Jump to Navigation

Gay Marriage is just fine, Prove me wrong

xrayspx's picture

A few years ago I wrote a rather ranty article about why, IMHO, gay marriage should be legalized.

One thing I never have gotten a satisfactory answer to is the question of why
this is such an issue for Republicans specifically, but many people of all
political stripes? To me, this is no different than racial or gender equality.
To me, it's not about "special rights", it's about equal rights for all Americans
under the law.

I'm pretty disinterested in biblical arguments, equally strong biblical arguments can
be made for:

  • The ownership of another human being
  • Subjugation of women and their treatment as property
  • The public murder of adulterers
  • The public murder of those who eat lobster, shrimp or scallops

Etc. etc. Leviticus...Leviticus... Leviticus is a Troll/Flamewar-inciter's best friend.

We'll never agree on the biblical arguments. What I'd like to know is: "How
would two men or women being married affect your life, day to day"?

I don't believe in civil union laws because they don't provide universal
survivorship rights. Besides, federalized Civil Unions will create the need
for Bigger Government. You'll have to have a bunch of people figuring who is
married, who is Civil Union'ed, etc, it would be more red-tape, we need less of
that.

One thing I almost never saw in the debate over Massachusetts' marriage law
reform was the fact of the intent behind the infamous "1918 law". The "1918
Law" was passed when Massachusetts permitted interracial marriage, but many
southern states didn't. Mass didn't have the infrastructure to deal with all
these out of state couples flooding in to get married, so they wrote a law
stating "If it's not legal in your state, you can't get married here".

Think about how really puts things in perspective. Hopefully 90 years from now
we won't care if two women marry just as (most people) don't care if a black man marries a white woman today.

Discuss?

xrayxps asks (in part)
"One thing I never have gotten a satisfactory answer to is the question of why
this is such an issue for Republicans specifically, but many people of all
political stripes?"
Gay marriage has found the most support in the Democratic Party it seems to me. The Republican Party has largely reduced itself to being the party in opposition to anything usually associated with the Democratic Party. In order to prosper, the Republican Party needs to find some leadership capable of an original thought.
As for gay marriage, it wouldn't affect my life unless a member of my immediate family announced their intention to marry someone of the same sex. An announcement such as that would require an adjustment on my part. Otherwise, I don't care because my father taught me to mind my own business!
oc

xrayspx's picture

If it's your kid, then clearly, bigtime "day to day impact" to be sure.

But eh, as far as I'm concerned, I'm just not getting the outrage here. I can completely understand the arguments behind other perceived right/left issues (abortion, deregulation of industry, etc), but this just always struck me as "civil rights" and not something to be voted over.

If we all woke up and found we were the same color and creed then we'd find another reason to be prejudice by noon. I think it's human nature and part of the selection process which keeps us safe within our cocoons. We tend to fear that which we don't know and many people just can't open their heads large enough to let everyone in.

I always thought the entire gay marriage issue with the government boiled down to Social Security. When one spouse dies another can claim their SS but gay couples don't have that benefit. I can't think of many other benefits that would make a difference between marriage and civil union. Can you?

My opinion is that if you believe in the Bible then you’re against gay marriages, if you don’t then you think it’s OK. So I guess there are more Republicans who believe in the Bible then Democrats.
I’m a registered Democrat and believe in the bible therefore I’m against gay marriages. I’m not a gay basher but think it’s wrong when two people of the same sex unite.
I'm also closer to 70 then 60 in age so that probably has something to do with it. I've noticed that the younger you are the more you beleive in a lot of hot issues.

It would be a boring world if we all thought alike now wouldn't it.

Well, now, I guess I hafta' add my two cents. I guess I am just sick of hearing about it all the time. I have always thought each to his own, and it doesn't bother me if they want to get married but I must admit, every time I see them kiss on tv, -----, guess it's just not my thing. I agree with you DF, I actually heard that they mostly DO want to do it for the financial part, all the benefits a spouses gets like insurance, inheritance tax, even making decisions for a sick partner in the hospital. But what I don't understand is why when they got the civil union, it wasn't good enough, they needed marriage.
Let's face it, the "normal" way of life is between a man and a woman to keep the human race going. I just think that most gays are born with different genes.
Having rambled on, I guess it doesn't affect my life much, so it really doesn't matter to me. I agree with what someone else said, these issues take way too much of the government time. Live and let live.

xrayspx's picture

It would definitely be boring if everyone thought alike, for sure. However, I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind. I'm just looking at it as an equal protection under the law issue.

