Political Discussions
California Supreme Court and Proposition 8
Posted by MarMatthias • 3/05/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: California, court, gays, marriage, proposition 8
At this point, where or not Proposition 8 is valid is a moot topic. The people of California voted on it twice and passed it twice. Now I believe the issue becomes a matter of how much does California value and listen to the voice of the people. If the California Supreme Court does over turn Proposition 8, what precedent are we establishing in regards to the vote of the people. If the people's vote doesn't matter and can be over turned after two elections, then what value is our vote and do we still live in a democracy?
---
matthiaschronicles.tanaya.net/
User Comments
-
If the people's vote doesn't matter and can be over turned after two elections, then what value is our vote and do we still live in a democracy?
The people's voice was overturned when the majority voted to keep Jim Crow laws.
And what a good thing that was.
We do not live in a direct democracy. The system is set up specifically to prevent a tyranny of the majority. In civil rights issues - the majority vote should not be the last say - not one civil right has ever been won in this country by popular vote. NOT ONE.
Not women's rights, not black's rights, not voting rights, not labor rights - not a single right has ever been won by voting. -
I'm not so sure we even live in an indirect democracy...
-
Why? Because the court system and constitutional protections are being used the way they're supposed to be?
Because a group of people you feel don't deserve equality might actually get some equality?
Because a group of people you feel should not have rights will have equal rights?
How is that not a democracy? -
Over the last 3 decades I have watched the erosion and corruption of a government that passes laws that don't promote equality, but rather everything else but.
I'm all for equality and fairness, but I do believe the government has a limited role and that the people in society have a larger say to implement a methodology that is based on responsibility (of one's actions) and not mandated laws.
Up until the 1960s, disabled people were locked away in institutions. It took laws to see these people as human beings. Why?
A democracy is more then "Big Brother" passing laws. A democracy is equality on a moral level as well. -
Your reply here confuses me.
First you say:
Over the last 3 decades I have watched the erosion and corruption of a government that passes laws that don't promote equality, but rather everything else but.
How does passing laws stating that people cannot be discriminated against because of race, gender, religion etc promote everything but equality? How does making laws apply equally to all citizens, allowing everyone equal access to laws and benefits promote something other than equality?
Then yuo say:
I'm all for equality and fairness, but I do believe the government has a limited role and that the people in society have a larger say to implement a methodology that is based on responsibility (of one's actions) and not mandated laws.
So you want equality, but only if equality is achieved by a majority vote.
Which has never happened in this country. Which means you don't want equality.
Then you say:
Up until the 1960s, disabled people were locked away in institutions. It took laws to see these people as human beings. Why?
They were locked away because there were no laws in place to protect them from the majority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Argh!!!!
A democracy is more then "Big Brother" passing laws. A democracy is equality on a moral level as well.
Equality on a moral level? Really? So your morals and my gay brother and his husband's morals are equal in your opinion? They have equal weight? Equal validity? SO they should receive equal treatment under the law?
-
-
[At this point, where or not Proposition 8 is valid is a moot topic.]
Says you.
The voters do not have infinite power. If there are checks and balances to prevent one of the branches of government from becoming tyrannical, why would there not be checks and balances on the voters?
If I succeeded in a group hypnosis that convinced the majority of Americans that it's okay to rape children, should it become legal?-
Maybe we should vote to ban the practice of Christianity? I mean, if the majority wills it....
-
www.googobits.com/articles/27-a-practical-guide-to-hypnosis.html
Now I just need access to a television station. -
Should it (raping a child) become legal, no. Could it ? That could easily be a debatable yes.
-
Christianity is many parts of the world already is illegal.
-
[Christianity is many parts of the world already is illegal.]
Only because a bigger, stupider religion is bullying Christians in those places.
[Should it (raping a child) become legal, no. Could it ? That could easily be a debatable yes.]
And that's why we can't just let the voters supersede all legislation. -
You missed the point - the majority does NOT always rule.
If they did then we could easily pass laws that would affect others on any number of things.
Wanna ban Christianity? Sure! Make child molestation legal? Alright! Wanna reinstitute slavery? you betchya!
All we need is a majority vote and we're golden!
-
-
I'm not convinced that the ceremonial marriage is really a proper domain of government anyway. "The Institution of Marriage" has historically involved the exchange of property between the fathers of young women and a male caretaker or husband. All of this romanticized sex slavery becoming rather modernized into an equal partnership no longer necessitated in any governmental sense so long as community property laws are admitted. Why gays want any part in this morbid ritual is beyond me -
Let me state it this way, I do not believe the government should have to dictate what equality is. Why can't we as a single human race figure that out?
