posted
The odd thing is, I never heard the first thing about this. I had no idea there was any serious talk about this going on, and then I turned on the news this morning and find out that Quinn is planning on signing the bill, which has already passed both houses.
The difference between Illinois civil unions and marriage seems to be purely semantic. The new law mandates that couples in a civil union be treated by law exactly the same as any other spouse. A couple of months ago, I called Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, looking into getting cheaper health insurance, and I was told that they don't recognize domestic partners. I imagine that'll be different now.
The bill also recognizes any civil unions or same sex marriages done elsewhere as civil unions according to Illinois law. So much for DOMA here.
Probably the biggest benefit is going to be that we'll be able to change the title on our house to joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Without that, if one of us dies, the house would have gone into probate.
I can't find any mention of when Quinn plans on actually signing it, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool. I think civil unions are the perfect solution to the human rights issue given the opposition to same sex "marriage".
Regarding the house, have you considered putting it into a family trust. Its an alternative to a traditional will and will generally avoid probate. You and your spouse can be both be made "trustees", regardless of your marital status.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that civil unions are the perfect solution, but I think they're a good enough solution to deal with the actual logistics for the next 30 years until the new generation goes ahead and makes it official. Or, alternately, "marriage" stops being such a big deal to our society.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would you consider to be a "perfect" solution, given that a very large portion of the population object to redefining marriage?
Yes, In a world without that last given, we could find even better solutions. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where marriage is a big deal to most people.
I think any solution that would ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population is less than perfect. That does not mean cowtowing to peoples demands. It means seeking common ground and being willing to compromise. Part of what makes a solution "perfect" in an imperfect world, is that it balances the needs and desires of the most possible people.
It's such a pity that compromise has taken on such a negative connotation in American society. Compromise is one of the critical things that makes it possible for people to live together in harmony. Compromise is inseparable from moral living.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Cool. I think civil unions are the perfect solution to the human rights issue given the opposition to same sex "marriage".
Regarding the house, have you considered putting it into a family trust. Its an alternative to a traditional will and will generally avoid probate. You and your spouse can be both be made "trustees", regardless of your marital status.
I don't see any reason why we should have to spend the money on that. If we were married, we wouldn't have to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think any solution that would ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population is less than perfect. That does not mean cowtowing to peoples demands. It means seeking common ground and being willing to compromise.
*looks forward to the compromising on whether climate change exists* Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I disagree that civil unions are the perfect solution, but I think they're a good enough solution to deal with the actual logistics for the next 30 years until the new generation goes ahead and makes it official. Or, alternately, "marriage" stops being such a big deal to our society.
I'd be willing to call civil unions a permanent solution provided the government stopped "marrying" people altogether.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think any solution that would ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population is less than perfect. That does not mean cowtowing to peoples demands. It means seeking common ground and being willing to compromise.
This gets tricky when it comes to civil rights though.
For instance, I don't think a compromise on women's suffrage (they get 3/5 of a vote perhaps?) would have been a good thing. Giving anything less than full rights is just a useful intermediary at best.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I disagree that civil unions are the perfect solution, but I think they're a good enough solution to deal with the actual logistics for the next 30 years until the new generation goes ahead and makes it official. Or, alternately, "marriage" stops being such a big deal to our society.
Yeah I'm a fan of the latter. I'd be happy if all legal marriages were called civil unions, and the term marriage was relegated strictly to religious institutions with no legal implications.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think any solution that would ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population is less than perfect. That does not mean cowtowing to peoples demands. It means seeking common ground and being willing to compromise.
*looks forward to the compromising on whether climate change exists*
One doesn't compromise on the facts. Compromising on how one should respond to the facts, is a different story. This is to me one of the most frustrating things about the climate change debate. I think that when it comes to discussing how we should respond to climate change, everyones concerns, needs and interests should be heard and considered and compromises should be made.
