Same-sex marriage: 'Ayep,' in Maine

dont much like obam gay socialism,rezko.

More great news. We will hopefully see N.H. allow marriage equality in the coming days and D.C. later on this year.

I'm glad to have lived in Connecticut when it became the second state in the union to allow rights to consenting and loving adults.

Hey Twinky, you don't like what? You mean you like it when government tells you what you can and can not do?

Oh no! My marriage is in danger! My marriage is in danger! My whole realtionship with my spouse is changed because two consenting adults of the same sex can marry in Maine! Save me! Save me please!

Don we now our gay apparrel..fa la la la la la la la la

Some states will do ANYTHING to increase their tax revenues.

Pray for these degenerate low lifes. They need all the help they can get. Sickening.

Paulo

Mr. Silva, as a Maine native, let me respectfully correct you. It's "ayuh," not "ayep." It's an all-purpose word; depending upon inflection, it can express affirmation, doubt, dismissal, or any one of a dozen other emotions. It's not to be used by the uninitiated!

Pray for these degenerate low lifes. They need all the help they can get. Sickening.
Posted by: Paulo | May 6, 2009 2:29 PM
************

Pablo,
We already are praying for you Wingnut whackjobs, but I don't think we can pray away your low IQ.

You Republican haters really need to pull your heads out of your bibles and smell the coffee.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is moving on and leaving you behind.

Well then, CumAsYouAre, "the world is moving on" and leaving your president behind too...Obama is against gay marriage.

Bwaaahahahaha!!!!

Paulo

Bravo, Maine! One step forward in the march for equal rights for all citizens.

Yay for Maine! 5 down, 45 to go!

Now that the gays are getting married, David Vitter (R-La) is worried about his marriage.
.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/david%20vitter/cubbie123/DavidVitter.png

It's about time people, no one should be messing with people that want to marry some one of the same-sex. unless they are raping, killing or physically hurting you, then let them be. By the way I'm not gay, but I believe that gay people should be able to get married if they want to, I am straight and I don't want to get married.

So, my fellow Republicans, can you hear the footsteps coming up behind? Once again you are firmly on the wrong side of history. And getting ever smaller, weaker, and less relevant.

As a relatively conservative Republican, I fail to understand how allowing two people of the same sex to get married threatens the relationship of my wife and me, or that of any heterosexual couple. I'd think that we'd want more committed unions, not fewer. Homosexuals can't make a bigger mess of the institution of marriage than heterosexuals have already made of it.

I'd ask my Republican confreres, "Is this a hill you want to die on?" Because you certainly will.

By the way, Mr. Silva, nice picture of the Portland Head Light. Though, since it's the most photographed lighthouse in the world, it's hardly original.

Hey Paolo and all you other gay marriage-haters...are you also going to push to outlaw divorce? Being gay isn't a communicable disease (even though you seem to think it is).

If you are going to oppose gay marriage because it is anti-marriage, what could be more anti-marriage than divorce...but unless you call to legislate against that, then you are all hypocrites and should shut the hellup.

“Hey Twinky, you don't like what? You mean you like it when government tells you what you can and can not do?”
.
Posted by: alex | May 6, 2009 1:52 PM
.
Government doesn’t tell you what you can and can’t do with your life when you get married? And you think state sanctioned marriage is a freedom? You have absolutely no imagination or conception what freedom really is if you do.

Obama is against gay marriage.
Bwaaahahahaha!!!!Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | May 6, 2009 2:58 PM
************

Dream on, Pablo...

Unlike that village idiot from Texas (Bush) that you voted for twice, Obama is smart enough to change with the times.

Enjoy your life in the minority, Pablo. Your bigotted Repug team is going to be there for a very long time.

As usual, Silva takes a shot at Palin without taking one at Obama. Obama (and Biden) said in the Presidential Campaign that he doesn't support same sex marriages - he didn't say it's best left up to the states. And as a state senator, Obama voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which would define marriage as between a man and a woman. But hey, Silva never let a few inconvenient facts about Obama actual positions get in the way of a jab at Palin.

