New Tactic In Fighting Marriage Initiatives

[didymus]

**
**

New Tactic In Fighting Marriage Initiatives

Opponents Cite Effects On Straight Couples

tinyurl.com/y33r5y
TUCSON – A pair of retirees keeping house in a concrete bungalow, with snapshots of their 30 grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the living room and an American flag out front, may not look like the face of gay America.
But this month Al Breznay, 79, and Maxine Piatt, 75, were pivotal in defeating an Arizona initiative that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman – the only one of 28 such state measures ever to fail.

. . .

The campaign against the Arizona measure, Proposition 107, avoided almost any mention of gay marriage, except in small liberal pockets of the state. Instead, the message was about the section of the measure that would have banned government agencies from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.
That apparently struck home in the state’s sizable senior-citizen enclaves, where many older couples do not marry because their retirement income would be affected. The initiative was defeated, 52 percent to 48 percent.
“It’s not a liberal-versus-conservative issue,” said Steve May, a former Republican state representative who is gay and who served as treasurer of the campaign against Proposition 107. "It’s about, ‘I don’t need to take away health care from Al and Maxine, this nice old couple in Tucson.’ "

So do we demand that Grandpa and Grandma quit living in sin, or change Medicaid and Social Security rules to get rid of the “marriage penalty”?

 

[Richardols]

Al Breznay, 79, and Maxine Piatt, 75,

So do we demand that Grandpa and Grandma quit living in sin?

There might a question about whether a 79 and a 75 year old are capable of “living in sin.”

 

[Corki]

I don’t really understand this opposition. Wouldn’t recognizing the “civil union” of cohabitating senior citizens just open the door for the government to extend the “marriage penalty” to them? It certainly would for any state benefits

 

[HoppityRedux]

I don’t really understand this opposition. Wouldn’t recognizing the “civil union” of cohabitating senior citizens just open the door for the government to extend the “marriage penalty” to them? It certainly would for any state benefits

It might do that. But I suspect the seniors think they are the best ones to make decisions about their personal lives and want as much latitude as possible. If the amendment passed, they might expect the anti-gay folks will try to prevent them from living the way they have chosen.

First they came for the gays, then they came for the seniors, then they came for the …

 

[manualman]

Hoppity, do you know what the initiative was? You make it sound like a referendum on establishing concentration camps. On the contrary, it was about legal recognition of marriage or some sort of secular equivalent to marriage for homosexual couples. It had nothing to do with banning any sort of behavior, either by gays or elderly cohabitators.

I also don’t get it. The senior couple wan’t to AVOID being classified as ‘married,’ so they can continue gaming the social safety net system. Why would they worry about the government NOT recognizing their ‘union.’ That’s what they want!?! Puzzling. Unless they are trying to have it both ways and be considered single for government benefit purposes and ‘united’ for purposes of power of attorney in health and financial matters. In which case, it is a hypocrisy.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Hoppity, do you know what the initiative was? You make it sound like a referendum on establishing concentration camps. On the contrary, it was about legal recognition of marriage or some sort of secular equivalent to marriage for homosexual couples. It had nothing to do with banning any sort of behavior, either by gays or elderly cohabitators.

I also don’t get it. The senior couple wan’t to AVOID being classified as ‘married,’ so they can continue gaming the social safety net system. Why would they worry about the government NOT recognizing their ‘union.’ That’s what they want!?! Puzzling. Unless they are trying to have it both ways and be considered single for government benefit purposes and ‘united’ for purposes of power of attorney in health and financial matters. In which case, it is a hypocrisy.

Yes, I know what the initiative proposed. Here’s what it said:

1. Only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage by the State of Arizona or its cities, towns, counties or districts.
2. The State of Arizona and its cities, towns, counties or districts shall not create or
recognize a legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to marriage.

That says nothing about homosexual couples.

The amendment could easily form a basis for laws and ordinances regulating housing, and who can share a house. It could also form the basis for relatives trying to overthrow the medical power of attorney one partner may give to another. It could form a basis for challenging wills. It could prevent municipalities from extending insurance coverage to unmarried partners even if the voters choose to do so.

Many folks just don’t trust the people behind such amendments to stop at the passage of the amendment. They think they are trying to eliminate the type of relationships they have, and they don’t choose to help them do it.

Perhaps they are hypocrites. If so, they are simply voting their own interests, and not the interests of the amendment backers. Voting for one’s best interest is hardly a rarity in American politics.

 

[manualman]

How would it undermine a will or legitimate power of attorney?

As far as I know, I can grant or cut-out anybody I want from my will. Same for power of attorney.

Sounds like some folks got snookered to me.

 

[HoppityRedux]

How would it undermine a will or legitimate power of attorney?

As far as I know, I can grant or cut-out anybody I want from my will. Same for power of attorney.

Sounds like some folks got snookered to me.

One can write a will or power of attorney any way a person chooses. However, both are subject to challenge in court. This amendment could make it harder to defend against such challenges.

Perhaps some did get snookered. That would include the folks who believed the amendment applied to only homosexual couples.

 

[manualman]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a court challenge would have to be based on the grantor being “of sound mind and body” no?

You basically have to prove that the grantor was insane, senile, demented, coerced, etc. That’s an awfully hard burden to meet if the goal is merely to cheat grandpa’s girlfriend out of her take in the will.

Which of us is being disingenuous here?

 

[HoppityRedux]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a court challenge would have to be based on the grantor being “of sound mind and body” no?

You basically have to prove that the grantor was insane, senile, demented, coerced, etc. That’s an awfully hard burden to meet if the goal is merely to cheat grandpa’s girlfriend out of her take in the will.

Which of us is being disingenuous here?

A court challenge can be based on anything. Soundness is a consideration. It’s one among many. Also considered is the relationship of the people. Common law marriage has been a consideration for hundreds of years. This amendment could form a basis for eliminating it as a consideration.

The seniors can easily make a case that they potentially had something to lose, but had nothing to gain from the amendment.