|
|
|
Judge: Same-sex marriage amendment invalid
By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON
mmillhollon@theadvocate.com
A judge Tuesday tossed out the recently passed constitutional
amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages in Louisiana.
State District Judge William Morvant said the amendment violates the
state constitution because it addresses two issues -- same-sex
marriages and civil unions.
The constitution limits amendments to a single issue.
"The mere fact that the majority of the voters approved the amendment
doesn't cure the problems before this court," Morvant said.
Forum for Equality PAC, a New Orleans gay and lesbian rights group,
sued to invalidate the amendment. The group also tried to block the
vote on the amendment before the Sept. 18 election.
The state Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the pre-election
challenges. However, Chief Justice Pascal Calogero Jr. predicted a
post-election effort.
At the time of the appeals, Calogero wrote that the group's "most
serious argument" was that the amendment violates the prohibition
against presenting "more than one object in a single amendment."
The amendment passed with 78 percent of the vote, compared with 22
percent against it.
State law already bans same-sex marriages. The amendment added the
prohibition to the state constitution. It also banned civil unions.
Forum for Equality made it clear that it wasn't challenging the
state's right to ban same-sex marriages.
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, New Orleans lawyer Laurence Best,
testified Tuesday that he's concerned about the effect the amendment
would have on his legal arrangements with his long-term partner.
They have reciprocal wills, living wills, power of attorney agreements
and life insurance policies, he said.
Best also has three children with his former wife.
Under Louisiana law, Best said, the children would automatically
inherit everything if the amendment voided his agreements with his partner.
John Rawls, an attorney for Forum for Equality, argued the election
results should be thrown out because multiple issues were presented to voters.
Louisiana residents who opposed same-sex marriages also had to vote
against civil unions regardless of whether or not they wanted to ban
both, he said.
"What were they supposed to do on election day?" Rawls said.
Mike Johnson, attorney for Louisiana Family Forum, which supported the
amendment, argued that the single objective of the amendment was to
protect marriage.
That objective wouldn't be fulfilled without all four sentences of the
amendment, he said.
"If we're going to define marriage, we have to do it in one fell
swoop," Johnson said.
The judge said the case wasn't about the validity of same sex
marriages or civil unions.
"It's not about gay, lesbian or other rights," Morvant said. "It's
simply about compliance."
The amendment, he said, doesn't comply with the constitution.
By banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, the Legislature gave
voters an all or nothing choice, he said.
Johnson told the judge that he would appeal the ruling.
Copyright 1992-2004, 2theadvocate.com,
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
Judge: Same-sex marriage amendment invalid
By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON
mmillhollon@theadvocate.com
A judge Tuesday tossed out the recently passed constitutional
amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages in Louisiana.
A Constitutional Amendment passed by the voters is unconstitutional.
Astounding. The grounds being that the amendment addresses two variants of
the same social order. I suppose the 1st Amendment is unconstitutional as
well because it addresses speech, religion, and assembly. Hmmm ...
<snip>
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, New Orleans lawyer Laurence Best,
testified Tuesday that he's concerned about the effect the amendment
would have on his legal arrangements with his long-term partner.
They have reciprocal wills, living wills, power of attorney agreements
and life insurance policies, he said.
Best also has three children with his former wife.
Under Louisiana law, Best said, the children would automatically
inherit everything if the amendment voided his agreements with his
partner.
I suggest that this argument is a strawman.
I can write a will that gives all of my stuff to anybody I want it to go to,
even if I elect to not give my stuff to my wife and kids. Of course, this
would present legal challenges, but if it was done well those challenges
could be knocked aside. My wife and kids would undoubtedly be pissed, but
there is no legal reason I could not write my will to exclude them. People
write wills and create living trusts all of the time where the beneficiary
is a third party and family members are excluded.
This constitutional amendment should not affect the ability of a person to
writer a will or create a trust that names a third party to the be the
beneficiary of one's estate.
|
| |
| |
Another Proud example of the Louisiana Legislature's ability to write
nonsense laws.
Out of all the states legislators no noticed this HUGE loophole of
unconstitutionality????? Hard to believe unless you live here.