Sounds to me like Mrs. W kicked someone to the couch recently. Did you forget to take out the garbage again John?

Yes John, it is a freedom. It is a wholly consentual, legal arrangement with benefits and restrictions on both parties. No one forces you into a state sanctioned marriage. Both parties must choose it of their own free will. In that sense it is no different than any other legally binding contract. If you choose not to enter a state sanctioned marriage, that is your choice, and I hope it pleases you. However, If I choose to enter a state sanctioned marriage, that is MY choice to make freely. It is not your business to decide that the option of state sanctioned marriage should not be available to me, or, more to the point, to same sex couples as a group. Freedom is not the complete absence of legal restrictions.

Sex between men is a sin

Sex between women is a sin

Some things never change.

You have absolutely no imagination or conception what freedom really is if you do.

Posted by: John W. | May 6, 2009 3:53 PM
**************

And the Ron Paul Repugnuts that you hang out with do?

Yeah, they respect government - when they're not out blowing up government buildings and abortion clinics.

Get a job, W.

But hey, Silva never let a few inconvenient facts about Obama actual positions get in the way of a jab at Palin.

Posted by: Bemused | May 6, 2009 4:10 PM
.

Hillary lost the primary to Obama and I still can't get over it and just get on with my life....

Waaaaaaaaaaaah!

It's good to see freedom and liberty spreading across the country. As each state extends this important civil right to our gay brothers and sisters, it makes America a more free and more just nation.
Just as the U.S. wasn't the first country to outlaw slavery, we are not in the forefront on this, but I am still proud that state by state, my country is beginning to do the right thing.

It's ok. Most of Maine thinks they are part of Canada anyway.

Bemused mistates intentionally cherry picks facts to attack the Evil One, President Obama, and to praise The Most Blessed St. Sarah. Again.

Bemused, Yes Obama did viote for DOMA as a State Senator. However, he has since come to see the error in that vote, and admit that error.(Has St. Sarah ever been in error? Is it blasphemy to even ask?) . Since 2004 Obama has consistantly and strongly held that DOMA should be completely repealed. He also, contrary to your statement (May the Blessed Governor forgive your sins), says that same sex marriage should be a state decision.

In addition, while Obama does not support same sex "marriage" he does support same sex civil unions that would give couples all of the legal protections as same sex marriage, and would be in fact indenticle to marriage but for name.
To be honest, I wish Obama was more progressive on this issues, and a stronger advocate for full legal equality of our gay citizens. But even his more limited position is still light years ahead of where Our Lady of Wassila (and I assume you, her devoted and worshipful acolyte) is, with her wish to enshrine discrimination into the US Constitution.

Hey well at least you guys can get those all important pictures of New York.

There are gays in Maine?!?! Just another state that hopefully will fall into the ocean I guess...

Bemused,

He actually did say, and did so several times, that it was best left to the states. And, he did vote against the defense of marriage act in 1996. Similar to his vote against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Lot's of Republican bashing here....what about the Messiah Obama and his side kick Biden?? Any criticize for these knuckle dragging, bible thumping, red-neck, wing nut, tea bagging idiots who don't believe in gay marriage????Oh...I forgot...they have a (D) next to their names. I'm sure the gays in this country will give those two a pass. God bless Miss California!!!!!!

Terry from Maine, those may be sins, but they're not crimes.

I also don't see them listed in the Seven Deadly Sins (gluttony, sloth, lust, etc.); those aren't crimes either.

