What can a straight man do a gay man can't?

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze

Wait, divorce? If you can't get married you don't need to be protected in case of divorce; if you can't adopt children you aren't going to have custody issues.

*Ahem*

I'm sure Mr. Liuzza will love to hear how he doesn't have custody issues.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

No, my greater hope is banning government recognition of 'marriage' for everyone

If you don't mind, I think there has been more than enough talk about gays destroying marriage, without this type of thing happening.

[Montague]

New to the boards, but interested in this question.

To the guy who pulled out the old saw about everyone being free marry someone of the opposite sex, the answer is I am denied the right extended to a woman to marry a man. Why should she be able to marry a man while I can not? Likewise, a lesbian is denied the right to marry a woman, as i would be able to.

My thought about government involvement in marriage is this: churches need to be stripped of their right to administer legally binding contracts. That is the business of government, and the churches should have no place in this area. Instead, government should entirely take over the institution of marriage as a legal status and as a contractual agreement between consenting adults who are eligible to enter such an agreement. Churches should be able to celebrate holy matrimony for whomever wishes to add that recognition to their marriage contract, but it should have no standing under the law. Marriage under that definition should be open to whomever wants to be married as long as they are human, of age, and eligible to enter into legally binding contracts.

[Iggy]

Gay men (more specifically men who have sex with men regardless of how they identify their sexuality) may be deferred or rejected for blood donation depending upon where you might live. Straight men generally do not have this issue solely based upon sexual orientation.

Arguments may be made as to whether there is medical justification given that all donations are tested.

[raskolnik]

-The reason my wording has been so clear is that this was never intended, nor meant as a gay marriage debate. The fact is based on this thread, with the exception of gay marriage, no one seems able to list a single, factual, current civic statue that punishes gay men, with the exception of
1)anti-sodomy laws which have been largely ruled unconstitutional
2)blood donations (which is an area I know little about)
-Remember that private organization are allowed to discriminate. I can't get a scholarship that is given to a woman, or a black man, nothing wrong with that.

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by raskolnik

-The reason my wording has been so clear is that this was never intended, nor meant as a gay marriage debate. The fact is based on this thread, with the exception of gay marriage, no one seems able to list a single, factual, current civic statue that punishes gay men, with the exception of
1)anti-sodomy laws which have been largely ruled unconstitutional

Is there an area where sodomy laws governing private conduct between consenting adults are constitutional? I believe the answer is no, but would be happy to be corrected if there are. Otherwise, you should strike the word "largely" from that sentence.

2)blood donations (which is an area I know little about)

You could argue that this rule has a disproportionate effect, but it's not discrimination against gays. It's a prohibition that applies to any man who has had sex with another man, even once, since 1977 (if I remember the wording from that questionnaire correctly.) That includes a lot of bisexual and heterosexual (but experimental) men, and it does not include lesbians or virginal homosexual men at all. It's also not punishment.

Someone mentioned housing earlier: is there anywhere in the United States where it's enforceable to ban unrelated, unmarried adults from living together? I'm certain that "family status" is not something a landlord could discriminate on here in Washington state, but I'm not sure if that's true everywhere.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Is there an area where sodomy laws governing private conduct between consenting adults are constitutional? I believe the answer is no, but would be happy to be corrected if there are. Otherwise, you should strike the word "largely" from that sentence.



Someone mentioned housing earlier: is there anywhere in the United States where it's enforceable to ban unrelated, unmarried adults from living together? I'm certain that "family status" is not something a landlord could discriminate on here in Washington state, but I'm not sure if that's true everywhere.

Well, yes, nations outside the USA. But still in the USA, laws against stuff like "public" sex are enforced strongly against gays, loosely vs straights, in some juristictions. Look at the Fred Willard case at the Tiki Theatre, where it's basically a gay sex hang-out. The owner was complaining the police are always harrassing him. The LAPD are notorious for being homophobic.

Well certain Condo associations or government housing may have restrictions like that.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by raskolnik

-The reason my wording has been so clear is that this was never intended, nor meant as a gay marriage debate. The fact is based on this thread, with the exception of gay marriage, no one seems able to list a single, factual, current civic statue that punishes gay men,

What you are ignoring is that there is ample historical evidence for de facto punishment of now protected classes even if there was no punishment de jure.