Any state that elects a governor that publicly admits they don't
have a clue, or plan on how to handle state issues other than to form
comities, deserves the clueless representation they elect!
Zippo Hero
http://hometown.aol.com/rawcatslyentist/myhomepage/Seven_Dead_Monkeys/7dm.html
"Consistently altering one's course with the breeze might come in
handy for Popeye, Captain Crunch or a well-mannered dog with terminal
flatulence, however it's not a pattern of behavior leading to great
respect either at home or abroad." --Ron Marr
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Constitutional Amendment passed by the voters is unconstitutional.
Astounding. The grounds being that the amendment addresses two
variants of the same social order. I suppose the 1st Amendment is
unconstitutional as well because it addresses speech, religion, and
assembly. Hmmm ...
Umm... Don't look now Jeff, but the discussion is about a STATE
constitution, not the federal constitution. Each state defines and enforces
it's own set of rules about how a state constitutional amendment is
introduced, and enacted.
<snip>
I suggest that this argument is a strawman.
I can write a will that gives all of my stuff to anybody I want it to
go to, even if I elect to not give my stuff to my wife and kids.
However, your Will can be contested, and probably overturned by your wife
and kids.
--
Brigham Young on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so."
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
A Constitutional Amendment passed by the voters is unconstitutional.
Astounding. The grounds being that the amendment addresses two variants of
the same social order. I suppose the 1st Amendment is unconstitutional as
well because it addresses speech, religion, and assembly. Hmmm ...
Well strickland, once again you persist in your perverted mind twists.
The LA constitution says one issue - one amendment. evidently the
state legislators wanted to appeal to a certain segment of the
electorate and allowed it to fail on procedural grounds. it is called
walking on both sides of the street at the same time. Let's see what
happens in the next legislature session
partner.
I suggest that this argument is a strawman.
Just like all of yours
This constitutional amendment should not affect the ability of a person to
writer a will or create a trust that names a third party to the be the
beneficiary of one's estate.
And you are a constitutional lawyer licensed in Louisiana, and expert
in wills and trusts in Louisiana state practise?
Of course you are not --= so take your foot out of your mouth before
you choke on it
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, LeMod Pol wrote:
Jeff Strickland wrote:
<Strickland's usual bigoted, pignorant, phony-christian blather>
take your foot out of your mouth before you choke on it
Better yet, leave it in.
|
| |
| |
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, LeMod Pol wrote:
<Strickland's usual bigoted, pignorant, phony-christian blather>
Better yet, leave it in.
LOL
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Umm... Don't look now Jeff, but the discussion is about a STATE
constitution, not the federal constitution. Each state defines and
enforces
it's own set of rules about how a state constitutional amendment is
introduced, and enacted.
I understand that, but when 78% of voters pass a Constitutional Amendment,
the rules of that amendment become the Constitution, and by default can not
be unconstitutional.
Oh, I get it. I brought up the 1st Amendment and the multiple points it
addresses, and this state is restricted to having its amendments address a
single issue.
<snip>
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, New Orleans lawyer Laurence Best,
testified Tuesday that he's concerned about the effect the amendment
would have on his legal arrangements with his long-term partner.
They have reciprocal wills, living wills, power of attorney
agreements and life insurance policies, he said.
Best also has three children with his former wife.
Under Louisiana law, Best said, the children would automatically
inherit everything if the amendment voided his agreements with his
partner.
I suggest that this argument is a strawman.
I can write a will that gives all of my stuff to anybody I want it to
go to, even if I elect to not give my stuff to my wife and kids.
However, your Will can be contested, and probably overturned by your wife
and kids.
Not if it is done well. Yes, it can always be contested, but the ability to
overturn it depends on the quality of the will.
My point is not that I could name my neighbor's wife to my stuff, but that
two men could name each other to their stuff, likewise two women. So, if two
people properly establish a will and or a trust that names the other as the
survivor and beneficiary, the affect of "marriage" would automatically be
taken care of. The presumption is that two men or two women would not have a
spouse waiting in the wings to contest a will, and even if they were hanging
out there, the divorce would shoot down most of the arguments they could
raise. The context here is life partners that are of the same sex sharing in
property distributions upon the death of one or the other, in this instance
there would not be many people that could contest the will or trust. And, if
there were people that could contest the will or trust, the people setting
the will or trust up did not do it very well because all other parties
should have signed off on the arrangement already. The point is, the
government doesn't care who you name in your will or trust, so the sharing
of property does not depend upon marriage.
|
| |
| |
This constitutional amendment should not affect the ability of a person
to
writer a will or create a trust that names a third party to the be the
beneficiary of one's estate.
