That's super fabulous.

Sanity in Massachusetts

Where next?

Will a Presidential candidate endorse Gay Marriage? No

Why? Fear of assholes

That's super fabulous.

Posted by ness_gadol at


another funny........


and having something like this on a ballot is the LAST THING that the people who have this as their agenda wants...
the will of the people is never good for the advanvement of that agenda.

Gay marriage??? I don't understand. You know, "gay" used to mean "..happy, merry..."
"Marriage used to mean, "...the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

I don't really care what homosexual men and women do. I don't see anyone being victimized or harmed by consenting adults doing whatever with each other in private. But, WHY do we have to change the damn language for the purpose of being politically correct. I still kinda get confused when someone says, "I'm a gay person." Oh, really...does that mean you're happy or or homosexual?

Measures such as this are only put on the ballot to motivate certain voter groups. To think that gay marriage is something to be decided "by the will of the people" is ridiculous. No issue that effects such a small minority group should be put on mass ballot. It's a sad ploy that IMHO inhibits our society. It's rather evil in many respects.

"You know, "gay" used to mean "..happy, merry..." "Marriage used to mean"....

Imagine how the maker of AYDS diet candy must feel.

"""I'm a gay person." Oh, really...does that mean you're happy or or homosexual?""

When I encounter someone that stupid I just roll my eyes and keep moving.

Well said Evashogouki. We are a Republic with protections for all, not a Democracy. The founders were well aware of the tyranny of the majority.

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current." - Madison writing to Jefferson

And yet the President is totally unaware of this tyranny by promoting Democracy in the ME.

The Republicans (ironic name for this particular party) are all about majority rule as long as it serves their purpose - to divide and maintain power. They play on the majority at the expense of the less powerful.

Gay marriage should be recognized. It should be legal. It should apply Federally as marriage between a man and woman does. The compromise of civil unions without the full benefit of the rights granted in marriage is a sham. It demeans an entire minority and makes them less than the majority.

"Imagine how the maker of AYDS diet candy must feel."

Do they still have that? Haven't seen it in decades.

ladies and gentlemen.......its nice to see proof of studies and polls that we read about....

as you can see, danni thinks that jest was being totally serious about the gay comment.....

danni.....it was sort of a joke you see.


and as I said before, this issue is one that would never pass in most places. In other words the WILL OF THE PEOPLE would be somewhere in the middle.....as in agreement for civil unions as the fartherest left.......and this of course is exactly why the agenda cant be furthered with it on a ballot.......


and it also makes it harder to sing west side story........as in.....
I feel pretty and witty and .....GAY.......

well now that I read it and think about it.......maybe there is more to that line than I always thought........yuk yuk

"When I encounter someone that stupid I just roll my eyes and keep moving."

Danni, sweetie, you are CONSTANTLY rolling your eyes and moving. I suspect its due to that perpetual knot in your panties.

"and it also makes it harder to sing west side story........as in.....
I feel pretty and witty and .....GAY......."

I used to breed and show dogs. A dog with a "gay tail" was one with a tail that curled over the dog's back. WHY has the word been changed to portray only ONE thing today? You could say the same thing about "straight," I guess. What was wrong with heterosexual and homosexual?

Gay marriage should be recognized. It should be legal. It should apply Federally as marriage between a man and woman does. The compromise of civil unions without the full benefit of the rights granted in marriage is a sham. It demeans an entire minority and makes them less than the majority.


Posted by YAV at 2007-06-15 09:25


oh please......look I know what goes where and why and I have to tell you that when a man inserts something in a place where its not supposed to be inserted.
THAT "AINT" NATURAL.......and it will never be natural no matter how much the left tries to make it so.....this is not normal behavior so why should it be sanctioned by the federal government which is what this would mean.

but lets do this.......lets let the people in this country decide...
OH SHIT NO.....we cant have that......
and here is where someone puts some total bullshit comment about slavery or the civil rights movement.............

its amazing how the left will try to link these matters....and it just doesnt fly

and any of you can think of these comments as homophobic if you want but you are way off......I was in the music business since 1968 so I have worked with more than a few gay men and women and I dont give a shit what they do to each other in private, but dont tell me its normal and I have to accept the behavior even as I accept the person........
and isnt it something that the right is able to seperate the two but the left cant?

It is all the same, no one can claim moral high ground here. One group wants to force thier version of marriage on the other.

This is no different than the global warming folks wanting to force their view of the world on everyone, or the people against abortion wanting to force their view on everyone.

When are people going to just leave each other alone.

the will of the people is never good for the advanvement of that agenda.

Posted by bushlovertwo


Yeah. Ya'all still a-hankerin' for them good ol' days when them darkies was segregated, huh, gomer?

Segregation was the will of the people, too, you neanderthal. The will of the people is NEVER a good enough reason to deny equal rights. Not even in Texas.

Why take diet pills when you can enjoy Ayd's?

look I know what goes where and why and I have to tell you that when a man inserts something in a place where its not supposed to be inserted.


Does that include oral sex? How unforunate for you.

this is not normal behavior so why should it be sanctioned by the federal government

Since when does govt have to "sanction" private behavior? Have you really NO understanding of the role of govt? What does "inalienable rights" mena to you?

Holy crap am I glad I live in a blue state.

""its amazing how the left will try to link these matters....and it just doesnt fly""

Apparently it does in Massacussetts but not in Texas. Sort of like the progress of civil rights. Texas is always way behind on social issues but eventually even they catch on.

Sawdust--how exactly are gay people FORCING their marriage views on straight people? One has absolutely no effect on the other.