Why is race now a protected class? Even after civil rights legislation came about, minorities suffered from de facto discrimination and punishment. Ditto religion and women. There's a fair amount of evidence that it still happens to this day. For example, the phrase "driving while black/brown" is pretty well known.

Even if you try to limit the discussion to "laws on the books", the social context for the debate is going to matter.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ

This site explains it pretty clearly. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...f+Survivorship

The power of the successor or successors of a deceased individual to acquire the property of that individual upon his or her death; a distinguishing feature of Joint Tenancy.

The right of survivorship determines what happens to a certain type of co-owned property after one of its owners dies. Under law there are many kinds of co-ownership, but the right of survivorship is found only in joint tenancy, a contract between two or more parties specifying their simultaneous ownership of some form of real or personal property such as a house, land, or money. In all joint tenancies, at the death of one of the joint tenants, ownership of the remaining property passes to the surviving tenants, or successors, who assert the right of survivorship. This is a powerful legal right because it takes precedence over other claims upon the property. Originally a right at Common Law, it is recognized by statute in all states.

That site explains it incorrectly. Well, actually the site mostly explains it correctly but you conflated two concepts.

Joint tenancy does not exist in Louisiana, Ohio, or Oregon. The right of survivorship exists in all states, but in some it applies only to tenancies by the entirety -those created by joint purchases by a husband and wife. In some it applies only to goods and chattels, and not to real property.

Obviously, a tenancy by the entirety is entirely unavailable to a gay couple in most cases.

As I explained already, the conveyance must state unambiguously that the parties intend to create a right of survivorship. This is why I explained that if you didn't have a real estate attorney you probably don't have a joint tenancy.

Really, though, the biggest issue is that a right of survivorship can only be created at the time of the conveyance. If your partner bought the property before you were together, it's too late. The property can still be willed to you, but has to be probated just like everything else.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Montague

New to the boards, but interested in this question.

To the guy who pulled out the old saw about everyone being free marry someone of the opposite sex, the answer is I am denied the right extended to a woman to marry a man. Why should she be able to marry a man while I can not? Likewise, a lesbian is denied the right to marry a woman, as i would be able to.

My thought about government involvement in marriage is this: churches need to be stripped of their right to administer legally binding contracts. That is the business of government, and the churches should have no place in this area. Instead, government should entirely take over the institution of marriage as a legal status and as a contractual agreement between consenting adults who are eligible to enter such an agreement. Churches should be able to celebrate holy matrimony for whomever wishes to add that recognition to their marriage contract, but it should have no standing under the law. Marriage under that definition should be open to whomever wants to be married as long as they are human, of age, and eligible to enter into legally binding contracts.

The issue of SSM and Priests being empowered by the state to perform marriages are two completely separable things. If a state doesn't want SSM, then stripping Churches of the power to perform weddings won't do one thing for legalizing SSM. In fact, it might make things worse.

[willthekittensurvive?]

In Holland gay men are allowed to donate blood, but only if they never had sex with a man.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Montague

My thought about government involvement in marriage is this: churches need to be stripped of their right to administer legally binding contracts. That is the business of government, and the churches should have no place in this area. Instead, government should entirely take over the institution of marriage as a legal status and as a contractual agreement between consenting adults who are eligible to enter such an agreement. Churches should be able to celebrate holy matrimony for whomever wishes to add that recognition to their marriage contract, but it should have no standing under the law. Marriage under that definition should be open to whomever wants to be married as long as they are human, of age, and eligible to enter into legally binding contracts.

Government already controls the institution of marriage. Churches are simply a surrogate for one (minor) function - solemnizing the marriage. You can go have a justice of the peace or judge or clerk do it instead; letting a clergyman sign the contract just reduces the strain on government resources.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by raskolnik

-The reason my wording has been so clear is that this was never intended, nor meant as a gay marriage debate. The fact is based on this thread, with the exception of gay marriage, no one seems able to list a single, factual, current civic statue that punishes gay men, with the exception of
1)anti-sodomy laws which have been largely ruled unconstitutional
2)blood donations (which is an area I know little about)
-Remember that private organization are allowed to discriminate. I can't get a scholarship that is given to a woman, or a black man, nothing wrong with that.

