Second-class marriage

Comments

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 24, 2008 3:41:16 PM:

   If you want that problem fixed, Chris, change the tax code.

   As I am fond of pointing out, the whine about how "I can't bequeath my retirement account because I'm not married" was fixed quite nicely by a simple change in the law -- with, I might add, overwhelming Republican support, because it was something that would benefit EVERYONE.

   Changing the tax code to make employee benefit extensions to unmarried individuals nontaxable would do the same thing; it would benefit numerous unmarried individuals, including siblings who live together, roommates, and working people who would like to extend benefits to their aged parents.

   And, unlike gay marriage, it can actually be passed.

1. Scott on Mar 24, 2008 6:47:24 PM:

   Martin's website is called HOMODOX not heterodox.

   SOME straight people do not want a level playing field. It's a part of the straight supremacist ideology.

   These are the three signs a point-of-view is apart of the straight supremacist ideology:

   CONTROL: straight supremacists want to control what gay people can and can't do.

   INSIGNIFICANT/ SUPERSIGNICANT: straight supremacists will treat gay people as if they are insignificant or supersignificant. Example of insignificant treatment: gay people deserve AIDS. Example of supersignificant treatment: gay people are destroying society.

   DIFFERENT RULES: straight supremacists will apply different rules to gay people than straight.

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 25, 2008 1:30:29 AM:

   Hopefully Martin and Michael's story will give pause to those gay conservatives -- including regular readers of this blog -- who buy into the farce peddled by John McCain and others that gay couples can somehow construct the rights and responsibilities of marriage through private contract.

   Beautifully put, Chris. It's worth noting, too, that the tax code is not the only area of the law where gay couples face disparate treatment. The federal government confers some 1,000 benefits on lawfully married heterosexual spouses that gay couples are not eligible for. And, as you so nicely put it, these are benefits that cannot be secured by private contract.

   I would also add that it is neither feasible nor an effective use of time to retool such substantial portions of the federal law. The most direct and most equitable fix would be to recognize marriage between two people of the same sex.

   
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 25, 2008 3:07:29 AM:

   The most direct and most equitable fix would be to recognize marriage between two people of the same sex.

   First, in terms of "direct", changing the tax law, as the Pension Protection Act showed, is both simpler AND supported by far more people than is gay marriage.

   Second, changing the tax law is far more "equitable", given that it includes straight people who are not able to get married, i.e. siblings who live together, two single moms raising kids together, working singles who would like to cover their aged parents, older friends who want to share health coverage -- as well as gay AND straight couples who choose NOT to get married.

   The last is particularly ironic, given the screaming hissy fits liberal gays and lesbians threw when companies in Massachusetts started requiring gays and lesbians to get married to claim partner benefits -- just like they do for straight people -- and claiming it was "discrimination", "unfair", and "cruel" for them to do so.

   Personally, if health benefits are so important, I see no reason why companies should be penalized, as they are from a tax and cost standpoint, for extending them to unmarried partners and close acquaintances of employees.

   But then again, that's a perspective that is looking for the solution that will benefit the most people, gay and straight, versus using it as a rationalization for a narrow agenda that has zero chance of passing and won't affect the vast majority of people for whom taxes on health benefits are an issue.

1. Tim on Mar 25, 2008 4:23:20 PM:

   my gods I knew within a millisecond of reading this article that NDT would trot out the fucking "Pension Protection Act" and talk about how it's all anyone needs for happiness and success. If your too scared of marriage to want it for yourself NDT don't try to cock block it for the rest of us. We don't like your kool-aid!! You also ignore the fact that hetero's can have common law marriage if they live together long enough, a status that in most states grants them the same benefits as marriage. But gays could live together for 23 years and still have their property confiscated even with wills and notaries because it was short ONE signaturemade
   h
   and how the hell are you dragging this in as a red herring, gays don't deserve marriage because some of them are idiots?? "The last is particularly ironic, given the screaming hissy fits liberal gays and lesbians threw when companies in Massachusetts started requiring gays and lesbians to get married to claim partner benefits -- just like they do for straight people -- and claiming it was "discrimination", "unfair", and "cruel" for them to do so."

