If this was the civil law, I think they would. And larger companies that self insure could certainly get this in their policies. Many companies recognized couples living together for insurance purposes (homosexual or straight) long before there was any civil recognition.Yes that seems reasonable and fair. I wonder if it would really fly though. I doubt if the insurance companies would be for this.
Absolutely. My company has been giving unmarried couples insurance benefits for at least 30 years. But insurance is getting more and more expensive, with less and less benefits.If this was the civil law, I think they would. And larger companies that self insure could certainly get this in their policies. Many companies recognized couples living together for insurance purposes (homosexual or straight) long before there was any civil recognition.
I partially disagree with what you are saying. As to insurance benefits and coverage yes, you are absolutely right. However, as to inheritance, medical protections and financial benefits it is not correct. It doesn’t coat a gazillion dollars. Most attorneys in Massachusetts charge for a full estate planning between $1,500.00 and $2,000.00, and MA tends to be on the expensive side in the US. With a full estate planning you can get every medical, inheritance and financial issue resolved. That notion that marriage is going to resolve medical issues and inheritance and financial issues is incorrect because even a married heterosexual couples can run into the same medical issues that same sex couples do and even into the same inheritance issues. In fact it is more common to have heterosexual marriages to run into this issues because they incorrectly assume everything is fixed by the marriage and they don’t do estate planning and when something happens they run into several issues and have to hire a lawyer which then at that state because there is a mess they do have to spent a million dollars (maybe here is where the misconceptation comes).That’s not true at all. They only offer it in the states where gay marriage is illegal. In states where it is legal, it is literally the only way to obtain the financial benefits, legal and medical protections, and inheritance rights that doesn’t cost a gazillion dollars.
I think you misunderstand her, she is saying to replace marriage with civil unions and if people want they can get their civil unions blessed by their religious group.Wow, In my opinion, that is asking for a bit too much. Marriage for friends with a blessing from the Catholic Church? yikes.
That’d have been Cardinal Levada.At least one Bishop addressed the SS civil partnership rule for employees in his state by allowing all employees to add one person to their health insurance. If the person had a partner (same or opposite sex) that could be their “one”. But they could also add a sibling or friend that needed insurance coverage or an elderly parent.
I’ve seen far more support within the hierarchy for than against it.I think the Church might be accepting of civil partnerships that followed the same model - a contractual arrangement to protect benefits and inheritance without any presumption that it is a “marriage” as long as it was open to other combination than just homosexuals in a partnered relationship.
Many don’t.Absolutely. My company has been giving unmarried couples insurance benefits for at least 30 years. But insurance is getting more and more expensive, with less and less benefits.
Getting legally married isn’t a complicated or lengthy process.That was my original point. People were getting better benefits without having to go through the rigamarole of getting married or civil unions.
It’s not mandatory.That’s one of the reasons I don’t think this mandatory marriage/civil union thing is going to be so beneficial to gay couples in the long run.
It’s not a silver bullet, but it makes many cases easier to deal with.I partially disagree with what you are saying. As to insurance benefits and coverage yes, you are absolutely right. However, as to inheritance, medical protections and financial benefits it is not correct. It doesn’t coat a gazillion dollars. Most attorneys in Massachusetts charge for a full estate planning between $1,500.00 and $2,000.00, and MA tends to be on the expensive side in the US. With a full estate planning you can get every medical, inheritance and financial issue resolved. That notion that marriage is going to resolve medical issues and inheritance and financial issues is incorrect because even a married heterosexual couples can run into the same medical issues that same sex couples do and even into the same inheritance issues. In fact it is more common to have heterosexual marriages to run into this issues because they incorrectly assume everything is fixed by the marriage and they don’t do estate planning and when something happens they run into several issues and have to hire a lawyer which then at that state because there is a mess they do have to spent a million dollars (maybe here is where the misconceptation comes).
Yes, this is what I thought she meant, too.I think you misunderstand her, she is saying to replace marriage with civil unions and if people want they can get their civil unions blessed by their religious group.
Wrong. My partner is a Federal employee, and they have changed the rules. Now everyone has to be married to get benefits.Not true. Most employers have given co-insurance to any form of “life partner” for years and years now. You most definitely do not have to be married to claim it.
Well, I have learned a lot from this thread. So it IS MANDATORY TO GET MARRIED to receive insurance benefits. Why does everyone keep contradicting this?Wrong. My partner is a Federal employee, and they have changed the rules. Now everyone has to be married to get benefits.
