There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
Being married to someone does not grant either of them any additional "rights." There are a few privledges, some companies have corporate policies regarding marraige, but there are absolutely NO rights.
- There is no POA, unless you choose to write and grant one. This is one of the most common misconceptions. Frankly every couple (including married ones)should have conditional POAs (financial, insurance, & medical yes they are diferent and not interchangable) created and signed for each other; most do not.
- Hospital visitation is a function of individual hospital policy, except in regards to the holder of a medical POA, which marraige does NOT grant.
- Inheretance "right" does not exist. Inheretance is goverend by a set of laws created by each individual state, & is overriden by a will.
- Immigration is not a "right" it is a granted status by the Federal Govenment. The Feds do NOT have to grant citizenship to even heterosexual spouses, they just usually do.
You are completely wrong regarding "Civil Unions". They have not been inacted (and have been actively resisted by the gay rights folks) because of PR. The enacting legislation can easily contain language creating the parallal, or simply eliminate the existing "marriage" laws and replace them using a "civil union" nomenclature.
The only thing DOMA and all the state laws does is specificly define what the term "marriage" means in a legal sense. It excludes NOBODY. It only explicitly defines what a particular word means.
Married people have no more rights than anybody else. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Being able to leave without teh headaches of divorce is a good thing in my moind. besides there have been Palimony suits have been recognized in this country for decades.
- There is no POA, unless you choose to write and grant one. This is one of the most common misconceptions. Frankly every couple (including married ones)should have conditional POAs (financial, insurance, & medical yes they are diferent and not interchangable) created and signed for each other; most do not.
- Hospital visitation is a function of individual hospital policy, except in regards to the holder of a medical POA, which marraige does NOT grant.
- Inheretance "right" does not exist. Inheretance is goverend by a set of laws created by each individual state, & is overriden by a will.
- Immigration is not a "right" it is a granted status by the Federal Govenment. The Feds do NOT have to grant citizenship to even heterosexual spouses, they just usually do.
You are completely wrong regarding "Civil Unions". They have not been inacted (and have been actively resisted by the gay rights folks) because of PR. The enacting legislation can easily contain language creating the parallal, or simply eliminate the existing "marriage" laws and replace them using a "civil union" nomenclature.
The only thing DOMA and all the state laws does is specificly define what the term "marriage" means in a legal sense. It excludes NOBODY. It only explicitly defines what a particular word means.
Married people have no more rights than anybody else. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Being able to leave without teh headaches of divorce is a good thing in my moind. besides there have been Palimony suits have been recognized in this country for decades.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
901 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
521 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
569 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
631 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
646 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
227 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
582 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
580 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
467 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
574 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
626 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
665 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
250 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
712 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
636 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
547 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
256 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
247 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
620 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
626 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
531 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
261 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
242 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
229 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
242 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
551 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
512 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
588 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
669 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
251 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
504 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
480 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
501 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
650 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
556 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
714 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
625 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
594 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
558 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
618 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
683 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
511 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
570 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
461 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
580 Views