Why can't staight individuals share the benefits of a civil-union?

[He_Man]

This is one thing I have never understood from those who support civil-unions for same-sex couples.

From a financial perspective, why can’t two straight individuals have a civil union with the benefits advocated by those in fair of CUs, at least until they want to marry for real?

For instance, it came up a lot in college about straight guys wanting to get civil uniions to afford them greater benefits under the law.

Is there a litmus test for this, that is, what is to prevent this? It seems like a no brainer if you supports CUs to begin with, financially.

 

[puzzleannie]

This is one thing I have never understood from those who support civil-unions for same-sex couples.

From a financial perspective, why can’t two straight individuals have a civil union with the benefits advocated by those in fair of CUs, at least until they want to marry for real?
.

why can’t two adults who are not married, or have no relationship, establish a household and share benefits (and for two adults who are both working, these are actually liabilities, not benefits, when it comes to taxes) of doing so? Because the laws that govern taxes, insurance policies, leases, housing contracts and every other aspect of this arrangement prohibit it. Why can’t my adult son live with us, and be listed as a dependent on my tax return, and be covered by my health care policy? Because he can, the laws and contracts prohibit it.

Why should this class of persons enjoy something that is prohibited to everyone else except married couples? there is no reason to do so. Any financial aspect can be covered with estate planning, powers of attorney, joint accounts and the like, and there is no need for a “fake civil marriage” in order to enjoy those benefits. There is no compelling social good that would be served by putting this particular relationship into the civil code.

 

[mercygate]

why can’t two adults who are not married, or have no relationship, establish a household and share benefits (and for two adults who are both working, these are actually liabilities, not benefits, when it comes to taxes) of doing so? Because the laws that govern taxes, insurance policies, leases, housing contracts and every other aspect of this arrangement prohibit it. Why can’t my adult son live with us, and be listed as a dependent on my tax return, and be covered by my health care policy? Because he can, the laws and contracts prohibit it.

Why should this class of persons enjoy something that is prohibited to everyone else except married couples? there is no reason to do so. Any financial aspect can be covered with estate planning, powers of attorney, joint accounts and the like, and there is no need for a “fake civil marriage” in order to enjoy those benefits. There is no compelling social good that would be served by putting this particular relationship into the civil code.

Don’t many states recognize this de facto under the designation of “common law”?

 

[He_Man]

why can’t two adults who are not married, or have no relationship, establish a household and share benefits (and for two adults who are both working, these are actually liabilities, not benefits, when it comes to taxes) of doing so? Because the laws that govern taxes, insurance policies, leases, housing contracts and every other aspect of this arrangement prohibit it. Why can’t my adult son live with us, and be listed as a dependent on my tax return, and be covered by my health care policy? Because he can, the laws and contracts prohibit it.

Why should this class of persons enjoy something that is prohibited to everyone else except married couples? there is no reason to do so. Any financial aspect can be covered with estate planning, powers of attorney, joint accounts and the like, and there is no need for a “fake civil marriage” in order to enjoy those benefits. There is no compelling social good that would be served by putting this particular relationship into the civil code.

I am not advocating it, I don’t of CUs or gay marriage.

I am pointing out that there is nothing stopping me and a buddy from getting a civil union in states that allow it. THAT’S the problem.

Unless there is a test for love or fornication, there is nothing the law can do to prevent it.

Unless the law states “you must be gay”, in which case, good luck disproving they’re not. That’s the next hurdle for CUs.

What’s to stop this? Nothing, really, unless I am missing something.

 

[puzzleannie]

Don’t many states recognize this de facto under the designation of “common law”?

the states that recognize this, and the number of shrinking do so for the same reasons they recognize marriage, as between one man and one woman, to insure stable relationships are formed to protect and support children, a point that is moot in so called “civil unions” unless the parties then go out and bend natural law again to aquire a child. Common law states do not recognize this status for same sex couples.

I would like OP to list what he considers “benefits” if civil unions which cannot be procured by any other financial and contract arrangements. Do any of these prospective “couples” have a clue that they will be subject to the marriage tax if their plea is granted, and in effect pay taxes twice on the same income, and pay taxes at a higher rate than they would if they remain single?

