Same-sex spouse may inherit dead husb...

Same-sex spouse may inherit dead husband's estate, judge says i...

There are 184 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Feb 3, 2009, titled Same-sex spouse may inherit dead husband's estate, judge says i.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

A judge has issued New York state's first ruling that the survivor of a legal same-sex marriage is entitled to inherit a dead spouse's estate.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Michael Anthony

Lafayette, IN

#1 Mar 5, 2009
I sincerely hope that the Calfornia Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, which passed with 52% of the vote. The civil and human rights of citizens should not be put up for popular vote. This case is not without precedent:
In 1964, 65% of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalised racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and US Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.
Goldbug

New York, NY

#2 Mar 5, 2009
I don't have a particular view on the issue, but it seems to me if the California Constitution was legally changed (which may not be the case), then it's hard to see how the measure can be unconstitutional by definition.

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, IL

#3 Mar 5, 2009
I would like to hear one valid argument of why same sex marriage should not be allowed that doesn't involve religion or procreation.
gpudlo

Chicago, IL

#4 Mar 5, 2009
By denying same sex couples the legal right to marry and have equal benefits, they are being denied of 1,138 federal benefits that heterosexual couples receive. Why not just let the gays have their civil unions and leave it at that? Why? Because as this country has has already seen, separate is seldom, if ever, equal. Separate but equal does not work because the notion attempts to create a distance between those in the privileged position and those in the inferior position.
Alex in Chicago

Winnetka, IL

#5 Mar 5, 2009
I still find it odd that civil rights ammendments can be passed with a 2% majority. It seems wrong to me that that slim of a majority (or frankly any majority) can decide an issue that has no ramifications on the majority. Same-sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. It's not like deciding that it's okay to murder people.
This decision was obviously based on religious beliefs. One could argue that, since the Old Testament says eating shell fish is "an abomination", people aren't allowed to sell or eat it. That makes about as much sense to me as this proposition.
Tom Araya

Aurora, IL

#6 Mar 5, 2009
I'm basically indifferent to the issue. I suppose they should have the same rights of a married couple but wouldn't that be the case w/a civil union? Is the term "marriage" the issue?
Anon

Brooklyn, NY

#7 Mar 5, 2009
I support gay marriage. Until someone can prove to me that any actual harm has been done by making gay marriage legal, I will continue to support it. It seems like it is mostly hysterical religious nuts that are opposed to it.
DAG

Naperville, IL

#8 Mar 5, 2009
Democracy is a messy thing. California's proposition initiative is designed to give the citizens a stronger voice in their government. The results reflect the will of the majority of people, even if they don't comport with a vocal opposition. I do wonder how differently this story would read had Prop 8 failed and its proponents tried to bully the courts to force their will?

As to Michael Anthony's complaint, what are human and civil rights, anyway? Is marriage a civil right? Who gets to define this anyway?

As for Richard S's request for a valid argument that excludes religion and procreation, he thereby infers that religion and procreation provide valid arguments to oppose same-sex marriage and, consequently, those bases must be dismissed or marginalized. Of course, there exist religious groups who favor same-sex marriage and this and other stories have been published involving both adopted and procreated children with a same-sex parent and guardian. Thus, the issue apparently becomes murkier as the religious and procreational arguments get diluted in the public forum.

It is challenging, to say the least, to have a rational, intelligent, and respectful discussion about these issues. There is overwhelming emotional appeal to grant (or invent?) rights to good citizens of this great land. The members of the GLBT community are universally portrayed as the protagonists and so-called religious conservatives are universally pictured as the evil antagonists persecuting the innocents.