And you are a constitutional lawyer licensed in Louisiana, and expert
in wills and trusts in Louisiana state practise?
Of course you are not --= so take your foot out of your mouth before
you choke on it
You're right, I am not a lawyer in LA. But I can't imagine a state where a
person can't write a will or establish a trust that names another person,
related or otherwise, to receive his property when he dies. If you know that
LA does not allow people to write a will or establish a trust, please share
that with us.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:17:30 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Constitutional Amendment passed by the voters is unconstitutional.
You cannot pass a constitutional amendment that is deemed
"unconstitutional" by the USSC.
------------------------------------------------------------
<fileofthedead@earthlink.net>
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 08:29:30 GMT
"FUCKING ME.
Because I'm never, ever gonna feel right again
because every time I turn around, I got some
lying @$#* like Hanson or Erb playing me,
robbing me, @$#*ing me around somehow some way.
I just wish I could find some @$#*ing way to
get myself killed so at least my wife gets
the insurance money and I don't have
deal with lying @$#*s like Zepp
every ninety @$#*ing days,
in the workplace, robbing my house,
whining and whipping up more lies
to get money out of me."
"Fuck. I can't take another twenty years of this bull#@($."
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:55:00 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
enforces
I understand that, but when 78% of voters pass a Constitutional Amendment,
the rules of that amendment become the Constitution, and by default can
not be unconstitutional.
Oh, I get it. I brought up the 1st Amendment and the multiple points it
addresses, and this state is restricted to having its amendments address a
single issue.
<snip>
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, New Orleans lawyer Laurence Best,
testified Tuesday that he's concerned about the effect the amendment
would have on his legal arrangements with his long-term partner.
They have reciprocal wills, living wills, power of attorney
agreements and life insurance policies, he said.
Best also has three children with his former wife.
Under Louisiana law, Best said, the children would automatically
inherit everything if the amendment voided his agreements with his
partner.
I suggest that this argument is a strawman.
I can write a will that gives all of my stuff to anybody I want it to
go to, even if I elect to not give my stuff to my wife and kids.
Not if it is done well. Yes, it can always be contested, but the ability
to overturn it depends on the quality of the will.
My point is not that I could name my neighbor's wife to my stuff, but that
two men could name each other to their stuff, likewise two women. So, if
two people properly establish a will and or a trust that names the other
as the survivor and beneficiary, the affect of "marriage" would
automatically be taken care of. The presumption is that two men or two
women would not have a spouse waiting in the wings to contest a will, and
even if they were hanging out there, the divorce would shoot down most of
the arguments they could raise. The context here is life partners that are
of the same sex sharing in property distributions upon the death of one or
the other, in this instance there would not be many people that could
contest the will or trust. And, if there were people that could contest
the will or trust, the people setting the will or trust up did not do it
very well because all other parties should have signed off on the
arrangement already. The point is, the government doesn't care who you
name in your will or trust, so the sharing of property does not depend
upon marriage.
That still doesn't resolve two much more pressing needs, the right of
partners to make life & death decisions when their partner is incapaciated
and legal/insurance rights.
Personally, I could care less about the religious aspect. Let the
churches have thier rituals. But when marriage is used to discriminate
against gays it violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution
and that cannot be tolerated.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:55:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I understand that, but when 78% of voters pass a Constitutional Amendment,
the rules of that amendment become the Constitution, and by default can not
be unconstitutional.
So, Jeffyloon
You're saying that if "78%" of Voters" pass an amemdment legalizing
slavery, that it MUST become law?
Go ahead, make me laugh.
------------------------------------------------------------
<fileofthedead@earthlink.net>
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 08:29:30 GMT
"FUCKING ME.
Because I'm never, ever gonna feel right again
because every time I turn around, I got some
lying @$#* like Hanson or Erb playing me,
robbing me, @$#*ing me around somehow some way.