We have laws that say racism is a crime. That doesn't stop a vast number of people practicing it. The the problem isn't with the government on this issue, but more fundamentally within our society.
There are always going to be some differences in beliefs, but one fundamental belief that most share is we are equal.
Why shouldn't your brother and husband be considered as equals? There does obviously have to be some government framework to equalize a diverse society (in regards to personal beliefs and protection), but the basis of a democracy is that every voice has one vote.
The base context in the "gay marriage" issue is there should be a separation between religious views and state actions that are representive of all sides.
I'm a fundamentalist, so I look at things from that point of view. Fundamentally, we are all human beings and as such, we are all equal. This is were I believe the moral component comes in.
Why should it be necessary for the government to pass laws (that tend to differ at the state level, hence my comment about gov't not promoting equality) that tell us to behave like civilized human beings? Equality should be part of the moral framework we teach our children, thus when they grow up and have children of their own, their children will be tought the same equality they were.
Equality doesn't comes from laws. Equality comes from us seeing each other as equal.-
Let me state it this way, I do not believe the government should have to dictate what equality is. Why can't we as a single human race figure that out?
I don't why they can't. Prop 8 proves that people have not figured this concept out. The fact that people are still bigoted, racist, sexist and phobic proves that we have not yet figured out that we are equal. And until we do - someone is going to have to make a law providing legal equality for people.
There are always going to be some differences in beliefs, but one fundamental belief that most share is we are equal.
really? We all think we're equal? Is that why white supremacist groups exist? Is that why gay marriage equality has been blocked? Because we all think we're equal?
Why shouldn't your brother and husband be considered as equals?
I dunno - why not ask the people who are pushing to prevent them from being equal that question?
The base context in the "gay marriage" issue is there should be a separation between religious views and state actions that are representive of all sides.
Yes, amazingly enough we are not a theocracy - ergo laws cannot reflect one religious doctrine.
I'm a fundamentalist, so I look at things from that point of view. Fundamentally, we are all human beings and as such, we are all equal. This is were I believe the moral component comes in.
Great! So you support the right of homosexuals to legally enjoy the same marriage laws and benefits as heterosexuals, in a homosexual marriage!
Why should it be necessary for the government to pass laws (that tend to differ at the state level, hence my comment about gov't not promoting equality) that tell us to behave like civilized human beings?
You're asking the wrong person. You should pose that question to KKK members, and the people who lobbied for prop 8.
Equality doesn't comes from laws. Equality comes from us seeing each other as equal.
Except that we don't see each other as equals. If we did there would be no such thing as racism, bigotry, and hatred. -
Sadly, I have to agree. As long as we don't see each other as equals, this pathetic nonsense is going to continue...
As far as the KKK or any other such group, I have no use for such blind hatred. -
[As far as the KKK or any other such group, I have no use for such blind hatred.]
Agreed.
Even worse than blind hatred is hatred in spite of reality. -
Sadly, I have to agree. As long as we don't see each other as equals, this pathetic nonsense is going to continue...
So why are you and others perpetuating and supporting inequality and blatant bigotry?
If you want equality - then stand up for it, but stand up for EVERYONE to be equal.
-
-
As a part of this issue, why should it be necessary for the gay population (or any other group) to resort to violence and destruction to have their voice heard? These groups should be able to have their voices heard without such extreme measures.
For that matter, whose business is it to decide whether two consenting adults should be intimately involved and how? There are plenty of idiotic laws (particularly in the south) that do just that irregardless of sexual orientation.-
[why should it be necessary for the gay population (or any other group) to resort to violence and destruction to have their voice heard?]
I dunno. None of my gay friends have been violent.
[These groups should be able to have their voices heard without such extreme measures.]
I think what this boils down to is a few cases getting the spotlight. -
As a part of this issue, why should it be necessary for the gay population (or any other group) to resort to violence and destruction to have their voice heard? These groups should be able to have their voices heard without such extreme measures.
Violence is typically a last resort when one's rights are threatened.
But I'm not remembering the gay community throwing any riots, so I'm not sure what your point is?
-
-
At this point I don't care what they do. I live in a state where it isn't accepted and they do. I like more power to the states. -
The "slippery slope" it seems to me, is that marriage has been so governmentalized. Instituted into the tax code, regulated to conform to racial bigotry until very recently in some states, it has become a sort of indictment upon interferance into the relationship between individuals.
-
So then completely remove marriage from the system and give everyone civil unions. Then the religions can have their own little marriages and every one becomes legally equal.
-
Well, when it comes to property, insurance, power of attorney etc and so forth - there are hefty benefits granted to spouses - including child custody.
In what way could those safegaurds be put into place if not by legal code? -
A durable power of attorney and living will combination can do exactly that.