I can't help but wonder whether this picture is accurate?
Ann

Chicago, IL

#9 Mar 5, 2009
I am straight and I am absolutely 100% supportive of same-sex marriage. Funny how the same religious whack-jobs who argue about the "sanctity" of man-woman marriage will sit there and watch TV-reality crap like The Bachelor in which contestants COMPETE to "win" the bachelor's so-called love!!(oh yeah, that's real "sacred"). Well hopefully Prop 8 will be overturned and quickly, and then equality in marriage will become law not just in CA but across the country.
sam

Chicago, IL

#10 Mar 5, 2009
DAG wrote:
Democracy is a messy thing. California's proposition initiative is designed to give the citizens a stronger voice in their government. The results reflect the will of the majority of people, even if they don't comport with a vocal opposition. I do wonder how differently this story would read had Prop 8 failed and its proponents tried to bully the courts to force their will?
As to Michael Anthony's complaint, what are human and civil rights, anyway? Is marriage a civil right? Who gets to define this anyway?
As for Richard S's request for a valid argument that excludes religion and procreation, he thereby infers that religion and procreation provide valid arguments to oppose same-sex marriage and, consequently, those bases must be dismissed or marginalized. Of course, there exist religious groups who favor same-sex marriage and this and other stories have been published involving both adopted and procreated children with a same-sex parent and guardian. Thus, the issue apparently becomes murkier as the religious and procreational arguments get diluted in the public forum.
It is challenging, to say the least, to have a rational, intelligent, and respectful discussion about these issues. There is overwhelming emotional appeal to grant (or invent?) rights to good citizens of this great land. The members of the GLBT community are universally portrayed as the protagonists and so-called religious conservatives are universally pictured as the evil antagonists persecuting the innocents.
I can't help but wonder whether this picture is accurate?
Well, it is possible to have a rational discussion on the topic. Lets try. We do not live in a democracy, The United States is a constitutional republic and the constitution exists to make sure that the will of the majority never infringes upon the rights of any minority, the smallest minority being that of one, the individual. Individual freedoms and rights are protected and guaranteed by said constitution. Marriage falls under the "pursuit of happiness" clause and that right is protected for only a certain class of citizens. That's why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The reason a rational discussion about gay rights cannot occur when one side brings in religion and procreation is because those issues are moot. In relation to the former, religious doctrine cannot govern the making of laws or the taking away of rights, and the latter is irrelevant since procreation is not a requirement for hetero marriages to be valid and thus cannot be applied to homo-marriages. The anti-gay rights group do not have a leg to stand on. They do not have the law on their side, only fear and bigotry.
sam

Chicago, IL

#12 Mar 5, 2009
Why did topix bleap out h-o-m-o when I was referring to same sex marriages? What if I said homo-sapiens...lets see
sam

Chicago, IL

#13 Mar 5, 2009
What a culture we live in when you can say hetero but not h-o-m-o, even when your using it in its proper context and not derogatory. Its a shame that its become a dirty word
Now Wait

Allentown, PA

#14 Mar 5, 2009
Anon wrote:
I support gay marriage. Until someone can prove to me that any actual harm has been done by making gay marriage legal, I will continue to support it. It seems like it is mostly hysterical religious nuts that are opposed to it.
There is no solid argument against it. There is a strong need for one by those who stand to lose money like insurance companies and agencies that would fleece the estate. That's why the religious cookoos seem to be ahead. It isn't their stand nor hateful mentality but those who see the fianancial side and use their cries as a crutch.
spread the wealth

Sewickley, PA

#15 Mar 5, 2009
Richard S wrote:
I would like to hear one valid argument of why same sex marriage should not be allowed that doesn't involve religion or procreation.
it's just plain creepy.
Gene Lalor

AOL

#16 Mar 5, 2009
California and "gay marriage" are merely fields of battle in an ongoing homosexual-straight war.

I must beg the forbearance of regular readers here, and on other websites where I post my very insightful articles, for yet another piece having to do with homosexuals in America (use the search feature for the eponymous series here) and the closely-related topic of homosexuality in America.

On the one hand, the topic is getting old after having written about it countless times on this blogsite.