   I have never heard anyone say this ever, and if you did find someone who said it why would you assume they speak for me just because I'm gay? You always try to do this, and from now on I'm going to assume it's because you don't want ot get married because your afraid of commitment.
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 25, 2008 8:28:31 PM:

   my gods I knew within a millisecond of reading this article that NDT would trot out the fucking "Pension Protection Act" and talk about how it's all anyone needs for happiness and success. If your too scared of marriage to want it for yourself NDT don't try to cock block it for the rest of us. We don't like your kool-aid!!

   Not quite, Tim; as we've seen, liberal gays and lesbians seemingly have no trouble with "cock blocks" when it pleases their Democrat masters.

   Add to that what I pointed out about gays and lesbians shrieking how it was "unfair" to require them to marry to receive spousal benefits like heterosexuals have been required to for years.

   You also ignore the fact that hetero's can have common law marriage if they live together long enough, a status that in most states grants them the same benefits as marriage.

   Common-law marriage is legal in eleven states, banned in twenty-six, and was never allowed in the first place in thirteen of them.

   In other words, heterosexuals in the vast majority of states in this country can't get them -- just like gays.

   But gays could live together for 23 years and still have their property confiscated even with wills and notaries because it was short ONE signature

   Yup, just like heterosexuals whose wills are one signature short.

   But, if they are filled out correctly and done correctly, as in the case of Kevin-Douglas Olive and his deceased partner Russell Groff, they are, amazingly enough, upheld by the courts.

   What this all boils down to is upset that someone is pointing out that marriage isn't required to fix the issues with taxing healthcare benefits, and furthermore, that it puts gay and lesbian people in the entertaining position of arguing that it is an unbearable burden to have to pay taxes on healthcare benefits, but that they are OK with OTHER people having this unbearable burden as long as they don't.

1. Wes on Mar 26, 2008 12:13:24 AM:

   NDT, the change in the taxation provision on "pensions" was great for 401k and IRA accounts. But my partner has a traditional federal civil service retirement. And I am not able to be beneficiary of that pension (just like I would not be able to be on his social security account if he were subject to social security other than the civil service retirement). If he dies the month after retirement, I get a big fat nothing. I think it is a far far reach and gulp to say that anything close to the 1000+ benefits can be approximated by hiring an attorney. Some surely can be gained. But not all and not many of the most important things.

   For those of us that have managed to accumulate significant assets and want our partners to have those assets upon our death, it is costly and complicated (if not impossible) to obtain something similar to the martial deduction for estate purposes that married couples receive under the tax law. That is my biggest problem. Ignoring the $500 every two months that I pay out for health insurance that --if I were female and married to my partner I could obtain on my partner's federal gov't health insurance for $200. Little things. And little things add up when there are 1000+ of them.

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 26, 2008 12:19:20 AM:

   NDT:

   Your posts are both boringly predictable.

   First, in terms of "direct", changing the tax law, as the Pension Protection Act showed, is both simpler AND supported by far more people than is gay marriage.

   Um, no. First, I'm not just talking about the taxation of health benefits. Gay couples are not able to take advantage of tax-free inter-spousal transfers of wealth, the marital deduction, or other advantages that are available solely to married couples. Your idea would require a wholesale revision of several areas of the tax code. My solution would involve changing one definition.

   Second, you ignored, perhaps intentionally, that I referenced benefits outside the tax law. There are scores of other benefits the federal government confers on married couples that have nothing to do with tax. Again, your fix would require congress to revisit and revise substantial portions of the federal law. And again, I propose changing one definition.

   True my solution is not popular, but it is the right solution.

   The last is particularly ironic, given the screaming hissy fits liberal gays and lesbians threw when companies in Massachusetts started requiring gays and lesbians to get married to claim partner benefits -- just like they do for straight people -- and claiming it was "discrimination", "unfair", and "cruel" for them to do so.

   Yeah, IF this happened, it was the fringe loon gays that said this. There will always be fringe people, like you, who do not support equal rights.

   Yup, just like heterosexuals whose wills are one signature short.

