Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Denial of gay officer's final wish spurs outcry: criticize refusal to treat her partner as spouse
Star Ledger ^ | 11.24.05 | MARYANN SPOTO

Posted on 11/24/2005 10:55:21 PM PST by Coleus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

1 posted on 11/24/2005 10:55:22 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus
If someone wants to transfer their assets to a dying partner, I don't see where the state gets to say no. I don't approve of homosexuality but what people who live together do, ought to be their own business. I don't see where any laws were broken here.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

2 posted on 11/24/2005 11:00:50 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Er, what exactly is the city talking about when they say it's an issue of finances? Why?

Somebody intelligent please explain. =/
3 posted on 11/24/2005 11:00:50 PM PST by Termite_Commander (Warning: Cynical Right-winger Ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It's not even an issue of that. If I want to transfer my assets to my girlfriend or even my cat upon my death, I don't see where the state should be allowed to say "no".


4 posted on 11/24/2005 11:05:07 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander

Translation: They're cheap (*#@$(@#^$ looking for any way to avoid having to pay out.


5 posted on 11/24/2005 11:05:50 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander

Her pension terminates when she dies, unless she's married, in which case her spouse is entitled to continue getting the pension. Pensions are already a huge drain on most government agency budgets. Agreeing to pay benefits to unmarried partners would cost the city a lot more money.


6 posted on 11/24/2005 11:07:08 PM PST by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Yeah, but it's not like she's asking for her pension to go to the guy who owns the pizza parlor down the road. It says in the article that they have been registered as "domestic partners" for 6 years.


7 posted on 11/24/2005 11:10:14 PM PST by Termite_Commander (Warning: Cynical Right-winger Ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander

Couldn't she have asked before if she could actually transfer the benefits? It's a little late in the game to realize that she couldn't, she should have found out up front.


8 posted on 11/24/2005 11:12:36 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander
Yes... that constitutes a relationship. Its the same if you're married or been in a long-term arrangement with a boyfriend or girlfriend. Or even your cat or dog. You ought to be able to transfer your assets to whomever you regard as family. You are the one who looks after them, not the state.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

9 posted on 11/24/2005 11:13:45 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander

AND THE RULES SAY you have to be married to pass on pension benefits. Playing house doesn't count.


10 posted on 11/24/2005 11:14:50 PM PST by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander
It says in the article that they have been registered as "domestic partners" for 6 years.

Sure, and if the Freeholders cave, ie., get sloppy with the taxpayers money, in this case then expect every state employee who's not married to find a "domestic partner" who can continue to collect their pension in the event of death. Maybe a young son or daughter would do.

11 posted on 11/24/2005 11:18:22 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
If someone wants to transfer their assets to a dying partner, I don't see where the state gets to say no.

Neither do I; after all it's HER pension, and she should be able to designate whomever she pleases.

I don't approve of homosexuality but what people who live together do, ought to be their own business. I don't see where any laws were broken here.

The only thing broken here was the principle known as Freedom.

12 posted on 11/24/2005 11:18:57 PM PST by sargon (How could anyone have voted for the socialist, weak-on-defense fraud named John Kerry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I respect your position, but I think we'll have to disagree on this.

Obviously, these women can't get married. It's my opinion that the civil union or whatever they call it should count as a marriage when it applies to this situation.
13 posted on 11/24/2005 11:20:17 PM PST by Termite_Commander (Warning: Cynical Right-winger Ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Do you understand that it's not the transfer of assets that's involved here - - any common will could take care of that - - it's the taxpayer-funded pension?


14 posted on 11/24/2005 11:20:32 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander
Obviously, these women can't get married. It's my opinion that the civil union or whatever they call it should count as a marriage when it applies to this situation.

And it is opinions such as yours that conservatives are trying to keep off the Supreme Court and other courts.

15 posted on 11/24/2005 11:32:06 PM PST by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Hester sure is an appropriate name for her.


16 posted on 11/24/2005 11:34:53 PM PST by Saint Reagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Okay, let me phrase it this way.

Why shouldn't the partner receive the pension?

I'm not trying to set you up or something, just trying to figure out where you're coming from.
17 posted on 11/24/2005 11:37:14 PM PST by Termite_Commander (Warning: Cynical Right-winger Ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sargon

It's not her pension after she dies. IRAs and 401s are assets that can be willed to anyone. Government pensions are different. The Agency keeps writing checks to the retiree until they die. And then it stops.

I believe that most California governments do allow pension benefits to be passed on to registered partners, but I'm not sure about that. If so, it's because local law allows.

I can't speak for all States, but government pensions are what will bankrupt California. Watch the West Contra Costa Unified School District as the bellwether. Years ago, local politicians didn't have money to give teacher pay raises, and rather than anger the teacher's union, they promised them incredible retirement packages. Within just a few more years, retirement costs will be greater than the entire school district budget. Will they break their promises to the teacher's union or shut down all the schools? They certainly won't be able to raise taxes enough to solve the problem.

Within the foreseeable future, State and Local Governments will need to convert from "defined benefit" retirement plans to a "defined contribution" plan like most private employers use. Then, the retirement benefits will indeed be an asset of the retiree, and may be passed to anyone they choose.


18 posted on 11/24/2005 11:39:26 PM PST by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander
it's not like she's asking for her pension to go to the guy who owns the pizza parlor down the road.

No, but soon it will be.

Devalue marriage down enough and in some time, it will be common to have "pension-spouses" or some such slang term. If "marriage" doesn't mean anything, it doesn't mean anything.

I'm old enough to remember when co-habitation was shameful, and illegal. Same will happen with same sex legal agreements.

19 posted on 11/24/2005 11:42:13 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
Translation: They're cheap (*#@$(@#^$ looking for any way to avoid having to pay out

Absolutely! And it's YOUR money that they don't want to pay.

20 posted on 11/24/2005 11:43:55 PM PST by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson