[seacapt]

. I will go to trial next week over a situation involving what appears to be a same-sex domestic partnership and disposition of property on death. It is bad for my client, who did business with the couple, and for everyone involved that these rights have not been defined and do not follow an established legal path.

First off I'll keep my opinion on the subject to myself.
Gene out of curiosity I have to ask what is the legal dillemma? NM recognizes niether "common law" nor "same sex" marriages as legally binding. Why would this case not be treated as any other couple living together? Was there a will? Did the deceased grant power of attorney to the partner? Did this person pass away in debt to your client and was there contractual obligation?

---

Last edited by seacapt; 05-10-2012 at 11:13 AM.

[eddie1960]

And he's 100% right. It's no one else's business who anyone marries / lives with / shags whom, as far as consenting adults are concerned.

Well put

the big victory is opening up of Federal benefits to same sex couples. Not sure how this will help or hinder Obama though it's a divisive issue down there.
Certainly it is not something he brought up just to distract people given the republicans talked about it frequently during the last 6 months

To quote a former prime minister "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation",
This same PM was strongly catholic but he realized the state should not be regulating peoples morality. the charter of rights that exists due to his efforts led directly to where we are now with same sex marriage being legal (to the chagrin of the current ruling party, but they have enough political smarts to know not to touch the issue - they'd lose in a court challenge in any case)

[mikemike]

You don't think the rights of your fellow Americans is a real issue?

Its not a real issue which the president can exert any meaningful influence over even if he divorced Michelle and married a man in Washington D.C., where he is legally able to do so.

If you check out what people think are the most important issues facing the country gay rights issues such as this rarely even register over 1%. Despite there best efforts, the "war on women" doesn't even register as an issue. Most Important Problem

Obama is weak on the issues which are at the forefront of most people's minds, namely the economy, unemployment, the federal deficit, taxes, immigration, and healthcare. He has a track record of failure that translates into the suffering of american people without jobs who were not helped by any of his policies regarding employment or housing. Due to the democratic party's intransigence, the federal government hasn't passed a budget in 3 years. He divided the country in order to pass health insurance reform which seems likely to be ruled unconstitutional. On immigration, hes picking a stance where he doesn't have the proper legal or popular ground and is going to lose on that too.

His goal might just be to wrap up unfinished business to please the democratic party's special interests over the next 6 months between now and when he gets thrown out on his huge ears. I don't know, but they don't seem to be trying to do anything to address the issues which most people care about the most and which he is able to exert some influence or control. They are happy "drawing contrast," hence distraction.

[jeffkrol]

Just a bit o/t for fun..............

The projections were calculated by David Wasserman, an election analyst for the non-partisan Cook Political Report, who details the rise of women and minority influence in the Democratic ranks in the latest issue of National Journal magazine out today.
In 1950, white men constituted 98% of House Democrats -- a percentage that fell precipitously to just 53% following the 2010 elections. Based on the makeup of candidates in the current congressional races, Wasserman projects that the 2012 elections will result in a House Democratic Caucus that will be 46%-48% white males when the next Congress starts in January -- whether or not Democrats win a majority.

In contrast, white men continue to make up the vast majority of the Republican Party. In 1950, House Republicans were 97% white men, which fell to just 86% in 2012 -- a figure that Wasserman says will remain largely unchanged in the next Congress.

For Republicans, their congressional districts are generally drawn for white lawmakers, representing white constituencies, self-restricting the level of diversity in their districts and the lawmakers that represent those districts.

While Republicans may have used the 2012 redistricting process to solidify their grip on a number of previously more competitive districts that keep them favored to hold their current House majority, the lack of diversity in the GOP makes it increasingly harder to win on a national level.

In other words: What's good for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, may be bad for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and what makes a diverse electorate appealing to President Obama might make it harder for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to get her hand on the gavel.

It also raises the question of how the diversity divide will affect how a male-dominated GOP in the House and a Democratic caucus dominated by women and minorities can work together next year.

Congress is already polarized, with fewer common threads uniting the two parties. "When you have parties so divergent in views, regions, and genders, the culture wars could escalate from conventional to nuclear weapons," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told Wasserman. "Just like the book about men and women's differences, Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus."

White males fading among House Democrats

[GeneV]

Its not a real issue which the president can exert any meaningful influence over even if he divorced Michelle and married a man in Washington D.C., where he is legally able to do so.

If you check out what people think are the most important issues facing the country gay rights issues such as this rarely even register over 1%. Despite there best efforts, the "war on women" doesn't even register as an issue. Most Important Problem

.