* * * * *
Posted by: Liz | May 6, 2009 4:13 PM
.
No, Liz, I was actually talking about the limitations on freedom imposed by the State whenever it gets involved in regulating interpersonal relationships. As it stands right now, most states require an investigation (however minimal) into the background and health of the parties to be married. Then, people can only be deemed “married” if the couple pays the state off, the state grants them a “license” to get married, and some person infused with state authority (who takes another cut) signs off on the license. Once married, the parties’ property rights, child custody rights, and interpersonal relationships are immediately and indefinitely altered by operation of law. If one, then, seeks to have the marriage terminated, it takes even more intervention by the state in a divorce or “dissolution” proceeding, which can involve a severe depletion of the parties’ private resources (often to the detriment of children), not to mention an intrusive sifting of their private affairs.
.
As I see it, this whole setup is a great racket for the state to take its cut at regular intervals, to ensure full-time employment for divorce lawyers, and very little else. The persistence of a marriage depends on the parties to the relationship, and not the state. No marriage license has ever kept two people married who were determined to go their separate ways. It is also still the case that 1 out of every 2 state sanctioned marriages end in divorce; that little or no justification is required to end a marriage any more, and that the state takes a considerable cut whenever a couple seeks a divorce (entirely apart from what the lawyers get). It also happens to be true that state sanctioned marriages are dropping, and the number of people cohabiting and raising children without state sanction is increasing.
.
I have (what I think is) a better idea. Take the state entirely out of the picture. Leave the issue of marriage up to the people - just like it used to be. Let people come together as man and wife on the basis of a consensual, interpersonal contract to handle all the details of property rights, child custody, and the means and provisions for ending the relationship. If a marriage doesn’t hold up, let the matter be disposed of like a regular contract action in the event the parties fail to fulfill their obligations in winding it up. It takes less time and money, the same social values are preserved, and the state’s intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens is abolished.
.
And why not? Marriage used to be an entirely private matter, enforced only by the rules of contract and social convention. The state was not involved. The intrusion of the state into marriage was primarily driven by the need to keep people married and to regulate (read: prevent) divorce. However, a person today can get divorced without cause (and if you can’t where you live, you can move to a state where you can). Another stated reason for state intervention into marriage was the need to protect children. That reason has also largely gone by the wayside, because people can bear children and adopt children entirely outside of marriage. Illegitimacy (the former sport of Kings) no longer exists. Most (if not all) laws that disadvantage children born out of wedlock have been declared unconstitutional. The only other traditional reason for this intervention was to enforce some sense of religious morality concerning marriage. The states, however, aren’t supposed to use their laws to enforce religious ideals. And, indeed, by allowing divorce on a whim, they have already stopped doing so. Where the reasons for a rule cease to exist, the rule ought to disappear too. Since the reasons for state intervention into marriage have largely ceased to exist, and civilization can proceed in an orderly fashion without that burdensome intervention, there is no reason to maintain it.
.
In addition, making marriage an entirely private affair AGAIN would also resolve the same-sex marriage issue. It would put all same-sex marriages on the same footing as heterosexual marriages EVERYWHERE, and without implying official government sanction. And that is how it should be. No one’s life or liberty should require official government sanction.
* * * * * * *
Karl: It is not a freedom when it is dispensed only by the state. Read above.
* * * * * **
unemployed lawyer (e.g. JohnEE-boy): Unlike you, I have a job. Buzz off.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I now introduce to you Mr. and Mr. Adams. I now pronounce you husband and husband. And here is Mrs. and Mrs. Jones. I now pronounce you wife and wife. It's getting stranger and stranger here everday folks!

Look, if the people of Maine (through their elected representatives) want to recognize gay marriage, then it is properly left up to them, without interference from the courts or the federal government. I fully favor this type of action in all of the states.

That being said, I am a little tired of this issue being used to beat up on Republicans. As noted in the article, Obama's position on gay marriage was the same as McCain. Much of the opposition to gay marriage has come from Democrat-supporting constituent groups (i.e. African Americans, Senior Citizens, etc.) Many states where Democrats control all both the legislature and the governor's office (i.e. Illinois!) have failed to legalize gay marriage or even civil unions, and the people of California (who voted for Obama) also voted to ban gay marriage. And lets not forget Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act years ago.

Jeez, John it was a joke. Lighten up a bit. You really take yourself much too seriously.

I forgot...they have a (D) next to their names. I'm sure the gays in this country will give those two a pass. God bless Miss California!!!!!!

Posted by: Joe | May 6, 2009 5:52 PM
.