Just to clarify, your position is that being deprived of a right is not actual punishment -- is that correct? For instance, if my state (Wisconsin) declared a policy that no gays would be hired for state jobs, is that punishment?

According to this wiki page, gay couples in Utah, Louisiana and Arkansas cannot adopt. This was also true in Florida until a court threw out the law in late 2010. Is this punishment?

Also keep in mind that marriage confers additional rights than just being married. As others have noted, there are other benefits to married couples, including inheritance laws, the right to make decisions for a disabled partner, and even tax benefits. I'm not don't think any of these can be considered "punishment" by a very narrow definition of the term. No one is being sent to prison or levied with fines to pay.

But what this all adds up to is a denial of equality, and a denial of opportunity to gain from the benefits that anyone else may gain. To me, that constitutes punishment.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by raskolnik

-The reason my wording has been so clear is that this was never intended, nor meant as a gay marriage debate. The fact is based on this thread, with the exception of gay marriage, no one seems able to list a single, factual, current civic statue that punishes gay men, with the exception of
1)anti-sodomy laws which have been largely ruled unconstitutional
2)blood donations (which is an area I know little about)
-Remember that private organization are allowed to discriminate. I can't get a scholarship that is given to a woman, or a black man, nothing wrong with that.

Yes clearly because the government doesn't maintain specific punishments to gays for being gay, gays aren't being discriminated against. You win we'll put down our rainbow flags and cancel our gay pride parades. There is no equality left to fight for because a gay man can legally do almost anything a straight man can legally do.

Equal rights advocates need to stop fighting these battles and pick up the banner for the straight white men out there. They aren't provided any special rights and if you look at the non-existent evidence, you'll see how they are at a clear disadvantage in our society.

[D-bear]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Yes clearly because the government doesn't maintain specific punishments to gays for being gay, gays aren't being discriminated against. You win we'll put down our rainbow flags and cancel our gay pride parades. There is no equality left to fight for because a gay man can legally do almost anything a straight man can legally do.

Equal rights advocates need to stop fighting these battles and pick up the banner for the straight white men out there. They aren't provided any special rights and if you look at the non-existent evidence, you'll see how they are at a clear disadvantage in our society.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who found this slightly insulting/offensive.

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Well, yes, nations outside the USA. But still in the USA, laws against stuff like "public" sex are enforced strongly against gays, loosely vs straights, in some juristictions. Look at the Fred Willard case at the Tiki Theatre, where it's basically a gay sex hang-out. The owner was complaining the police are always harrassing him. The LAPD are notorious for being homophobic.

Well certain Condo associations or government housing may have restrictions like that.

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you're replying to. If I can attempt to restate, you're saying three things:

1) Lawrence v. Texas did strike down all the anti-sodomy laws that pertained to consenting adults in private, but sometime public sex laws are enforced more strongly against gay men than others. I suspect that this is true, and it's a good point: even if the law is equal here, enforcement may not be due to prejudice.

2) Condo associations may have covenants against non-married, non-related adults living together. This was sort of my point - they may, but are they enforceable anywhere in the United States?

3) Government housing may limit benefits to married partners. Yeah, that's probably true. I think this goes in the bucket of things which are denied to homosexual couples because they cannot marry in the eyes of the United States.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Really, though, the biggest issue is that a right of survivorship can only be created at the time of the conveyance. If your partner bought the property before you were together, it's too late. The property can still be willed to you, but has to be probated just like everything else.

For some reason I thought you were a real estate professional, but I guess not. A quit-claim deed is a conveyance; it is what is generally used when a person who bought a house before hooking up puts his/her partner on the deed. I think there are other ways to do it--it's been so long since I was in real estate that I've forgotten, and things change. But that was the most usual way and, I believe, still is.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Someone mentioned housing earlier: is there anywhere in the United States where it's enforceable to ban unrelated, unmarried adults from living together?

This is the story I was thinking of. So two unmarried adults could live there, so long as they don't have more than one child.

[Lance Turbo]

Straight men have no trouble buying cakes. Sometimes gay men do.

[Jackmannii]

Why does this thread title play in my head as sung by Ethel Merman?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Why does this thread title play in my head as sung by Ethel Merman?

