COUPLES BEAR COSTS TO REPLICATE MARRIAGE BENEFITS (BARF)

Albuquerque Journal ^ | 2/29/2004 | Winthrop Quigley

[JesseHousman]

The two met when they were living in Massachusetts.

That figures.

What a mess!

"It still happens the biological family of the deceased partner will come in and ride roughshod over the surviving partner" even when wills and contracts are in place, Perls said.

It's hard to imagine a heterosexual riding roughshod over a surviving bull dyke.

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[LincolnLover]

Is this going to be an honest appraisal of the merits of this article (which, as I see it, is a discussion of legal hurdles currently faced by many same-sex couples), or was this posted merely to bash people you don't like, in this case homosexuals?

I'm sure FR has seen plenty of "bash gays for who they are", etc. threads in the past; why take a sober, honest article about legalities and drag it into the gutter?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Even here, though, heterosexual couples have an advantage. They can file jointly or separately, depending on which provides the greater tax advantage.

Is this correct? Can married couples "choose" to file separately? (Sorry for my ignorance)

[JesseHousman]

Yes.

However, it doesn't yet apply to perverts.

[JesseHousman]

...or was this posted merely to bash people you don't like, in this case homosexuals?

Liberals love to use the word "bash!"

To me bash means smacking someone in the face with a baseball bat.

You aren't a member of the Log Cabin Republicans are you? If so I wish you'd tell the members that they should haul their load of logs over to the DemocRAT Party where they will more easily "fit" in.

How can there be an honest appraisal of perverts who want the legal hurdles lowered so they can act like heterosexuals?

Homosexuals, their agenda and their sycophants are an abomination in this nation and need to be moved off the agenda of gentle discourse. As many might imagine, gentle discourse is impossible when confronted with the evil satanist homosexuals.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

I read the whole article and it is a litany of many legal and financial advantages that married couples have that homosexuals are envious of and whining about. Stupid, sickening and so blanking what.

So I should be envious of everyone who "has it better than me"?

The world should be arranged to suit the mental illness and bad choices of a couple percent of the population?
Even if the rest of the world doesn't want to go along with the plan?
Let me know if anyone wants on or off this ping list.

[Always Right]

I'm sure FR has seen plenty of "bash gays for who they are", etc. threads in the past; why take a sober, honest article about legalities and drag it into the gutter?

OK, so why do we give spousal benefits to married couples???? Because they had children and presumably in the past the wife (or in some cases the husband) had to stay home and take care of the kids. The stay at home spouse could not have a job, so they needed to be covered by insurance and needed social security benefits when their spouse died. In a gay relationship, there is no such dependancy. Being in a gay relationship should not entitle the partner into the same benefits, because they are presumably healthy and able to work themselves and obtain their own benefits. These benefits were created to help people be able to raise their children, not available just to sex partners.

[madprof98]

. . . why take a sober, honest article about legalities and drag it into the gutter?

Because this stuff is neither "sober" nor "honest." It's just propaganda. And I would venture to say it's been replicated in most major media outlets in the past couple weeks. Here in Georgia, where the legislature is debating a constitutional ban on gay marriage, yesterday's banner-headlined, front-page story in the Atlanta paper focused on the same so-called dire social inequity, but tailored for the local market.

[LincolnLover]

Point well taken when discussing childless same-sex couples.

Thanks for your comments, by the way. I'm interested in learning more about this issue without sinking to the "they're all a bunch of subhuman sodomites who'll get nothing and like it" level, so all lucid, well-reasoned comments are most welcome IMO.

[pete anderson]

Civil Unions for gay and lesbian couples will be the law of the land within two years. Even GWB with his proposal to Ban Gay Marriage by Constitution Amendment have voiced support for Civil Unions as described by the article.

[pete anderson]

These benefits were created to help people be able to raise their children, not available just to sex partners.

And if a heterosexual couple choses not to have children should they be denied the benefits as if they were gay?

[LincolnLover]

So the comments regarding benefits and different legal rights and privledges are all dishonest? I just want to be clear with what you are or are not saying here.

These poeple aren't going to go away, so I think it's best to begin to separate their legitimate legal gripes, if any, from what truly is "propaganda", that's all.

[madprof98]

So the comments regarding benefits and different legal rights and privledges are all dishonest?

I have no idea. I would no more go through this latest round of sob-stories to sort out nuggets of truth than I would have gone through Pravda to learn the facts about life in the Soviet Union. If I were interested in the woes of cohabiting homosexuals (I'm not), I would wait for an expert I trust to sort this out for me.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But she and her significant other do not file a joint tax return. Kando's veteran's and Social Security benefits are not available to her partner. Managing their family finances costs them thousands of dollars more than other families pay.

Just like having kids. Hey, can I marry my kids and get more government benefits???

I can't believe I just typed that!

[Always Right]

And if a heterosexual couple choses not to have children should they be denied the benefits as if they were gay?

No, but when a gay man figures out how to bare children, I let him have spousal benefits.

[scripter]

Hey Mr. Hardest-freeper-name-to-type,

I can't believe I just typed that!

Let me know if it works - my kids have benefits and I don't, so maybe I can get on their plan! ;-)

[Always Right]

Even though Kando helped raise Bettez's two children, she never received the standard tax deduction couples with children claim on their joint returns.

This is a line of crap. There are some benefits to being married, but this and a lot of the tax issues in this article is not one of them. It use to be that two single people would actually have a larger standard deduction when combined, then if they filed a joint return, now they are equal. So the standard deduction claim is BS. Also, what this idiot thinks is both should be able to claim the kids as dependants. This would actually double the benefit that a married couple would have, so again the arguement fails.

[Modernman]

You aren't a member of the Log Cabin Republicans are you? If so I wish you'd tell the members that they should haul their load of logs over to the DemocRAT Party where they will more easily "fit" in.

Accusing anyone who disagrees with him of homosexuality is pretty much the extent of JH's debating tactics.

[Vinnie]

And the difference between a civil union and marriage is..?

I really want to know.