That is like saying a city that has a proposal to allow casinos is forcing gambling on me. No, i can have the option of not walking in that casino. Just like every straight person has the option not to marry someone of the same sex.


It always blows my mind that some straight people actually give a shit that two girls or two guys could actually form a legal union that allows them to operate as a single household. Is it that bad that there be an ability to live together, own a house together, have investments together, give each other gifts without having to deal with all of the gift tax consequences? Mind your own fricken business

"I don't see anyone being victimized or harmed by consenting adults doing whatever with each other in private. But, WHY do we have to change the damn language for the purpose of being politically correct"

That's not the purpose of gay marriage. The purpose is to allow gays to have the same rights as straight people. When you are married, certain rights (inheritance upon death of a spouse, etc) are conferred upon you. Why allow only straight couples to have those benefits? Seems like a violation of Equal Protection to me.

wow..nice job...it only took mins to get my prediction on line....and dani wasnt far behind......there is something soothing, in a weird sort of way, when you libs come across just like we predict.

there is no comparison of civil rights and gays wanting the rights and privledges of being married......and you demean the struggles of blacks all over the country when you do.

joe........men with men and women with women........sounds like a violation of the natural order of things..
but the question remains.....why is the left SCARED Of the people having thier voice to this matter?

""there is no comparison of civil rights and gays wanting the rights and privledges of being married......""

I know cuz Rush told me so.
Demean the struggles of blacks...blah, blah, blah.....so says the man from the state that fought against civil rights for decades.....where bigotry is a way of life.
Me thinks I will take my advice about what constitutes civil rights from someone who actually believes in equality.

there is no comparison of civil rights and gays wanting the rights and privledges of being married......and you demean the struggles of blacks all over the country when you do.

Just curious, but how'd you feel about miscegenation?

""why is the left SCARED Of the people having thier voice to this matter?""

Scared???
This is a fairly liberal site and you are allowed to spew your crap all the time, no one is frightened, they are just amused.

"men with men and women with women........sounds like a violation of the natural order of things.."

So what? Since when is it the job of the government to maintain whatever you think "the natural order of things" is? There is nothing in the Constitution stating that to be the role of our government. There is, however, an Amendment which states that no state shall deny equal protection of the laws to any of its citizens. So why do marriage laws only apply to straight people?

"but the question remains.....why is the left SCARED Of the people having thier voice to this matter?"

Because they know that the people are stupid and have no grasp of the Constitution. Decades ago had you allowed Americans to vote on the issue of interracial marriages, they would not have been allowed. It took a ruling from the Supreme Court holding such a ban unconstitutional for such marriages to be integrated and ultimately accepted by our society. To claim that the public's vote on an issue affected heavily by ignorance and bigotry should be the end of the discussion is absolutely foolish.

Gay Marriage Off Mass. Ballot

To mimic what Democrats are always saying about the President, "Why is the Mass. Legislature ignoring the obvious will of the people?"

The issue of gay marriage even being on ballots has little to do with the "will of the people" as much as it has to do with driving certain groups of voters to the polls. There is not an outcry from the majority of Americans to place gay marriage on ballots. If it's there they may be compelled to make it to the polls to vote -- likely for the candidate and/or party that placed the issue on the ballots in the first place.

The truth is that most people don't care one way or the other. To think that some people would deny a small minority equal rights because of "the very idea bothers me personally" is why we are a republic in the first place.

Before gay marriage became a mainstream issue (which, by the way, had nothing to do with a welling of social concern but instead was, as mentioned, a ploy by the far right) no one gave it much thought or care, as it should be. Whom a person choses to love and spend their life with is not yours or anyone elses' concern unless it violates the law of the country.

But it's pretty clear that the juvenile viewpoint of some posters here, the schoolyard "eeeww" mentality, demonstrates the impetus far more than anything resembling a legal understanding of our Constitution.

there is no comparison of civil rights and gays wanting the rights and privledges of being married

Showing once again how sadly limited your understanding is. Please stay in Texas. Big state, small minds.

I actually think that the reason many feel the need to express their crap about gays is that today it isn't PC to express their bigotry about other groups.
It is getting so that bigots are running out of targets for their hostility.

Jesus ... I'm going to say this ONE LAST TIME and then I'm done with it. Civil Rights are not determined by referendum. Ever. If it were the case, then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have got off the ground. Got it? You can't determine the civil rights of a minority by the popular vote of the majority. If you can't understand that, then you have to be either deliberately obtuse or some kind of inbred mouthbreather.

"It is getting so that bigots are running out of targets for their hostility."

Posted by danni



Well..... there are always bigots.

"It is getting so that bigots are running out of targets for their hostility."

Awww, c'mon DANNI. That's just another inane blurt out of you when you should know better. Definition of "bigot:"

"One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, PARTY, belief, or OPINION."

That even describes YOU to a tee and lord knows you target anyone republican and with an opinion different from yours.

"Now folks who want to be together can do so in many places with civil unions and contracts and power of attorney documents--all the same things they claim they need to have to be married they can have via legal means."


BULLSHIT. Familiar with gift tax laws? If a couple buys a house together and they contribute different amounts towards downpayment, mortgage payment, etc. TAX CONSEQUENCES. Buy a trip for their partner? TAX CONSEQUENCES. Every financial aspect of their relationship is completely screwed up due to gift taxes. It makes creating a functioning household virtually impossible. Buying homeowner's insurance? BOTH NEED TO. There is a minefield of pitfalls that gay couples need to navagate that married couples can completely ignore.

Even (expensive to create and expensive to maintain) living trusts are a PIA and don't address the tax issues.

"folks who want to be together can do so in many places with civil unions and contracts and power of attorney documents--all the same things they claim they need to have to be married they can have via legal means."