-
No, they can't. When will you understand that?
-
-
this from an Anarchist? interesting. Seriously though, legally there could easily be a contract between parties. Some states (like here in WA) consider a couple "married" for all legal purposes, such as most you listed--after a certain # of years (7 i think). Insurance beneficiaries need not be related, to my knowledge.
-
this from an Anarchist?
Yup. This system is not set up or designed to work in other ways - so to better safegaurd people who support this system, one has to look at the greater ramifications of different actions. Even if that means supporting laws. I fully support laws that protect people (mainly civil liberties, rights, and recourse) - that's legitimate. I don't support laws that are arbitrary, coercive, or harmful to people. Those are illegitimate laws, and an abuse of power.
Even in your example (common law marriage) the couple needs to be "married" before receiving those benefits. Right now private contracts - even wills - can be contested by family members if the couple was never legally married. So they are not the proper protection for spouses who dedicate their lives to one another.
With regards to child custody - gaining custody of a biological child without being married is hard enough - but if the child is not yours, but a step child it's even harder. If your partner dies, that child could be taken away from you.
Regarding insurance - I was speaking of coverage - not beneficiaries of life insurance.
-
-
From the sound of it, you are a liberal in the true sense of the word. but of course Anarchist sounds cooler. As far as insurance coverage, you are probably right. Probably there is some middle ground to be had though. Unfortunately, I think that the politics on both sides go beyond such minutae.
-
Well, I've been called a Rational Anarchist, a Libertarian Socialist, an Anarcho-communist, Anarchist, b*^&Tch, Commie - you name it
Meh *shrug*. (my "political compass" tests put me way, way, way to the left and down in the corner somewhere )
Just a side note, Anarchists do believe and respect legitimate forms of authority - I believe that legitimate authority is rare, and what we're talking about borders on that line. At least in the context of a Democratic Republic, or any State based government.
I think in terms of legal protections in marriage, there either need to be protections in place (requiring legislation) OR family members and other rightful people who can contest wills, power of attorney, child custody etc...need to lose some leverage on their side, thus making private contracts a bit more binding.
I'm thinking the latter aint gonna happen!
-
-
I see. I'm center-left and well libertarian--according to the Political Compass anyway.
-
Yeah, I'm in the political naughty corner And I think I'm only still on the compass at all because I had to fudge some of the question that didn't provide the answers I wanted
-
lol, the political compass is probably the best of those quiz sites, but still does not provide a comprehensive picture. And I think everyone had to fudge some answers
-
-
I don't understand your contention that the question of validity is moot. In fact, that's the very issue the court is ruling on: whether or not the proposition was properly enacted.
I was shocked to discover that California allows its constitution to be amended by a simple majority vote of the populace; that seems a risky proposition and one that runs counter to the concept of a constitutionally-based government. If the state Supreme Court overturns the law, it will likely be on grounds relating to that process, and to the fact that the constitutional provisions for amendments and revisions leave an open question as to whether or not the process employed was appropriate in this circumstance.
Thus, the precedent it will set with regard to the vote of the people is that such a vote only has an effect if it's conducted according to the procedures set forth in the state's constitution. That doesn't strike me as a particularly disturbing precedent.-
But don't you see, MadameX? Civil rights are irrelevant. </sarcasm>
-
I also find California's amendment process rather bizarre. Passing laws by direct democracy is one thing (albeit pretty crazy for such a huge entity), but modifying the constitution is quite another.
-
-
Here is an article in its entirety I posted on Nov. 12th, 2008 regarding Proposition 8. It provides a possible solution to the issue in a way that is workable:
This is a venomous topic... Especially in light of Prop 8 being passed in California and similar laws in other areas. I have made my position on this quite clear: I don't believe Gays should have the right to marry. Now before you go jumping to the comment box to send a flaming response to this, read on. You will be surprised at what I have to say, and ultimately, may even agree irregardless of your sexual orientation.
Lets starts by defining marriage. Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities. "Separation of Church and State" pundits have a real problem here. If the state governs marriage licenses, they are literally bringing the church, and its moral standings and practices, into the middle of government actions. This is a bad idea. Having said that, it is also a bad idea having the government regulate the church on its belief system. Doing so becomes discrimination and infringes on an individual's religious rights.
So, how do we keep the state out of the church and vise-versa? Simple, the government stops issuing marriage licenses all together. Some may scoff at this, but there are very huge benefits, above and beyond what I have already mentioned, to all parties involved, including the state. Furthermore, no new laws need be written and the method is available right now.
Before we delve into the legalities of the state, lets look at a marriage license as administered by the government. Marriage licenses give couples certain "rights". However; from the legal standpoint, they leave out allot of important details. Divorce court is a clear example of all the short comings of a marriage license. The case and issues the surrounded Terry Schiavo illustrate even more pitfalls of a marriage license.
Marriage licenses are very limited and don't address the many issues that arise in the above illustrations. We do, however, have a legal framework that does address all of the above limitations and more. The laws involved are solid and have already passed the trials of time. A "Civil Union" can be created between any two people with a Durable Power of Attorney (DPA) and a Living Will (LW). I will refer to the combination as a DPALW herein.
Ironically, a DPALW actually provides more rights then a marriage license and is completely void of any religious belief system and it provides complete separation of church and state. Lets look at the issues the a DPALW solves that a marriage license does not.
First, in the case of Terry Schiavo, the DPALW can define a percentage of brain activity (15% is the current medical defined level) whereby a person is considered "alive". Second, a DPALW can define who can control and under what situations the control takes place. For example, if criminal activity is suspected, a second executor or an executor panel can be defined. How and where life insurance can be used in the event of death can also be defined.
Now we'll examine other situations where a marriage license actually fails in protecting the people involved. If there are any children involved, who has control over them can be stated. If separation becomes a factor, where and what percentage of assets does each person in the "Civil Union" receive can be stipulated. (P)Alimony can be defined. There are so many more topics that can be defined or described that a DPALW far exceeds the limitations of a marriage license.
From the governmental standpoint, marriage licenses are a disaster waiting to happen that really leave both individuals in the union left in a void in a large number of situations. Marriage licenses are bring a barge of religious values and beliefs into the situation, causing the state to get into the middle of a never ending mess. A marriage license can be contested on a number of levels as evidenced by divorce court and the huge backlog of pending cases.
A DPALW offers a solution to all of these issues without any of the baggage associate with marriage licenses. From the standing of a modern day society, a marriage license is often not the best way and provides little or no legal footing in a wide range of issues. As a final statement, I believe society would be far better off by eliminating government issued marriage licenses and adopting the DPALW method for civil unions for all types of "Civil Unions", including "traditional marriages".
I've received many comments on this in suport of the concept. They can be read at:
matthiaschronicles.tanaya.net/Archives/2008/11/12/1226526375.shtml-
Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities.
Wrong. Marriage was never originally a religious sacrament. The church didn't even bother with marriage until the royal families forced them to publicly bless their unions in the middle ages.
Marriage was never anything more than a legal contract for the purpose of inheritance, and transference of property.
If the state governs marriage licenses, they are literally bringing the church, and its moral standings and practices, into the middle of government actions. This is a bad idea. Having said that, it is also a bad idea having the government regulate the church on its belief system. Doing so becomes discrimination and infringes on an individual's religious rights.
Fail. The government is NOT regulated the church. And marriage is NOT a religious institution. No matter how badly you want it to be.
Marriage is a legal concept. YOU'RE religious rights are NOT infringed upon when gays marry.
So, how do we keep the state out of the church and vise-versa? Simple, the government stops issuing marriage licenses all together.
Or, how about you keep religious beliefs in the church, and let the legal contracts stay in the courts?
Marriage licenses give couples certain "rights". However; from the legal standpoint, they leave out allot of important details.
Yeah, like equality. Oh wait, that can be remedied really easily.
The laws involved are solid and have already passed the trials of time. A "Civil Union" can be created between any two people with a Durable Power of Attorney (DPA) and a Living Will (LW). I will refer to the combination as a DPALW herein.
Fail. They do not provide the same protections and benefits as a marriage. Family members can easily contest a living will compared to a marriage license. They also do NOT confer the same rights and benefits as a marriage.
Marriages are NOT religious institutions. Marriages do NOT interfere with your religion. Gay marriages do NOT infringe on your religion. The state is NOT regulated religion with marriage licenses.
We've been through this before. -
Maybe the more pertinent question is WHY is marriage a legal concept? The roots of laws that provide all of those 1000+ benefits to married couples lie exactly where those who now protest that they should be extended are least comfortable: in the idea that a certain family structure was desirable and the government should foster that unit by making it legally and financially beneficial for people to marry and stay married.
It strikes me as odd that the very people who object to the government setting up that kind of value system are the ones who want to fit more differently shaped pegs into the clearly-defined hole created by the earliest version of the "family values" platform rather than abolishing the hole altogether. -
Because there are no current laws in place that provide the same protections and benefits for couples as marriage.
And I truly believe it's moved beyond any traditional (or perceived) "value system" and has encompassed the freedom of people to invest their time and energy into relationships and to reap the rewards for such investments. Or at the very least, be protected from having said investments be taken away by people who have not invested their time and energy into a person.
