Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by ajcoles, Oct 4, 2004.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head.
100 of the rights, responsibilities and protections that would be denied to same-sex couples and their families under state law.
1. No automatic right to make health care decisions for partner
2. No automatic right to visit partner in the hospital
3. No right to sue for wrongful death if partner negligently killed
4. No right to consent or refuse consent to an autopsy of partner’s body
5. No vested right to be buried in cemetery plot with partner
6. No automatic right to inherit cemetery plot
7. No automatic right to make arrangements for funeral or dispose of deceased partner’s body
8. No right to donate partner's body or organs after death
9. No automatic right to inherit deceased partner’s estate
10. A prior will is not automatically revoked when entering a new relationship
11. A prior will is not automatically revoked when the relationship ends
12. No right to be notified in a public notice before partner’s will is destroyed by an attorney
13. No preference to be appointed personal representative of deceased partner’s estate
14. No right to continue to live in the deceased partner’s home for one year after partner’s death
15. No automatic right to notice in matters involving deceased partner’s estate
16. No right to support from deceased partner’s estate 17. No right to demand one-quarter share of partner's estate if will leaves less than that
18. No automatic right to notice that a conservatorship or guardianship is being filed against partner unless currently living together
19. May not get highest preference by court to be appointed as guardian or conservator for incapacitated partner
20. No right to private visits in long-term care facility
21. No right to share a room in long-term care facility
22. No right to file joint tax returns
23. No right to name partner as health care decision-maker when partner is serving as physician
24. No right to rollover IRA upon partner’s death and continue tax deferral
25. Surviving partner may have to pay inheritance tax when first partner dies
26. No automatic right to receive deceased partner’s unpaid state salary and other moneys due
27. No right to maintain deceased veteran's property tax exemption
28. No right to claim senior or disabled property tax deferral when property is jointly owned but only one partner qualifies
29. No right to continue deferral of previous taxes deferred by deceased partner even though surviving partner is currently eligible for deferral
30. No protection against impoverishment if disabled partner needs Medicaid benefits for long-term care
31. Cannot transfer residence or other assets to partner without causing the disabled partner to become ineligible for Medicaid
32. When partner who received Medicaid dies, the state can recover the amount paid against the estate of the deceased partner even while the surviving partner is still alive
33. No right to require suppliers to repurchase deceased retailer’s inventory
34. Partner of retailer has no cause of action against non-paying suppliers on cancellation of a retailer agreement
35. Not automatically an “authorized driver” on partner’s rental car
36. No absolute right to transfer a franchise or dealership to partner
37. No right to be a designated successor in deceased partner’s retail dealership
38. No right to partner’s Oregon Medical Insurance Pool coverage
39. No automotive personal injury protection benefits for partner
40. No right to coverage under partner’s health benefit plan
41. No automatic right to obtain life insurance on partner
42. No uninsured motorist insurance coverage for partner
43. No right to spousal cash surrender valuation of term life insurance on partner
44. No right to coverage under deceased partner’s group health insurance plan.
45. No protection for partner’s home in bankruptcy
46. Private conversations with partner are not protected in court
47. Conversations with a marriage counselor are not protected in court
48. No automatic education on fetal alcohol syndrome 49. No court-ordered counseling upon divorce
50. No court-ordered life insurance upon divorce
51. Partner not responsible for family expenses
52. No automatic paternity for children
53. Must testify against partner in a court case
54. Must surrender home to satisfy lien for partner’s unpaid medical treatment in long-term care facility
55. No right to sue long-term care facility that fails to discharge lien in a timely manner once overdue charges for partner are paid
56. No right to avoid court appointment of a property manager during foreclosure of partner’s home
57. No right to maintain a dwelling on EFU (exclusive farm use) property even if occupied by farm operator’s partner
58. No right to maintain a dwelling in a farm or forest zone even if lawfully created or acquired by the owner’s partner
59. No right as a partner to a landowner to obtain a “landowner preference tag” for hunting from the Fish & Wildlife Commission
60. No right to examine or get copy of autopsy report of deceased partner
61. No right to receive personal effects from deceased partner’s body
62. No access to partner’s death record
63. No automatic right of survivorship for jointly owned real property
64. No right to sell property qualified for farm use assessment to partner without disqualification
65. No right to loss of support payments from the state crime victims’ compensation fund if partner killed in a crime
66. No right to family therapy from state crime victims’ compensation fund in case of child sexual abuse
67. No right to crisis counseling through state crime victims’ compensation fund if partner is a victim of international terrorism