But why should they have to do that? Why can't they have the convenience of a marriage taking care of all those needs like everyone else? When a married person dies, their spouse gets an automatic share of their estate. When a gay person dies, their partner doesn't get anything. Why should gays have the additional burden of getting an attorney and writing out a will when straight people have laws that do everything for them?

""That even describes YOU to a tee and lord knows you target anyone republican and with an opinion different from yours."

Just show me a post of mine where I ever advocated for any group getting rights that other groups do not also enjoy???
If you want a two class system, excluding whatever group you choose from first class status and relegating them to second class status, then you are a bigot. I don't think that you should have fewer rights than I do just because our opinions are usually different.

Why should gay couples pay higher income tax rates than straight people??
Why should gay people be prevented from inheritance unless there happens to be a will while a wife or husband automatically inherits community property??
There are hundreds of benefits that some straight people think they should enjoy but that should be withheld from gay people.
That is bigotry.
That is the definition of bigotry.

B--

All of those issues you raise can be changed by changing the laws--

And Danni--believe it or not if a married couple doesn't have a will --the State gets a big part of any estate.

This is not bigotry--nice try though.

Murphy

Come on Joe. That's disengenuous and you know it. You can name anyone you want the beneficiary of your IRA, your pension, your annuities, your life insurance, and your trusts--and all those things bypass probate. If you like, you can write up a will without an attorney. Either just write it up on a piece of paper and sign it with a witness, or spend $14.95 on some software to make it look pretty.

If gays want to get married, they need to come up with better arguments than "their partner doesn't get anything." It's only true if they didn't trouble themselves to ensure that their partner got something; e.g., he didn't really love his partner in the first place, to fill out a change of beneficiary form.

Why should gay couples pay higher income tax rates than straight people??
Why should gay people be prevented from inheritance unless there happens to be a will while a wife or husband automatically inherits community property??
There are hundreds of benefits that some straight people think they should enjoy but that should be withheld from gay people.
That is bigotry.
That is the definition of bigotry.

Posted by danni
* * * *

I'm straight, and I'm in the highest income tax bracket? Why? Because I'm single. And, again, please explain how the law "prevents inheritance"? I mean, how hard is it to name your partner on a transfer on death form? Or ask your insurance company for a new beneficiary form?

And btw--anything with a named beneficiary does NOT automatically go to the spouse. These assets bypass probate completely, which means they are getting paid out to the last beneficiary on file. Change that, and your partner can get it all.

RIR- my point is that straight people don't have to do any of that stuff. Sure, if you're gay, you can plan ahead and put names on your nonprobate assets to direct where they should go - but why should you have to when a married couple gets the benefit of an intestate statute written just for them that automatically gives everything to their spouse? I'm not saying that's the only argument for gay marriage, and you shouldn't pretend that it is, but to me this alone seems like a violation of Equal Protection.

Many people die without a will. If you have been with your gay partner for 50 years and for some reason die without a valid will, the partner gets absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, if you're married and die without a valid will, your spouse gets at least 1/3 and in many states more of your assets.

And don't come back with "well how many people die without a will?" It happens. People are irresponsible and either try to write one themselves, die early, etc. Your point is that with extra planning, gays can have the same benefits - mine is that you're placing an additional burden on gays that straights don't have to deal with.

Well, if you've been with your partner 50 years, and you love him, why is it too much trouble to write down where you want your house to go? Or is that too much of an "additional burden"?

Maybe you die in a car accident and hadn't gotten around to it. You're just asking why someone is irresponsible - married couples never have to ask that and are provided a "get out of irresponsibility free" card by the legislature.

By the way, many people do write down where they want their house to go, but the will is invalidated for one reason or another (your state doesn't honor handwritten wills, you only had one witness to your will and your state requires two, etc). These issues can invalidate many wills and therefore even when the gay person tried to plan ahead, their partner will get nothing. Yes it is their fault for not complying with their state's probate code, but when straight people do the same thing their partner isn't left without a home to live in.

Here's the situation: two gay men living together. Jim names Paul as the beneficiary of his insurance policy, and marks his bank accounts "Transfer on Death" to Paul. Paul is also the beneficiary on Jim's IRA and 401k, but Jim's son, Tim, is the beneficiary of Jim's annuities. However, Jim dies without a valid will.

So what happens to all his stuff?

Their partner will not be exempt from Inheritance tax. period

""Or is that too much of an "additional burden"?

Is giving equal rights to everyone too much of an "additional burden?""
That's the real question.

You're just asking why someone is irresponsible - married couples never have to ask that and are provided a "get out of irresponsibility free" card by the legislature.

Posted by JOE
* * * *

LOL. Really?
Last year I was involved in a case. A man bought a life insurance policy on himself, naming his wife beneficiary. They divorced, but he kept his policy in force. He remarried and had children, then grandchildren, with wife #2. Late in 2005, he died.
Turns out, he never changed the first beneficiary, so his ex-wife was due to inherit the $200,000 policy. Guess what? She predeceased HIM, by about five years. So, who got the money?
Answer: the man's first wife's fourth husband's children. Why? The funds flushed into her estate, which had been dissolved at HER death into her fourth husband's estate, then when HE died the funds went to his children.
Point is, if you say you love someone, make sure the damn forms are filled out right. To say that straights have all this stuff taken care of for them is ignorant.

"So what happens to all his stuff?"

Well, his bank accounts and insurance policy probably aren't his only assets. What about the house he lives in? What about any other real estate he happens to own? What about any other valuable property he happens to possess? That all falls intestate and his partner is not entitled to any of it. Meanwhile, had they been allowed to marry, the idea that your spouse is entitled to protection after you die would afford the partner the right to over 1/3 of those assets.