So many errors, so little time, so I'll leave to another thread the empty talking point about Obama and the economy he inherited. The president appoints supreme court justices, who have a great deal to say about equal rights. The president issues executive orders and policies, such as "don't ask, don't tell" which at the time was actually an improvement over the absolute ban Congress had passed. This president decided not to defend DOMA in court and on and on.

[GeneV]

First off I'll keep my opinion on the subject to myself.
Gene out of curiosity I have to ask what is the legal dillemma? NM recognizes niether "common law" nor "same sex" marriages as legally binding. Why would this case not be treated as any other couple living together? Was there a will? Did the deceased grant power of attorney to the partner? Did this person pass away in debt to your client and was there contractual obligation?

I can't comment more on a specific case that is pending, but any couple living together would generate exactly the same problems if one dies. However, a couple including two different genders who leaves the relationship in that state has done so by choice.

[Ratmagiclady]

Mikemike, Claiming the Republican War on Women is some mirage when they are in fact introducing all those laws that harm women and women's rights is where your Big Lies Network has you fooled: if you don't in fact support these things, then you'd better tell the people you support so, cause they're doing it in your name anyway.

And of course screaming against LGBT equality at every turn,: the Right calling people like me getting anything like a fair shake in the world 'The Greatest Threat To America,' while denying that it really hurts people (Do I really have to mention all my personal experiences every time there, or do you just reset your denial machine before repeating your talking points? )

Despite your distortions, including those that led to the people in North Carolina being more confused about the Amendment 1 than truly supporting everything in it,

... Democrats didn't retroactively 'start the culture wars' just cause the President finally spoke up *in* them. Speaking of bully mentalities. "If you fight back you 'started it." The fact is, the President's on the side of American equality in this one, and the Republicans are on the side of injustice and abuse and oppression and discrimination and hate.

This is by the actual deeds and actual words and actual laws, not your Faux News narrative-flipping.

[magkelly]

When I was a kid my Grandma very into her bible, Christianity, et all. This was in stark contrast to my parents who were basically believers in a God but not really church goers. She was first Catholic and later Episcopal, then Catholic again after my Grandpa passed. She still liked to go to church and I'd go with her sometimes just to keep her company. She asked me once if I wanted to profess a faith in Christ and get confirmed into the RCC and I said not. When she asked me why I just basically told her that I couldn't see myself being a part of any religion where a supposedly all knowing, all loving God could have a "chosen" people. It doesn't matter to me if being "chosen" means being Jewish, being Christian or being Muslim. The whole concept is the same. There's a "chosen" few who will make it into paradise versus a majority who will not unless they convert or whatever. Well, what can I say my answer to that is F-that! If the "God' of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, is that elitist you can keep Him. I don't want anything to do with him.

For the record I've studied most of the major religions pretty expansively just trying to understand them from a mythological and anthropological point of view. Read all the major writings, the holy books, so when people start to quote things at me I get the whole context of what's written fairly well. Bottom line I just don't care. When it comes to gays in particular? I cannot see the logic of following any religion that would condemn someone for a random quirk of genetics, and that's what I basically believe being gay is. It's probably just a matter of certain genes being turned on, or bio chemistry in the womb or something. Just because they haven't figured it all out yet in terms of the science doesn't mean it's not pretty darned obvious that some people are just born that way. Whatever it is I see it as being rather like being left handed. Some people maybe they can force themselves not to go there, but inside if you still want to go there then you're still gay, even if you never touch a person of the same gender your whole life. People used to force their kids to write right handed too, but that was wrong headed and it was often psychologically damaging to the children too.

Honestly, I don't really care what some holy book written thousands of years ago says about two people of the same gender having sex. This is 2012 for cripes sakes not 12 BCE. Particularly when said book makes things like slavery and incest seem perfectly valid at times. Most of the major holy books contradict themselves all the time. I'm supposed to base my whole life on that? I don't think so. Legally speaking the those books have no place in our society in terms of our civil laws. The covenant of marriage and the contract of marriage are not necessarily one and the same thing.

At the very least gays are entitled to make a civil marriage, a legal contract of marriage, no matter what the major monotheistic religions think about the matter. If a certain church wants to refuse to marry gays in a covenant form of marriage, fine, I don't believe they should be forced, not for a religious ceremony, but legally those two people should be able to go to the courthouse and get married just like straight people do and if there is a church out there that they will marry them then fine, they're entitled to thumb their noses at the ones that won't and get married in any church that will bless their union. End of subject.