Larry Craig,
Yes, because we all know that good ol' Republican "family values" includes getting fake breast implants and parading around in front of Donald Trump half naked.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdN8qZZSkrI

unemployed lawyer (e.g. JohnEE-boy): Unlike you, I have a job. Buzz off.

Posted by: John W. | May 6, 2009 6:17 PM
**************

W,
You can call me whatever you want, just make sure you call.
I love toying with you...:)

Martin and Liz, you Obamabots need to get your story straight. Obama attended a homophobic church for 20 years, and voted against DOMA - which is to say he voted against same sex marriage. I really have to laugh at you vile Obama people who attack me because I don't bow to your silly little messiah. Obama has not changed his position on gay marriage. This article is not about civil unions, Liz. I don't have any illusions about Palin's conservative social values. You, obviously, are blinded by Obama's cowardice to be a real progressive. I'm still here, and I'll still call you shrill hypocrites on your b.s. every time. You and MSNBC can lie to each other, just don't spread it here and expect that your smug garbage will go unanswered.

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. . . . It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. . . . Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. [The Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan, 1961), p. 56]

John W, You are perfectly free not to enter into state sanctioned marriage if it does not please you. You are perfectly free to set up a contract with the partner of your choice as you suggest. Go for it man. If that's a choice others want to take, I'm sure they will, and they have the free will choice to do so. Marriage , as an institution isn't only dispensed by the state either. Many churches also have a religious marriage institution, which often confers other obligations upon the couple. However, there are many people who wish to enter into a state sanctioned marriage, with the pre-packaged mix of legal agreements and rights that entails. That too is their free will choice. It really has nothing to do with you, and your desire to deny them the freedom to make that choice. You think it's a scam. Fine. No problem at all. Others don't. The difference is that no one claims that you should be forced to enter a state sanctioned marriage, yet you feel others should be denied the right to make the alternate decision. I think you may confused about what freedom really means.

Let's make the Bible, US Constitution and all law living documents, this way we can do anything we want and still feel moral. I don't care if homosexuals marry, but I will never recognize or accept this lifestyle as natural or normal.

I notice this idiocy was crammed though a state LEGISLATURE, instead of being voted on, since this topic NEVER wins in the voting booth.

but I will never recognize or accept this lifestyle as natural or normal.

Posted by: Mike Rotch | May 6, 2009 7:17 PM
..

That's ok, Mikey, we don't recognize the Republican party as anything more than a regional (the south). party anymore, so it's a wash.

* * * * *
Posted by: Karl | May 6, 2009 6:44 PM
.
No, Karl, I’m not confused at all. Freedom means the absence of coercion of any kind. State regulation always entails coercion. State intervention always involves the inhibition of individual spontaneity and creativity in ordering one’s life. The least amount of state involvement, therefore, is always a good thing. Hence, when the exigencies which justify state involvement cease, so should the state involvement. Only a Hobbesian toady of the state, with a spirit incapable of independent thought and action, would enjoy the prospect of having his or her personal affairs regulated by the state. The points I make are consistent and cogent. There is no confusion.
.
And FYI - a religious marriage ceremony means nothing in this country, and confers no enforceable rights, unless it is preceded by a license from the state. The way I see it, a religious or cultural marriage ceremony might actually have more significance when it isn’t overshadowed by the state. A person’s self-government, including whatever religious, cultural or ethical systems they may invoke, is still preferable to the State. A religious or cultural ceremony, rather than a state license, is what used to inform the couple’s relevant community that the two intended to live in matrimony and hold themselves out as spouses to the exclusion of all others. Given the state’s loose handle on the subject matter, there is no reason not to go back to it. In this sense, my ideas or reasoning deprive no one of the right to be married - as you claim. It gives them more rights concerning marriage. My idea is simply to take the state out of the loop.

* * * * *
Posted by: Liz | May 6, 2009 6:26 PM
.
Liz,
.
Don’t worry. You didn’t raise my hackles or blood pressure. And I’m not taking myself too seriously. You just gave me an opportunity to speak my mind. Reading my over-lengthy post while imitating the voice of Deputy Dawg, Yogi the Bear or Truman Capote wouldn’t be out of character with the way I felt while writing the whole thing.