But that's not unequality. That's just poor planning by gay people, even though straights don't have to worry about it.

Is giving equal rights to everyone too much of an "additional burden?""
That's the real question.

Posted by danni
* * * *

My point is that you already have them.

RIR- your case at 12:48 is not what occurs in all jurisdictions in that situation, though it is a problem. Chances are the person owned assets other than the $200K insurance policy which all went to the new spouse. Apply that situation to a gay person and his new partner still would not have gotten anything. So what's your point?

That's just poor planning by gay people, even though straights don't have to worry about it.

Posted by JOE
* * * *

LOL. Yeah, right. Straights don't have to worry about any of that stuff. That's why all the estate and probate lawyers I know are broke. Sure.

My point is that you already have them.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-06-15 12:49 PM


Gays already have the right to marry? Since when. All rights come from the government. No such thing as "God given rights"---what a joke.

"My point is that you already have them."

Bullshit. Just pure bullshit.

Man and Woman are married, man dies in a car accident without ever having written a will. Woman inherits 1/3 or more of his estate automatically, as she should.

Man1 and Man2 are partners, not allowed to marry, but supposedly have equal rights according to RIR. Man1 dies in a car accident without ever having written a will. Man2 receives absolutely nothing, because he is not a "spouse," and "gay partner" is not a beneficiary under any intestacy statute.

Equal rights? Bullshit.

Murphy-- Who is going to change those laws? Who is fighting for that? Does someone need to find each and every law that needs to be changed or shouldn't they just go after ALL of the rights with a simple recognition of gay marriage?

Let me get this straight, the issue is RIGHTS, not the title. If gays were given a means to legally deal with the inheritance, gift tax, powers of attorney, insurance, etc. without substantial burden or expense--i'd be satisfied, regardless of what they call it. Call it Marriage. Call it civil unions. Call it whatever. Shit, they could call it the bo-bo-kitty-fuck arrangement for butt-pirates and carpet-munchers, i couldn't care less.

Titles are meaningless. Rights are paramount.

So what's your point?

Posted by JOE
* * * *
My point is that if you're straight or gay, old or young, married or single, kids or not, and you want to ensure that your stuff goes where you intend, it's a very, very simple thing. In fact, if you REALLY love the people like you say, you will do it. And if you're the type who just says, ah, hell with it, let the state decide, you'll get no sympathy from me anyhow.

Man and Woman are married, man dies in a car accident without ever having written a will. Woman inherits 1/3 or more of his estate automatically, as she should.

Man1 and Man2 are partners, not allowed to marry, but supposedly have equal rights according to RIR. Man1 dies in a car accident without ever having written a will. Man2 receives absolutely nothing, because he is not a "spouse," and "gay partner" is not a beneficiary under any intestacy statute.

Equal rights? Bullshit.

Posted by JOE
* * * *

Married man runs into gay man, both are killed. Married man didn't bother buying an insurance policy on himself, nor did he prepare a will. So his wife gets 1/3 of his estate, his children get 2/3, placed in trust. Wife can't afford to keep the home, so she has to sell out and move to a lousy neighborhood.
Gay man has a will, and has a life insurance policy naming his partner beneficiary. He gets to keep the house, pay off all the bills, and have a decent funeral for his friend.
Law treats everyone the same: If you die without a will, you're screwed. If you die WITH a will, YOU decide what happens.

RIR---lets say you marry some rediculously 21 year old hot blonde who just graduated from college. Now, you sign the prenup and don't want her to have a job other than keeping in shape and you satisfied.

Now you buy a house together.

First you sell your current house--and have 200k in equity to put down on a new house.

Then you mortgage the remaining 300k for a nice 500k house. And have a payment of roughly 2k per month.

Then you buy her a sweet 911 turbo for 110K because she looks great in Red.

Nice, eh?

Now lets assume that blonde was a man. Suddenly you've got 310k in a taxable gift immediately with an additional 24K per year just for the mortgage. Not to mention insurance cots, her cell phone, her clothes, trips, food, etc.---ALL GIFTS AND SUBJECT TO GIFT TAXES.


And that is only one of the many problems that cannot be dealt with via contract.

"And if you're the type who just says, ah, hell with it, let the state decide, you'll get no sympathy from me anyhow."

Nobody's looking for sympathy from you. I'm talking about benefits from the state. Straight people get them when they are the person you describe above, gay people don't. That's a fact, and whether you're sympathetic toward people in that situation is irrelevant.

Inheritance tax does not apply to a married widow or widower, R is R . Can you get that fact of inequality into your head?

"Law treats everyone the same: If you die without a will, you're screwed."

That's the most disingenuous post I've ever seen. You use the example of intestacy for the straight people and testacy for the gay people - why? Why can't you compare gays and straights in the same situation - intestacy? Those are the benefits I'm talking about here, and the fact that you're unwilling to make the comparison proves you're full of shit.

And RIR--according to the laws of intestacy, when someone dies w/o will, in your scenario--all of the married man's estate will go to his wife (tax free, regardless of size)--there aren't any automatic trusts created for the children.

The laws do not treat both relationships the same.


And that is a horrible analogy--you blew the intestacy rules and only gave life insurance to the gay couple.

OK, maybe I am.

I say if you love your boyfriend, Joe, write him into the will. If not, don't. You're saying that gays should be allowed to marry, in large part, because they're either willfully ignorant of the law, or too damn lazy to call an 800-number and fill out a form, and fax it back. You know--the stuff straights do to make sure their business is done.