I just wish I could find some @$#*ing way to
get myself killed so at least my wife gets
the insurance money and I don't have
deal with lying @$#*s like Zepp
every ninety @$#*ing days,
in the workplace, robbing my house,
whining and whipping up more lies
to get money out of me."
"Fuck. I can't take another twenty years of this bull#@($."
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I understand that, but when 78% of voters pass a Constitutional
Amendment, the rules of that amendment become the Constitution, and
by default can not be unconstitutional.
Oh, I get it. I brought up the 1st Amendment and the multiple points
it addresses, and this state is restricted to having its amendments
address a single issue.
<snip>
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, New Orleans lawyer Laurence
Best, testified Tuesday that he's concerned about the effect the
amendment would have on his legal arrangements with his long-term
partner.
They have reciprocal wills, living wills, power of attorney
agreements and life insurance policies, he said.
Best also has three children with his former wife.
Under Louisiana law, Best said, the children would automatically
inherit everything if the amendment voided his agreements with his
partner.
I suggest that this argument is a strawman.
I can write a will that gives all of my stuff to anybody I want it
to go to, even if I elect to not give my stuff to my wife and kids.
Not if it is done well.
Nope, a will can be contested under those circumstances by a legal spouse
and your children. It happens on a daily basis.
Yes, it can always be contested, but the
ability to overturn it depends on the quality of the will.
It depends on many things, the main determinant for a judge will be the
soundness of your mind at the time of the writing of the will, and the
welfare of your children.
My point is not that I could name my neighbor's wife to my stuff, but
that two men could name each other to their stuff, likewise two
women.
But these wills are, and have been, easily contested by blood relatives.
which is the point.
So, if two people properly establish a will and or a trust
that names the other as the survivor and beneficiary, the affect of
"marriage" would automatically be taken care of. The presumption is
that two men or two women would not have a spouse waiting in the
wings to contest a will, and even if they were hanging out there, the
divorce would shoot down most of the arguments they could raise. The
context here is life partners that are of the same sex sharing in
property distributions upon the death of one or the other, in this
instance there would not be many people that could contest the will
or trust. And, if there were people that could contest the will or
trust, the people setting the will or trust up did not do it very
well because all other parties should have signed off on the
arrangement already. The point is, the government doesn't care who
you name in your will or trust, so the sharing of property does not
depend upon marriage.
The institute of marriage is, bar none, the strongest legal instrument that
exists.
--
Brigham Young on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so."
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I understand that, but when 78% of voters pass a Constitutional
Amendment, the rules of that amendment become the Constitution, and
by default can not be unconstitutional.
But it has to meet the current constitutional rules in order to become part
of the constitution, in order to be constitutional. It, as was correctly
decided by the judge, did not meet the basic constitutional criteria, no
matter how many people voted for it.
Oh, I get it. I brought up the 1st Amendment and the multiple points
it addresses, and this state is restricted to having its amendments
address a single issue.
Exactly.
--
Brigham Young on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so."
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
This constitutional amendment should not affect the ability of a
person to writer a will or create a trust that names a third party
to the be the beneficiary of one's estate.
You're right, I am not a lawyer in LA. But I can't imagine a state
where a person can't write a will or establish a trust that names
another person, related or otherwise, to receive his property when he
dies. If you know that LA does not allow people to write a will or
establish a trust, please share that with us.
Of course you can write a will or establish a trust in LA, however the
relative strengths of these documents, like any other state, depends on the
courts and established legal precedence. Not all wills are created or
treated equal by the courts. Although things are slowly changing, the
courts will still most often overturn a will in cases of gay partnerships,
or cohabitation if a blood relative contests the will. The contract of
marriage is still the strongest legal instrument that garauntees automatic
asset transfer in most cases.
--
Brigham Young on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so."
|
| |
| |
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
Not if it is done well. Yes, it can always be contested, but the ability
to overturn it depends on the quality of the will.