   Yeah, but heterosexual have default protection through their marriages. Gay people who live in states like Kentucky do not have such default protections.

   And BTW, even where valid wills exist, they can be challenged with a will contest. And lest you think that doesn't really happen it does. And yes, those who contest valid wills sometimes win.

   Bottom line, your rhetoric is hollow and your logic is flawed.
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 26, 2008 1:42:53 AM:

   NDT, the change in the taxation provision on "pensions" was great for 401k and IRA accounts. But my partner has a traditional federal civil service retirement. And I am not able to be beneficiary of that pension (just like I would not be able to be on his social security account if he were subject to social security other than the civil service retirement). If he dies the month after retirement, I get a big fat nothing.

   Um....not to pick a relationship fight, but, first, has your partner ever shown you the OPM Standard Form 2808, on which he can designate you as his beneficiary upon his death for a lump-sum payout of all of his contributions, plus interest, that he has made to his pension fund -- or, if he's already retired, of all remaining value?

   Furthermore, as stated in IRS Publication 721:

   Rollovers by nonspouse beneficiary. You may be able to roll over tax free all or a portion of a distribution you receive from the CSRS, FERS, or TSP of a deceased employee or retiree if you are a designated beneficiary (other than a surviving spouse) of the employee or retiree. The distribution must be a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to your IRA that was set up to receive the distribution. The transfer will be treated as an eligible rollover distribution and the receiving plan will be treated as an inherited IRA. For information on inherited IRAs, see Publication 590.

   In short, it works the same way. Those of us who helped work on and draft this remembered Federal employees; furthermore, since it applies to everyone, not just gay couples, it nicely circumvents DOMA AND provides opportunity for people who are not married or who want to put money elsewhere to leave it to anyone they like, rather than being forced by tax laws to limit it to a spouse.

   
   Ignoring the $500 every two months that I pay out for health insurance that --if I were female and married to my partner I could obtain on my partner's federal gov't health insurance for $200.

   Which, though, if you're paying for yourself, count towards the deductions you can take for medical costs - while they won't under your partner's plan. I could cover my partner under my plan and reduce his initial outlay in a similar fashion, but doing so would be tax suicide for him at year-end.

   
   For those of us that have managed to accumulate significant assets and want our partners to have those assets upon our death, it is costly and complicated (if not impossible) to obtain something similar to the martial deduction for estate purposes that married couples receive under the tax law.

   The answer to that is breathtakingly simple; repeal the estate tax, for which you would have utterly overwhelming Republican support. Keep in mind that the same thing happens to other nonspousal beneficiaries quite unnecessarily; frankly, the vast majority of Republicans fail to see why you can't leave portions of large estates to friends without putting them in for an immense tax hit.

   But for some reason, the Democrat Party is adamantly opposed to estate tax repeal, arguing that you, as a person "who has managed to accumulate significant assets", should be punished upon your death and forced to repay the government, rather than leaving the money you have earned to whom you desire.

   
   

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 26, 2008 1:53:58 AM:

   Not quite, Tim; as we've seen, liberal gays and lesbians seemingly have no trouble with "cock blocks" when it pleases their Democrat masters.

   NDT, you know, you really are a two-hit wonder. You trot out this same tired link to the story about how John Kerry would be OK with the Marriage Amendment. That and the Pension Act. As I said before, completely predictable and boring.

   Regardless of his B.S. and pandering on this issue, John Kerry was still 100X better on any gay issue than any Republican. As a whole, this country operates on a misplaced values system when it comes to sex and sexual orientation issues. As a result, even the most gay-friendly Democrats, like Barack Obama, must refrain from advocating gay marriage. This certainly demonstrates a lack of leadership on this particular issue. But whatever the case, Democrats have friendlier and more progressive positions on most other gay issues.

   I also note your repeated use of "Democrat Masters" in this and previous posts. You know, you might try learning correct English. "Democrat" is a noun. "Masters" is a plural noun. And you know what? A noun cannot modify another noun. It should be DemocratIC Masters. That's a basic third-grade grammatical error. Not a terribly bright thing for an adult to say. Kinda makes you sound dumb. Like George W. Bush.