68. No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence based on partner’s ownership
69. Must pay taxes on employer health insurance benefits for partner
70. No right to deduct partner’s medical expenses on income tax return
71. No right to receive deceased partner’s wages
72. No right to deceased partner's wage claim against non-paying employer
73. No right to work on partner's farm for less than minimum wage
74. No eligibility for scholarship if partner is disabled or killed on the job
75. No right to sue for partner's death that was a result of an unsafe workplace
76. No right to workers’ compensation benefits if partner disabled or killed on the job
77. No right to opt out of workers’ compensation insurance as a family business
78. No right to sue non-employer for negligently killing partner on the job
79. No right to continue workers’ compensation benefits until remarriage if partner is killed or disabled on the job
80. Required to comply with childcare facility regulations when caring only for partner's children
81. No automatic right to special retirement benefit after death of partner who was a police officer or a firefighter
82. No right as unmarried couple with children to be treated as married for workers’ compensation rights and benefits
83. No automatic right to partner’s group insurance provided by public retirement system.
84. No right to opt out of unemployment insurance as a family business
85. No right to receive deceased partner’s unemployment benefits
86. Required to comply with farm labor contractor regulations when working only with partner
87. Subjected to employment discrimination laws when hiring partner in family business
88. Employer can refuse to hire or discharge employee because it employs or has employed partner
89. No protection through emergency court orders in case of divorce
90. No tax exemption for dividing property upon divorce
91. No dividing retirement plans upon divorce
92. No automatic right to receive partner’s judicial retirement pension
93. No automatic right to make retirement selection from deceased partner’s public employee retirement benefit
94. No automatic right to partner’s pre-Medicare insurance benefit provided by public retirement system
95. No automatic right to partner’s Medicare supplemental insurance paid for by public retirement system
96. No automatic right to approve partner’s public employee retirement choices
97. No automatic right to special pre-retirement public employee retirement benefit after death of partner who was a judge
98. No right for partner of disabled or killed public safety officer to Public Safety Memorial Fund benefits 99. No automatic right to receive partner’s public employment benefits
100. No right to retired partner’s health insurance offered by local government employers
OK, that shows you can copy and paste off a pervert web site.
Its seems as if there are very few if any disagreements here . Our opinions may differ on some definitions and terms only:
What do you mean by "impose"? Do you mean I should hide? I am not waving any flags but I am not going to hide (I am not going spinning in a room either - I will cycle out in the open!).
As for marriage - I really fail to understand why would any homosexual couple wish to be "married". There is no added value to the title.
And as for children - many of my gay friends have children. They are better parents than many "natural" parents. Also, married couples don't always have children.
Some of these can easily be resolved through proper, simple legislation. Some of it can be resolved through personal arrangements without invloving the public. Also, much of of the rest is not that important. By demanding the title "marriage" you create a conflict where it is not called for. I do not wish to be married, regardless of my spouce's gender.
All the Gay couples are asking is equal rights to protect the future of their partner. What is so wrong with that.
They're not gay, they're homosexual. My wife and I are happy, which means gay, but not homosexual.
It's trickle down immorality. Give a little today. Give a little tomorrow, and so on, until the USA start looking like friggin' France.
What do you the our country to look like Fascist Franco Spain or Hilter Germany. I want my country to treat all familes equal and that includes Gay familes too.
Homosexual partnerships are not families. They do not possess the inherent ability to procreate which is essential to being a family. A man and a woman, with perhaps children, is a family.
Personally, the weather nicer in Spain, so if those are my only choices, I'll take that one.
In the absence of children there is no difference between a gay and a straight couple. Gay people have children too, in many different sircumstances. Families may take many different forms. The fact that society wishes to grant straight couples with or without children a special status is arbitrary and may change in time and place.
However, having said that, I see no reason for gay couples to seek the status of married straight couples, if they can achieve similar (if not equal) rights in other ways.
I think we pretty much agree here. I don't mean hide but don't advertise for a lack of a better word. What I mean by that is I don't want my child exposed to or taught that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal lifestyle or natural. I don't mean you have to stay inside your home etc, I just don't want anynone living that lifestyle attempting to engage with my child and attempting to push him/her toward that lifestyle. Like I said before, if he/she gravitates that way on their own, so be it. I have to accept it for he/she is my child but...I don't have to like it. I don't approve of the lifestyle, I don't condone the lifestyle but I'm not going to dislike a person just because he/she lives that lifestyle.