My point is not that I could name my neighbor's wife to my stuff, but
that
two men could name each other to their stuff, likewise two women. So, if
two people properly establish a will and or a trust that names the other
as the survivor and beneficiary, the affect of "marriage" would
automatically be taken care of. The presumption is that two men or two
women would not have a spouse waiting in the wings to contest a will,
and
even if they were hanging out there, the divorce would shoot down most
of
the arguments they could raise. The context here is life partners that
are
of the same sex sharing in property distributions upon the death of one
or
the other, in this instance there would not be many people that could
contest the will or trust. And, if there were people that could contest
the will or trust, the people setting the will or trust up did not do it
very well because all other parties should have signed off on the
arrangement already. The point is, the government doesn't care who you
name in your will or trust, so the sharing of property does not depend
upon marriage.
That still doesn't resolve two much more pressing needs, the right of
partners to make life & death decisions when their partner is incapaciated
and legal/insurance rights.
Personally, I could care less about the religious aspect. Let the
churches have thier rituals. But when marriage is used to discriminate
against gays it violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution
and that cannot be tolerated.
I guess I have no problem with society setting standards of morality. People
that live with the standards do one thing, peoiple that live outside the
standards do another. There are no other countries int he entire world,
except two in Europe - Denmark and Sweden if my memory serves me - that
allow gay marriage. And, there are two or three provinces in Canada that are
grappling with this issue right now.
When society is ready to accept a new moral standard, it will let its
government know, and then the rules can change.
If people want to live outside of the social norms, they should be sure they
have their affairs in order so the social standards do not trip them up
later. Gays can make the same life and death decisions for their mates, but
they have to plan ahead for that eventuality because society is not ready
for them to marry. As a married man, I can make the decisions for my wife if
the time ever comes. As a single man, I could make the same decisions for my
mate if I planned ahead for the eventuality. If I chose to live outside of
the social norms, I would need to make the plans necessary for society to
let me make the decisions that society automatically grants married people.
I wouldn't want you guys to make these kinds of decisions for me, that is
why you can't, unless I make prior arrangements with one of you to decide
what is best for me.
Marriage only gives the right for a spouse to make decisions for the other
spouse, but gay partners can establish who should make decisions before
those decisions need to be made. If a gay couple is together for any length
of time, they should make the necessary arrangements and leave everybody
else alone. Take some personal responsibility for your decisions and stop
inflicting your deviant life style on society. Deviate all you want, that
isn't the issue. The issue is seeking social acceptance for something that
society is not ready to accept.
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course you can write a will or establish a trust in LA, however the
relative strengths of these documents, like any other state, depends on
the
courts and established legal precedence. Not all wills are created or
treated equal by the courts. Although things are slowly changing, the
courts will still most often overturn a will in cases of gay partnerships,
or cohabitation if a blood relative contests the will. The contract of
marriage is still the strongest legal instrument that garauntees automatic
asset transfer in most cases.
So, are you saying the courts would overturn, or allow the contest, of a
will or trust that named a life long girlfriend as the beneficiary of that
will or trust? For the sake of simplicity, I will treat a will and a trust
as being equivelent for the sake if this conversation, knowing full well
that a will and a trust are not the same. The topic is disputing a will
and/or a trust, since the dispute is essentially the same, discussion of one
should be the same as the other.
If I was living with a woman for, let's say 20 years, and I died, and left
her my house, boat, car, and jet, are you suggesting my brothers could
contest the will? That is absurd! It isn't absurd they could contest my
will, it is absurd they could prevail. If I was living with woman or another
rman for that length of time, the court would be very hard pressed to deny
the sitpulations in my will that gave my property to my partner.
Now, on the other hand, if I was married for 20 years, then divorced and
hooked up with another woman or a man, and then died in 6 months, the will
might be contested on the grounds that my stuff shouldn't be distributed to
the bar-fly that I was hooked up with and should instead be distributed to
my former wife. (Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that no kids are
involved.) That kind of contest happens all of the time, but it is the
aforementioned scenario is what we are talking about here, not the second
scenario.
The court can not distinguish between an unmarried partner that is male or
female, but it can distinguish time. Time is a critical factor here because
a long-time relation ship could reasonably be viewed by the court
differently than a relatively new relationship.
If unmarried same sex partners have the issues that are being raised here,
then unmarried different sex partners should also be having the very same
issues. If unmarried same sex partners are having the problems, but
unmarried different sex partners are NOT having them, then I am the very
first to agree that there is a problem that must be addressed.