   
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 26, 2008 2:09:38 AM:

   Your idea would require a wholesale revision of several areas of the tax code.

   Which needs to happen anyway.

   Frankly, for example, I can't think of one good reason why you shouldn't be able to buy a house with whomever you choose and for them to receive it upon your death without any fuss, muss, or required kickback to the government; can you?

   Second, you ignored, perhaps intentionally, that I referenced benefits outside the tax law. There are scores of other benefits the federal government confers on married couples that have nothing to do with tax. Again, your fix would require congress to revisit and revise substantial portions of the federal law.

   Which needs to happen anyway.

   For instance, why should spouses who connive with their significant others to defraud the government be shielded from having to testify against each other? Imagine what would have happened in the Enron case had William Dodson been able to bury all of the transactions he participated in with Michael Kopper under the guise of "spousal privilege", as did Ken Lay's and Andrew Fastow's wives.

   
   Yeah, but heterosexual have default protection through their marriages.

   Not if they're not married -- and even if they are, that "default" can be (and often is) challenged in court.

   And furthermore, you seem to be asserting that wills are useless just because they can be challenged and, once in a great while, they're overturned for good reason - a logic that would also indicate marriages are useless for terms of property bequeathing, because they can be (and have been) challenged and invalidated in courts towards that regard.

   Simple fact: a correctly-signed, notarized, and witnessed will has a near certainty of standing up in court -- and, in fact, trumps even marriage under law. Most importantly, it's something gays and lesbians can access RIGHT NOW.

   But instead, rather than putting money and time to help these gay and lesbian couples access these existing protections, gay and lesbian lawyers and legal groups have wasted millions of dollars on spewing hate rhetoric against religious people and filing pointless lawsuits, both of which have resulted in more laws and amendments against gay marriage than there were in the first place.

   Of course, the supreme irony is when they attack people like myself who have actually done and help get passed things that benefitted gay and lesbian couples as being "hollow" and "flawed".

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 26, 2008 2:33:31 AM:

   Regardless of his B.S. and pandering on this issue, John Kerry was still 100X better on any gay issue than any Republican.

   Hmm, let's see; in this state we have Arnold Schwarzenegger, who unlike John Kerry and Harold Ford, opposes state AND Federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

   But whatever the case, Democrats have friendlier and more progressive positions on most other gay issues.

   Isn't it funny how marriage is the most important thing and that anyone who opposes it or refuses to speak out against it is homophobic and cowardly.....until a Democrat does so, at which point it gets shunted off to the side burner in favor of their stances on "other issues".

   
   That's a basic third-grade grammatical error. Not a terribly bright thing for an adult to say. Kinda makes you sound dumb. Like George W. Bush.

   A bit of advice, Strict Scrutiny; if you are going to pass judgment on a person's intelligence based on your perception of their grammar, spelling, and whatnot, do so for the posts of those you agree with as well as the posts of those with whom you don't.

   Otherwise, you end up looking like a petty hypocrite, given your insistence that I am "dumb" based on your attempt to interpret an adjective, versus your saying nothing about the intelligence of someone who cannot capitalize the first letter of sentences, who obviously cannot use apostrophes or plural tenses correctly, who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're", and who seems positively allergic to proper use of commas and punctuation marks.

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 26, 2008 2:37:13 AM:

   For instance, why should spouses who connive with their significant others to defraud the government be shielded from having to testify against each other?

   Just because you don't like a law or a privilege doesn't mean it shouldn't be extended to gay couples.

   And furthermore, you seem to be asserting that wills are useless just because they can be challenged and [...]

   No, what I'm suggesting is that wills are not the bullet proof vehicle for transfer of property that you suggest they are. A valid will is always a good idea. But they are not a cure-all.

   [...] gay and lesbian lawyers and legal groups have wasted millions of dollars on spewing hate rhetoric against religious people and filing pointless lawsuits [...]