For example: an unmarried couple (straight or gay, doesn't matter) spends their life together, builds a savings, wealth, has jointly owned property that they built and invested in together. One partner becomes ill, and the other invests time and energy in taking care of the ailing person - bearing the entire emotional, physical and financial burden of that illness.
If they are unmarried, and the person becomes terminally ill, a family member can walk in and take power of attorney over, make all of the decisions for the ill partner, as well as contest the will and reap the benefits of the inheritance right our from under the person who did all of the work, and underwent all of the emotional stress and suffered the greater emotional loss.
If they are married, this is not likely to happen except in rare circumstances.
Power of attorney and living wills do not protect partners who are not related. So - unless the laws are rewritten to protect partners, and some kind of law is in place to determine whetehr or not a partner is in fact a serious life partner (marriage legally exhibits the level of commitment) then marriage will continue to exist.
And if it continues to exist, then everyone should have equal access to it. -
Actually, a durable power of attorney and a living will DO protect the right of those listed in them and they DO have priority over a marriage certificate. This has been proven and upheld in court already. A DPA and LW do not take into account the relationship of those listed, therefore they are the best vehicle of enforcement in accordance to the law.
Unlike a marriage certificate, a DPA is much harder to break and the individual(s) listed have all right the DPA bestows. A DPA does OVERRIDE a marriage certificate in all cases of law. The only time it doesn't is IF it can be proven that power of attorney was transfer in distress. That is extremely hard.
I know this for a fact because of working with them. An individual can transfer their authority or power of attorney to anyone they choose and the courts, hospitals, banks or every other institutions WILL uphold it in accordance to the law WITHOUT regard to relationship. That is the law.
The concept I describe uses this as a means of both sides of the relationship having their mate's power of attorney. Furthermore, a DPA/LW are federal and OVERRIDE all state laws and have to be upheld in ALL states. -
Anok, you need to find a lawyer that knows the law. In a durable power of attorney and living will, the rights YOU stipulate can far exceed the protections of a marriage certificate.
And I do fight for equality for everyone, which is why I have been pushing for a pure secular solution.
There are many Christians that do support gay marriage/unions. You will NOT find this to be true in the Muslim world in general. -
I've been through this legally before - power of attorney and living wills are NOT the same thing as the legal protections of marriage, and do NOT provide the same protections.
We (me, my husband, and his parents) fought the what we thought was the illegal usurpation of and use of power of attorney after the passing of a family member.
Guess what - they don't protect much of anything unless you have a gosh darn solid case. Other family members can swoop in and make changes or take control of ailing family members from other family members let alone from people who are not related, and are not married.
We're also currently going through this right now in my own family, as an ailing grandparent's future is being fought over by the children. Right now, the wife has control, and the kid's have not been successful in taking over - but she's ailing too.
I'll repeat this once again - power of attorney and living wills do NOT protect partners, and do NOT guarantee their protection from family members. -
They do IF circumatances are account for such an naming an executor and stipulating that the executor upholds the will of the person for whom they have power of attorney. I emphasize, the durable power of attorney and living will have to be written correctly to be effective. I'm not saying they can't be contested, but its much more difficult to contest compared to a legal marriage.
The more executors listed, the harder it becomes to contest. A DPA should list a primary, secondary and fallback executor asa minimum. The fallback executor is commonly the lawyer/law firm that drafted the DPA to begin with. The DPA has to be notarized and filed with the necessary legal establishments like a bank and hospital prior to its usage. -
Not true.
I've been through this. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
-
-
Here is a link that list the type of DPA:
www.google.com/search?q=durable+power+of+attorney
and here for Living Wills:
www.google.com/search?q=living+Will
There are a lot of things that can be written into these, so a qualified lawyer does need to be consulted.-
What is the cost of a DPA and LW compared to the cost of a marriage license? How much is the difference in paperwork? What state and federal benefits are afforded through a DPA and LW compared to marriage?
-
Cost depend upon the state you live in and how detailed you want to get. I've seen extensive DPALW's go into the thousands.
A DPALW does require a lawyer to go through the paperwork. The benefits far outweigh anything the law provides for in a marriage certificate.
To start with, not all states afford the same rights in a marriage certificate (legal marriage). Two cases come to mind, one was a heterosexual couple and the other a gay couple. In both cases, the biological family was awarded custody, not the other half of the marriage.
The case that sticks in my memory was a gay couple. One was a police officer and the other an EMT. The couple decided that wanted a child one of them went through artificial insemination. The story made national news. Long story short, one of them died in the line of duty. A custody battle occured and the court sided in favor of the biological family.