The problem is that we can't even start that debate because the people who have the most to gain by doing nothing have managed to manufacture a controversy where none exists.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah I'm a fan of the latter. I'd be happy if all legal marriages were called civil unions, and the term marriage was relegated strictly to religious institutions with no legal implications.
I've been making that suggestion for 20 year now and I'm still surprised by how adamantly its opposed by both sides of the gay marriage debate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Cool. I think civil unions are the perfect solution to the human rights issue given the opposition to same sex "marriage".
Regarding the house, have you considered putting it into a family trust. Its an alternative to a traditional will and will generally avoid probate. You and your spouse can be both be made "trustees", regardless of your marital status.
I don't see any reason why we should have to spend the money on that. If we were married, we wouldn't have to.
I wasn't arguing that you shouldn't have the same rights as married people, I was suggesting a valuable option that would resolve the concern you expressed until you are given the rights you deserve.
The cost really isn't very significant. My husband and I have a trust, even though we are married. It's not any more expensive to get drawn up than a will and would likely save your daughter and any other beneficiaries a great deal of money if both you and your partner die. Married or not, its a smart thing to do.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah I'm a fan of the latter. I'd be happy if all legal marriages were called civil unions, and the term marriage was relegated strictly to religious institutions with no legal implications.
I've been making that suggestion for 20 year now and I'm still surprised by how adamantly its opposed by both sides of the gay marriage debate.
I'm going to have to call BS on that. I totally agree with getting the government out of the marriage biz, and a helluva lot of gay and lesbian friends of mine agree.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is essentially a full victory for equal marriage rights. Norway had gay civil unions twenty years ago; a generation later it was suddenly not a big deal and they just equalised it - shaking their heads and wondering why it hadn't been done that way in the first place. I predict the same development here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is the "best" solution, and I do expect it to go down about the way KoM expects. But "best" is not the same as "perfect."
DISCLAIMER: the following makes a lot of generalizations about what groups of people think, I realize it's not all inclusive.
For a while I agreed with Rabbit, that having government get out of "marriage" was the best solution. But the more I've heard people talk about it, the more I think it's fundamentally flawed. Marriage isn't "just" a word. It's a concept that people believe in, that people have emotional connections to. Human morality, ultimately, is about emotional connections to things.
The people fighting against gay marriage aren't doing so out of arbitrary spite for gays. At least, not in particular. They're fighting to protect an entire society that they've been watching disappear over the past few decades. Getting government "out of marriage" is the opposite of what they're trying to do. They WANT religion and government and marriage to all be part of the same package.
On the flipside, people fighting FOR gay marriage are trying to get gay people to be treated as fully human. And marriage is so fully ingrained into the public mind that you can't say "no marriage for you" without implying that gay people are second class citizens at best or second class humans at worse.
Marriage DOES seem to be losing hold as an institution. Fewer people are getting married, fewer people are staying married. Various social and economic forces are changing what people think of as "traditional" gender roles. (This is part of what gay marriage opponents are freaking out about). It may be that our public conception of marriage changes enough that it's NOT a big deal anymore and the government can withdraw from it. It may be that by the time all 50 states have fully-equal civil unions, no one will care about marriage anymore at all.
But so long as people DO care, changing government nomenclature doesn't appease the people who are trying to preserve a traditional society, nor most of the people trying to be fully accepted by modern society.
(BTW Lisa, I'm not saying you're wrong not to care, it's consistent with your worldview and personally I DO think it makes sense. But I'm guessing that most of your friends are closer to your political viewpoints then the general population, making them a biased sample)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah I'm a fan of the latter. I'd be happy if all legal marriages were called civil unions, and the term marriage was relegated strictly to religious institutions with no legal implications.
I've been making that suggestion for 20 year now and I'm still surprised by how adamantly its opposed by both sides of the gay marriage debate.