Next stop - polygamy

Ahh, I get it John, You are an anarchist. Cool! Destroy all the religions, government and corporations. Stop all the coercion and be free. No more contracts of any kind. No more courts, no more stinking lawyers. Paradise. In that context you make sense.

More bad law against the will of the people? According to the Founding Fathers, the people were indeed trustworthy to have a say in an interactive constitutional republic; but no longer. Backdoor homosexual marriage laws in Maine are definitely not constitutional and certainly no constitutional scholar would ever claim original intent in the many papers and documents written by the authors of the Constitution. The new law will never stand up to judicial review, especially in lieu of the bootleg tactic that was used to make the bill law. The other travesty today is that the U.S. Congress wants to include convicted pedophiles as recipients and benefactors to hate crime protections. Yet, when it was proposed that American veterans be included in the protection, every Democrat voted “No.” Are we headed somewhere as a nation that we ought not to go? When pedophiles and homosexuals are given “special” and “enhanced” protections under the law, and veterans are not, isn’t there something wrong?

* * * * *
Posted by: Karl | May 6, 2009 10:13 PM
.
Karl,
.
After submitting my last response to you, I said to myself, “Self: Karl just might be up against the limits of his capacity to understand this stuff. You will know it if he uses the ‘A’ word in reply.” And you went and did it.
.
An Anarchist is one who opposes all government. I am not an anarchist because I do not oppose all government. That’s why I wrote, “The least amount of state involvement … is always a good thing.” If I were an anarchist, I would have written, “Having NO government is always a good thing.” Unlike anarchists, I understand that not all men are angels, and, therefore, some external government will always be necessary to insure the equal enjoyment of liberty. And, yes, that means that governments must sometimes coerce people (natural and corporate) to prevent them from harming others. Yet, government remains a badge of weakness and a mirror of our moral defects as a society, because it is the want of strength and moral courage that make government necessary at all. (For the rest of the lesson, I refer you to “Common Sense,” by Thomas Paine (1776).)
.
But, no, my viewpoint is not “Anarchy.” If you must have a label, the correct one is “Classical Liberalism” (as opposed to the modern, progressive pseudo-liberalism), or, perhaps, even “Libertarianism.” Neither position is radical or lacking in the traditions of American political thought (as your comments seemed to suggest). In any event, having misapprehended my point of view, your entire parade of misunderstanding has led you down the wrong street. I am thereby relieved of having to answer any of your other misguided remarks.
.
However, I would like your opinion on a number of topics, and I won’t pull any tricks. First of all, tell me: Is marriage a right or a privilege? If it’s a right, is a right because of some positive act of law or government, or because of our inherent and inalienable rights as human beings? If it is a “right” (like free speech) as opposed to a “privilege” (like operating a motor vehicle), then how can states justify licensing it?

John W., I do get your point about the state legislating what can and can't be done with the property and custody rights of a married couple. I think you're missing the point that gay couples are going AFTER those very restrictions, and for good reasons. What's been happening is that, when one person within a gay couple died, leaving property and/or custody rights of a minor child to his or her surviing partner, that person's family was swooping in, contesting his or her will as closer blood relatives and grabbing up all they could get, and the law upheld that. Assuming you're married, would you want to see your wife thrown out of your home and your children taken away from her DESPITE what you've put in your will? Yes, greedy, spiteful relatives are part of the heterosexual world as well. But at least heterosexually married couples had law on their side and could count on some protection.

"What's been happening is that, when one person within a gay couple died, leaving property and/or custody rights of a minor child to his or her surviing partner, that person's family was swooping in, contesting his or her will as closer blood relatives and grabbing up all they could get, and the law upheld that."
Posted by: Op109 | May 7, 2009 8:03 AM

Op 109, can you cite a case in which a valid will was declared void because the decedent was homosexual?

Op 109, can you cite a case in which a valid will was declared void because the decedent was homosexual?

