree with you in principle however yours is really a semantic argument.
"Marriage" as far as gay couples are concerned and the recent push for legislation, is synonymous with your "registered domestic relationship". For the vast majority, all they want are exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples, rather than the recognition of any given church. (there are always outliers of course)

Yes, but the problem is that the bible thumping dipshits are all herping the derp over the sanctity of marriage, not the sanctity of registered domestic relationships.

Agreed.

I have argued that before, just call it something else if "marriage" makes the right's head explode.

As long as this dude could get fucking death benefits after his spouse of nearly 20 years is killed in the line of action I dont care if you call it "the kung fu panda pact"

[shropshire 0]

You ought to be able to "Will" your stuff, insurance, 'Survivor Benefits' etc. to whomever you damn well please.

It should have nothing to do with marriage ..... It's my stuff, I should be able to leave it to ANYONE.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 18]

Bignugget

Thought this was interesting in light of the thread discussing homosexual parents atm.

An interesting local story just popped up, related in a sense, A MO Highway Patrol Officer was killed in the line of duty, and his partner (in the biblical sense) was seeking survivor benefits.

Denied because they weren't legally married, which they can't be under MO law it is illegal and there are laws specifically prohibiting it.

http://www.bnd.com/2013/10/29/2874600/mo-court-rules-against-troopers.html

He served his state with honor, died in the line of duty,but since its illegal to get married in MO as same-sex....too bad so sad for the surviving member of the relationship.


""If Glossip and the patrolman had been of different sexes, Glossip would have still been denied benefits no matter how long or close their relationship had been," the Supreme Court wrote. "The result cannot be any different here simply because Glossip and the patrolman were of the same sex. The statute discriminates solely on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation.".......

"Glossip and Engelhard lived together since 1995."


The irony of course is that the OTHER statute discriminates based on sexual orientation.

But since the one discriminating on sexual orientation disqualified them from being able to marry, this one applies, and the survivor is screwed.

Something we generally agree on
While I do not support gay marriage, I do support spousal benefits regardless of sexual choice

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,098]

I'd like to know more about the "Survivor Benefits" that were denied.
One can leave their life insurance to anyone - married, gay or not.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[DougH 270]

grue

Just another casualty of religion and government mixing.

Government should not recognize marriage between ANYONE. NOBODY. If people need to be able to have a legal status for tax crap or insurance/benefits, whatever, they can have a registered domestic relationship which can be between any consenting adults.

This.

A partnership (business, life) is a legal construct.

A marriage should not be a legal construct.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

I'd like to know more about the "Survivor Benefits" that were denied. One can leave their life insurance to anyone - married, gay or not.

Not if it is a defined benefit pension:

Quote

As a general matter, the employee retirement income security act (ERISA) mandates that qualified defined benefit plans make benefits payable in certain distribution forms. The default benefit distribution form under ERISA for a single or non-married individual is a single life annuity. In contrast, when a participant is married, ERISA mandates that the default benefit distribution form be a QJSA/QPSA, which guarantees the spouse of the employee a benefit in the event of the employee’s death. Note: employees are already free to elect the beneficiaries of their choice for a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k).

In part because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provides a federal definition of "spouse" that is limited to a person of the opposite sex, plans are not required to provide a QJSA or QPSA to a participant with a same-sex domestic partner or spouse. Plan sponsors (i.e.: employers that provide defined benefit plans) are nonetheless free to provide such benefit payment forms specifically for same-sex couples.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[lawrocket 3]

shropshire

You ought to be able to "Will" your stuff, insurance, 'Survivor Benefits' etc. to whomever you damn well please.

It should have nothing to do with marriage ..... It's my stuff, I should be able to leave it to ANYONE.

Such an interesting thought. What's yours is yours. How right-wing, tea party, bible thumping fundamentalist capitalist swine of you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DiverMike 5]

Except when it comes to a defined benefit pension (which is becoming a rare benefit). If I could leave the survivor benefit to anyone, it would make sense to leave it to a 1 year old, so they can collect retirement benefits for the next 70+ years.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[kallend 1,672]

shropshire

You ought to be able to "Will" your stuff, insurance, 'Survivor Benefits' etc. to whomever you damn well please.

It should have nothing to do with marriage ..... It's my stuff, I should be able to leave it to ANYONE.

Fortunately my 403b plan allows me to do just that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,672]

lawrocket

***You ought to be able to "Will" your stuff, insurance, 'Survivor Benefits' etc. to whomever you damn well please.

It should have nothing to do with marriage ..... It's my stuff, I should be able to leave it to ANYONE.

Such an interesting thought. What's yours is yours. How right-wing, tea party, bible thumping fundamentalist capitalist swine of you.

Negative, counselor. It's a pretty centrist position. Some of us just believe that inheritances should be taxed like any other financial transaction, (and without special "get out of taxes free" rules for the super rich).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

shropshire

You ought to be able to "Will" your stuff, insurance, 'Survivor Benefits' etc. to whomever you damn well please.

It should have nothing to do with marriage ..... It's my stuff, I should be able to leave it to ANYONE.

Except Survivor Benefits aren't yours, they belong toa defined other entity (spouse in this case).

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

An interesting local story just popped up, related in a sense, A MO Highway Patrol Officer was killed in the line of duty, and his partner (in the biblical sense) was seeking survivor benefits.

Denied because they weren't legally married, which they can't be under MO law it is illegal and there are laws specifically prohibiting it.

Shame. Get the Govt out of marriage. It should be "civil unions" for everyone.

One reason I married my wife was the simplicity of transfer of goods if I die. Without that, we would have no reason to get married.

Gays should have the same rights as any other couple.

[Darius11 12]

grue

Just another casualty of religion and government mixing.

Government should not recognize marriage between ANYONE. NOBODY. If people need to be able to have a legal status for tax crap or insurance/benefits, whatever, they can have a registered domestic relationship which can be between any consenting adults.

^^^^^^

What he said. You can also always Incorporate.

However right now the way things are its very unfair and discriminative.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain