The main point he made was valid still. Most states use tenancy in common in their real estate contracts. A lawyer can often request a joint tenancy, but most people in most states don’t use lawyers, just the contracts. Generally that’s due to them being a boilerplate and the cost of a lawyer.
From the same website as Dr Deth’s definition of joint tenancy (which does convey survivorship but is not the common/default tenancy in most states), this is the definition of tenancy in common- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tenancy+in+common
There’s definitely a lot of differences state to state, but it’s safe to say that a marriage, common-law marriage, or civil partnership generally confers more survivorship rights than two single people in an unofficial partnership. Most of the time in most states, people have to redo their wills because it is at least partially nullified by a marriage. But even if a single person puts someone on their will, in many states, children or other family members may have a claim to the undivided interest in the tenancy in common (and other parts of an estate).
Of course, it’s not all estates. There’s also the issue of dividing property after a breakup. If it’s a legal marriage/partnership being dissolved, there are laws in place to cover dividing the property. If not, it’s a free for all. That counts for heterosexuals as well, but the difference in many states is that gay people don’t have the option of a legal, official relationship.
There’s also the issue of taxes, of course, and as mentioned numerous times, protection against unfair hiring and firing practices, etc.
This is my first post. I like how the discussions here are actual discussions, not “You’re a troll! No, you’re a troll!”
I don’t know if it has been brought up already but immigration rights is an area where the difference between straight and gay is stark.
In the USA and most countries there is no possible way to bring a same sex partner or spouse into the country to live together. You cannot sponser a same sex partner or spouse for permanent residency or citizenship period. You are simply totally out of luck, where as if straight just get married and follow directions on what forms to file.
so it is by the very transparency of this, that such bigotry or whatever word suits can be preformed with no fear. i find that fascinating. legally, loopholes such as this are always stunning. question: what if, say a judge were to rule , that employment were denied or say a service such as patronage at a public restaurant were denied. what if, the victim (lack of better word at the moment) were to demonstrate impeccable proficiency in ability or undeniable prestige, the judge says you are right. hits the mallet, the bad guy loses and the good guy wins. (being the gay person).
so now we have precedent? but further to the question would it be necessary to go to that length? what if, by fate it were just somehow amended to female rights. thereby giving the machismo it’s big rush but still conforming to the precept of the law?
would it be so vague in either situation? it seems that your idea, albeit probably right on course, would be an endless battle. would gender rights and law be an example template?
in answer to the original posters question basically a straight man can assume that anything he is denied was not by sexual preference, other then that there is no difference.
Live openly without having to worry about being gay-bashed, being a victim of discrimination, being called an abomination. Gay men and women are subject to scorn for being gay. No Straight person is subjected to widespread discrimination for being straight.
But that was exactly what my question was about. If you’re gay, yes, you can leave your stuff to your life partner, but it will be penalized vs leaving it to a spouse.
What does a straight that a gay man can’t do
What does a straight that a gay man can’t do
What does a straight that a gay man can’t do
Earl-aye in the morning?
In the UK there’s no difference between straight/gay couples legally, and hasn’t been for ten years. I don’t know why it’s taking America so much longer. Well I do, but it’s rude to say.
Straight couples get a legal label called “marriage,” and gay couples get a legal label called “civil partnership.” It might not be of huge consequence (at least domestically*), but it’s still a legal difference (since it’s a difference created by a law) and it’s deliberately meant to place gay couples on a lower level.
*While it’s not a difference in the UK, I don’t think a British “civil partnership” is treated as a marriage in every country that allows same-sex marriage.
Spose it could be taken like that, but government didn’t create marriage, it was always a religious union later afforded special rights by law. Government can’t force the church to perform gay marriages, and the church can’t force the government to ban gay partnerships (in the uk), so they compromised kinda with civil partnerships. I say kinda cos really all they got was the word “marriage”.
When marriage was first recorded there were no “legal rights” independent of those accorded under the tenets of whatever flavor of religion was prevalent wherever you lived.