Posted by: Bemused | May 7, 2009 10:18 AM

Bemused, wills don't get overturned "because the decedent was homosexual", and I made no such claim. I CAN cite examples I've seen where blood relatives were able to overturn the will because they claim a closer relationship to the decedent in lieu of a surviving spouse -- my uncle, for one. He left his estate to his partner and my other two uncles went in and had it overturned because they were blood relatives. The partner got a small amount in cash and whatever he was able to document was his personal property. The uncles got the house (purchased and wholly owned by uncle) and its contents, as well as the remainder of cash and other assets. Same situation with a lesbian couple I knew, where there was also a child involved. There, the parents of the decedent took custody of the child (their biological grandchild) as well as the condo and its contents, which they claimed as guardians of a surviving minor child. The surviving partner, luckily, had her own bank account, but the account of the decedent as well as half the joint bank account was taken.

Obviously, I can't give you the names of these people. What I can do, since you've asked (and since I feel like it) is to provide the following links:

http://www.diversityworking.com/career/Financial_Services/Alabama_jobs/story/31.html

http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/solo/2007/vol13no1/estateplanning.html

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1522/context/archive

http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/Issues/2007/38/Pages/Estate-Planning-for-Same-Sex-and-Unmarried-Couples.aspx

http://www.outestateplanning.com/totalreturntrust.htm

Bemused,

I admitted that Obama initially supported DOMA. Can you admit that his position has changed?

Now, tell me Bemused, Do you support every element of St. Sarah's position on Gay marriage. Do you support a federal amendment making discrimination against gays a part of the US constitution? Most of us "vile Obama people" don't want that. Is not wanting to discriminate against gays part of what makes us "vile" to the members of the Church of the Blessed Sarah, like you?

* * * * *
Posted by: Op109 | May 7, 2009 8:03 AM
.
Greedy, spiteful relatives are unfortunately part of too many people’s lives. I don’t doubt what you say is true. What I don’t get is how a court could refuse to honor the property dispositions in a valid will based on issues of consanguinity (i.e. nearness in blood relation). The entire genius of allowing disposition of property by will, as opposed to the laws of intestate succession, was to allow for disposition of property to people other than relatives, and to explicitly disinherit relatives one might otherwise presume to be the recipients of the testator’s property. I don’t mean to give out legal advise (and my post is awkwardly worded to avoid doing so), but in the jurisdiction in which I live (and practice law) anyone can effectively and entirely disinherit any relative in a will (except a spouse) if that relative is specifically named and disinherited, or given only a token sum (like $1). The “greedy group” can also be discouraged from challenging a will by providing them with a nominal sum coupled with a no n “in terroram” clause that gives them $1 if they challenge the will. So, my first question - in the specific case of your uncle - is: Did your uncle explicitly disinherit everyone other than his partner? In the case involving the lesbian couple, did they have a will or a trust; and did they make any guardianship designations?
.
As the other articles you provided demonstrate, it may not always be the case that regular wills are the best way to dispose of property at one’s death. If Leona Helmsley can provide $12 million in trust for her pet dog and make it stick, then maybe a trust is a better way to deal with property dispositions. Helsmley’s will had provisions for the creation of “pour over” trusts. That is, the will created a trust or two and then “poured” some of the contents of her estate into those trusts. Her dog is still benefitting from the $12 million put in trust. That’s a lot of Milk Bones®. In addition, a living trust (a.k.a. an inter vivos trust), in some jurisdictions, entirely avoids the need for a will. The parties transfer their real and personal property into a trust in which they act as both trustees and beneficiaries (which is permissible in some states). Thus, when someone dies, there is no probate proceeding. The survivors become owners of the property by operation of law. Guardianship and trustee designations may also be made for minor children. The downside of this practice (I think) is that it has immediate negative tax consequences in the way that writing a will doesn’t.
.
I suspect that (in some jurisdictions) many of the same results can be effectuated by a couple even without a will, simply by designating real estate and personal property as property held in joint tenancy. Joint tenancy or “joint tenancy with right of survivorship” will, in some jurisdictions, immediately pass title to real or personal property to surviving joint tenants without further probate proceedings.
.
The point I am making is that a certain amount of creativity can be employed to defeat the designs of greedy, spiteful relatives even apart from the protections the law throws around “marital status.” However, vigilance is required.