There are lots and lots of people who are really uncomfortable about interracial marriage, that doesn't mean those people shouldn't be able to get married.

If slavery, women's suffrage, and segregation had been a matter of public referendum or handled state by state, we would be living in a vastly different country right now. Sometimes it takes a court to say "Here's the way things are going to be, live with it".

Hi Chris,
I notice you made your post at 11:40PM and I'm late tonight too, it is after midnight now. You're right that the courts have played a valuable role in sometimes shoving the country along in the direction of fairness. Over my lifetime I've seen changes in civil rights issues that I'd have bet were impossible when I was a kid. Now a black man is president and while he wasn't my first choice, he's doing a pretty fair job so far against a lot more adversity than most newly elected presidents have had to face. So, I expect change will continue, but, were I able to stick around another lifetime, I doubt I'd see mainstream society embrace homosexuality. Tis isn't alone, most people myself included, are squeamish when gays start kissing on television or in public. Their "cause" would progress faster if the rest of us weren't compelled to watch too!
oc

All of the things you mention like insurance, inheritance, etc. are already in place for a civil union and they are easily accomplished thru legal documents which you can have drawn up with any 1/2 wit lawyer. The only issue I see is the Social Security spousal and tax filing issues because those are regulated by a governmental employee and are not self directed. I've often thought the only reason the Republicans don't want to allow Gay Marriage is because it would expand the social security program. I think it's also a political issue because it allows people to discuss, define and defend their cultural beliefs. Anyone who knows a gay couple feels their love is just as valid as my love with my husband. The Bible was written thousands of years ago when people only lived to 30 but the Bibles teachings lean more heavily towards loving one another and fairness then with a marriage between a man and a women. It all boils down to personal choice and I'd certainly never choose to be a Republican but that doesn't make me a bad person - just an opinionated Democrat!

But then the court leaves it up to State Legislatures to decide what a "Hate Crime" is? There is a place for "Protected Classes" under the Constitution, but this one isn't it. Miss California knows what "Rainbow Power" is. :(

California spoke AGAINST gay "marriage" by democratic vote. Massachusetts hasn't decided by any democratic process AT ALL.

I saw three teen boys leaving a Burger King last week. The oldest boy, at about 16, was the driver. As they walked, they were all holding hands!

I don't know the age for marriage in that particular state, but should a judge allow the complete happiness of all three of these boys "In Marriage" or not?

Peace_through_Weakness

Maybe that's next, Peace! Marriage for more than two people! That would be fun! Maybe a harem?

xrayspx's picture

Prior to same sex marriage being legalized in VT, if a couple had a valid Civil Union in VT, they would have rights of inheritance and hospital visitation only as it relates to that state. For instance, federal income taxes were still to be filed as "single", if they got in a car crash in New Hampshire and one ended up in a New Hampshire hospital, that hospital would not recognize the validity of their civil union as sufficient for visitation.

There are many benefits to a federally recognized marriage, but those are a couple of really visible examples.

It's not hard to nail down marriage laws so you don't have a man marrying 3 other people (Polygamy can still be illegal for instance), or have people marrying their pets, which are a couple of the edge-cases I've heard come up about this topic, as well as the case of incestuous marriages, I don't see how they apply.

The best solution might be to have the government issue "civil union licenses" to any non-related couple and let the churches decide who they will "marry in the eyes of God".

I heard a good discussion on the topic on (gulp, I'm really gonna say it...)NPR's Fresh Air the other day just after I popped the topic up. I think that's the one I heard, there have been a couple with all the activity in NH and Maine this week.

I suppose it's largely a foregone conclusion now anyway, but I'm really interested in hearing the conservative viewpoint on this, and I don't wanna ask my father-in-law :-)

xrayspx's picture

I'm seriously torn on hate crime laws in general. Is a beatdown any less a beatdown if the victim is a straight white male being beaten by another straight white mail?

