Well, how about instead you explain to me how gays can legally obtain all of those 1049 benefits and priveleges the GAO report listed. Please include a detailed estimate of the legal fees involved in each step.
Keep in mind that, once you’ve gone beyond the usual $100 or so in fees, you’ve already found a major disparity in how heterosexual and homosexual couples are treated under the law.
Well, if you’d have read just the header on the report you cited, you’d have seen that it doesn’t purport to discuss “benefits and privleges”:
GAO found that: (1) it conducted searches for various words or word
stems chosen to elicit marital status, in several electronic databases
that contain the text of federal laws; (2) this collection of laws is as
complete and representative as can be produced by a global electronic
search of the kind GAO conducted; (3) its data include only laws
classified to the United States Code; and (4) no conclusions can be
drawn from its identification of a law as one in which marital status is
a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married people versus
single people.
So you are citing to a word search the GAO did for the words “spouse” “widow” and the like through the entire US Code. That means nothing at all about whether the 1049 “hits” they came up with confer any benefit to a married that aren’t also available to singles, gays, polygamists, or space aliens.
As I demonstrated with the copyright law cite (which was the only specific one anyone here pointed to), it is a load of bunk to say that gays are somehow denied rights under the statute. I challenge anyone here to point to a intellectual property or Indian law that confers a benefit on marrieds that singles or gays cannot exercise.
No, that won’t work. If you go back and re-read the statute, you will see that legatees are not listed. In fact, the order of descent is author, then widow(er), then children, then executor(s), then finally next of kin. Legatee is nowhere on that list, and if you have children naming your partner as your executor will be ineffective as your children will get it before your named executor. This is the exact opposite of the treatment that would arise if your partner was considered your spouse, and cannot be rectified by any permissible voluntary act by the author.
Care to play again?
A partial quote. How interesting.
From a few paragraphs before the one you listed:
Now, how about it? Give me a detailed method that I can use to secure all the rights, responsibilities and privileges conferred upon married couples for my union with my boyfriend. The document I supplied should be an adequate guideline for the federal part of things. Also, we live in Arizona, if that’ll help with the state laws. Give me a picture of how long it will take to get contractually married, in time and dollars. After all, you keep asserting it’s possible to do so; outlining the procedure involved should be pretty simple.
Especially if it’s going to be just as easy as going down to the courthouse and signing a marriage license.
Sorry, chief, but the argument here was that the GAO report establishes that gays are denied a multitude of federal rights that marrieds aren’t. And the GAO report doesn’t support that. Not by a long shot. And you have yet to point to a single of the 1049 word search hits that support your contention (although I’ve already conceded at least one, which is that Social Security gives survivor rights that neither a gay couple, nor an unmarried straight couple, would be able to make use of).
Sure, going to the courthouse is easy. Filling out a will, a living will, and a durable power of attorney is not too difficult either. In fact, you can pick up forms for doing it in lots of office supply stores or from places like Nolo Press. And guess what – as a single person with no kids, if I don’t want the people who are legally recognized as my heirs in intestacy or my guardians in the case of incapacity (in both cases, my parents), then I have to do exactly the same thing. Or else, a result I don’t like might happen if I die or am incapacitated.
If you think that is too inconvenient, fine – lobby your Arizona state rep to put in place laws for guardianship and intestacy that make it easier for you to register with the government your desires.
Or else be honest and address what the issue really is here – it isn’t that you don’t like that a bunch of statutes say “spouse” or “widow/widower” and therefore you’re getting screwed by the government out of rights. Its that you want your government and US society to embrace your relationship, both legally and morally, with the same respect as they do a marriage between straights. And you think that any social or religious belief that says that only one man and only one woman can be joined in matrimony is outdated, prejudiced, wrong, and not worthy of society’s respect or the government’s imprimatur.
It’s when I see that argument come out that I’ll start giving props to the advocates for gay marriage.
That’s an interesting op, but I’d much rather get religion out of marriage.
That’s possible right now. Just get married by a justice of the peace. Bada bing bada bang, no religion.
Actually, the argument you made was, specifically:
(Emphasis added).
I’m asking you to back up this contention. I’ve even provided a GAO report that should be of some help in establishing the federal regulations that pertain to marriage. If it’s anywhere near as simple as getting married is, it shouldn’t take you long to give me a set of guidelines that I’ll need to secure my relationship’s equal status with marriage under the law.
Oh, if you don’t mind, please include the contract that we’ll need to sign to be able to file federal taxes jointly. State and federal.
Thanks!
There are Hopi and Navajo life estates. The Hopi and Navajo reservations overlap, and both tribes claim some of the land, and have tried to evict members of the other tribe living there. So, to settle it, Congress passed a law better defining the borders, and establishing life estates for Hopi living on Navajo land, and Navajo living on Hopi land (giving them the right to live on their land until their death).
According to 25 CFR 700.339
You don’t want to file jointly. You’ll pay more taxes:
http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000519.htm
Jesus – the government is discriminating against straights! Equal protection! Those liberals in Washington are bigoted against married straights!
Actually, we do want to file jointly, as we want to buy the house we currently rent. The interest deduction for either of us individually would not be sufficient to justify buying it; however, the deduction for our joint income would have been.
So, we continue to rent.
Well, but that’s not what you said initially. Here’s your original assertion:
But when I point out that you are not correct, you shift to the “change the law” mode. By doing that, you are essentially admitting that it is not possible to gain the equivalent status to marriage across North America.
I’m not talking about a devise to a spouse. I’m talking about the rights that a spouse automatically has under the laws of the particular jurisdiction, just by virtue of being the surviving spouse. Even if the next-of-kin are able to set aside particular devises that the deceased made to his or her spouse, they can’t set aside the rights that the spouse has under the law of the particular jurisdiction, such as property rights, rights to care for the spouse, to make decisions about the spouse’s care, and so on.
But as you’ve pointed out, wills can be set aside; marital status and the rights that flow from it cannot be.
That argument is being made, along with the arguments based on legal disabilities. The most recent article I saw that takes exactly that approach was in that bastion of radicalism, TIME magazine, by Andrew Sullivan. Since it’s more than a week old, the whole thing isn’t available on-line for free, but I’m sure you could find it in a public library: Why the M Word Matters to Me: Only Marriage Can Bring a Gay Person Home
Except religious concerns have, to date, dictated the legal restrictions on who you can marry.
The value of the excellent suggestion of a “domestic partnership” is that it is not at all what we presently have called “marriage” because what we have called “marriage” is defined by religious law. And that by definition excludes same-sex. In the eyes of the government it shouldn’t make the slightest difference what the sex of your proposed partner is, as long as they a legal adult in command of the mental facilities. It shouldn’t matter any more than my gender matters when I apply for a driving licence. Or when I vote. Or if I commit a crime. The government should be gender-blind in all but a few issues where it really makes a difference. (e.g. maternity leave.)
Now, if the government wish to encourage procreation, then that’s a different matter and should be given whatever tax-breaks deemed necessary with whatever attached conditions considered desirable on the production of offspring. (We don’t want baby production to become a means of tax-avoidance. We want taxes to encourage responsible parenting.) But that’s an entirely separate from partnership. I don’t see why a couple require a different status in regards to the taxman simply because they have chosen a long-term relationship. That isn’t changing their earnings.
So the answer is two-fold:
1/ Get religion out of legal recognision of partnership. If you want a religious dimension you are free and entitled to take your pick. Places of religion can provide the legal paper-work requirements for recognision of this with a dollop of religion on top to suit your personal tastes.
2/ Get the governmental tax-system out of partnership.