In a DPALW, custody becomes more of an issue of the contesting side attempting to prove that the directives listed in the DPALW have no legal standing. That is extremely difficult with a well written DPALW.
Second, a DPALW also addresses issues such as minimum brain activity, special medical directives in case of incompassitated and so on. A legal marriage has no protections for any of these issues. People assume they will have them, but time after time, the courts have sided AGAINST the marital partner in favor of the biological family.
DPALWs can take into account all assets and transfer of them and include stipulations based upon a suspicious death. A legal marriage has no protection at all in this regard.
There are so many other day-to-day areas that a legal marriage has NO protections for that people assume wrongly. Each of these issues can easily be handled in a DPALW.
The laws behind a legal marriage have NOT evolved to fit modern circumstances, leaving vast questionable and contestable issues that A DPALW has built into it by its very nature and can be updated as needed to take into account circumstances that may not have been previously considered.
The context of a legal marriage is still rooted in the methodology of the anglo-saxon founders of this country.
There are even cases on court record where a biological family has had a marriage annulled to strip all rights from the other marital partner.
Even a heterosexual couple should have a durable power of attorney and living will. These two documents are the ONLY legal documents that guarantees a person's wishes be carried out (if well written). -
Cost depend upon the state you live in and how detailed you want to get. I've seen extensive DPALW's go into the thousands.
Hiring attorneys is an expensive proposition, and DIY legal paperwork of this nature is a bad idea.
That leaves the protections of marriage in the hands of those who can afford such protections, and only those who can afford it.
Hence the reason marriage is a GOVERNMENT institution - because it is the right of everyone to have legal protection of this nature - not just the wealthy.
And with regards to child custody - if a parent does not ADOPT a non related child, the custody will be awarded to the biological parents, except in rare cases. Step parents do NOT have legal rights to a child, except for in certain circumstances (or they can petition to adopt and become the legal guardian). -
And how does this address tax issues? The ability to leave behind a pension for your partner? Continuity for rent control purposes? Just to name a few...
-
Hospital visitation, too!
-
DPALW Custody should always have an adoption. A good lawyer will automatically make that know.
Bills, debts can be transferred by the DPALW and bank access can also be handled. Hospital visitation (including making arrangements with the hospital to remain constantly at the bedside of the patient are also protected if stipulated). I've personally done these. The DPALW must be given to the hospital AND the patient's doctor.
As to the cost, there are quite a few lawyers that will take payments.
Taxes are filed as single, not joint. Adopted children can be claimed by both sides. A tax specialist can advise better though on the finite details.
A DPALW can be written in such a way that ALL assets are automatically transfered to the person of choice. I emphasize, this is a transfer (as in control and delegation), NOT an inheritance. -
DPALW Custody should always have an adoption. A good lawyer will automatically make that know.
And most adoption agencies do NOT recognize unmarried couples.
Bills, debts can be transferred by the DPALW and bank access can also be handled. Hospital visitation (including making arrangements with the hospital to remain constantly at the bedside of the patient are also protected if stipulated). I've personally done these. The DPALW must be given to the hospital AND the patient's doctor.
Awesome, so now instead of just having all of this automatically transferred upon a marriage - you have to put in extra paperwork, because you are no longer joint, and, must carry your legal paperwork around with you to the hospital just to see your spouse.
Why is this better?
As to the cost, there are quite a few lawyers that will take payments.
And marriage license costs about $30. Why make payments to expensive lawyers when you have the right to be legally protected for the cost of a license?
Taxes are filed as single, not joint. Adopted children can be claimed by both sides. A tax specialist can advise better though on the finite details.
So you lose tax exemptions, deductions, and it again costs you more money. And it's more complicated.
A DPALW can be written in such a way that ALL assets are automatically transfered to the person of choice. I emphasize, this is a transfer (as in control and delegation), NOT an inheritance.
And marriage already does that for a fraction of the cost, less paperwork, less hassle, and more protection.
Why not let homosexuals just get married instead of reinventing the wheel all in the name of stopping them from getting married? -
What state are you in? Unfortunately, in Nebraska, if a couple earns more then $960 they do not qualify for medicaid assistance where as a single person can qualify for medical relief assistance.
Personally, I think this sucks... -
What state are you in? Unfortunately, in Nebraska, if a couple earns more then $960 they do not qualify for medicaid assistance where as a single person can qualify for medical relief assistance.
Personally, I think this sucks...
Medicaid has several different plans in place for various people - it's not dependent at all whatsoever on marital status.
And for the elderly couple, they qualify for various benefits after the age of 65. If they have a primary insurance policy - that policy covers the majority of medical costs, then medicaid kicks in to pay the rest.