On the other, once we get inured to the topic, totally blase’ concerning its import on our lives and, mainly, on our children, then they will have won and we will have lost this struggle, this very consequential and literal battle for the souls, minds, and bodies of those kids. And, make no mistake, it is indeed a struggle in which the other side shows no signs of surrender.

So, like Michael Corleone, when I think I can get out, the topic keeps dragging me back in and, before I am accused of instigating this war, let us first establish that neither I nor we started this fire as can be seen in my multiple, preceding articles.

The lines have been clearly drawn in this war. Massed on one side are the considerable forces of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgend ers lobby, now known as the LGBT, formerly known by the generic title, homosexuals. They have been emboldened and encouraged to push their agenda by America’s love of the concept of unrestricted freedom for all, to the detriment of the rest of us.

Not quite massed, since we lack the organizational structure and unanimity of purpose of the LGBT even if we are more massive in numbers, are the rest of us, the heterosexual world, the “straights.”

The lack of cohesion on the straight side is most probably attributable to a lack of awareness on the part of many that a struggle even exists, which is the chief tactical advantage of the LGBTs. If you don’t know you’re in a fight, how can you reasonably be expected to fight back?

Some, however, are well aware not only of the battle in progress but of the consequences of losing.

One stalwart organization that has engaged the battle head on is the consistent defender of normality and oft-cited here, MassResistance.com , but there are others, many others, on the ramparts. They are not only Catholic groups or orthodox Jews or the much-maligned Christian “born againers,” those “oddballs” mainly from the much-maligned “red states” of America.

As a philosophical red-stater residing in one of the bluest of all 50 states, New York, I don’t mesh well with the Hillarys, the Schumers, the Pattersons of my state, and I wear that distinction as a badge of honor. But, I digress.

As previous articles here have illustrated, there is more than sufficient recent evidence that a homosexual/LGBT vs. straight/normal war is going on but
Imagine No Religion

Glastonbury, CT

#17 Mar 5, 2009
Michael Anthony wrote:
I sincerely hope that the Calfornia Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, which passed with 52% of the vote. The civil and human rights of citizens should not be put up for popular vote. This case is not without precedent:
In 1964, 65% of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalised racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and US Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.
Unfortunately, the court has a difficult task before it, because it cannot ignore the fact that other states similarly have passed ballot initiatives discriminating against gays, so this may not be as unprecedented as it first may seem. Plus, the federal government's DOMA act provides further support for the constitutionality of the proposition. Ordinarily, the standard for state constitutions is that they are valid as long as they do not grant to the citizens of the state fewer rights than are granted by the federal constitution. The only way that I could see the court ruling the proposition unconstitutional is by virtue of the fact that this measure abridging the rights of some persons purely because of their membership in a disfavored group was able to pass by a bare majority. I don't know what the guiding precedent for that issue is in California. I will be interested to hear what, if any, there is.
sam

Chicago, IL

#18 Mar 5, 2009
the truth wrote:
This is not an equal rights issue. Everyone in California has the same right to marry an person of the opposite sex.
The "Republic" of California now has direct democracy. The people have spoken and they dont want gay marriage.
Can you supply a cogent, rational and informed argument to support this? It is not up to the "people" to decide this. What people are you referring to? It is a collection of individuals working to suppress the rights of some other individuals. Would you feel the same way about democracy if the majority population of your hometown, state, etc, decided they didn't thing you should own property, have children, vote?
Scarletts Plantation

Lehighton, PA

#19 Mar 5, 2009
spread the wealth wrote:
<quoted text>it's just plain creepy.
They need to make a horror flick out of this. The estate of the walk'in dead gay guy.
sam

