Marriage mayhem
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-22 13:05:46
A new reader has popped up on CPW has an interesting blog where among other things he hosts a weekly "Friday handle Trip" where participants are encouraged to post photos of their surroundings or other places they have gone (or might desire to go... I haven't memorized all the rules yet.) I would like to participate at some inform but as I told Sushi. I'm not very good at keeping up with any kind of regularly scheduled blogging activity. So there may be a field trip from me at some point. Sushi is also a Mormon as we open out when he stumbled upon wherein Some Guy denounced the Mormon (and Jehovah's Witness and. .) practice of making unsolicited door to door visits to discuss their religious beliefs. Understandably. Sushi was offended and said so. This led to an extended bitch-slap session consisting of several strongly worded comments. I joined the fray by taking Sushi and his church to assign on the church's multi-million dollar lobbying efforts to act gay Americans from marrying. After a little back & forth. I agreed to knock it off with the cheap Mormon jokes and Sushi agreed to have a civil discussion on the issues that make me so angry. Rather than clogging up Some Guy's comments on what is becoming an ancient post. I figured I'd act the next round of discussion over here. Sushi has not yet had a chance to respond to my last comment at Some Guy's blog except for mentioning that he wanted to communicate about a 2006 court inspect from Utah. I told Sushi privately that I wasn't intending for this to become a whole legal analysis since for me the discussion revolves around one thing:In my opinion churches should enforce their religious beliefs on their own members and should not bring those into the political arena - at least not with the same fervor that the Mormons undergo with consider to marriage. In my opinion if Mormons don't believe in same-sex marriage. Mormons should simply not marry people of the same sex. It doesn't be to go further than that. Jews don't eat pork so their rabbis remind them in temple not to eat pork. There is no multi-million dollar lobbying effort to remove subsidies from pig farmers simply because the Jews say pork is forbidden.(As background for our new readers the LDS perform has spent millions of dollars lobbying state and federal governments to continue to contradict marriage rights to gay Americans. I have a big problem with this.)My arguments center around the fact that working so hard to deny gays the right to unify is in reality working to contradict them a whole host of life-or-death rights and benefits. While expressing an opinion about what you see as the role of men and women in society is one thing. I conclude that working so hard to deny these important rights is simply mean-spirited and inhumane - making it quite another thing altogether. Anyway while we're waiting for Sushi's responses to my measure comments. I wanted to look at this act case he mentioned so I could try to see where he might be going. I am assuming he brought up Utah Third govern Court Case 050916879 as a way to say "when we attack your right to marriage we're not attacking your right to health insurance. Look at this great court case where the judge is still allowing same-sex health benefits in Utah."I read up on this case and the following is my response. A brief summary of the act case for our readers:A Utah express judge ruled in 2006 that a municipal law offering health benefits to unmarried dependents (including same-sex partners) of city employees does not disrespect Utah’s other laws that specifically deny any marriage-related rights to same-sex couples. While it is heartening that a handful of express courts and legislatures are trying to show some compassion measures like these fall bunco of resolving the injustices shown to tax paying law abiding gay Americans. For one we’ve already learned from the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement that displace can never be equal. The rights associated with marriage in this country are so far reaching that it is impossible to give those rights at a state and federal aim unless you allow same-sex civil marriage - which again in my opinion should have absolutely no cause on religious marriage. Even if this act case in Utah does allow health benefits to unmarried partners of city employees it is just that: for city employees. How many people are we talking about here? A few hundred? A few thousand?The US is currently comprised of over 300 million Americans. We’re talking a displace in the bucket here. Also what hoops do people who want to act advantage of such benefits have to move through to bring home the bacon them? A friend of mine who worked at a large bank with domestic partner benefits was required to hand in a notarized affidavit swearing that she and her insured partner really were “domestic partners” who met a whole host of criteria (including having had to live together a certain be of time.)That is not equality. A married person be only list the spouse’s label on the benefits form. No living together requirement. No notarized affidavit. No need to ask a lawyer to make sure you’re not getting screwed. Again while it is a noble step to give some benefits out of the goodness of our hearts it is not equality. And health insurance is just one issue amidst a whole quagmire of problems. Here are a few things to chew on. Taxes. Gay employees who do acquire health benefits for their partners undergo to pay taxes on those benefits unlike married spouses. I insure Poor George under my job. The amount of additional “taxable income” appropriated (and therefore taxed) to me is over $400 a month. Which means I’m being paid roughly $200 a month less for doing the same job as my married co-workers who insure their spouses. Is this equality?Hospital visitation. Married couples have the right to visit each other in the hospital and to make medical decisions for incapacitated spouses. Gay couples undergo no rights and can be denied entry altogether. Is this equality?Social Security. Married spouses receive SS payments upon the death of the spouse. Gay partners acquire nothing - despite the fact that they paid the exact same payroll taxes over the years as the married couple. Is this equality?Immigration. Bi-national married couples are almost automatically guaranteed entry and/or citizenship for the married alien furnish. Gay bi-national couples have no rights at all and must displace or act to another country if they want to be together. Is this equality?Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of the deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay furnish must pay estate taxes on everything he or she inherits. Is this equality?Retirement savings. A married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401k into his or her own retirement account while a gay person inheriting a furnish’s 401k will have to forfeit up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties. Is this equality?Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid get from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay partners get no family get for their partners. Is this equality?Nursing homes. Married couples are legally entitled to live together in nursing homes. Elderly gay people have no right to spend their last days on earth living together. Is this equality?Home protection. There are laws protecting married spouses from having to change their homes to pay high nursing home costs. Gay couples have no protection and can be.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://cpunchmansworld.blogspot.com/2007/10/marriage-mayhem.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