However, concerning parenthood...aside from the fact that in my opinion, a child needs a mother AND a father. I don't think two mothers or two fathers cut it... Perhaps given a choice between a child wasting away in bad foster care or as an orphan, maybe what you suggest is a viable alternative but if the comparison is between two heterosexual parents and homosexual partners then I would say that I would offer that the heterosexual parents is the right fit. A child needs a balanced upbringing. Once again...just my thoughts....
Waste of time. Brick Wall subject. No one is going to change the mind of the other. The homosexual isn't going to convince those who are 'against' homosexual that their choice is viable as heterosexual marriages. And in vice versa, homosexuals aren't going to be convinced that their choice is unnatural.
So, who all really enjoyes a good bike ride? I know I do!
Why would anyone...? I wouldn't. I know some do, I condemn it with all my heart. Let people find out themselves who they are, that's what life is all about.
Well, actually our debate is not about homsexuality or parenthood: I do not believe in objective right or wrong. The right to choose is not just the right to make mistakes or do the right thing.
You can't tell which family will be better because there is no definition of "better", because there is no scale to compare with. Will that child be happier in... where exactly? You can't retry here and repeat childhood to see which is better. You can't re-live your life and see if another choice would have been better for you or for your loved ones. You can only do your best and keep doing it.
Not all waste of time. Discussion is important to make people better understand and accept each other. Some differences may even be resolved, or at least learned and accepted as such.
Truth is - riding *does* make people closer, regardless of opinions.
My point, ItsikH, is that I believe it is HIGHLY unlikely that the two sides will be swayed much at all.
I believe in right and wrong. Knowing where the boundaries of acceptable behaviour lies is part of being a civilized society.
More directly, I believe in the latin sense of Malum en se and Malum prohibitum.
The first, is something that is wrong, in and of itself. Such as adultery, or theft.
The second is something that is wrong because it has been legislated such as parking in a handicap spot without the proper placard on your car.
True, merely being a family of a man, woman and child is no guarantee of success as a family unit. It requires work, commitment, morality, patience and love among other things. It's kind of like baking a cake. If you don't start with the right ingredients (man and woman) you have no chance of success. But merely having the right ingredients is no guarantee of success.
My friends, did you know that heterosexual fornication, heterosexual adultery, heterosexual rape, heterosexual domestic violence, heterosexual child abuse, heterosexual divorce, heterosexual murder, and all other heterosexual threats to the family are 100 percent caused by homosexuals? Likewise, shotgun weddings, Las Vegas elopements, Britney Spears weddings, and all other perversions of holy matrimony are entirely the fault of the homosexual conspiracy! There hasn't been a greater threat to the "traditional family" since Demon Rum! But Prohibition failed to "save the family," so now prohibiting gays and lesbians from getting married is "the last great battle in the Culture War!"
Traditional prejudices must be respected!
I guess you're ready for the Kook-aid.
I understand what you say here, its a well constructed arguement but I believe slightly flawed. To use your "baking analagy" It is better to back a cake with good duck eggs than rotten chicken eggs. Although the cake made with duck eggs may not be entirely to your taste, it is still a cake none the less. What I am saying is that a Homosexual couple raising children is (imo) less desirable than a heterosexual couple but it is not inherintly bad, and (again imo) better than a solo person raising a child (which again is not "Bad" just not as good) Having said that I tend to agree with alot of what you say, there is no gaurantee of success even with the best circumstances.
In my neighborhood where I live, we have four same-sex families. Two of the same-sex families have children, which are normal as any American family. The other two couples do not have children and do not want children. What important is that the four families have equal protection under the law. When my husband was killed17 years ago I did not loose my home, my daughters were able to grow up in the neighborhood attend school with their friends. I feel very strongly that if one of the same sex-couples were to loose their partner they could not keep their home, because of unequal protection under the present law.
One of the couples have been together for 17 years another for 15 years. I think people who have not been exposed to same-sex couples have the wrong idea. They are just like the other families in the neighborhood. We have great neighborhood and want to keep it that way. Please do not use your religious beliefs hurt other loving families.