I'm going to have to call BS on that. I totally agree with getting the government out of the marriage biz, and a helluva lot of gay and lesbian friends of mine agree.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. That Rabbit is misrepresenting the views of her friends and acquaintances, or that you have far more friends on the pro side of the same sex marriage debate than she does, so much so that she should just discard her sample.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]The people fighting against gay marriage aren't doing so out of arbitrary spite for gays. At least, not in particular. They're fighting to protect an entire society that they've been watching disappear over the past few decades. Getting government "out of marriage" is the opposite of what they're trying to do. They WANT religion and government and marriage to all be part of the same package./[quote]
Gotta admit though, it's a fun argument because of that potential cognitive dissonance. The main opponents of gay marriage are the biggest proponents of reducing government interference in our lives. I've long wondered why Democrats don't pay more lip service to the fact that Republicans always throw hissy fits about government intervention regarding almost every aspect of life except for what happens in our bedroom (and religion).
Seems like a pretty glaring weakness if you ask me, as a piece of propaganda to harp on if nothing else.
Personally, I'm a fan of removing government from the marriage business only insofar as the government no longer issues marriage licenses, but civil union licenses. If that's the easier way to get there, then fine. Then again, I'm perfectly fine with civil unions being the standard for the next couple decades if the only difference really is the name.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The cost really isn't very significant. My husband and I have a trust, even though we are married. It's not any more expensive to get drawn up than a will and would likely save your daughter and any other beneficiaries a great deal of money if both you and your partner die. Married or not, its a smart thing to do.
If I remember the class I took right, a trust is a great way to save money. Your stuff is owned by the trust and your will sweeps anything that isn't into the trust. I'm wanting to say there's some kind of tax break on the first million dollars you're worth.
Since I expect to have that much at retirement, I definitely intend to have one. We'll probably get a trust when we buy our first house and have significant assets.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm going to have to call BS on that. I totally agree with getting the government out of the marriage biz, and a helluva lot of gay and lesbian friends of mine agree.
Go ahead, call BS, it doesn't change the truth. I don't have any recordings of the debates I've had 20 years ago so I can't prove it but I have posted that opinion on hatrack several times in the past. If you did a proper search, you might be able to find them, but you won't do that because you'd rather believe a lie that justifies your hatred of me.
Why do you have this incessant need to insult me even when we agree? Does your interpretation of the Torah actually require you to be rude and insulting to your opponents all the time, or are you allowed to be polite from time to time?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah I'm a fan of the latter. I'd be happy if all legal marriages were called civil unions, and the term marriage was relegated strictly to religious institutions with no legal implications.
I've been making that suggestion for 20 year now and I'm still surprised by how adamantly its opposed by both sides of the gay marriage debate.
I'm going to have to call BS on that. I totally agree with getting the government out of the marriage biz, and a helluva lot of gay and lesbian friends of mine agree.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. That Rabbit is misrepresenting the views of her friends and acquaintances, or that you have far more friends on the pro side of the same sex marriage debate than she does, so much so that she should just discard her sample.
Nothing in what she said implied that she was referring only to her friends and acquaintences.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing I said referred specifically to anyone but me. I made no claims about how many people opposed the idea, only that I had been surprised by the adamancy of the opposition on both sides of the isle.
Unless you are claiming to know more than I do about what surprises me, you are rather arrogant to claim I'm lying about it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the legal side, marraige just seems to be a contract void of any religious spiritual or romantic connotations. Those who oppose gay marraige mostly use a religious stance that marraige is sacred and homosexuality is wrong, but a man and a woman can marry in America despite having no faith in a higher power of any belief nor have any intent to live in the same state as one another. So only gender is the differance not religion, sexuality, income, education or even the 1-10 appearance rating... just gender and ignorant bullies enforcing simplistic and archaic prejudices.
Legally speaking marraige is a contract, a minority has been refused the right to enter that contract and making a new (seperate but equal) contract and just calling it something else could be seen as an insult to those who have been wrongly barred from entering the marraige contract.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
is the state of Missouri. Here there is no domestic partner agreement.
Here, on Christmas Eve last year a Highway Patrolman was killed in the line of duty.
His partner of 15 years, with whom he was raising a child, is suing the state for Survivor Benefits he would be entitled too if they had been a man and woman. However, because they were both men, he gets 0.
Since the Patrol Officer was the main provider of their family, the partner and his son are facing very difficult financial future--including possible losing their home.
posted
Its nice to know that the officers family has been recognized by some organizations and have found assistance, but not what they deserve. How sad that the kid will always remember the death of a parent tinged with discrimination.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Texas, a widow is currently in a court battle to keep her marriage to a firefighter who died during duty from being annulled. She was born male and had surgery. The widows in laws are claiming she never told him about her "real" gender. Considering she was open about her change, had been on Jerry Springer before (she said one of those stupid things you do when your 19 and regrets it deeply) and lived with the guy pre-transition, it is kinda hard to believe that her husband didn't figure it out. The media is making her out to be the evil stepmother since if the marriage was invalid, his 2 kids would split the money 50/50 instead of having to split with step mom (so 33% each).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: In Texas, a widow is currently in a court battle to keep her marriage to a firefighter who died during duty from being annulled. She was born male and had surgery. The widows in laws are claiming she never told him about her "real" gender. Considering she was open about her change, had been on Jerry Springer before (she said one of those stupid things you do when your 19 and regrets it deeply) and lived with the guy pre-transition, it is kinda hard to believe that her husband didn't figure it out. The media is making her out to be the evil stepmother since if the marriage was invalid, his 2 kids would split the money 50/50 instead of having to split with step mom (so 33% each).
That disturbs me greatly, but I think the kids should get the money as long as they are responsible...... afterall if you can afford reconstructive surgery you don't really need money do you.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some insurance companies will cover some parts of sex reassignment surgery. Trying to deduce someone's financial situation from that information alone would be foolish.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those who get reassignment surgery consider it a need. It isn't just a fun, cosmetic thing. I don't want to speak for transexuals, but my understanding is a man who does it views herself as a woman with broken parts. The surgery fixes those problems. I seem to recall some scientists think that there are some genetic stuff going on too- genes expressed at wrong levels or times.
But the law says wife gets a share. This woman was his wife. The kids are under 18 and the money would go to the in laws. Also, the kids are getting a few hundred thousand dollars and free college in Texas, so it isn't like they are starving or even in need. Regardless though, a wife deserves part of her husband's benefits. In almost every marriage, individuals make financial sacrifices for the sake of the marriage, which are compensated by having the other person. If you turn down a job for spouse, it isn't like you can go back and get it when spouse dies. And if the man didn't want his wife to get a share, he should have done something legally to insure that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: In Texas, a widow is currently in a court battle to keep her marriage to a firefighter who died during duty from being annulled. She was born male and had surgery. The widows in laws are claiming she never told him about her "real" gender. Considering she was open about her change, had been on Jerry Springer before (she said one of those stupid things you do when your 19 and regrets it deeply) and lived with the guy pre-transition, it is kinda hard to believe that her husband didn't figure it out. The media is making her out to be the evil stepmother since if the marriage was invalid, his 2 kids would split the money 50/50 instead of having to split with step mom (so 33% each).
That disturbs me greatly, but I think the kids should get the money as long as they are responsible...... afterall if you can afford reconstructive surgery you don't really need money do you.
That's ridiculous. You think a guy dies and his wife should be disinherited?
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Covering something like that is rediculous, I am still ashamed to be an American!
That's okay. A lot of us are ashamed that you're an American, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think any solution that would ignore the concerns of a large portion of the population is less than perfect. .
It's been said a million times, and it's irrelevant. Nobody is ever going to agree on everything. This is about what's right, not about what's popular. There is no perfect solution, and waiting for one is just an excuse to avoid facing that fact.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Covering something like that is rediculous, I am still ashamed to be an American!
Your inability to spell as simple a word as "ridiculous," or at least utilize a spell-check, seems much more shameful than a private insurance company choosing to support the transgendered.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