I think a lot of the rationale is similar to murder having degrees. Murder 1 for "I'm gonna kill that guy" premeditation, lesser degrees for crimes of passion, coming home and finding your husband in bed with another guy and slaughtering the both of 'em.

After seeing the misrepresentation of the Matthew Shepard case this past week, I'm inclined to say "yeah, we need hate crime laws" just punitively against this sort of thing. Actually, misrepresentation is the wrong word, I think I'm looking for "bullshit". Yeah, that's the one. For what it's worth, I believe his murderers stated that it was because he was gay that they did what they did, but hey, it's only Congress, maybe no one will notice :-)

I worked really hard to find a video of that that didn't have Keith Olberman within 500 yards. Eesh.

But they can nail down the laws to prevent things like marrying your pet, but they can be changed later on. I bet 100 years ago if you asked someone about same sex unions or marriages, they would have said it would never happen either.

Helping fuel the gay hate crime theory were statements made to police and the media by Kristen Price, McKinney's girlfriend. Price was charged with felony accessory after-the-fact to first-degree murder. She later pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor interference with police officers.

Price now says that at the time of the crime she thought things would go easier for McKinney if his violence were seen as a panic reaction to an unwanted gay sexual advance. But today, Price tells Vargas the initial statements she made were not true and tells Vargas that McKinney's motive was money and drugs. "I don't think it was a hate crime at all. I never did," she said.

Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of the lead investigators in the case, also believed robbery was the primary motive. "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide," he said. "If it wasn't Shepard, they would have found another easy target.

What it came down to really is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it," Fritzen said.

>
>

-Peace_through_Weakness

On the same day Hawaii's legislators are considering a same-sex civil union bill,

HONOLULU -- Hawaii's state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to celebrate "Islam Day"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/hawaii-lawmakers-pass-create-...

>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

I bet 100 years ago if you asked someone about same sex unions or marriages, they would have said it would never happen either.

Well, that's kind of what I was getting at. 100 years ago, no one thought a white woman would be marrying a black man without being tricked, drugged or poisoned.

I think we can safely say that humans can largely agree to keep it within the species. Also, a non-sentient animal is unable to make an informed consensual decision, so yeah, no cats, no dogs. Once cats and dogs can run for office, organize a protest march and drink martinis, that's when we'll have to cross that bridge. I guess they'd have to grow thumbs first though, so they could hold their teeny placards as they march for equality.

xrayspx's picture

That doesn't even remotely relate, but yeah, since we're on the topic... "Islam Day" disgusts me as much as if we had a governmentally sanctioned "Scientology Day" or "Jesus Day".

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment..." Exactly. Look it up Hawaii.

The thing that bothers me about that article is this:

"...over the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn't want to honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001."

Why not "...objections of lawmakers who do not believe it is the government's job to honor a religion." period. You know, like that whole 1st amendment mandates.

I think my dogs can do a better job running the country that what we have and have had. Think I should sign 'em up? They might just win.

I bet Australia wouldn't allow Islam Days. Maybe we should all move there? (course they wouldn't let us)

xrayspx's picture

I'm pretty sure my old rottweiler would have made a fantastic Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In kind of a Judge Dredd or Beef Supreme kind of fashion.

Although I do respect the Mad Max style of managing a society a great deal, I refuse to travel to a continent that so consistently and methodically does everything in its power to kill me. From spiders invading towns to poisonous Cane Toad plagues, to hanta-virus carrying plagues of mice.

Not to mention The Toecutter, Kundalini and Master Blaster.

Legislators in Hawaii proceeded to make an unconstitutional law while favorably reviewing same-sex unions that have NO constitutional protections.

We are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of "happiness". (Jefferson was urged not to write "pursuit of wealth"). "Happiness" didn't mean homosexuality.

You also forgot the following:
"The first recorded interracial marriage in North American history took place between John Rolfe and Pocahontas in 1614. In colonial Jamestown, the first biracial Americans were the children of white-black, white-Indian, and black-Indian unions."

Protecting gays endangers children. The three boys I saw holding hands didn't arrive at their mutual perversion through any normal process.