Anything you can do I can do better.
I can do anything better then you.


I can get married better then you.
um uh yes you can.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ

Do you live in the USA? If so, your family can't inherit someone else's property.

Two people buying a home together is a common event, and it's not limited to gay people.

If you bought the house together, then you and your partner/spouse would be on the deed as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. One owner dies, and their property interest transfers to the surviving owner, when then becomes the sole owner. Your family can't take away their property.

I was under the impression that anything that can be recognized as owned jointly is not restricted to being owned by people in a specified relationship in a strict legal context. So you could own a car jointly with your niece or have a joint bank account with grandma's childhood BFF's first cousin's former roommate's probation officer. Whether or not such an arrangement is practically helpful is another matter.

[SciFiSam]

I know you didn't intend this as a gay marriage debate, but since being gay is about sexual relationships as well as simply who you're sexually attracted to, it's a bit odd to discount one of the biggest legal differences when it comes to sexual relationships. Most of the legal differences come into play when marriage, benefits and kids are involved and they are not tangential to having all of those someone of the same sex.

Also remember that some changes in law are very recent indeed, like the Texas sodomy laws.

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

I was under the impression that anything that can be recognized as owned jointly is not restricted to being owned by people in a specified relationship in a strict legal context. So you could own a car jointly with your niece or have a joint bank account with grandma's childhood BFF's first cousin's former roommate's probation officer. Whether or not such an arrangement is practically helpful is another matter.

It generally costs a lot more to do these things than just being married, especially if you're not wealthy so there's a greater economy cost to just adding another person to an insurance policy (etc) whereas for married couples it's either free or doesn't cost much. IOW, if you're wealthy or doing OK financially and also very organised then you might be OK financially, but rights should not only be for those people.

An example: if you were a low-earning legally-married spouse of a higher-earning opposite-sex partner then your partner could get a mortgage and own the house in which you lived, while you paid what you could and took more time out to raise the kids - like many women used to do and to some extent still do - but you wouldn't be named on the mortgage. Then if your partner died and you inherited the house, you wouldn't have to pay inheritance tax. Because you're married. Not so if you're not married.

[panache45]

The problem with the joint ownership issue is that, until recently, gay relationships have always been more casual than straight ones. Two guys discover that they're compatible, one of them moves in with the other, and since there's no "next step" of marriage available, the arrangement just continues as is, with no thought to what happens if the actual "owner" should suddenly die . . . often complicated by possibly antagonistic families. Even with AIDS, there's usually plenty of time following diagnosis to get the legalities straightened out. But in the early years of the epidemic, people were dropping like flies, and there were countless nightmare scenarios of people losing everything they owned, even their own personal belongings from prior to the relationship. Many people were caught off-guard, not accustomed to considering the legalities of their relationship. But over the last few decades we've learned not to always be so casual, and that's why marriage, with all its rights and benefits, has become more desirable than previously.

Straight couples, no matter how casual, at least have the possibility of marriage on their minds, and often there are kids involved. So they're used to looking at things more long-term.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by SciFiSam

An example: if you were a low-earning legally-married spouse of a higher-earning opposite-sex partner then your partner could get a mortgage and own the house in which you lived, while you paid what you could and took more time out to raise the kids - like many women used to do and to some extent still do - but you wouldn't be named on the mortgage. Then if your partner died and you inherited the house, you wouldn't have to pay inheritance tax. Because you're married. Not so if you're not married.

Again, not true. You can leave your house to anyone in a will, and you can buy a house together without being married. (There's no reason to bring in named on the mortgage as it means nothing in this context). In any case, the exclusion is $2MM so, there's no Federal Estate tax for the 99%.

Now true, there is a extra exclusion, on top of that $2MM, for a primary residence will to a spouse.

Estate tax is just not a problem for 99% of the people. Gay or straight.

[Dr. Drake]

I think you (OP) misunderstand discrimination. It is rarely institutionalized the way it was against Blacks last century. It is more commonly akin to bullying: the culture at large doesn't like you, so they're going to make life unpleasant in oh so many little ways (the death of a thousand cuts) until you either become like the mainstream or move on. The most common way of "moving on" is moving to a more liberal, urban area, but suicide is also a big one.