Ask a trusted and orthodox priest for guidance here but my suspicion is that no, it is not permissible. By getting civilly married in this way you would contributing to the general belief that marriage just is whatever the government says it is, rather than the correct belief that marriage arises spontaneously from human nature as the sexual union of man and woman toward the end of procreation. You would, in other words, be lying publicly to people about a matter of grave importance. So I would suggest you not do such a thing.Hi everyone. I’m looking for advice. I apologize if this is not the right place to post this. I am totally new here. I am an SSA woman who lives in a totally celibate relationship with another woman. We are older and there is no temptation.
My question is since we have no sexual intimacy at all, would it be wrong to get a civil marriage, or would it be like a straight couple living “as brother and sister” while they wait on annulments?
The invalidity of gay “marriages” is so manifest that no annulment would be required.Also, I am curious how the church is going to handle annulments of gay civil marriages. Would that need to be done just like in heterosexual marriages?
There is an interesting point of law surfacing about same sex “marriage” and state law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monica59 View Post
Also, I am curious how the church is going to handle annulments of gay civil marriages. Would that need to be done just like in heterosexual marriages?
Of course the Church does not recognize a same sex “marriage” civil or otherwise so the
Church’s “handling of annulments” is moot.
However, most states, including those that now recognize same sex “marriage” have laws that apply to civil annulments that include consummation as necessary for a valid marriage. It would seem to me that a same sex “marriage” would then be annulable from the beginning.
One of the objectives would be the fact that I would be paying half the cost for my health insurance, and also would be able to get half her monthly annuity from the postal service if she predeceases me.
That’s not the appropriate reason to get married.Wrong. My partner is a Federal employee, and they have changed the rules. Now everyone has to be married to get benefits.
You are correct. Now that the federal govt is recognizing same sex marriage; they are no longer recognizing domestic partnerships or civil unions. Everyone would have to be married.Well, I have learned a lot from this thread. So it IS MANDATORY TO GET MARRIED to receive insurance benefits. Why does everyone keep contradicting this?
FIrst they say it is NOT mandatory and then theys say it IS MANDATORY. What is the truth?
Gay couples will HAVE to get married if they want benefits. That means marriage is mandatory. Am I right or am I wrong?
Hah! Maybe so. Fascinating.There is an interesting point of law surfacing about same sex “marriage” and state law.
Of course the Church does not recognize a same sex “marriage” civil or otherwise so the
Church’s “handling of annulments” is moot.
However, most states, including those that now recognize same sex “marriage” have laws that apply to civil annulments that include consummation as necessary for a valid marriage. It would seem to me that a same sex “marriage” would then be annulable from the beginning.
There are a couple of things wrong with this. First of all, in the Catholic Church, the minister does not confer anything, including the sacrament. The couple are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage – the priest or deacon is the Church’s official witness.Being friends assumes mutual concern for the other’s well being and future.
A marriage is a contract between a man and woman. With the minister’s blessing, that is, a Minister whom Christ defined is his true minister, confers the second element which is Sacramental. This part gives the marriage it’s Sanctity, and is recorded in the celestial log.
In order to effect the Sacramental, the minister should be a priest. This is because Christ established the Catholic Church, not the protestant church, or any other church. The full fruits of the Sacraments can be found in the Church that Christ established.
Thank you! So homosexuals should stop hoping for civil unions to be the fix. Marriage will be mandatory very soon for cohabiting homosexuals to receive benefits throughout the United States.You are correct. Now that the federal govt is recognizing same sex marriage; they are no longer recognizing domestic partnerships or civil unions. Everyone would have to be married.
Well that certainly puts celibate LGBT couples between a rock and a hard place.You are correct. Now that the federal govt is recognizing same sex marriage; they are no longer recognizing domestic partnerships or civil unions. Everyone would have to be married.
why?Well that certainly puts celibate LGBT couples between a rock and a hard place.
Why would a celibate couple want to get married?why?
Not really. A lot depends on what state they live in.Thank you! So homosexuals should stop hoping for civil unions to be the fix. Marriage will be mandatory very soon for cohabiting homosexuals to receive benefits throughout the United States.
If they are federal employers their state doesn’t have anything to do with it. No marriage, no benefits.Not really. A lot depends on what state they live in.
This is crazy. So same-sex couples who were previously getting benefits are now cut off unless they get “married” even if SS"M" is not legal in their state?If they are federal employers their state doesn’t have anything to do with it. No marriage, no benefits.