If you review police arrests for pedophilia, there will always be marijuana in use by the pedophile and his victims. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-04%2C...

Barney Frank is introducing a bill to legalize marijuana, most often the lesser charge in an arrest of a pedophile. (The lesser charge is an "aggravating charge" that can add years to a sentence).

Frank once had a "gays-for-hire" prostitution ring operating from his DC apartment.

Also, every pedophile protests at his arrest that he was himself approached and converted by a homophilic pedophile, often involving drugs or alcohol as an attractant.

Also, you'll find that males in a same-sex marriage will adopt a male child (6 out of 7 times).

Also, the first gay-marriage adoption (a boy in Massachusetts) turned into a homosexual relationship with the adopted boy.

Also, our American children are to be shielded from a perversion that cuts life expectancy by an average of 20 years. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2...

Also, in a Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, Democrats are allowing pedophiles Constitutional protection under "hate crimes" legislation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3F80r3h7Y

What next?

>

Peace_through_Weakness

LOL x! Or maybe even he could be the replacement for Souter! I will nominate mine too!

xrayspx's picture

These are exactly the types of things I was looking for, I've got thoughts on
them, we'll see how they jive here.

"Gayness leads to sexual abuse" - I'd never deny there are abusive men of all
kinds, but there are abusers of every orientation and gender, of course. If
you read Fark, you're familiar with the weekly, sometimes almost daily,
teacher-student sex scandal from somewhere in the country. These are
predominately female offenders and male kids, but sometimes they like to mix it
up with female/female or male teacher/female student. I've noticed that in
those cases it seems rarer to have male/male allegations.

I was also thinking of the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal. I've seen
several studies stating statistics of between one and five percent of all
priests with allegations. Of course some of those are false, but then there
are also many victims who never come forward, so let's stipulate that it
balances out on the whole and the stats reflect reality.

These are Men of God, given positions of power, free time, and access to
congregants. One thing that I've been thinking though is that there might be
an issue where they're stigmatized into sequestration and can't overcome their
urges. Follow me here. A boy reaches puberty and doesn't feel the normal
attraction to girls, he likes boys. Everything he sees tells him that this is
wrong and that he must never act on his feelings. Media, church, family and
other kids stigmatize gayness. At some point he decides that he must be
sequestered from his sexuality and chooses seminary. As I understand it, the
Catholic dogma of the day is that you can't control your feelings, but it is a
sin to act on that.

Now we have a man in his mid 20's who stopped his sexual development in his
teens out of shame or whatever. He has now fetishized his teenage desire for
other boys. He is in daily contact with boys who must follow his orders.

I feel no sympathy for these guys at all, but it strikes me that it's easy for
"interests" in kids to become fetishized through shame if they don't feel they
can "try stuff out". This isn't just sexual, people have lots of hangups of
various kinds because of things they were held back from or forced into when
they were kids.

TL;DR: Both genders / sexual orientations have their abusers. Sexual predators
don't factor into a marriage debate in my mind though.

"Barney Frank hired a male prostitute" - Men hire prostitutes. Straight men hire
female prostitutes, gay men hire male prostitutes. You could narrow it down to
"insecure jackasses hire prostitutes". It's another power-play kind of thing.
(Disclaimer: while he fully admits to being an insecure jackass, xrayspx has never hired a prostitute :-)

"Democrats Protect Pedophiles" - Gays aren't any more "pedophile by default" than
football jocks are "default date-rapists". And I don't see my saying that only
Democrats are interested in equal protection for all Americans under the law,
but in any case. Start by reading the comments to the YouTube link. Republicans
were saying "Well, you're saying you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation, pedophilia is a sexual orientation, therefore you're protecting
pedophiles". Pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality is not a crime. Gays
aren't pedophiles. Some men get off on rape. Should they be protected? No,
because rape is a crime. The video shows Democrats voting "no" to an
amendment to the hate crimes which is unnecessary and vague.

Homosexuality is a legal sexual persuasion, unless you're asserting asserting
we should criminialize homosexuality, the criminal pedophilia argument is not
relevant to the marriage argument.

Besides, if an adult man likes young boys, why would he want to marry another
adult man?