Up to me, we'd make gays get married. If two heteros live together, they are considered "common law" married. I'd write the laws to say the same about gays--you know, equal protection under the laws, and all that. I can even tell you, in advance, what one of the popular jokes will be: "I used to be gay, then I got married."
That would work, actually. If you live together for more than, say, three weeks, the state considers you legally married. Just like straights. Which means that creditors can attach your wages, put a lien on your house, and if you want to split up, you need a good divorce attorney and a long, long wait to "think it over".

How about that? That would sure make things equal.

And RIR--according to the laws of intestacy, when someone dies w/o will, in your scenario--all of the married man's estate will go to his wife (tax free, regardless of size)--there aren't any automatic trusts created for the children.

The laws do not treat both relationships the same.


And that is a horrible analogy--you blew the intestacy rules and only gave life insurance to the gay couple.

Posted by __b
* * *

Not true. First of all, it depends on the state you're in, who gets what. Also, his pensions and retirement accounts do NOT transfer tax-free; there is income tax due to the recipient. And my point on life insurance is, that gay people can name anyone they want as beneficiary of their named assets.

You do realize, I hope, that life insurance and annuities and retirement accounts and trusts BYPASS probate, right? That even if the guy dies intestate, his gay partner still gets it all, if that's what the forms say?
Maybe you don't. But that's the way it is. A life insurance policy cannot be challenged, cannot be voided by a court--the custodian cuts a check within 72 hours of receiving a death claim, made out to the most recent beneficiary on the form.
Sounds like this is all too much trouble, though, huh?

RIR-

That's a stupid suggestion. Many friends live with each other as roommates without having any desire to marry one another. A better idea would be to allow anyone who wants to be "married" and obtain all of the legal benefits of a "marriage" to be "married," since the government is supposed to provide equal protection under the laws to ALL of its citizens.

That you're unwilling to acknowledge the inequality inherent in my 12:53 post is telling. That you continuously bash anyone who dies without a will as irresponsible shows you to be ignorant. People die unexpectedly in car accidents. People don't meet the witness requirements in their state. People make good-faith efforst to handwrite their intentions into a will and don't do so properly. My argument is that in all of these situations, the widow of a straight person still gets something provided they did not pretermit their spouse via a prior arrangement. In all of these situations with a gay couple, the partner doesn't get anything. Call the person who dies intestate what you want, but to pretend their situations are the result of irresponsibility 100% of the time is a convenient way to avoid the issue. States have intestacy laws for a reason, and to deny one couple access to them because of what they do in the bedroom is pretty pathetic.

Sigh. OK, Joe, give me an example of someone who dies without a will, and wasn't irresponsible. In your example, was the person unaware that people sometimes die in auto accidents? Was he stupid?

Sorry. I've little sympathy for anyone who says, nah, I don't need a will. Or admits he needs one, but doesn't bother to take out a piece of friggin' paper, write down what he wants, gets a friend to sign it, and put it into a drawer. Fact is, if a gay man expended about 1% of the energy he puts out during a gay pride march in making sure his papers are in order, he can guarantee that his partner gets everything he wants him to.

Or not. But if he doesn't care, why should I?

"Or not. But if he doesn't care, why should I?"

I'm not sure. Why should the legislature either? Why not get rid of the spousal provisions in intestacy statutes altogether and say that when straight people die without a will, their assets don't go to their spouse either? At least then they'd be in the same situation as gays.

You've said it yourself - anyone who dies without a will is irresponsible and doesn't deserve the protections of the law. So why give that protection to straights and not gays? Take it away from everyone, right RIR?

I didn't say that someone who dies without a will doesn't deserve the protections of the law, but your prescription is fine with me. If you die without a will, your spouse gets nothing that wasn't jointly owned.

Sounds fair. After all, if you had wanted your wife to have it, you would have said so. Agreed.

""My point is that you already have them.""

Can I adopt children in Florida???
Can I file a joint income tax return???

Okay. Sounds equal to me. Either give the protection to everyone or take it away from everyone. Which is more likely to happen, RIR? Do you think every state is going to repeal over a century's worth of jurisprudence and legislative actions because you think people who die without wills are stupid? More likely they'll end up including everyone, but that might make you mad too, since then we're helping stupid gay people. Oh well.

What about a will that is thrown out as invalid? What if a gay man had prudently planned only to have an angry/jealous relative attack the will and have it invalidated just so the assets would flow to that relative under intestacy laws?

Okay. Sounds equal to me. Either give the protection to everyone or take it away from everyone. Which is more likely to happen, RIR? Do you think every state is going to repeal over a century's worth of jurisprudence and legislative actions because you think people who die without wills are stupid? More likely they'll end up including everyone, but that might make you mad too, since then we're helping stupid gay people. Oh well.

Posted by joe
* * * *

I don't care either way. If a gay man wants to leave everything to his partner, he can. Ditto for his ex-wife, his children, his pet parrot, his next door neighbor, his church, his favorite charity, or a complete stranger. All he needs is a form with his name scrawled on the bottom, and it happens. His judge can be the most bigoted homophobic judge in South Mississippi, and everything will happen as he wishes.

Can I adopt children in Florida???
Can I file a joint income tax return???

Posted by danni
* * * *

I can't do those things either, and I'm straight. And if you want to argue that we should scrap joint tax returns, sign me up.

What about a will that is thrown out as invalid? What if a gay man had prudently planned only to have an angry/jealous relative attack the will and have it invalidated just so the assets would flow to that relative under intestacy laws?

Posted by taxman
* * * *

Well, that happens in straight relationships a whole lot more often than in gay ones. But if said man puts his assets into a trust, even a testamentary trust, it becomes bulletproof from probate challenges.

No RiR in a straight relationship the assets would flow to the surviving spouse as the decedent would be considered as having died intestate thus there would be no change.

In the case of a gay man the assets would be distributed amongst the nearest relatives and the partner would be left out in the cold.

A trust is bullet proof from challenges? When did this happen. I am in the estate planning field, and this is something that I have never heard of. (can you sense the sarcasm there?)

LOL. Okay Taxman, give me an example of a trust that was successfully challenged by non-beneficiaries.

I'm in the estate planning field too. Most of my AUM is held in trust for clients. And if you can find examples of trusts that can be attacked by creditors, angry ex-wives, disgruntled children, please share.

We're off on a tangent, though. Gay people are allowed to set up trusts. Gay people are allowed to write wills. Gay people are allowed to buy insurance policies and annuities and IRA's and SIMPLE's and SEP's and all the other things that straights can. In fact, homosexuals should be MORE inclined to do those things, since they can better control distributions at death.

But again, if they don't care, why should I?

I guess what you guys would have me to believe, is that there are thousands of Americans who want to get married, but NOT be willing to leave their property to their loved ones. And they need the law to compel them to. Weird.

Creditors can attack trust for formality defects I have warded off many creditors trying to break up trusts in my experience. If you really want me to get into westlaw and start pulling cases for you I will.

I do how you narrowed the scope down after I called you out on your statement though.

RIR--first of all--understand that, just because you avoid probate, you do NOT avoid estate taxes. If life insurance proceeds are paid directly to someone and not their estate, yes, they avoid probate AND taxes. But what about the house? The bank accounts? The cars? The investment accounts?

And i'm not talking about income taxes that must be paid on certain types of investments. I'm talking about the near 50% tax on estates that transfers to spouses ARE EXEMPT.

TRUSTS DO NOT AVOID ESTATE TAXES. They can often be used minimization techniques--but they don't cut out taxes.

And you've completely ducked the most important, IMO, problem of them all. GIFT TAXES WHILE YOU'RE LIVING TOGETHER. There is NO way to get rid of this issue w/o legislation.

And your argument against this due to common law marriage is pretty much bunk. Only 11 states still allow this and most of them severely restrict its application.

simple google search:

The Problem with U.S.-Based Trusts

Revocable or living trusts offer no asset protection to the creator of a trust since the creator still has control over the assets and can be required to use them to pay legitimate debts.

In most states, irrevocable trusts are not much better if the creator retains an interest as a beneficiary since that interest can still be reached. In addition, in almost every state, the trust is subject to a legal doctrine known as the Rule Against Perpetuities. This may limit the creator's ability to protect the assets for unlimited future generations or to take advantage of generation-skipping transfer tax exceptions. Additionally, the trust's investments are limited by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, so certain foreign investments are not accessible to the domestic trust.

Domestic trust assets are easy for lawyers to discover and attack as fraudulent. The burden of proof is typically fairly easy to meet, and the transfer need only have been fraudulent as to any creditor, even one not part of the lawsuit. Once the transfer is proven fraudulent, the entire amount of property in the trust is set aside and available for all current creditors. There is not great expense or risk to attacking domestic trusts. Usually, it is done on a contingency fee by the creditor's attorney. Finally, there are long statutes of limitations to attack a fraudulent domestic transfer; six years or more is typical.

Yeah, please do. Because I've never seen a properly-constructed trust be attacked by ANYONE--not heirs, not ex-wives, not creditors, NOBODY. And please tell me how in the hell, if YOUR CLIENT put his assets in trust to be left to his gay lover, anyone can challenge it?

Come on, if this is another example of how the heteros can and the gays can't, I want to know. Trusts BYPASS PROBATE. They CANNOT BE KILLED BY A PROBATE JUDGE.

B you reminded me about QTIP trust, RiR since you are in the estate planning field I assume you know what they are. Isn't that an unfair advantage that a heterosexual married couple can defer tax estate taxes until the death of the surviving spouse yet homosexual couples cannot do the same?

Great points B!

Trusts bypass probate but they can still be attacked outside of the trust, it happens all of the time. For example, say someone transfers an asset to a trust shortly before their death. Well if a survivor wanted to that asset to get back into the estate to get their hands on it they could assert that the donor did not have the capicity to make the donation.

Moreover, someone could assert that the grantor didn't have the capicity to establish the trust in the first place.

So far, only _B_ has come up with an argument that makes sense, that even though a gay man can pass things to his lover, those assets are subject to estate taxes. Which is true. It's also true of all single people, which is another reason the tax law disciminates in favor of married people, period. Allowing gays to get married doesn't change the fact that inheritance rules, Social Security and Medicare entitlements, government and corporate pensions--all are skewed to benefit married people at the expense of single people.

Letting gays marry will only compound the problem, not mitigate it. I say, throw out all the laws that discriminate against singles, period.

Because I've never seen a properly-constructed trust

LOL. You keep on changing the facts and narrowing them down. Eventually you will get to some kind of obscure fact pattern where you will be right, so keep on narrowing.

If someone places assets inside a trust immediately before death, it is subject to the 3-year lookback rule. That's true of heteros also.

The only reason we're arguing about trusts and wills is because of Joe's original moronic post that inferred that gays can't inherit property. And sorry, I just can't get my head around the fact that a gay man could leave anything to his gay lover he wants, but if he chooses not to, that's a reason to legalize gay marriage everywhere. It's a non sequitur.

LOL. You keep on changing the facts and narrowing them down. Eventually you will get to some kind of obscure fact pattern where you will be right, so keep on narrowing.

Posted by taxman
* * *

No, I don't. Some trusts are intentionally defective. Others are thrown together immediately before beginning bankruptcy proceedings, and they're just begging the judge to tear them apart.