F'r instance, try being a single yet openly gay elementary school teacher in most of America. Is it illegal? No. Could you be fired for merely identifying as gay? Depends on the state. Would being a single yet openly gay elementary school teacher cause you difficulty? Why yes, yes it would, because in many places, especially where children are concerned, the fear-to-cluefulness ratio is quite high.

Ask a woman how often she gets unwanted attention from straight men asking her out. I think you'd be surprised at the response. Now imagine you're a single gay man. You really like Tom, a burly construction worker. Ask him out: the worst he can do is say no, right? I mean, it's not LEGAL for him and his friends to beat the shit out of you, so you're good, right?

Or maybe Tom was actually kinda into you. You go down to the beach for a picnic. Hold hands watching the sunset, or give him a kiss: romantic moment, just like the guy-and-girl couple six beachtowels down. Perfectly legal, so naturally there's no repercussions, right?

So yeah, on paper, pretty equal except for the marriage thing. And they're not Civil Rights violations, just one class of people held to a different standard than another. Of course, I suspect that's only because gays are an invisible minority.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze

For some reason I thought you were a real estate professional, but I guess not. A quit-claim deed is a conveyance; it is what is generally used when a person who bought a house before hooking up puts his/her partner on the deed. I think there are other ways to do it--it's been so long since I was in real estate that I've forgotten, and things change. But that was the most usual way and, I believe, still is.

That's not the point. Adding your partner to the deed creates a present ownership interest in the property. Your partner gains half an ownership interest in the property. It does not create a right of survivorship - the right for your partner to inherit your interest in the property. Hence, if you die, your partner gets half the house, but won't necessarily get your half (and won't get it automatically, which is the important thing). He might also have to pay estate taxes on your half.

If somebody else inherits- say, your mother who hates that you're gay and blames your partner for turning you from the path of Christ, or whatever- they can force a sale (among other things).

ETA: DrDeth, the threshold for state estate taxes can be much lower than $2 million.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

That's not the point. Adding your partner to the deed creates a present ownership interest in the property. Your partner gains half an ownership interest in the property. It does not create a right of survivorship - the right for your partner to inherit your interest in the property. Hence, if you die, your partner gets half the house, but won't necessarily get your half (and won't get it automatically, which is the important thing). He might also have to pay estate taxes on your half.

If somebody else inherits- say, your mother who hates that you're gay and blames your partner for turning you from the path of Christ, or whatever- they can force a sale (among other things).

ETA: DrDeth, the threshold for state estate taxes can be much lower than $2 million.

Sorry, but the QC is a new deed. I bought a house before I was married, and some years later realized it would be a good idea to have my husband on the deed, so I did a QC. The form I used had two items--joint tenancy with right of survivorship and tenancy in common. It was a cheap do-it-yourself form, and you crossed out that one that didn't apply. No need for lawyers, unless you needed someone to explain what JTROS meant as opposed to tenancy in common. It was not some magical condition of being married that did it. There are a few states--not Colorado, but a few--that are community property states and things may be different there, although I think not. I think even in one of those states if I bought the place before I was married I would have to take steps to share the ownership with my spouse, or anyone else.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze

I think even in one of those states if I bought the place before I was married I would have to take steps to share the ownership with my spouse, or anyone else.

Texas is a community property state. A home bought before the marriage would still automatically go to the spouse but there may be an extra legal hurdle to clear to make sure the title was clear and that the spouse was actually the spouse and so on. It's actually a lot more trouble to arrange things so property doesn't automatically go to the spouse.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze

Sorry, but the QC is a new deed. I bought a house before I was married, and some years later realized it would be a good idea to have my husband on the deed, so I did a QC. The form I used had two items--joint tenancy with right of survivorship and tenancy in common. It was a cheap do-it-yourself form, and you crossed out that one that didn't apply. No need for lawyers, unless you needed someone to explain what JTROS meant as opposed to tenancy in common. It was not some magical condition of being married that did it. There are a few states--not Colorado, but a few--that are community property states and things may be different there, although I think not. I think even in one of those states if I bought the place before I was married I would have to take steps to share the ownership with my spouse, or anyone else.

Hmmm. Seems you're right, which is the opposite of what we were taught (that fictional property transfers are void).

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by fumster

"Aside from getting married what more do gays want" is like saying "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the musical theater?"