Medicare plan D is an umbrella policy to cover anything not covered by their primary insurance, medicare A, or B.
Medicaid - as in stated based health insurance has qualifying incomes. The amount is based on the poverty threshold of your state, and is then used on a sliding scale based on income. If you are married, the poverty threshold is different than if you are single. Same goes for if you have children or not.
If the elderly couple was making more than the poverty threshold for an elderly couple, then they would not qualify for FREE state based medical care any more than they would qualify for welfare, food stamps, or federal housing. If they weren't married but living together with a joint income they still wouldn't qualify if the joint income was above the poverty threshold.
I highly doubt that a couple making less than a thousand dollars a year didn't qualify for state aid. or even a thousand dollars a month. -
I need to clarify one point:
Income requirements are based on people per household, the more people per household, the higher the threshold is - so a married couple has a higher threshold than a single person.
For example:
A single guy has a threshold of $10 per year (I'm using simple, round numbers)
A married couple has a threshold of $15 per year, a married couple with one dependent (3 people per household) ha a $20 threshold,
A married couple with two dependents has a threshold of $25 per year etc and so forth.
So the couple in question can make more money than a single person per year, and still qualify for state based insurance.
It is highly unlikely that if they didn't qualify jointly that he would qualify as a single person, as the threshold would go down proportionately. -
I've dealt with the disability laws in Nebraska for 15 years. Medicare part D only covers certain medicines. Medicare Parts A & B are the primary with NE medicaid as the secondary.
Here's part of Nebraska's policies:
www.hrsa.gov/reimbursement/states/nebraska-eligibility.htm
Here's another part:
www.hhs.state.ne.us/reg/regs.htm
The area I work with most is the SSI/SSD policies.
This is pretty much what Nebraska uses as a base guideline:
www.socialsecurity.gov/dibplan/dqualify6.htm
Retirement has much higher standards then disability which covers permanent work related injuries. Having a large number of small farms and meat packing plants means a high number of on the job injuries. Nebraska also has different eligibility standards for married and single individuals. The number of hoops that a person has to go through is ridiculous. -
Yes, people have to jump through hoops to get state based insurance. That's because it's free.
Disability pay is not insurance - and if one receives disability it's counted as income. (just as social security, pensions, child support etc are counted as income).
Medicare parts A and B are only the primary insurance if the person has no other insurance policy. So a person with blue cross and blue shield, and medicare - BCBS would be the primary insurance provider. Having a primary insurance policy does not disqualify a person from having medicare.
Neither does being married.
In fact, with regards to state insurance (different from medicare) being married gives you a better chance of getting the aid then being single, as the threshold for being single is much, much lower meaning it's easy to make too much money and not qualify.
The power of attorney and living wills will NOT change a person's ability to receive insurance - as marital status has nothing to do with it.
-
-
There are cases where elderly couples are FORCED by the state to divorce in order to maintain their pensions and medical benefits. These people want to protect each other and keep the rights they previous had. The ONLY way to do this is with a DPALW.
-
There are cases where elderly couples are FORCED by the state to divorce in order to maintain their pensions and medical benefits. These people want to protect each other and keep the rights they previous had. The ONLY way to do this is with a DPALW.
Uh - no. Now you're just making things up. States do NOT force divorces to maintain pensions and health benefits. -
Spend time in a hospital as you'll see this is quite true. Social Security (SSA) has very strict mandates of who can and can not receive benefits under marriage with regards to medicaid and medicare coverage.
Here's a reference of such a case:
www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/your_story/nurse -
No - it's not true.
I'm a legally licensed insurance agent - and I know the laws well (including the laws of medicaid/medicare and the various adjunct plans and benefits).
Companies, states and hospitals do NOT make people get divorces over benefits, and there are NO laws stating that a person can't receive certain medical benefits if they're married.
That is a blatant lie.
In conversation, she tearfully told me that her 84 year old parents (married for 60 years) had to get a divorce in order for him to get Medicaid to help him pay for his mounting medical bills.
Bullshit. That's not even legal - you don't have to be single to qualify for medicaid.
Jesus. -
Actually, Anok, it is quite common for elderly people to divorce because that is the only way that they can be eligible for adequate social security benefits to allow them a minimal standard of living.
-
How do you figure? You get your social security regardless of marital status. I get my statement every month (detailing what we would be paid now if we were disabled or eligible). My husband gets a separate statement - with his numbers.
-
-
In regards to custody of children, A DPALW should also list a legal guardian. In most court cases, the legal guardian overrides a biological family.
One of the most important step persons considering a durable power of attorney and living will combination is to sit down and discuss all aspects of their relationship and make a list of questions and items that need to be addressed. Take this list to the lawyer you choose.