It actually burns me quite a bit that two of my best friends cannot legally wed in the states they live in. I think it's totally stupid and bigoted that I can and they can't in this day and age. I'm not in any hurry to walk down the aisle regardless but even if I was I'd think twice about it before I'd go there. It just seems so unfair to me and bothers me so much that I think I'd avoid it myself unless I absolutely had to go there to be with the man I love. There's no getting around the fact that sometimes a civil marriage is a necessity. It can help considerably with issues of immigration, can help with legal issues regarding money, business, estates, and such but still I'm just not too comfortable participating in such a thing knowing that I'm somehow privileged that way just because I happened to be born straight. Short of such a union being very incestuous I just don't think two consenting adults should be denied that right, not legally.

I'm glad Obama has slowly come to a more humane and rational perspective on this one. I'm pretty surprised though that he'd admit it with an election coming up. So far it's looking like this is helping him, not hurting him, but this was a big gamble for him to make at this time really. It was IMHO the decent thing to do though. So for once, even though I'm not a fan, I'll give him the credit due. Coming out in support of gay marriage just now is pretty brave of him.

[ihasa]

I can't comment more on a specific case that is pending, but any couple living together would generate exactly the same problems if one dies. However, a couple including two different genders who leaves the relationship in that state has done so by choice.

This is so true, and is the thing which the naysayers fail (or refuse) to see.

[Ratmagiclady]

At the very least gays are entitled to make a civil marriage, a legal contract of marriage, no matter what the major monotheistic religions think about the matter. If a certain church wants to refuse to marry gays in a covenant form of marriage, fine, I don't believe they should be forced, not for a religious ceremony, but legally those two people should be able to go to the courthouse and get married just like straight people do and if there is a church out there that they will marry them then fine, they're entitled to thumb their noses at the ones that won't and get married in any church that will bless their union. End of subject.

I

People often ignore the fact that many religions and even Christian churches have been performing *religious* gay marriage ceremonies for decades. And that it's always been the case that unless I make a business for the general public of it, I have every right as clergy to decline to perform any wedding or handfasting ritual I see fit for any reason whatsoever, no matter how ludicrous, even.

This has always been the case, equality would do nothing to change that, *ever,* and it's a longstanding piece of deceit for the anti-LGBT forces to claim it was ever otherwise. or about 'Freedom of religion.' Churches have been down with this long before states were.

[ihasa]

Freedom of religion would imply churches should be free to, or not, marry same sex couples. The antis want to take this freedom away.

[Wheatfield]

Freedom of religion would imply churches should be free to, or not, marry same sex couples. The antis want to take this freedom away.

Actually no. There is such a thing as a civil ceremony which is a perfectly legal way to get married. My wife and I were wed in a civil ceremony since neither one of us believes in religion.

[magkelly]

I don't care much that some churches refuse to marry gays. Their bigoted mind set is their problem. It's the fact that two of the people I care about the most can't even go to a courthouse in their states and do it that has me upset. What most anti-gay marriage people don't seem to get is that it's not just about their religion's dictates on the matter. It's about legalities and equal rights under the law, and denying gay people the right to marry legally is just plain WRONG, particularly when they wave their holy books in everyone's faces and say this book says it's wrong. I mean who the F-cares what some so called prophet wrote thousands of years ago? Not all people go by those holy books and besides which the law has nothing to do with that. Or shouldn't. It should be free of that kid of bias. That's private thought the biblical stuff, and believers are entitled to it, but legally? They're definitely not in charge of me or anyone else, and they need to understand that. That their influence stops at the bedroom door, and at the door of the courthouse, period.

It's just like it used to be with people of two opposing skin colors. There are people out there who still think that's wrong too even in this day and age. Some of my family they are still that way about racial mixing and about gays marrying. It's sparked some major problems around here that I just don't believe that way. In all honestly I've just never met an AA guy that I particularly liked and wanted to date, but goodness help me if I did because if I ever crossed that line I'd probably give my Dad a heart attack he'd be so upset. It's totally stupid and bigoted but that's my Dad. He's mentally stuck back in the 1950's on that score. We don't agree and I'm constantly challenging him on stuff like that, which he hates, but I wouldn't feel right not doing that. It's just not right to sit there and let people knock on people because of things like a difference skin color or sexual preference. This is 2012 and we all should really be above all that bigoted nonsense by now. You'd think by now the human race would have grown up a bit more, I mean shiz!!!!

[mikeSF]

hard to believe our modern world has so many primitive minds.

[Ratmagiclady]

Actually no. There is such a thing as a civil ceremony which is a perfectly legal way to get married. My wife and I were wed in a civil ceremony since neither one of us believes in religion.

The point there is that certain 'conservative' religious interests want to impose that religious dogma *on* civil marriage rights, and claim their 'freedom of religion' is 'under attack' if they aren't allowed to so-impose their religion on everyone. Which does in fact support some establishments of religion over all others, so it violates religious freedom, too. See?