Marriage is what allows partners to make medical and funeral decisions, or visit a sick partner in the hospital, or automatically inherit an estate.

In 2010 President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to stop any Medicare and Medicaid participating hospitals from discriminating against gay couples (by denying them visitation rights). That includes almost every hospital in the country, with exceptions being hospitals like the Shriner's Hospitals for Children which don't require payment and thus don't participate in Medicare or Medicaid.

I don`t mean to imply that gays aren't discriminated against just because Obama fixed one small injustice but I don't think it's very well known so I like to point it out.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

In 2010 President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to stop any Medicare and Medicaid participating hospitals from discriminating against gay couples (by denying them visitation rights). That includes almost every hospital in the country, with exceptions being hospitals like the Shriner's Hospitals for Children which don't require payment and thus don't participate in Medicare or Medicaid.

I don`t mean to imply that gays aren't discriminated against just because Obama fixed one small injustice but I don't think it's very well known so I like to point it out.

That's a good point - but it's also only secure so long as Obama is president. There's nothing stopping the next president from reversing it.

[D-bear]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

In 2010 President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to stop any Medicare and Medicaid participating hospitals from discriminating against gay couples (by denying them visitation rights). That includes almost every hospital in the country, with exceptions being hospitals like the Shriner's Hospitals for Children which don't require payment and thus don't participate in Medicare or Medicaid.

I don`t mean to imply that gays aren't discriminated against just because Obama fixed one small injustice but I don't think it's very well known so I like to point it out.

Just because it has been ordered, doesn't mean that Hospitals aren't turning people away who are not next of kin or immediate family.

CITE

[LurkerInNJ]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Really, though, the biggest issue is that a right of survivorship can only be created at the time of the conveyance. If your partner bought the property before you were together, it's too late.

Do you take "purchased with my partner" to mean anything other than they bought it together?

If I died, the home I have purchased with my partner could be taken by my family, not my spouse.

[Kevbo]

As a straight man, I can wear these socks with these pants. A gay man would die of embarrassment if he tried it...well he'd have nightmares and PTSD at least.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Kevbo

As a straight man, I can wear these socks with these pants. A gay man would die of embarrassment if he tried it...well he'd have nightmares and PTSD at least.

Psst! Post #20!

[SciFiSam]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Again, not true. You can leave your house to anyone in a will, and you can buy a house together without being married. (There's no reason to bring in named on the mortgage as it means nothing in this context). In any case, the exclusion is $2MM so, there's no Federal Estate tax for the 99%.

Now true, there is a extra exclusion, on top of that $2MM, for a primary residence will to a spouse.

Estate tax is just not a problem for 99% of the people. Gay or straight.

2 million's not bad. I was going on my experience in the uk, where the threshold is 250,000, which would get you a 2-bedroom flat in london.I have a feeling that it might well not be as simple as you make out in the US, though.

I mentioned being named in the mortgage because I'm well aware that people are allowed to buy a home together if they're not married - my example was of someone who had not bought the house with their partner.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ

Do you take "purchased with my partner" to mean anything other than they bought it together?

If I died, the home I have purchased with my partner could be taken by my family, not my spouse.

No, not if you leave it in a will or fix up the deed now so it is done that way. Sure if you die intestate, your partner may have problems. But I can leave my house to my second-best friends hairdressers cousin if I like.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by raskolnik

-I need to find a list for the 'rights of gay men' (women I'd think are similar but not my issue here) that they, the gay men want, that are denied

There are 1,138 rights under federal law (so not including state law) that married heterosexual couples get that homosexual couples can't because they cannot marry:

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.

The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.

SOURCE: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/a...arried-couples

[Nava]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, not if you leave it in a will or fix up the deed now so it is done that way. Sure if you die intestate, your partner may have problems. But I can leave my house to my second-best friends hairdressers cousin if I like.