 

[He_Man]

the states that recognize this, and the number of shrinking do so for the same reasons they recognize marriage, as between one man and one woman, to insure stable relationships are formed to protect and support children, a point that is moot in so called “civil unions” unless the parties then go out and bend natural law again to aquire a child. Common law states do not recognize this status for same sex couples.

I would like OP to list what he considers “benefits” if civil unions which cannot be procured by any other financial and contract arrangements. Do any of these prospective “couples” have a clue that they will be subject to the marriage tax if their plea is granted, and in effect pay taxes twice on the same income, and pay taxes at a higher rate than they would if they remain single?

My question is not to the logic of it; I think it is a stupid idea. I am marrying a woman, as I am a man.

My question is what is to stop it from occurring for those who want to? Clearly, there are some benefits; gay couples aren’t simply fighting for the heck of it.

Plus, why would the marriage tax apply? They are not married, according to the law. They are in union…

 

[mercygate]

the states that recognize this, and the number of shrinking do so for the same reasons they recognize marriage, as between one man and one woman, to insure stable relationships are formed to protect and support children, a point that is moot in so called “civil unions” unless the parties then go out and bend natural law again to aquire a child. Common law states do not recognize this status for same sex couples.

I would like OP to list what he considers “benefits” if civil unions which cannot be procured by any other financial and contract arrangements. Do any of these prospective “couples” have a clue that they will be subject to the marriage tax if their plea is granted, and in effect pay taxes twice on the same income, and pay taxes at a higher rate than they would if they remain single?

I actually deleted my post to which you are responding when I belatedly figured out the OP meant straight SAME-SEX CUs.

 

[mangy_dog]

This is one thing I have never understood from those who support civil-unions for same-sex couples.

From a financial perspective, why can’t two straight individuals have a civil union with the benefits advocated by those in fair of CUs, at least until they want to marry for real?

For instance, it came up a lot in college about straight guys wanting to get civil uniions to afford them greater benefits under the law.

Is there a litmus test for this, that is, what is to prevent this? It seems like a no brainer if you supports CUs to begin with, financially.

The newest trick the devil is currently perpetrating on us is that “we have plenty of time”…

 

[iamrefreshed]

They are not married, according to the law. They are in union…

Married couples pay no federal income tax on the first $500,000 profit of a home sale. Singles are limited to the first $250,000

That’s one off the top of my head.

 

[He_Man]

Married couples pay no federal income tax on the first $500,000 profit of a home sale. Singles are limited to the first $250,000

That’s one off the top of my head.

Good to know.

Which goes back to my original point, what is going to stop two straight, same-sex men (or women) from have civil unions for the benefits?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, this opens up several possibilities. Why not polygamy? If two people of the same sex can marry, why not half-a-dozen of assorted sexes?

Why can’t parents “marry” their grandchildren – thus passing on their estates to their “surviving spouses” and avoiding the Death Tax?

 

[AgnosTheist]

^hey that works for muslim countries!

its all about culture.

 

[He_Man]

^hey that works for muslim countries!

its all about culture.

People in this country have been counter cultural for centures; that’s how the pro-gay movement began.

Legally, I don’t see anything stopping unmarried straight people from jumping on the benefits of CUs. It makes sense, legally.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I recall a Sunday morning TV talk show some years back when Barney Frank (the gay congressman from Massachusetts) was discussing gay marriage. The interviewer asked him if a gay marriage law wouldn’t also allow polygamy.

He said, “No. That would be un-natural!”

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…

I know of no restriction on “civil unions/domestic partnerships” between ANY two individuals!

I could be completely wrong, of course. And I imagine that it might vary depending on locality.

But why would a same-sex-heterosexual “union/partnership” be different than a same-sex-“homosexual” one as far as the law is concerned?

To deny these benefits to same-sex-heterosexual “couples” would SEEM to violate the very PRINCIPLE of allowing such “unions” regardless of “sexual preference”!

If you’re blind, that doesn’t mean that you can only see BAD art!

 

[He_Man]

I know of no restriction on “civil unions/domestic partnerships” between ANY two individuals!