It's not just wills either. Homosexual partners have been denied the right to visit their dying loved ones in the hospital because the partner is not "Family". They have been denied the right to take part in decision relating to the healthcare of partners too sick to decide for themselves for the same reason.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/08-4

These are the kind of basic freedoms and dignities that are being denied to same sex couples.

Actually Liz, I can't admit that Obama's position on gay marriage has changed - because it hasn't. He was quite clear that he opposes gay marriage, but supports civil unions. And Liz, no matter how you try to label Governor Palin "St. Sarah" it won't stick. Obama has received the monicker "Messiah" because of the cult-like obssessiveness surrounding him from certain followers and most of the mainstream media. I don't agree with Governor Palin on many issues. I do respect that she has actually gone after corruption in her home state - something which Obama never did to his everlasting shame. We have far too long accepted corruption as the price for certain policies that we support. I reject that contention. If we clean up our system, and support those who do regardless of their position on issues, we can then move forward to a healthy democratic process to debate ideas and policies. Most of the comments here clearly cannot understand that is my position. They have taken to villifying me and Governor Palin, rather than taking the beam out of their own eyes. Good luck with your arguments, Liz.

Posted by: John W. | May 7, 2009 2:10 PM
.
Thanks for your reply, John W. -- I was certainly not asking for legal advice (and can appreciate your reticence to provide any), NOR do I disagree at all that the wills/estates of the two people I knew could have been handled better (more specifically, the term might be: "Y'uh Huh!! Do ya THINK??"). The point is that, given the seemingly-run-of-the-mill, nothing-spectacular nature of the estates, had these "partners" been "spouses," I suspect the whole issue would have been moot and the will of the deceased would have been upheld, no questions asked. And that's what a lot of gay people are looking for -- the same assumption of protection and security given to married couples without the need to make extra, carefully-planned provisions that a married couple wouldn't need to go through. Would a "typical" married couple with a child (or without one) need to make such provision -- just to have their surviving partner/spouse be able to maintain the home and life they shared while both were alive? (It'd make sense to me for either the "straight" OR the "gay" couple to have to jump through hoops if somehow the estate in question were some huge, cash and property laden behemoth of multi-million dollar proportion, including corporations, charitable funds, collections, etc., btw.)

Bemused, myou are simpoly lying. Obama's posittion on DOMA has changed, you are simply too blinded by hate to be able to admit it.

So, Bemused, do you, or do you not support St. Sarah the Reformers position that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. Yes or no? Do you see her strong support for discrimination leading to her everlasting shame? Is this one of the many issues you disagree with her on, and are you willing to openly denounce her for it. Show us how different you are fom the Obama supporters. Show us that you don't blindly worship Our Lady of Wassila. I honestly believe you are not capable of doing that.

* * * * *
Posted by: Op109 | May 7, 2009 4:22 PM
.
Actually, in the case of your Uncle, I wonder if there weren’t some serious problem with his will. My gut feelings take me this way because taking against a will based on a claim of consanguinity with the testator - as your other uncles managed to do - is not normally possible unless there is lapse in testamentary disposition. If, for instance, your uncle made the mistake of referring to his partner his “spouse” - in a state where spouses are presumed to be members of the opposite sex - it could have been viewed as a lapsed gift for lack of a living, opposite sex “spouse.” If that were the case, then referring to the person by name, rather than title, might have made things right. Of course, I’m guessing.
.
Do I think that a heterosexual couple would have any of the same problems? No. But that isn’t necessarily because of the law of wills. It’s because of the laws of intestate succession (which give a spouse the lion’s share of an estate in the absence of a will), along with laws that give a widow or widower the right to take a portion of the estate against the dispositions in a will. In some states, the spouse has to make an election to take under the will or against it.
.
This whole situation would be remedied if the state got out of people’s interpersonal relations, and marriage contracts between private individuals were allowed to establish the same property rights. The same goes for durable powers of attorney for purpose of custody and visitation.