But if you believe that a gay man can't leave substantial property behind TO ANY PERSON HE WANTS, using trusts, insurance, annuities, retirement plans--it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Godalmighty--OJ Simpson is a millionaire who hasn't paid out a single dime to the Goldman family. Now how do you s'pose that is?

Please give me one example, of a gay man who put his property into a trust, and had that arrangement successfully attacked. Or had a life policy pay out to his partner, and a court intervened. Or an annuity stream. Or a pension benefit, where the partner was named beneficiary.

Just one.

Back to the nonprobate assets. Of course RIR can only argue that gays have equal rights to plan their estates - but nobody ever argued that they didn't.

RIR--first of all--understand that, just because you avoid probate, you do NOT avoid estate taxes - ___b___

So far, only _B_ has come up with an argument that makes sense, that even though a gay man can pass things to his lover, those assets are subject to estate taxes. Which is true. -RisR

There, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is the INEQUALITY, R is R, you just said it yourself.

Please give me one example, of a gay man who put his property into a trust, and had that arrangement successfully attacked. Or had a life policy pay out to his partner, and a court intervened. Or an annuity stream. Or a pension benefit, where the partner was named beneficiary.


RiR, you narrow the facts even more too funny. I am leaving the office now, but just for you I will. Are there any restrictions on the time frame - i.e., what if I find a case from 1963?

Well, really the only advantage married people have in their estate tax exemption is the ability to use the $1.5 million exemption twice: once for he, once for she. And if one spouse dies, you can no longer use the double exemption, and estate taxes will be owed on all assets over the threshold. How about polygamists?--there was a thread about that the other day--should a man with six wives be allowed to use the estate tax exemption 7 times?

Again, though--that's the inequality between marrieds and singles, Sitdown. Not heteros and gays. Up to me, I'd get rid of all that too.

Instead of focusing on ways gays should be getting the same stuff married people have, why not instead level the playing field for all people, period? Two people shouldn't have more rights just because they got a pastor to etch his name on the bottom of a marriage certificate, I don't care if they're gay or straight.

But if you believe that a gay man can't leave substantial property behind TO ANY PERSON HE WANTS, using trusts, insurance, annuities, retirement plans--it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I never said that. You said trusts were bulletproof. I merely contradicted your statement, to which you have tried to twist my words into an argument that I never made.

Tax, you're the one who keeps moving the goal posts. You said earlier that trusts are easy to attack, I said no. So please show me an example of a gay man getting his trust thrown out by heirs who thought they should have gotten his stuff. I mean, the examples should be thick on the ground. And you shouldn't have to go all the way back to 1963--it should be in the back pages of the Times-Picayune, a couple of times a month, if you're right. But you're not.

For that matter, how many trusts have you set up personally, that have been successfully attacked?

""I can't do those things either, and I'm straight. And if you want to argue that we should scrap joint tax returns, sign me up.""

Like you said you are a single guy. I was talking about a couple who would be married if they were allowed, and thereby able to pay the same tax rate as a straight married couple.
Also the same thing with adoption, in Florida gay couples can be foster parents but they cannot adopt children, even the children of their partner so that in the event of the partner or thier seperation they will have custody or visitation.

From what I read of your posts you basicly contend that if there is some method whereby a gay couple can arrange for similar distribution of assets through wills, etc. then that suffices to be "equal enough" to satisfy gay couples who want to be married.
"Equal enough" is your idea of equality but doesn't satisfy those who want "equality."
In the end gay marriage will have its day, the religious folks and others opposed will slowly lose credibility and society will eventually right this wrong just as it has other wrongs in the past.

The might be true, Danni. Gays will be allowed to marry, and it'll be another 5 million people going through my pockets. I'll have to pay SS survivorship benefits that I'll never be able to use, more pensions will go broke, and they'll be able to draft clever trust agreements that can maximize the estate tax exemption, which means more taxes for me.

Congratulations. I guess we don't have enough people in this country who aspire to leach off the rest of us. Silly me.

. You said earlier that trusts are easy to attack

Where did I say that? You started the whole thing by saying trusts are bullet proof, which they are not. Thus, I shouldn't have to provide an example of a gay man's trust being successfully attacked, I need only provide an example of a trust being successfully attacked to prove you wrong. You and I both now of circumstances of trusts being successfully attacked A trust can be attacked on formalities, lack of capicity in establishing the trust, etc... There are definite pitfalls to be wary of.

Oh poor you RisR. My heart bleeds.
BTW, right now I'm just as single as you and I will remain that way.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, the State decided because it is a State issue.

That's within the Constitution.

So, if another State says 'no', accept it as it is the way this nation was founded. If it ain't in the Constitution and it ain't within Congress' authority, then the State decides.

If only everyone who support the Constitution accept what results from that same piece of paper.

RIR--

Polygamist scenario doesn't really hold water. First, the spousal exemption allows you to transfer to your spouse tax free. Any $$ beyond that is subject to the $2+ Million exemption (changes every year till it sunsets soon) and that is attributable to the ESTATE not the number of wives.

And SS will be just fine. They'll hopefully enact one of two fixes that'll keep this program solvent for 100 years. First is a means-testing for those who want to collect. If i'm extremely wealthy when i retire, i don't need the SS money. Second is increasing the $$ threshold for contributions. Yeah, that'll suck a bit, but hey we still have the low taxes compared to the rest of the industrialized world and i'm willing to give up some $$ to guaranty some old folks don't have to live on the streets.

Petrous---14A of the constitution deals with this very issue.

And this is a federal and a state issue considering the federal tax issues.