   Nope, don't think so. Gay people didn't pick a fight with the religious right. It's the other way around. They're the ones who spew the vast majority of hate rhetoric against us. Next, groups like Lamdba Legal and NCLR have worked tirelessly to help gay individuals and couples. The majority of their legal work has been beneficial to gay interests.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 26, 2008 3:08:08 PM:

   Just because you don't like a law or a privilege doesn't mean it shouldn't be extended to gay couples.

   Yes, why should gays care about spouses committing crimes together, then using immunity from testifying against each other to stymie investigations and defraud others?

   Very "progressive".

   
   No, what I'm suggesting is that wills are not the bullet proof vehicle for transfer of property that you suggest they are. A valid will is always a good idea. But they are not a cure-all.

   Tell us, which carries more weight; a duly-signed and notarized will, or a marriage certificate?

   In California, a will does. You may completely disinherit your spouse, your domestic partner, your children, and your living relatives and leave all your money to whomever you want; their only hope is to sue and argue that the will wasn't valid, but their chances of getting that past summary hearing are pretty much nonexistent.

   The case of Kevin-Douglas Olive and Russell Groff that I mentioned previously is quite instructive in that regard -- especially since, despite the proximity to Washington, DC and the cost being less than one of their usual flashy parties and fundraising galas, Lambda and NCLR couldn't be bothered to provide free legal assistance.

   I guess they weren't interested in helping a case in which a prepared gay and lesbian couple would prevail in court. It might ruin their "gays are all victims" whine and get people asking why they aren't spending millions on helping couples prepare these documents, versus spending it on politicians who don't support gay marriage.

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 26, 2008 11:56:26 PM:

   Yes, why should gays care about spouses committing crimes together, then using immunity from testifying against each other to stymie investigations and defraud others?

   Once again, your comment in non-responsive. You merely state your objection to this privilege. And, just out of curiousity, why do you automatically assume gay people would use such a privilege for nefarious purposes? There are plenty of civil law uses for it. But, I guess that doesn't jibe with your inane view that gay people only want marriage for the sake of abusing marital privileges. Figures.

   Tell us, which carries more weight; a duly-signed and notarized will, or a marriage certificate?

   Huh?! They both carry weight, but they are different items. One is device for the transfer of property at death and the other is a declaration of civil status. You're mixing apples and oranges.

   In California, a will does.

   A will states how the testator wants his property distributed at death. A valid marriage provides a bundle of rights, which include default protections in the event of an intestate death. They aren't the same and your comparison is not useful or instructive.

   You may completely disinherit your spouse, your domestic partner, your children, and your living relatives and leave all your money to whomever you want.

   And your point is what again? Again, a marriage only provides default protection in the event that one spouse dies without a will. And BTW, while it is true that you can disinherit your spouse or partner, please know that in California, a spouse or domestic partner may only will away his half of the community property. So, a husband can disinherit his wife all day long, but even with a valid will she still gets her half of the community assets.

   Lambda and NCLR couldn't be bothered to provide free legal assistance.

   Funny thing. I didn't see anywhere in your little article about how Olive or Groff either one ever solicited legal assistance from Lambda or NCLR. So where do you get off saying Lambda Legal and NCLR "couldn't be bothered." What? Did Olive call you and complain that Lambda wouldn't take the case? What, are these organizations simply supposed to know when gay people are in legal distress? Or perhaps you just hate any organization that vigorously advocates for gay rights. Couldn't pass up an opportunity for a baseless insult, could you? Yeah didn't think so. Just a lot of smoke and B.S. Those two organization have helped gay folks in real and tangible ways -- and certainly more than you ever have or ever will.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 27, 2008 2:20:10 PM:

   And, just out of curiousity, why do you automatically assume gay people would use such a privilege for nefarious purposes?

   Because straight people already do.

   Huh?! They both carry weight, but they are different items. One is device for the transfer of property at death and the other is a declaration of civil status. You're mixing apples and oranges.

   No, I am simply forcing you to admit publicly that a valid will is superior to a marriage in terms of bequeathing property upon death -- since Tim posted an attempt to argue for gay marriage, apparently because gays and lesbians are too incompetent to have wills written correctly.

   
   So where do you get off saying Lambda Legal and NCLR "couldn't be bothered."