But, the problem was raised here as being unique to same sex partners, and
barring specific evidence to the contrary, I do not believe it to be an
accurate assertion. And in cases where these kinds of problems do exist for
same sex couples, I'll bet there are other factors that if applied to
different sex couples would result in the same kinds of problems. So, again
the same sex quality of the unmarried relationship isn't the issue.
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, are you saying the courts would overturn, or allow the contest,
of a will or trust that named a life long girlfriend as the
beneficiary of that will or trust?
In many cases, yes, if a blood relative contested the trust or will.
For the sake of simplicity, I will
treat a will and a trust as being equivelent for the sake if this
conversation, knowing full well that a will and a trust are not the
same. The topic is disputing a will and/or a trust, since the dispute
is essentially the same, discussion of one should be the same as the
other.
If I was living with a woman for, let's say 20 years, and I died, and
left her my house, boat, car, and jet, are you suggesting my brothers
could contest the will?
Yes, although their chances of success would be less than if you had been
living with a man.
That is absurd! It isn't absurd they could
contest my will, it is absurd they could prevail. If I was living
with woman or another rman for that length of time, the court would
be very hard pressed to deny the sitpulations in my will that gave my
property to my partner.
Not at all, and historically haven't. Particularly in the case of gay
partnerships.
Now, on the other hand, if I was married for 20 years, then divorced
and hooked up with another woman or a man, and then died in 6 months,
the will might be contested on the grounds that my stuff shouldn't be
distributed to the bar-fly that I was hooked up with and should
instead be distributed to my former wife. (Let's assume for the sake
of simplicity that no kids are involved.) That kind of contest
happens all of the time, but it is the aforementioned scenario is
what we are talking about here, not the second scenario.
That's just it though, the courts haven't treated gay relationships with any
more respect than your relationship with your barfly, even if they had been
together for 20, even 30 years or better.
The court can not distinguish between an unmarried partner that is
male or female, but it can distinguish time. Time is a critical
factor here because a long-time relation ship could reasonably be
viewed by the court differently than a relatively new relationship.
If unmarried same sex partners have the issues that are being raised
here, then unmarried different sex partners should also be having the
very same issues. If unmarried same sex partners are having the
problems, but unmarried different sex partners are NOT having them,
then I am the very first to agree that there is a problem that must
be addressed.
But, the problem was raised here as being unique to same sex
partners, and barring specific evidence to the contrary, I do not
believe it to be an accurate assertion.
Believe what you want, I've seen it happen time and again. For one example,
I knew a lesbian couple, one was diagnosed with Leukemia, so she wrote a
will, got power of attorney, went through all of the legal hoops to ensure
that her partner would get her assets, and be able to make her medical
decisions, etc, only to have the mother of the dying woman have a judge
overturn all of it, take all of the assets, make all of the medical
decisions, and after the woman died, kick her mate of 28 years out of the
house to be sold and the money divided. The judge left her with no legal
options at all.
And in cases where these
kinds of problems do exist for same sex couples, I'll bet there are
other factors that if applied to different sex couples would result
in the same kinds of problems. So, again the same sex quality of the
unmarried relationship isn't the issue.
You are wearing blinders. This kind of crap has been happening to same sex
couples for a very long time. It is slowly changing, but it still happens
with regularity.
--
Brigham Young on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so."
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
You're right, I am not a lawyer in LA. But I can't imagine a state where a
person can't write a will or establish a trust that names another person,
related or otherwise, to receive his property when he dies.
Ohio. November 2, 2004. I'm voting for Issue 1. "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you." If the Reich wants done unto, then who am
I to disallow their self-persecution regarding powers of attorney,
adoption, health care, insurance, living wills, trusts, alimony, etc...?
(And, yes, I'm being utterly serious.)
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:40:30 -0700, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Jeff
Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
| I guess I have no problem with society setting standards of morality. People
| that live with the standards do one thing, peoiple that live outside the
| standards do another. There are no other countries int he entire world,
| except two in Europe - Denmark and Sweden if my memory serves me - that
| allow gay marriage. And, there are two or three provinces in Canada that are
| grappling with this issue right now.
|
| When society is ready to accept a new moral standard, it will let its
| government know, and then the rules can change.