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - That doesn't imply that any kind
of marriage is "happiness". According to every comedian since the beginning of time, it would seem the two are in fact mutually exclusive. I don't see your point.

" There was interracial marriage in Jamestown" - One might argue "That didn't happen in America, it was 150 years too early, there was a whole war about that or something it seems". Of course there were
interracial marriages before 1900. The point is that, in 1900, if a black man
and white woman were lucky enough to live in a state where they were legally
permitted to get married, then they better stay there. Were they to travel to
the beautiful south for instance, they stood an even chance at getting lynched. They
wouldn't be able to eat in the same restaurant, often they couldn't stay in the
same hotel room, or sit with each other on the bus. If they're lucky, they get
dirty looks and obscene comments, if they're not, violence happens. If they decided to move to the south, a black husband couldn't vote, but then again, neither could his wife at that time, so I guess it's all relative.

Our country seems to have gotten somewhat more racially charged sometime around
the middle of the 19th century, I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it,
but I'm sure there was some kind of event that caused a slew of new legislation
and violent prejudice, the consequences of which we still seem to see today.

The violent and obscene comments are the same kinds of thing you hear today if
two men walk down the street holding hands in many places today. The Northeast
doesn't seem to be one of these more prejudiced areas. Bigotry is bigotry in
my mind.

So we've digressed into hate-crime law, Rape, and statutory interracial
marriage. I'm still not seeing why two committed adults who love each other
shouldn't be permitted to visit each other in the hospital or inherit property
when their loved one dies.

I'm not necessarily trying to convert anyone with my arguments, but I am trying
to understand the counter-arguments, which as I suspected, seem to be directed
at other things, like rapists. Gays aren't rapists, they're gays. Rapists are
rapists.

xrayspx's picture

I don't know why I'm thinking Deputy Dog.

if
two men walk down the street holding hands in many places today. The Northeast
doesn't seem to be one of these more prejudiced areas.

So, why not three boys holding hands in Hawaii?

"We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-class citizens!” says Janet Lessin.

Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another.

Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something "husband." Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”

The Lessins' advocacy is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a committed threesome: the "triad."

Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads—"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon—demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other. In the Lessins case, that can be varying pairs but, as Sasha, a psychologist, puts it, "Janet loves it when she gets a double decker."

Robyn Trask, the executive director of Loving More, a nonprofit organization in Loveland, Colorado, dedicated to poly-education and support, states about 25 percent of the estimated 50,000 self-identified polyamorists in the U.S. live together in semi-wedded bliss. A disproportionate number of them are baby boomers.

As with a couple, the key to making a triad work is communication. The Lessins' group specifically advocates something called "compersion": taking joy in another person's joy. Thus, they know how to process jealousy. “We don’t have anything take place off-stage,” says Sasha Lessin. “You witness your lover making googly eyes and you share your feelings. It’s not difficult for most people to be compersive once they feel they’re not being abandoned.”

Like most people in the poly community, the Lessins, who also helm the school of tantra (they take pleasure of the flesh quite seriously), take great pains to discuss pretty much everything. Some people even write up their agreements like a traditional prenup, detailing everything from communal economics to cohabitation rules. And buoyed by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal protections.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>Barney Frank claims he didn't operate the prostitution ring operating from his apartment, but that his much younger boyfriend was running it.

>Pedophilia is not a crime when you can get away with it, just as the Church proved for centuries. It only came to light recently in this country with the witnessing of thousands of boys raped by gays whose actions were dismissed by the Massachusetts "Velvet Mafia".

>"Centuries" because, particularly from Ireland, there may have been millions of molested boys as victims of the Church.

I've noticed that in
those cases it seems rarer to have male/male allegations.

You've answered that with your followup.

Male children don't disclose those things, particularly when enticed through beer, roofies, GBH, marijuana, Ecstacy, other date-rape drugs or through preying on existing addictions to other illegal drugs.

Once compromised, these children become fodder for the burgeoning pornography industry.

Why else have the triple headlines of drug abuse, gay marriage, and kiddy-porn entered our livingrooms today?

