Discrimination against gays?

I've never been able to see how people can think otherwise. To me, barring homosexuals from equal rights is identical to barring blacks from equal rights, or women from equal rights. Things that supposedly we achieved decades ago in our great country. I hope most Americans come around on this issue, as they did on women's suffrage, Jim Crow laws, slavery, and so forth.

My only solace is that I think I will see it happen in my lifetime.

And that I will hopefully be able to say to my grandkids: "I lived through that, and it was terrible and stupid and everyone knew it was terrible and stupid and that's why we stopped it. Don't let it happen again!" I may even shake a cane at them when I say it.

Oh, here's another example for you, MR...

A friend of mine was in Australia, on a one-year temporary assignment for his work. While there, he fell in love. That was 8 years ago, and he and that same person are still in love. They have tried to push through immigration and naturalization paperwork, but all of that has been refused. They are homosexuals, so INS is refusing to approve anything. Citizenship by marriage would be an option if they were straight.

As I understand it the religious right is against gay rights because it is offending to those who want to live by the teachings of the Bible. Maybe it someone claimed that hetrosexual marriage is against the teachings of the Torah, w

What offends gay people is that the religious right has shown itself completely incapable of living by the Bible.

They can't decide which rules to follow (Death penalty? Sure. No pork? Craziness!) and their leaders have, um, spotty track records (prostitutes, embezzlement, drugs and...wait for it...homosexuality!) and are total Pharisees out in public every day showing how amazingly holy they are (that basically made Jesus' head explode back in the day).

So yeah, having hypocrites tell you you're evil is like having Michael Jackson tell you you're weird.

Someone give this man a cigar. He hit it right on the head!

Well, ya see, this is the thing...

If they want to be offended, that's their business. I don't really care. They do a lot of stuff that I think is offensive.

But the big difference is, they want to dictate how I live my life and what I do with consenting adults in the privacy of my own home. I don't really give a flying fuck what they believe or do, as long as they leave me out of it. They claim I infringe upon their rights by holding differing beliefs; they claim I infringe on their rights if I say they can't make my life decisions for me.

Anyone see the difference here?

*NCbear raises a fist and bows his head in silent Gay Power salute*

No, seriously, that's exactly it, DC. This bullshit about how opening up the definition of marriage to include same-gender couples "destroys" the "sanctity" of marriage is just laughable. Or it would be, if they weren't OMFG serious.

I think it's time to make divorces much more difficult to obtain.

NCbear (who can remember when "look, there's a divorced person" was a statement his extended family members could make)

A person can designate a successor with their bank to their account. The account is closed on death, and paid out, less any credit debt due to that institution. I am the successor on my father and uncle's accounts, my brother is successor on mine. It is easy to do. Any bank account can have more people added as signers.

A person can also set up a living trust with their real property in it, they have to quitclaim the property to the trust, it is totally their own for life, they can change this at any time, the property placed in the trust goes automatically and directly to the assignee on death without probate. It costs at least a thousand to do this.

Quite a few gay couples are leaving the US for Canada, where they can be together without being hassled so much. I know of an American whose Nepali partner was not allowed into the US, they both are 'refugees' in BC now.

Again, you are making the assumption that Alaska law is the same as law in the other 49. The examples you listed are all relatives, not same-sex partners.

And yes, it may be easy, but that doesn't make it legally binding everywhere in the USA.

You have really hit the nail on the head.

Clearly the fastest way to defend the sanctity of marriage would be to outlaw divorce except in extreme circumstances (like abuse). I mean, I wasn't under the impression that gay people marrying would somehow destroy the marriages of straight people. I missed that causal relationship.

I'm still trying to figure out the "I don't approve" and "I believe it's wrong" arguments.

If you don't approve, don't do it. If you believe it's wrong, don't do it. I don't do things I don't approve of or things I believe to be wrong. Can't you do the same? Should my disapproval of anyone else's behavior have any bearing?

But if you think that your approval is required for my relationship, how about equal time, and allowing me veto power over your relationship? It has GOT to work both ways. ALL the anti-gay arguments have to work both ways, or they lose and I win.

Exactly. I don't get how people cannot see how insane it is to somehow think that my existence requires their approval. It did not work when it was a "race" issue and it does not work with "orientation."

Discrimination against someone based upon a person's "unalterable characteristics" is wrong.

And Lex, this is one of the things that I treasure so deeply about our friendship - we can be "normal," who we are, around each other... no pretense, no "acting," required. Fortunately, we have more similarities than differences (except you are brown and I'm pink) but even so, I think we would get along well if we had a lot more differences, just because of the way we think and the way we treat others.

(Oh, and beware: according to more than just a few on LPSG, I'm a raging racist. Keep that in mind next time you & BubbaJ come to visit.)

I don't think the bank (and it is actually Credit Unions in two of the three cases) cares about what the relationship is, as far as adding a signer or successor, they don't ask to see a marriage license, a friend or the person designated as executor would do as well. It would be a different matter after someone had died, they would not deal with anyone not designated as successor on the signature sheet without the estate going through probate. (A power of attorney dies with the person)

You can also have your deed recorded as joint tenants with right of survivorship, or tenants in common. Check your state law, but you can set it up so the other person(s) on the deed will inherit your share rather than whomever the probate court would consider your heirs if you died intestate. This is also assuming you don't have a mortgage.

Certainly my experience is in Alaska,(also went through probate in Florida) some things will be different in other states.
In many places there are GLBT/SA lawyers who do seminars on estate planning etc. for us homies, and are happy to answer questions.

This is pointing out some things that people might be able to do to reduce hassles, it is getting slightly beside the point re the thread topic, and we should certainly continue to work for full equality.

I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth of Virginia specifically does not recognize "joint tenants with right of survivorship", or "tenants in common" for unmarried persons. I'll have to check on that. Virginia law is astoundingly oppressive in such matters.

The Virginia legislature, in the first drafts of this bill, specified "same-sex couples," but quickly realized the legal issues they would run into... so they got around it by amending it to specify "unmarried persons." On the surface, that would seem less discriminatory... except that, if they really want the legal protections, heterosexual couples do have an option. They can get married. Regardless of how much I want those same protections, I am expressly forbidden by law to qualify myself for them.