T
Teen4Christ
Guest
Why can’t gays get the same benefits that straight people do with marriage is a better question.
- Status
H
He_Man
Guest
That question is not relevant to the topic about the problems with the concept of civil unions. Please take it elswehere.
Do a search on here for “gay marriage” and you’ll find a plethora of topics highlighting the many problems with that silly notion.
T
TMC
Guest
I think the answer may be to give everyone civil unions and leave it to the churches to marry people. My understanding is that most civil union laws are identical to marriage in all but name. So why not just call what the State does union and what the Church does marriage?
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Another way of putting this, that’s kind of bizarre is, if two men want to use the ‘civil union’ benefits, are they required under law to commit some form of sodomy to ‘consummate’ it? 
D
Daddums
Guest
D
Daddums
Guest
Which Teen for Christ are you? Are you the young virgin who blushes at the mention of intimacy or the active homosexual one? I get them confused.
Daddums
P
puzzleannie
Guest
for the second time I am asking somebody to explain to me what delusion these people are under that they are getting some financial break by legal marriage, or the legal fiction of “civil unions”?
I just saw while scrolling through the movie listings one w/Adam Sandler where is a straight man who due to red tape cannot get custody of his son, but for some reason persuades a straight male friend to enter into a “civil union” in order to get custody of his own son. I am just going by the blurb in the tv listing, don’t even remember the name of the flic, but every bizarre scenario you can imagine from this perversion of marriage laws will a)become a movie script at some point and b)end up in court of law at some point. we already have “divorce” suits from “married” gay couples in MA who have acted out their fantasy and now want to take it to the next logical step. We have child custody cases involving lesbians who have become pregnant by men, or by artificial insemnation, where the biological father, or sperm donor, gets involved along with either of the women in the so-called “union”.
J
jc-servant
Guest
There are financial benefits that can be had from declaring a civil union whether or not a person approves of the idea of such unions. Depending on how a person protected their pre-existing assets (if any) and how much they trusted the other person, registering just for benefits could work.
My father was recently widowed and he was informed by the insurance company that he would now be charged the higher “single man” rate for insurance on the same vehicles. As if a senior citizen is going to go drag racing like a teenaged boy or something just because he lost his wife.
A person could gain access to health care through a “partner” who has benefits from an employer. The rate to add a spouse/partner to a company or government supported plan is usually less than buying a plan as an individual on the open market. If both people are lucky enough to have insurance plans through work, then they get the benefit of choosing which employer’s benefits to use. I can see that being of great benefit to someone who needs treatment or benefits not offered through their own employer.
Legal spouses/partners are permitted to own property in a different manner than non-married persons in many states. It does affect how that property transfers upon the death of one of the people.
There are more tax considerations affected by marriage/civil unions than merely the yearly income taxes which some people point out as being more favorable to singles. Inheritance laws and related taxes are affected by marriage/civil union also.
I personally think that civil unions are a “hot mess” waiting to happen, but I can see how it might be of benefit to someone to just register with a very trustworthy platonic friend under some circumstances.
My father was recently widowed and he was informed by the insurance company that he would now be charged the higher “single man” rate for insurance on the same vehicles. As if a senior citizen is going to go drag racing like a teenaged boy or something just because he lost his wife.
A person could gain access to health care through a “partner” who has benefits from an employer. The rate to add a spouse/partner to a company or government supported plan is usually less than buying a plan as an individual on the open market. If both people are lucky enough to have insurance plans through work, then they get the benefit of choosing which employer’s benefits to use. I can see that being of great benefit to someone who needs treatment or benefits not offered through their own employer.
Legal spouses/partners are permitted to own property in a different manner than non-married persons in many states. It does affect how that property transfers upon the death of one of the people.
There are more tax considerations affected by marriage/civil unions than merely the yearly income taxes which some people point out as being more favorable to singles. Inheritance laws and related taxes are affected by marriage/civil union also.
I personally think that civil unions are a “hot mess” waiting to happen, but I can see how it might be of benefit to someone to just register with a very trustworthy platonic friend under some circumstances.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Drumroll please!
Here’s the link everybody’s been waiting for…
theregister.co.uk/2005/08/08/canadian_blokes_get_hitched/
The scenario in the OP has actually happened! Sorry about the potential sketchiness of this e-newspaper’s reputation, but I assure you on my honour as a Canadian that it is true, these guys actually made national news here. Don’t know if they actually went through with it tho…
Here’s the link everybody’s been waiting for…
theregister.co.uk/2005/08/08/canadian_blokes_get_hitched/
The scenario in the OP has actually happened! Sorry about the potential sketchiness of this e-newspaper’s reputation, but I assure you on my honour as a Canadian that it is true, these guys actually made national news here. Don’t know if they actually went through with it tho…
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Seems to me you answered your own question? The benefits come in three classes a) government, b) contract, c) individual right? Now let’s go back wards
What can the individual benefits be (you said financial)? shared living expense - mortgage, auto, auto insurance, gas, electric, meals, etc, etc.
What can the contract benefits be (you said financial)? now this can be a little tricky because a contract does not require full discloser but relevant discloser however Auto insurance should work, some healthcare but not all, some mortgages* but not all
What can the government benefits be(you said financial)? I hope none. I know of none
Thus the crux of the argument, unless the government intervenes, death and disability benefits will probably not be available. Second many businesses have to follow the government lead either by direct legislation or indirect (tort law). If the government begins to recognize unions 1) how could they restrict that long term from marriage recognition? 2) What is the problem with that (#1) ?
Well the answer to #1 is they probably can’t, and the answer to #2 is the object of marriage laws were to benefit children not adults. When grandpa passes and grandma the great child raiser is alone she currently gets all the family assets tax free to include death benefits and retirements for grandpa, because she has no work related benefits as she raise the family. So her work benefited the children not her( remember we are talking finance)
Are there other possibilities? Yes some countries are switching the financing of children from Dad to State well this work? i do not know however if successful it will make big changes all across the board in regard to marriage laws. That may be a good thing as it would allow marriage to return to facet of Natural Moral Law. At that point Civil Unions may be legally equal, which may well be zero in financial matters ( concerning the government) as will be marriage. Our society would be based on an individual accounting system.
‘* contract law is very versatile for example if a mortgage company would only lend to a single legal party as an individual or a married couple, then one male partner could contract income to the second male in exchange for rental accommodations. And similarly a right to assume property at mortgage values plus half equity if the provider choose, or mortgage value alone of the provider died. This would allow the 2nd male to obtain the mortgage using two source income. And setup a divorce like settlement procedure. Additionally it has a death benefit procedure. This similar procedure is similar but not equal
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
An even cuter trick will be – once the gay marriage laws are passed – to marry your grandchildren and pass your estate to them without the Inheritance Tax, since they will qualify as “surviving spouses.”
- Status