Sorry, toots, but it's a real issue and one you're going to hear more and more about as Baby Boomers continue retiring. While I'm hardly a supporter of gay marriage (Make all government recognized relationships civil unions and leave marriage to the churches) the fact is marriage does bestow an enormous number of privileges to couples, and gay people - unless they weave together a complicated structure of paperwork on their own - are left out entirely.

Several years ago, for example, a friend of mine was notified by the county that his property values were being reassessed after his partner - the owner of the property - died. The house and land had been left to him by his deceased partner but the county saw it as being a transfer of ownership. My friend argued that he had lived on the property the entire time they had been together (about five years) and because it wasn't being sold, should not be subject to such an increase. He was fortunate. Both men were well-respected in the community: one for his work in local adult literacy programs and the other for his work as a local firefighter. The Board of Supervisors ruled in my friend's favor. Had they been married, however, it would never have been an issue.

As the story points out, there are plenty of areas where homos are short changed because they don't have access to the same privileges as their straight counterparts:


• Despite paying into Social Security, LGBT elders don't get the same benefits that their heterosexual peers get, with the biggest difference being that same-sex couples are denied spousal and survivor benefits routinely provided to married heterosexual couples.

• Similar disparities occur in Medicaid and long-term care programs. Medicaid does not require a healthy partner to impoverish himself or herself to qualify a spouse for long-term care. But spousal impoverishment protections do not exist for same-sex couples and families of choice.

• LGBT elders' IRAs and other retirement plans have benefits that are unequal to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

• Employer policies regarding pensions do not provide surviving partners of same-sex couples with the same financial protections that are accorded heterosexual couples, the report said.

• Under federal tax law, employers can provide health insurance to the heterosexual spouse of a current or retired employee tax-free, but insurance benefits for partners in same-sex couples are taxable.

• A surviving heterosexual spouse can inherit the couple's assets without incurring a tax penalty, but federal and state law requires same-sex partners to pay inheritance taxes in some cases.

• Heterosexual spouses of military veterans get federal benefits, including pensions for spouses of service members killed in combat, medical care and home-loan guarantees, none of which is available to same-sex partners of veterans.

• It is typically more complex and expensive for same-sex couples to navigate inheritance laws than it is for heterosexual couples.

Emmeran wrote:

Nothing a trip to the doctor can't fix.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/5/9255210_196a0bff6d.jpg

My dick is already pretty big; it really doesn't need to be any bigger.

Allow me to help

Last edited by Emmeran (2010-03-18 16:01:21)

fnord wrote:

Em, this is a huge issue.  Partner™ and I have had to go through major legal hurdles to protect our property in the event one or the other of us predeceases the other.  In Orange County, the management at our gated community threatened to throw me out if I wasn't old enough to live there on my own if Partner™ passed away before I reached the minimum age to reside there.  I had to make a huge ugly scene in the management's office and threaten them with a lawsuit in order to get them to back down.  Of course, they would never have tried to intimidate a heterosexual partner who was slightly underage.  I cannot inherit Partner™'s pension when he dies, and it's within the realm of possibility that a probate judge could overturn our legal arraignments that we made to protect each other in order to distribute assets to “legitimate” heirs.  It's been known to happen.

Let me be blunt; just because a small percentage of the population has a genetic proclivity for abnormal behavior does not mean the remainder of the population must bless or even allow that behavior.

For example; some pleople are genetically inclined to fuck animals or even corpses.  This behaviour doesn't hurt anyone but it offends the majority so it is not allowed or at least not supported.  If we take the "born this way" status as gospel we then have many, many deviants whose actions must be tolerated because they are genetically defined and beyond the control of the individual.



But more than that, this whole discussion is a pity play; you knew the game when it started.

Besides, you deserve the hassle for having the bad taste to live in Seizure World.

Hey Jarhead.  Skoal.

 
One could say it's like I'm at the NCO Club this afternoon.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2010-03-18 16:24:01)

Dmtdust wrote:

...  I think it is a mucher [sic] higher percentage of the population.

Hey Dmtdust.  Show me.

Don't be an idiot, Dmtdust.
When I goggled it was for researched data numbers.  Not popular press releases.

Want to get in to a pissing contest over this, Dmtdust?
What are you, gay?

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2010-03-18 17:21:39)

Dmtdust wrote:

Sarge moods

You, sir, jumped in the middle of a thread and started spewing your stuff; out of boredom perhaps?
Hey Dmtdust.

Dmtdust wrote:

This references anywhere up to 13 percent.  You know google don't you?  It is a really interesting tool.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/healt … 3disp.html

First of all, please try to find supporting articles that actually address the topic at hand.  Secondly the commonly accepted range is 3~8%, (depending on who's counting).  Let's round to 5% to make it easy. 

5% is a small percentage.

Thirdly, there is a surgical procedure that solves the gay issue.


More importantly, there are several European nations that now fully recognize same-sex marriages; I encourage people to vote with their feet.

Emmeran wrote:

Thirdly, there is a surgical procedure that solves the gay issue.

Damn Jarhead.  That is rough.

Em, you assume that one or the other partner in a gay relationbship would desire to, or be willing to, have sex reassignment surgery. And there, in most cases, you would be dead wrong as usual. You also, in your post, referred to gay sex as "deviant" and "abnormal". Both of which are sadly mistaken bullshit statements.

If you don't agree with the need for a change in laws as they refer to the GLBT society, that's fine. I have no problem with that. You are entitled to your opinion. But when you refer to people who were born as they are as deviants, well I have a real problem with that. I look at you as an ignorant ass who cares nothing about the life of others if it might differ from your "normal" life. Which I am sure includes a few deviant acts in itself. I mean come on, you visit high-street. Nuff said.

Maybe removing your head from your ass would enlighten you a bit. Comparing the GLBT community to people who sleep with animals or corpses is rediculous, and you well know it. THAT is a choice, and they were not born that way. Perhaps not talking about things which you know nothing would be a better approach than spouting complete bullshit.

Peace.

Emmeran wrote:

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

Peace.

High-Street is not a place for peace.

OK, that I'll agree with.