But isn't the tax a lot higher if you leave it to your second-best friend's hairdresser's cousin than if you leave it to a spouse or child? I have no idea how it is in the US and I'm sure it varies by state (I've seen the part about the 2M -let's say either the house is worth more or there are local taxes with a lower limit), but in Spain the general recomendation is "if you want someone other than a spouse or relative up to second-degree to have something of yours, make it a gift while alive and not a bequest upon death" - because of the taxes.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Nava

But isn't the tax a lot higher if you leave it to your second-best friend's hairdresser's cousin than if you leave it to a spouse or child? I have no idea how it is in the US and I'm sure it varies by state (I've seen the part about the 2M -let's say either the house is worth more or there are local taxes with a lower limit), but in Spain the general recomendation is "if you want someone other than a spouse or relative up to second-degree to have something of yours, make it a gift while alive and not a bequest upon death" - because of the taxes.

Yes, but in general the estate has to be worth $2MM, and you can still put a partner on the deed while you're both alive.

Only if your estate exceeds $2MM do things get complicated. And if you think you're going to have a $2mm estate- then you're a idiot if you don't spend some time with a dedicated professional who will fix you up with Trusts, etc.

[Nava]

I'm not asking about complicated, I'm asking about expensive.

The process to follow if I inherit my mother's flat is the same as if I inherit my grandmother's flat, but the first one carries 3% tax; the second one carries 16%. From a spouse it would be the same process, and zero (the registrar's fee is the same in all three cases).

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Yes, but in general the estate has to be worth $2MM, and you can still put a partner on the deed while you're both alive.

Only if your estate exceeds $2MM do things get complicated. And if you think you're going to have a $2mm estate- then you're a idiot if you don't spend some time with a dedicated professional who will fix you up with Trusts, etc.

As I pointed out earlier, $2 million is the federal exemption. State estate taxes can kick in as early as $400k (Ohio) or $700k (Rhode Island and New Jersey).

Originally Posted by Nava

I'm not asking about complicated, I'm asking about expensive.

The process to follow if I inherit my mother's flat is the same as if I inherit my grandmother's flat, but the first one carries 3% tax; the second one carries 16%. From a spouse it would be the same process, and zero (the registrar's fee is the same in all three cases).

US inheritance taxes are not adjusted based on who you inherit things from.

[Nava]

Thank you, RNATB

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

US inheritance taxes are not adjusted based on who you inherit things from.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong, or just misunderstanding the concept. There is a marital deduction for the federal estate tax, you can leave any amount to your spouse with no estate tax.

Outside of the marital deduction, there's no difference, but for a gay person, that difference could be huge. And, it's a benefit that you can't duplicate by paying a bunch of money to an estate lawyer.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

As I pointed out earlier, $2 million is the federal exemption. State estate taxes can kick in as early as $400k (Ohio) or $700k (Rhode Island and New Jersey).

.

True, States vary. But Ohio just repealed it's estate Tax, and NJ allows Same-sex marriage to be considered married for estates.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong, or just misunderstanding the concept. There is a marital deduction for the federal estate tax, you can leave any amount to your spouse with no estate tax.

Outside of the marital deduction, there's no difference, but for a gay person, that difference could be huge. And, it's a benefit that you can't duplicate by paying a bunch of money to an estate lawyer.

Unlikely. How many people have Estates in the Multi-millions? I mean we start with $2MM, then what with Trusts and etc (which can make have that estate attorney help a lot), you're getting into Fantasy-land.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Montague

To the guy who pulled out the old saw about everyone being free marry someone of the opposite sex, the answer is I am denied the right extended to a woman to marry a man. Why should she be able to marry a man while I can not? Likewise, a lesbian is denied the right to marry a woman, as i would be able to.

Because there is no "right to marry a woman" that is extended to a man but denied to a lesbian. There is only a right to marriage, which is extended to men and women equally. And the legal definition of marriage is "the union of one man and one woman". Anyone can enter into a marriage as long as it winds up fitting the definition.

If you want to change the definition, that's fine, but don't assume something is there when it isn't.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong, or just misunderstanding the concept. There is a marital deduction for the federal estate tax, you can leave any amount to your spouse with no estate tax.

Outside of the marital deduction, there's no difference, but for a gay person, that difference could be huge. And, it's a benefit that you can't duplicate by paying a bunch of money to an estate lawyer.

Probably should have clarified. I didn't mention spouses 'cause we were talking about gay people.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Originally Posted by raskolnik

What can a straight man do a gay man can't?

Voluntarily have sex with a woman?

Get married (in most US states)?

Have poor dress sense?