Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (28269)	2/6/2004 11:32:24 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 794496

All "they" are asking for is the right to enter into the same contractual relationship that heterosexuals can, with the same rights and responsibilities. The problem is that marriage exists psychologically in two ways for a lot of people, but they don't realize it and so they blend the two. The first is the strictly legal way, it is a contract which controls things like inheritance, some property and job benefits. The second is the "religious" or the "traditional" way. The first can be legislated by the government. The second can't be. Among the gays I know, many would happy with just the first, they don't really care if the bigots accept them or not. As long as they don't try to hurt them or kill them or deny them the right to work or live where they wish and allow them to have the benefits mentioned above.

To: DMaA who wrote (28269)	2/6/2004 11:50:03 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 794496

Social relationships are not set in stone. Not all that long ago, in common law states, if property were all in the name of the husband, it would belong solely to him in the event of divorce. Now most common law states have adopted concepts similar to the ancient civil law concept that everything acquired during marriage via employment is potentially to be shared upon divorce. Parenthetically, my grandmother never left her second husband because their family business was in the husband's name alone, despite the fact that she did more than half of the work. The property was also in his name alone. These days in Virginia there would be almost a presumption that she was part owner of the value of those assets despite the way they were titled, and would get a lump sum to compensate her for that interest. These concepts apply as well to retirement benefits, not only because of state law, but even federal law like ERISA. This all came about during the past couple of decades. So the ground is always shifting.