   Easy.

   Olive has sought legal and financial assistance from some state and national gay groups.

   Lambda Legal, a national legal organization working for the civil rights of gays, offered to connect Olive with a local attorney who might handle the case for free.

   Unsatisfied, he turned to Equality Maryland, the state’s largest gay civil rights organization. Olive said the group directed him to Mark Scurti, a Baltimore attorney who specializes in gay case law.

   “He’s gay, so he has to feel this at some level,” Olive said. “That was really important to me.”

   Olive said Scurti, who routinely works for $250 per hour, is cutting him a deal. But the bills remain hefty, and could total $20,000 or more.

   “I could sell the car, so there’s a little bit there, and I have some savings, but at that point, what happens?” he said. “I’m worried about this stuff.”

   Disgusting. Lambda, for one, receives over ten million dollars annually in donations and routinely drops hundreds of thousands of dollars, galas, parties, "lobbying", and gifts to politicians -- but won't even spend a fraction of that on a real person, leaving someone who did the right thing, who got his stuff in order, and who needs their financial help stuck selling his car and taking on what must be an astronomical amount to him in debt.

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 27, 2008 4:18:59 PM:

   No, I am simply forcing you to admit publicly that a valid will is superior to a marriage in terms of bequeathing property upon death.

   There's nothing to "publicly admit." A marriage is not a testatmentary device and I never said it was.

   but won't even spend a fraction of that on a real person, leaving someone who did the right thing, who got his stuff in order, and who needs their financial help stuck selling his car and taking on what must be an astronomical amount to him in debt.

   Your complaint is bogus. Lambda Legal is a public interest law firm, not a pro-bono legal services outfit. Like any other law firm, Lambda must pick and choose the cases it takes, 'cause it can't help everyone. Second, NO ONE, no matter how aggrieved, is entitled to free legal services. Period. If Olive needed financial assistance and Lambda couldn't help, he should have contacted Legal Aid or found a pro-bono attorney. Lots of big firms have them.

   You're just ticked off that Olive and Groff followed the NDT model of doing things (e.g. all you need is a valid will; marriage doesn't matter) and Olive still ended up getting screwed over. Sometimes life is just unfair. Sorry, but that's how it is. Direct your complaints to God.
   

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 31, 2008 3:48:28 AM:

   There's nothing to "publicly admit." A marriage is not a testatmentary device and I never said it was.

   As I stated before, you seem to be asserting that wills are useless just because they can be challenged and, once in a great while, they're overturned for good reason - a logic that would also indicate marriages are useless for terms of property bequeathing, because they can be (and have been) challenged and invalidated in courts towards that regard.

   And that leads us into this.

   You're just ticked off that Olive and Groff followed the NDT model of doing things (e.g. all you need is a valid will; marriage doesn't matter) and Olive still ended up getting screwed over.

   Ah, but you see, Strict Scrutiny, Olive DIDN'T get screwed over by the legal system; he won.

   What you're upset about is the fact that Lambda's mendacity and greed become blatantly obvious when one sees their refusal to take cases that don't line up with their propaganda and self-aggrandizement model.

   One would think that you would be supportive of gays and lesbians having duly-signed and noted wills, powers of attorney, and so forth, especially when even MARRIED couples are strongly encouraged to have them post-Terri Schiavo -- since that case demonstrated nicely that marriage is anything but ironclad in legal terms, and these documents would save lots of time and legal expense.

   But then again, since gays can access them now, I don't suppose either you or Lambda are interested.

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 31, 2008 12:34:42 PM:

   As I stated before, you seem to be asserting that wills are useless just because they can be challenged and, once in a great while...

   Ridiculous, as usual. Evidently, the only way you can win an argument with anyone is to deliberately mischaracterize the other person's position and then attack the "fake" position you've set up for yourself. You've done it with me time and again, so I'm not surprised. This is typically the rhetorical tool of those who have weak and indefensible arguments.