Chicago, IL

#20 Mar 5, 2009
Gene Lalor wrote:
California and "gay marriage" are merely fields of battle in an ongoing homosexual-straight war.
I must beg the forbearance of regular readers here, and on other websites where I post my very insightful articles, for yet another piece having to do with homosexuals in America (use the search feature for the eponymous series here) and the closely-related topic of homosexuality in America.
On the one hand, the topic is getting old after having written about it countless times on this blogsite.
On the other, once we get inured to the topic, totally blase’ concerning its import on our lives and, mainly, on our children, then they will have won and we will have lost this struggle, this very consequential and literal battle for the souls, minds, and bodies of those kids. And, make no mistake, it is indeed a struggle in which the other side shows no signs of surrender.
So, like Michael Corleone, when I think I can get out, the topic keeps dragging me back in and, before I am accused of instigating this war, let us first establish that neither I nor we started this fire as can be seen in my multiple, preceding articles.
The lines have been clearly drawn in this war. Massed on one side are the considerable forces of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgend ers lobby, now known as the LGBT, formerly known by the generic title, homosexuals. They have been emboldened and encouraged to push their agenda by America’s love of the concept of unrestricted freedom for all, to the detriment of the rest of us.
Not quite massed, since we lack the organizational structure and unanimity of purpose of the LGBT even if we are more massive in numbers, are the rest of us, the heterosexual world, the “straights.”
The lack of cohesion on the straight side is most probably attributable to a lack of awareness on the part of many that a struggle even exists, which is the chief tactical advantage of the LGBTs. If you don’t know you’re in a fight, how can you reasonably be expected to fight back?
Some, however, are well aware not only of the battle in progress but of the consequences of losing.
One stalwart organization that has engaged the battle head on is the consistent defender of normality and oft-cited here, MassResistance.com , but there are others, many others, on the ramparts. They are not only Catholic groups or orthodox Jews or the much-maligned Christian “born againers,” those “oddballs” mainly from the much-maligned “red states” of America.
As a philosophical red-stater residing in one of the bluest of all 50 states, New York, I don’t mesh well with the Hillarys, the Schumers, the Pattersons of my state, and I wear that distinction as a badge of honor. But, I digress.
As previous articles here have illustrated, there is more than sufficient recent evidence that a homosexual/LGBT vs. straight/normal war is going on but
While some may be persuaded or impressed by your fancy and articulate rhetoric you have failed miserably to present any valid arguments as to why same sex unions/marriages are so dangerous. You have merely pointed out that there is a cultural and institutional battle going on and I must say, thank you Captain Obvious. You mention the consitent defender of "normality", could you please define for those of us not blessed with your rhetorical skills what this "normality" is that you speak of? Because normal has changed many times through the course of history, I'm curious to hear your definition. In fact, it wasn't too long ago that it was normal for women to be traded as commoditites on the marriage market, where male friendships were culturally more important and relevant than hetero-marriages. Do you suggest we revert back to that "normal". I'll be anxiously waiting for your reply.
Please

United States

#21 Mar 5, 2009
I am on the fence about same sex marriages and yes that is due to my religious beliefs and no I will not apologize for that, but I do have a concern of one of the statements in the article. That because of Prop 8 a couple that was married before this went into law is considered no longer married in the state of California. How is that legal? They should have been grandfathered because they were married before it went into effect. And if this is what the lawmakers are doing to people then I completely support that this needs to be overturned because rights that were originally given to these people are now taken away.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kenneth Cole Productions Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News New York high school drops 'Redskins' mascot Mar '15 USSR 1
News Ex-Councilman Dan Halloran gets 10 years for br... Mar '15 the city I hate 2
News Small sandal business attracts big attention Feb '15 Pete 1
News 'Still Alice' powerfully presents a mind fallin... Dec '14 Kid_Tomorrow 1
News NY troopers arrest man for trying to eat DWI test (Nov '14) Nov '14 DILF 7
News Government funds lawyers for immigrant kids (Sep '14) Oct '14 Memo From Turner 85
News Prison Guards Accused Of Beating Lebanon Inmate (Apr '09) Aug '14 Evangelina Gomez 37
More from around the web