"new moral standard", I say bring back the old moral standard.
http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set
in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept
and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to
heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical
documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital
blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were
ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union"
(10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th
and 12th century).
| If people want to live outside of the social norms, they should be sure they
| have their affairs in order so the social standards do not trip them up
| later.
You mean don't get caught having that extra-marital affair?
| Gays can make the same life and death decisions for their mates,
Bull#@($, wills/power of attorneys etc are easily overturned when
relatives contest such things.
| but
| they have to plan ahead for that eventuality because society is not ready
| for them to marry. As a married man, I can make the decisions for my wife if
| the time ever comes. As a single man, I could make the same decisions for my
| mate if I planned ahead for the eventuality.
Not if your mates' family steps in and counteracts your decisions.
| If I chose to live outside of
| the social norms, I would need to make the plans necessary for society to
| let me make the decisions that society automatically grants married people.
| I wouldn't want you guys to make these kinds of decisions for me, that is
| why you can't, unless I make prior arrangements with one of you to decide
| what is best for me.
|
| Marriage only gives the right for a spouse to make decisions for the other
| spouse, but gay partners can establish who should make decisions before
| those decisions need to be made. If a gay couple is together for any length
| of time, they should make the necessary arrangements and leave everybody
| else alone.
Those decisions, rights and responsibilities are easily overturned by
blood relatives.
| Take some personal responsibility for your decisions and stop
| inflicting your deviant life style on society. Deviate all you want, that
| isn't the issue. The issue is seeking social acceptance for something that
| society is not ready to accept.
What sex acts do you perform? Are you a deviant?
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:24:38 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote:
| Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
| > But, the problem was raised here as being unique to same sex
| > partners, and barring specific evidence to the contrary, I do not
| > believe it to be an accurate assertion.
|
| Believe what you want, I've seen it happen time and again. For one example,
| I knew a lesbian couple, one was diagnosed with Leukemia, so she wrote a
| will, got power of attorney, went through all of the legal hoops to ensure
| that her partner would get her assets, and be able to make her medical
| decisions, etc, only to have the mother of the dying woman have a judge
| overturn all of it, take all of the assets, make all of the medical
| decisions, and after the woman died, kick her mate of 28 years out of the
| house to be sold and the money divided. The judge left her with no legal
| options at all.
I wonder how much the legal fees etc cost where as a simple $25
marriage license could've pevented such hardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:40:30 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
Not if it is done well. Yes, it can always be contested, but the
ability to overturn it depends on the quality of the will.
My point is not that I could name my neighbor's wife to my stuff, but
that
two men could name each other to their stuff, likewise two women. So,
if two people properly establish a will and or a trust that names the
other as the survivor and beneficiary, the affect of "marriage" would
automatically be taken care of. The presumption is that two men or two
women would not have a spouse waiting in the wings to contest a will,
and
even if they were hanging out there, the divorce would shoot down most
of
the arguments they could raise. The context here is life partners that
are
of the same sex sharing in property distributions upon the death of
one
or
the other, in this instance there would not be many people that could
contest the will or trust. And, if there were people that could
contest the will or trust, the people setting the will or trust up did
not do it very well because all other parties should have signed off
on the arrangement already. The point is, the government doesn't care
who you name in your will or trust, so the sharing of property does
not depend upon marriage.
I guess I have no problem with society setting standards of morality.
People that live with the standards do one thing, peoiple that live
outside the standards do another. There are no other countries int he
entire world, except two in Europe - Denmark and Sweden if my memory
serves me - that allow gay marriage. And, there are two or three provinces
in Canada that are grappling with this issue right now.
Many hetros who haven't been exposed to alternate lifestyles might take
this in stride. If you were a homosexual though I suspect your outlook
would be significantly different.
Society may set 'standards of morality' but codifying them into law which
violates the equal rights provisions of the Constitution is, well,
unconstitutional.
When society is ready to accept a new moral standard, it will let its
government know, and then the rules can change.
Sorry, unequal treatment cannot wait any more than racism against blacks.
If people want to live outside of the social norms, they should be sure
they have their affairs in order so the social standards do not trip them
up later.