I could be completely wrong, of course. And I imagine that it might vary depending on locality.

But why would a same-sex-heterosexual “union/partnership” be different than a same-sex-“homosexual” one as far as the law is concerned?

To deny these benefits to same-sex-heterosexual “couples” would SEEM to violate the very PRINCIPLE of allowing such “unions” regardless of “sexual preference”!

If you’re blind, that doesn’t mean that you can only see BAD art!

I agree; however, I see fits from the government and various groups as straight same sex couples begin to unionize (coupley stuff, not AFLCIO stuff) in order to milk the system for benefits.

And I eagerly await the mayhem…

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I agree; however, I see fits from the government and various groups as straight same sex couples begin to unionize (coupley stuff, not AFLCIO stuff) in order to milk the system for benefits.

And I eagerly await the mayhem…

I had to laugh so as to spill my coffee when I got to the “mayhem” part!

Very good. Hey, they created it! They get to deal with their fnerking around with nature, eh?

Yet again, chasing votes by pandering to noisy special interest groups regardless of their “perversity” produces no end of cascading chaos! S-N—A-F-U without God.

 

[TMC]

This is one thing I have never understood from those who support civil-unions for same-sex couples.

From a financial perspective, why can’t two straight individuals have a civil union with the benefits advocated by those in fair of CUs, at least until they want to marry for real?

For instance, it came up a lot in college about straight guys wanting to get civil uniions to afford them greater benefits under the law.

Is there a litmus test for this, that is, what is to prevent this? It seems like a no brainer if you supports CUs to begin with, financially.

If same sex CUs were established they could, of course. The same is true of marriage today. There are a few ‘couples’ that get civilly married for the tax benefits or whatever, but it is not a giant problem. There are a few reasons for this. A big one is divorce law. Once you are married that other person has certain claims on your finances and resources. When you end the faux-marriage bad things can happen. All of a sudden that tax break doesn’t look so good when your rommate demands half the equity in the house and your car. Or when you want to really get married and he wants something to make the divorce go smoothly and be over in time for the real marriage. The same would be true for civil unions. There is no reason to think it would be a bigger problem for civil unions than it is today for marriage.

 

[Newbie2]

This is a good OP.

Seems like could several types of so-called “civil unions”.

I’ve often wondered what would prevent two guys or two women engaging in a “civil union” for the purposes of obtaining health insurance, taxes, etc. if gay civil unions were legally accepted, even if they were not gay. Sort of breaks down the whole system, i.e. making “union” a sham, doesn’t it?

As well, it could get really complicated; a man who claimed to be a lesbian living in a man’s body could get a civil union with a woman, and not be married…live together with the civil/legal benefits, then claim she found out she was really a man living in a woman’s body and use that as grounds for dissolving the union.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree that anyone could do this. I do not see, either, why “civil unions” could not be contracted between persons of the opposite sex. How could they limit it to homosexuals? Another peculiar thing to think about is whether consanguinity laws against marriage could be justified. While there would be genetic reasons against a man marrying his sister, there would be none against his “marrying” his brother. Once you start down the “unnatural” road, there is just no end to the bizarre consequences.

I don’t know about the “civil union” laws, or what all they entail in detail. Nor do I know about the laws of all states, but in my state, anyway, there are some VERY big negatives to marriage, though there are also benefits. The main negative (other than divorce) is the liability of one spouse for the “necessities” of the other. Your wife incurs a $500,000 medical bill and you are equally liable for it, whether you signed up for it or not. This is particularly problematic when it comes to long term care and Medicaid coverage for it. You have to “split” your assets with the spouse needing care. The spouse’s assets have to be “spent down” to near zero, and you still have only a limited exemption ($90,000 the last I knew, excepting the home and your automobile) and spend down your own assets to that as well. You also have only a limited income exemption, the rest having to go to support your disabled spouse. I have seen people divorce their spouses for that reason alone, though most just accept the “wipeout” as part of life’s hardships. Not to be cynical or anything, but I have some difficulty seeing these “civil unions”, particularly bogus ones contracted to get marriage benefits, sticking that out.