"Also, his pensions and retirement accounts do NOT transfer tax-free; there is income tax due to the recipient."
posted by rightisright

But the straight spouse can transfer, say, a Traditional IRA directly into their own account and enjoy the tax benefits by deferring payments for years, possibly decades to come.

The gay spouse must claim all that as income, in the first year.

Same with Roths: the straight survivor gets to stretch the tax benefits out over the rest of their lives and their children's lives. The gay survivor must use all the Roth benefits (tax-free income) the first year.

Also, one huge thing barely touched upon in the thread: Social Security beneficiary rights. Gay couples pay in the same as straights, yet get no survivors rights.

And lastly, the fact many rights can be aquired, through legal hoops and other means, doesn't mean it's equal; rather, it points out the unfairness of making one group dance for rights the majority gets to take for granted just by saying "I do."

and as I said before, this issue is one that would never pass in most places. In other words the WILL OF THE PEOPLE would be somewhere in the middle.....as in agreement for civil unions as the fartherest left.......and this of course is exactly why the agenda cant be furthered with it on a ballot.......


and it also makes it harder to sing west side story........as in.....
I feel pretty and witty and .....GAY.......

well now that I read it and think about it.......maybe there is more to that line than I always thought........yuk yuk

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-06-15 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why the fuck do you think you should be able to vote on anyone else's civil
rights?

Using your logic and reasoning (i use that term lightly) there would still be dogs and fire hoses used on blacks in the south.

I used to breed and show dogs. A dog with a "gay tail" was one with a tail that curled over the dog's back. WHY has the word been changed to portray only ONE thing today? You could say the same thing about "straight," I guess. What was wrong with heterosexual and homosexual?

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-06-15 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

You breed and show dogs? lol.

heh heh.

How sweet.

One more thing. I'm from Massachusetts and so far, I haven't heard of any straight marriages being compromised because of gay marriage.

Hell, my parents are celebrating their 40th anniversary this Sunday. I hope they make it to 41 now that gay marriage is STILL legal.

joe........men with men and women with women........sounds like a violation of the natural order of things..
but the question remains.....why is the left SCARED Of the people having thier voice to this matter?

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-06-15 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

The real question is why are you so rabid in your attacks of it.

I don't care what you say. You have no gay friends and therefore this will never be an issue in your life, EVER!

It wont affect a single part of your day to day life. All it will do is give you something to think about and dwell on with such anger...that is, until you breakdown and end up on your knees at a truckstop.

Is that how you got started?

Also, his pensions and retirement accounts do NOT transfer tax-free; there is income tax due to the recipient. And my point on life insurance is, that gay people can name anyone they want as beneficiary of their named assets.

You do realize, I hope, that life insurance and annuities and retirement accounts and trusts BYPASS probate, right? That even if the guy dies intestate, his gay partner still gets it all, if that's what the forms say?
Maybe you don't. But that's the way it is. A life insurance policy cannot be challenged, cannot be voided by a court--the custodian cuts a check within 72 hours of receiving a death claim, made out to the most recent beneficiary on the form.
Sounds like this is all too much trouble, though, huh?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-06-15 01:28 PM | Reply

Again your point is wrong. A husband or wife would be entitled to survivor benefits of a pension, would a partner? Not many companies currently allow that. Again you are making the point for partner rights while trying to discriminate.

This is an interesting topic
First one person suggested Estate planning and was told that was only for married people.
Another person suggested to get rid of all assets and let the state pay for the final expenses. This passes on those expenses to you and me! How bizzare.

Another person says the spousal expemption won't apply and therefore is a form of bigotry. But then what estate tax planning is being done for that spouse?

Ok if we want everything for free, I guess we have to change a whole bunch of rules then. If we want everyone to pay a fair share, then proper estate planning works. Which includes products like life insurance which B suggested above which the end product avoid probate. Yes it is included in the estate, but what are we trying to do, provide for the future of the loved one or not?
We can also in most cases take the pensions and convert those to annuities which will also avoid probate and that dreaded spouse issue. There are annuities that will not cost out of pocket money as long as you use companies that are legit and you don't get your eyes shined over looking for earnings that can't ever be met in the real world. That is why annuity companies go out of business in the first place.

Too many people try to spin down assets and do it wrong and have to pay the taxes anyway. Too many people listen to the wrong advice and don't understand what they can really do.

Do you think that Ted Kennedy is paying taxes on his money that he never earned?
I think that he is getting top-notch advice that you can get also.

The point is that more than enough people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts put forth the initiative to get that on the ballot. Maneuvering by the legislature and this new govenenor got it killed. The legislature still has acted on the Ballot passed question to lower the taxes here in the Commonwealth by .2% that has been on the books for that past 5 years, saying the can't afford to do that. If they don't have that flow of money coming in, then they can't spend it on those projects they like doing and they can't get paid their paychecks for not listening to the voters

"Another person says the spousal expemption won't apply and therefore is a form of bigotry. But then what estate tax planning is being done for that spouse? "

You're missing the point. Why should one group of people have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get only some of the same rights my wife and I get to take for granted?

And remember, even then, there are no provisions to guarantee second-to-die pension availability, none for equality in retirement account inheritance, and no way for the surviving partner to receive SS survivor benefits, despite the fact gay couples pay in at the same rate as straight couples.

Great, now Columbia is advancing socially faster than the US.

The majority never owned slaves in this country.

If one's civil rights were up to "the majority", a number of southern states would still be segregated.

We're currently treating one group of people as second-class citizens. Why? Because God caused them to love the way they do.

Equal rights are equal rights. And NO ONE can argue what we have now is equality: issues surround death show markedly different treatment, with gays at a severe disadvantage.