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

They can still inherit anyway. They would just have to pay taxes unless they were married. This opens a whole new can of worms because you can argue you love your kids and your siblings or any other family members, but they must pay taxes. (Tax goes to 0 in 2010 but with the democrats in, it will probably come back.) It all seems to be about taxes and health insurance. Best thing would be to get rid of the taxes, not the gays!

xrayspx's picture

It's my understanding from talking to people in just this position that if one of them dies, then ownership rights of anything that isn't in both their names reverts to the legal next of kin.

So if my friend Fred dies in a car accident, his parents would receive the title to his car, for instance. I'm not sure how community property, like a mortgage works. I believe it has to be in either one name or the other, or they have to create some kind of trust to deal with home ownership to ensure survivorship rights. In any case, it's way more complicated than my case, where if I die, my wife gets all my junk. That's all if you die intestate, but I understand that many families have successfully challenged wills in this case too, saying "He lived with a man, therefore he was not of sound mind, therefore the will is null and all his stuff is ours". It's a much more murky legal situation.

xrayspx's picture

I forgot the federal issue. I believe that any Social Security benefit that would normally go to a spouse reverts to the legal next of kin even in cases of state-sanctioned Civil Unions, like Vermont used to have. So any non-federally recognized "parnership" is null in terms of federal benefits. If same sex marriage or a Federal civil union law is passed which makes them equivalent to hetero marriage is passed, many of these issues are solved.

Right, if they are married and don't have a will or trust or anything, then it would be divided between the spouse and the kids. The difference is if it is over a certain amount, the kids must pay taxes on it whereas the spouse doesn't have to. You friend Fred's parents would have to pay taxes too. SS benefits are only for a spouse, if you are talking about monthly benefits. Parents would get nothing, a widow (er)of course would get money for any children under 18.

An appropriately written, duly signed and notarized "Durable Power of Attorney", by anyone, designating anyone as a "person of interest" in their medical decisions IS legal authority enough for someone so designated to have "visiting" privileges equal to a spouse, or 1st-order family members, in any medical facility.

That same "Durable Power of Attorney" can designate anyone as THE person to make the medical decisions for the patient should the patient become incapable of doing so on their own. These documents TRUMP even meddling "family members".

Similar remedies in wills, estates, property titles, "living wills" and "family trusts" CAN and DO secure joint or shared financial interests for ANY persons for whom such documents establish those interests.

Even "pension" and "insurance" beneficiary concerns do not REQUIRE any state or federal law, only the decision of the pension or insurance outfit to provide for them in cases of unmarried individuals. Matter of fact, without any state or federal mandate, more and more private plans have, on their own, expanded their terms for eligible beneficiary for their policies.

People demanding 'change' actually have better possibilities for results under freedom and liberty than they do under the sword of government.

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

See now those are good points.

As long as you choose to work somewhere that recognizes non-marriage partnerships, you're fine. You don't really need the piece of paper.

As long as the gay person doesn't work for the Kansas City PD, just as an example.

In the event your companies insurance doesn't recognize such partnerships, just quit and find someplace that does.

A quick google search turned up cases where durable power of attorney was not honored by a hospital in a case where a couple had a 17 year relationship and one fell into a coma and died:
Probate Lawyer Blog

Had they been married in the eyes of the federal govt. the hospital would have been required to permit this woman to see her partner. It could be argued that due to the durable power of attorney, they were required anyway, but they chose not to, power of attorney does not carry the weight of "we're married, I'm her wife".

Apparently the judge was deciding whether to dismiss the case or not when the blog was written, I'll find out whether that's happened yet. However if my wife was dying in the hospital, and the hospital refused to let me see her or ignore my instructions as to her wishes, there would be no debate in court. They wouldn't get a wrist slap, and the case wouldn't be dismissed, because there's a long history of precedent. ... I've been unable to find if there was a resolution to the case so far, but this quote exemplifies something that would not be allowed to fly if all marriages were created equal:

Jackson Memorial social worker Defendant Frederick approached Janice and informed her that she should not expect to be provided any information on the condition of, or have the ability to be with Lisa Marie as they were in an "anti-gay city and state."

There are hundreds of implicit protections granted to married heterosexual couples, we can get past some of these with power of attorney, however at some level you're looking at contract law between two individuals vs civil law with federally mandated guidelines.

Pages



Forum | by Dr. Radut