You speak as if homosexuals have a choice in the matter. Did you have a
choice when you decided to prefer the opposite sex? Genetic makeup cannot
be reason to deny basic human rights.
Gays can make the same life and death decisions for their mates,
but they have to plan ahead for that eventuality because society is not
ready for them to marry.
No, it doesn't work that way. Even here in California for instance my
lesbian cousin cannot overrule the family of her partner although they've
been together for 40 years.
As a married man, I can make the decisions for my
wife if the time ever comes. As a single man, I could make the same
decisions for my mate if I planned ahead for the eventuality.
Common-law marriage is accepted in most states, homosexual marriage isn't.
If I chose
to live outside of the social norms, I would need to make the plans
necessary for society to let me make the decisions that society
automatically grants married people. I wouldn't want you guys to make
these kinds of decisions for me, that is why you can't, unless I make
prior arrangements with one of you to decide what is best for me.
Why should _anyone_ be penalized for living their life their own way?
Marriage only gives the right for a spouse to make decisions for the other
spouse, but gay partners can establish who should make decisions before
those decisions need to be made. If a gay couple is together for any
length of time, they should make the necessary arrangements and leave
everybody else alone. Take some personal responsibility for your decisions
and stop inflicting your deviant life style on society. Deviate all you
want, that isn't the issue. The issue is seeking social acceptance for
something that society is not ready to accept.
That's the problem, it doesn't work that way. If partners had equal
rights to married hetrosexuals this wouldn't be an issue.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
Jeff North <jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:24:38 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote:
Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
But, the problem was raised here as being unique to same sex
partners, and barring specific evidence to the contrary, I do not
believe it to be an accurate assertion.
Believe what you want, I've seen it happen time and again. For one
example, I knew a lesbian couple, one was diagnosed with Leukemia,
so she wrote a will, got power of attorney, went through all of the
legal hoops to ensure that her partner would get her assets, and be
able to make her medical decisions, etc, only to have the mother of
the dying woman have a judge overturn all of it, take all of the
assets, make all of the medical decisions, and after the woman
died, kick her mate of 28 years out of the house to be sold and the
money divided. The judge left her with no legal options at all.
I wonder how much the legal fees etc cost where as a simple $25
marriage license could've pevented such hardship.
It was pretty exorbitant, comparatively, but I don't know how much.
--
Brigham Young on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so."
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:40:01 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote:
| Jeff North <jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au> wrote:
| > On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:24:38 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality
| > "Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES> wrote:
| >
| >>> Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| > [snip]
| >
| >>>> But, the problem was raised here as being unique to same sex
| >>>> partners, and barring specific evidence to the contrary, I do not
| >>>> believe it to be an accurate assertion.
| >>>
| >>> Believe what you want, I've seen it happen time and again. For one
| >>> example, I knew a lesbian couple, one was diagnosed with Leukemia,
| >>> so she wrote a will, got power of attorney, went through all of the
| >>> legal hoops to ensure that her partner would get her assets, and be
| >>> able to make her medical decisions, etc, only to have the mother of
| >>> the dying woman have a judge overturn all of it, take all of the
| >>> assets, make all of the medical decisions, and after the woman
| >>> died, kick her mate of 28 years out of the house to be sold and the
| >>> money divided. The judge left her with no legal options at all.
| >
| > I wonder how much the legal fees etc cost where as a simple $25
| > marriage license could've pevented such hardship.
|
| It was pretty exorbitant, comparatively, but I don't know how much.
Just re-read my post - my speel chucker missed everything :-)
Oh well, it was probably having a 'blonde moment' :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
enforces
I understand that, but when 78% of voters pass a Constitutional Amendment,
the rules of that amendment become the Constitution, and by default can not
be unconstitutional.
Because it was improperly drafted they have to start over. Is that
plain enough for you?
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
|
| |
| |
Jeff Strickland wrote:
This constitutional amendment should not affect the ability of a person
to
writer a will or create a trust that names a third party to the be the
beneficiary of one's estate.
You're right, I am not a lawyer in LA. But I can't imagine a state where a
person can't write a will or establish a trust that names another person,
related or otherwise, to receive his property when h | | |