   AGAIN, I have NEVER suggested, implied, insinuated, stated, declared, or given an opinion that wills are useless instruments because they can be overturned by a court. Quite the contrary -- they are usually held to be valid and are an excellent idea for anyone of legal age with any substantial assets. MY POINT WAS that a will is not an iron-clad solution for all gay people in relationships who wish to bequeath their wealth on their partners at death. It's a great start for sure. But, YES, they can be overturned, which is why marital rights are important. Such rights are important as DEFAULT PROTECTIONS in the unfortunate event that a will is lost, accidentally destroyed, invalidated, etc.

   Ah, but you see, Strict Scrutiny, Olive DIDN'T get screwed over by the legal system; he won.

   NO, Olive did NOT win. He settled, which means he lost out on something. In this case he had to give up the single headstone he and Groff had planned on for the two of them. A "win" is a court judgment on the merits. There was no court judgment in his case, therefore was no win. Again, the Court did not validate the will in any way, shape, or form.

   And yes, Olive did get screwed because he had to pay $20,000.00 in legal fees. And also because he had to give up the headstone thing.

   What you're upset about is the fact that Lambda's mendacity and greed become blatantly obvious when one sees their refusal to take cases that don't line up with their propaganda and self-aggrandizement model.

   Bulls--t. See my previous comments. Lambda can't help everyone, and, like any legitimate firm, they must pick and choose what cases they take. Lambda and NCLR have helped scores of people.

   One would think that you would be supportive of gays and lesbians having duly-signed and noted wills, powers of attorney, and so forth,...,

   I am supportive. In fact, as part of my pro bono practice, I draft wills for AIDS patients, many of whom are in hospice, so that their property may be passed according to their wishes. But don't let that little fact get in the way of your insane anti-marriage rants.

   Bottom line is this -- marriage provides important default protections. For example, the right to make burial decisions. In the event a will or a health care directive is flawed or invalidated, marital rights provide an extra layer of protection for any spouse. In the Olive-Groff matter, IF the court had invalidated the will or the burial instructions, Olive still would have had standing to make the burial decisions if he'd been a lawful spouse of Groff. Yes, a marriage can be invalidated, but that provides even more hurdles.

   Really NDT, get a clue.

1. North Dallas Thirty on Mar 31, 2008 5:41:03 PM:

   There was no court judgment in his case, therefore was no win. Again, the Court did not validate the will in any way, shape, or form.

   Mhm.

   Baltimore City Orphans’ Court Judge Karen Friedman ruled against Lowell and Carolyn Groff, who sought to overturn their son’s will and move his body to a family cemetery.

   Olive won. The reason he ultimately settled was because the family was going to drag out the appeals process, as is their constitutional right, and he was out of money.

   You would think Lambda would WANT to take a case that was virtually assured of winning on appeal and that would establish a good strong precedent that gay and lesbian couples can make binding wills. But I guess they were too busy preening for the cameras, blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on posh parties, and burning through millions on fruitless lawsuits.

   And really, the rest of the problems are summed up by this (emphasis mine):

   Bottom line is this -- marriage provides important default protections.

   Such rights are important as DEFAULT PROTECTIONS in the unfortunate event that a will is lost, accidentally destroyed, invalidated, etc.

   In the event a will or a health care directive is flawed or invalidated, marital rights provide an extra layer of protection for any spouse.

   Or, in other words, the only argument you can give for marriage is assuming that something bad is always going to happen.

   Better idea; get a good lawyer, pay for things to be kept in safe places, and update them regularly, just like smart straight couples do.

   
   

1. Strict Scrutiny on Mar 31, 2008 6:45:30 PM:

   Olive won.

   No, he didn't. When an action is appealed there is no final judgment until the appellate court decides the dispute. He settled and he lost something in the process, so no, he didn't win.

   Or, in other words, the only argument you can give for marriage is assuming that something bad is always going to happen.

   Wrong again NDT. Default protections are only a few of dozens of marital benefits. Study after study shows that married couples live longer, have happier lives, and are more secure and stable in most aspects of their lives. This is on top of whatever legal benefits it provides the spouses.

   But you know that. You just want to be unnecessarily combative and hostile. That's your choice.

   Better idea; get a good lawyer...

   Even better idea...allow gay marriage AND get a good lawyer.