|
Post by freckles on Mar 5, 2008 15:10:03 GMT -5
They should Repent
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Mar 5, 2008 15:22:48 GMT -5
I think everyone should repent... for judging them. Or, did we forget "Though shall not judge" was one of the 12 commandments?
|
|
|
Post by goods on Mar 5, 2008 15:29:20 GMT -5
The institution of marriage is not institution at all... especially when over 50% of marriages end in divorce. We live in a country that watches shows like "Who wants to marry a millionare"... HA! I think that gay people have every right to get married, share property, raise children, inherit from a deceased spouse, pay taxes, etc., etc.... in short: THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE AS MISERABLE AS THE REST OF US STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!! Here is an example of why they should be able to be married: A couple lives together for 30 years. They share household expenses and they care for one another. Because they "LEGALLY" can't be married, they buy a house in only one of their names. They live in the house for many years. They pay the house off. They are getting older and one becomes ill (the one who actually leagally owns the property). That person eventually dies, leaving their life partner to deal with the family memembers who are now around (for the first time in many many many years) trying to "claim" next of kin and rights to the property. It is a legal NIGHTMARE!!! My wife and I bought our house BEFORE we were married. Her maiden name is on the deed and the mortgage.
|
|
JC
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by JC on Mar 5, 2008 15:52:55 GMT -5
The institution of marriage is not institution at all... especially when over 50% of marriages end in divorce. We live in a country that watches shows like "Who wants to marry a millionare"... HA! I think that gay people have every right to get married, share property, raise children, inherit from a deceased spouse, pay taxes, etc., etc.... in short: THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE AS MISERABLE AS THE REST OF US STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!! Here is an example of why they should be able to be married: A couple lives together for 30 years. They share household expenses and they care for one another. Because they "LEGALLY" can't be married, they buy a house in only one of their names. They live in the house for many years. They pay the house off. They are getting older and one becomes ill (the one who actually leagally owns the property). That person eventually dies, leaving their life partner to deal with the family memembers who are now around (for the first time in many many many years) trying to "claim" next of kin and rights to the property. It is a legal NIGHTMARE!!! My wife and I bought our house BEFORE we were married. Her maiden name is on the deed and the mortgage. what does that have to do with anything?
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Mar 5, 2008 16:00:51 GMT -5
My wife and I bought our house BEFORE we were married. Her maiden name is on the deed and the mortgage. what does that have to do with anything? I think he meant that gay couples can share property even if they are not legally married. My example wasn't the best.
|
|
JC
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by JC on Mar 5, 2008 16:07:01 GMT -5
yeah but she didnt die. so why does that matter?
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Mar 5, 2008 16:10:47 GMT -5
yeah but she didnt die. so why does that matter? AHHHHHHHHH.... I see your point. Had she passed when they were not married he still would have inherrited her portion of the property. The family would have no claim to the property. That is how title works in California. My example was more of a "we are hiding that we are lesbians because it is 1950 and the bank won't approve us together, so only one of us can be on title" scenario.
|
|
JC
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by JC on Mar 5, 2008 16:14:49 GMT -5
and, the fact that they did get married would probably play a huge part had she died. he would have most likely ended up with the house, as her 'next of kin'
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Mar 5, 2008 16:19:44 GMT -5
well not really. When you have two people on title (car or house) and one of the people dies, the other inherrits the property as "sole owner." There isn't anything any outside party can do legally because the title is set up kind of like a trust to take care of the two interested parties in the event that one dies. The marriage doesn't add to their position on title or make anything stronger. However, the contents of the house would be up for debate if the two parties on title were not married. If they were, there is not doubt the wife/hubby still living gets everything.
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Mar 5, 2008 16:23:53 GMT -5
I think I should be able to have 100's of Wives Of course I need to start with number 1
|
|
JC
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by JC on Mar 5, 2008 16:27:27 GMT -5
i was under the impression he was not on the title at all.
|
|
JC
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by JC on Mar 5, 2008 16:28:17 GMT -5
and without a will as long as all debts are satisfied, the next of kin gets everything.
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Mar 5, 2008 16:29:55 GMT -5
not really, if you die in testate, i.e. without a will, the government gets a 40% estate tax, which is 40% of what ever is left over to be inherrited. After the government gets their cut, who ever is deemed to be next of kin gets what is left.
|
|
JC
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by JC on Mar 5, 2008 16:34:09 GMT -5
im sorry... i said when all debts were satisfied.. i meant taxes as well.
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Mar 5, 2008 16:44:29 GMT -5
I think I should be able to have 100's of Wives Of course I need to start with number 1 Poligamy (reading about it and watching it on tv) is one of my favorite topics. I think I am gonna start a new thread!
|
|