Secondly, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. If you don't know what your rights are, you have no way to protect them.-
In regards to custody of children, A DPALW should also list a legal guardian. In most court cases, the legal guardian overrides a biological family.
Only if it's a legal adoption. Foster parents and step parents can be listed as "legal guardians" till the cows come home - it does not mean they have any legal right to custody - only to pick up the kid at day care or school.
One of the most important step persons considering a durable power of attorney and living will combination is to sit down and discuss all aspects of their relationship and make a list of questions and items that need to be addressed. Take this list to the lawyer you choose
Or you can just get married legally - and have all of those rights immediately, and without having a lawyer at your side every time you need to make a decision at $300 per hour.
Secondly, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. If you don't know what your rights are, you have no way to protect them
Yup, I know my rights - and one of them is to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without having to jump through hoops or pay through the nose for it.
-
-
When one group can determine the rights of another group, that's a dangerous thing.-
Exactly! Who are we to decide what is right for someone else. Allowing same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. -
Sati, that's pretty much the definition of law.
-
-
Here is a link that deal with child custody issues:
www.yourlegalguide.com/family-law/
The part that caught my attention deals with divorce but may also apply to gay marriages with children involved:
"An adult who has a close relationship with both the child and one of the child's biological parents and who at one time supported the relationship (otherwise known as an "equitable parent") may also be granted custody or visitation rights. The court may consider a person to be an equitable parent even if he or she was not married to either parent."-
All forms of adoption require the consent of the biological parents. It is important to note that most states have a mandatory "waiting period" in order to provide the biological parents enough time to consider their decision. This waiting period ranges from a few days to a few months after the birth of the child, depending on the state.
Simply stating or naming a "legal guardian" in a power of attorney paperwork doesn't cut the mustard. -
I have a few power of attorney's for the purpose of deployment and last minute ditch the kids with the daycare provider until my brother gets here. I went over it extensively with the base lawyer. This crap means nothing. It only allows the interim care taker to deal with pressing issues that are dictated by the legal guardian. But only for a short period of time.
There is absolutely NO reason in this day and age that a couple cannot be defined differently. It's merely changing a few words. Christians can take this up as one more persecution and die happy that they survived garnering the pain of having to visually see two happy people together despite their same sex status. -
MarMatthias, states vary radically on that issue, and there are a great many states in which no such right exists.
-
"All forms of adoption require the consent of the biological parents."
This is inaccurate.
-
-
MarMatthias: You're ignoring the cost issue.
Why should homosexuals have to pay a lot more money and file (and carry around) a ton of paperwork to obtain the same rights as a heterosexual couple? That's not equality.-
The concept I'm pushing doesn't just apply to gay marriage. I think it should apply to ALL marriage.
Remove the religious context by replacing the entire mess with a full secular one.
As I said above, even though there are many Christians that support gay marriages, most Muslims that I have spoken with will NEVER accept it. This approach FULLY separates church and state.
When you look at the details, a well written DPALW can provide more rights uniformly across state lines. Marriage laws differ in many states and even married couples should have a DPALW.
As to the costs being higher, The best way to answer that is to ask, how much is it worth to gain some protection in a state that won't recognize a gay marriage any other way?
If I were in that situation, I would do whatever I could until the laws were equal. -
[Remove the religious context by replacing the entire mess with a full secular one.]
That's what I (and, presumably, every atheist) want, too.
[When you look at the details, a well written DPALW can provide more rights uniformly across state lines.]
Why not just make civil unions for all? Gays, lesbians, and straights get equal benefits, and the immature religious folk can have their precious word, "marraige." -
As to the costs being higher, The best way to answer that is to ask, how much is it worth to gain some protection in a state that won't recognize a gay marriage any other way?
How about - ask that gay marriages be legalized in every state! That's actually much easier!
If I were in that situation, I would do whatever I could until the laws were equal.
Except legalize gay marriage. -
I completely support civil unions.
As long as the word marriage is used, the concept will never be universally accepted. I see no point in pursueing a broken system that doesn't work or is legal in one state and illegal in another. The system needs to be completely overhauled. -
Yeah, I agree.
Isn't it amazing what rational discourse can do? Compare our exchange with this thread:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/latest-california-prop-8-news
Yikes! -
As long as the word marriage is used, the concept will never be universally accepted.
It seems to be working well in countries where it's fully legalized.
Listen - nothing in life is "universally accepted". Racists still balk at desegregation. Sexists still think women shouldn't have rights. Bigots worldwide still believe that X group should be without rights, life or liberty.
It's a good gosh darn thing that we don't wait for unanimous votes on matters of rights and civil liberties - because we'd have none.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
