Ruling sparks debate on retroactive g...

Ruling sparks debate on retroactive gay rights

There are 37 comments on the Northern Michigan News story from Jul 17, 2014, titled Ruling sparks debate on retroactive gay rights. In it, Northern Michigan News reports that:

A new Connecticut Supreme Court ruling is adding to the debate on whether gay marriage rights should be applied retroactively and qualify same-sex couples for rights and benefits for which they weren't entitled before state laws allowed them to marry.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Northern Michigan News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Rick Perry s Closet

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Jul 17, 2014
Bohanon wrote:
How far is the US government going to bend over backwards to kiss the asses
I see you've got your tongue tied all in knots over all this. Literally.

Why don't you have a similar grievance over society offering benefits and rights to married heterosexuals?

One instance does not impact you anymore than the other...except in a psychosexual sense.
lolol

Rio Rancho, NM

#3 Jul 17, 2014
retroactive homo's lolol
Rick Perry s Closet

Philadelphia, PA

#4 Jul 17, 2014
lolol wrote:
retroactive homo's lolol
That will be you when you finally come out.

It's their relationship rights which were interestingly found to be retroactive, not their homosexuality.

I'm sure you just weren't paying attention because this is about females.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#5 Jul 17, 2014
Because constitutional rights don't just spring forth when a court first recognizes them. I love it.

I honestly don't see the flood of fire and brimstone that the idiots are predicting, though. Like this couple, couples will have to have some basis to support that they *would* have been married had the unconstitutional bans not been in place preventing them from marrying.

It's not like people will be able to meet in a bar one night, get married the next day, and claim decades of benefits.... But let's not let that get in the way of the idiots predicting the end of the works because of the gays. Let's not go too crazy here....

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6 Jul 18, 2014
Hope that includes Social Security benefits. It could make a world of difference to a surviving spouse if they have only been married a couple of years and one of them dies.
Rainbow Theology

Alpharetta, GA

#7 Jul 18, 2014
The government should tax the evangelical fundamentalist troublemakers for 100% of all the retro benefits GAYS were denied all the way back to 1946
.
1946 is the year the fundie troublemakers started selling their redneck version of the New Testament with the word 'homosexual' added to the book of Corinthians
.
The fundies caused the entire brouhaha
.
The fundies should pay the price for their transgressions
passing by

Salina, KS

#8 Jul 18, 2014
RalphB wrote:
Hope that includes Social Security benefits. It could make a world of difference to a surviving spouse if they have only been married a couple of years and one of them dies.
I imagine that the best most couples can hope for is marriage recognition only from the date of their legal marriage, unless they can document the relationship as being legally recognized in some other form (domestic partnership registry, civil unions, etc) prior to their marriage. It's unfortunately those couples who have been together the longest that are likely to get the short end of the stick.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#10 Jul 18, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>I imagine that the best most couples can hope for is marriage recognition only from the date of their legal marriage, unless they can document the relationship as being legally recognized in some other form (domestic partnership registry, civil unions, etc) prior to their marriage. It's unfortunately those couples who have been together the longest that are likely to get the short end of the stick.
Yep, just like my spouse and I. Over 40 years, but only proof of that is witnesses and shared property back to 1973. Of course, it doesn't make any difference to us so far as Soc. Sec. is concerned. I'm just thinking of those who it might affect. The taking of a dead spouses' higher benefit over one's own could make the difference between food and medicine or just one of the two each month.
Ted Haggard s Gospel Rub

Philadelphia, PA

#11 Jul 18, 2014
Frank Stanton wrote:
Yay !
Oh look, Foxy is being even more open about his prepubescent male love objects.

As if we didn't know.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#12 Jul 18, 2014
Bohanon wrote:
How far is the US government going to bend over backwards to kiss the asses of 2.3% of the population?
By your weird number, that's still over 7 MILLION of your fellow Citizens.

That's greater than the individual populations of 38 of the States.

----

Oh, BTW ... Hamilton Bohannon was one of the disco-funk track artists of the gay dance scene of the '70s. His music was usually played as filler between more compelling tunes, or was used as rip track mixing material to enhance or extend others. With the invention of sequencers and similar tech, his popularity waned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Bohanno...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#13 Jul 18, 2014
Bohanon wrote:
How far is the US government going to bend over backwards to kiss the asses of 2.3% of the population?
Don't worry sweet cakes. Nobody is going to kiss your ass.
passing by

Salina, KS

#14 Jul 18, 2014
RalphB wrote:
Yep, just like my spouse and I. Over 40 years, but only proof of that is witnesses and shared property back to 1973. Of course, it doesn't make any difference to us so far as Soc. Sec. is concerned. I'm just thinking of those who it might affect. The taking of a dead spouses' higher benefit over one's own could make the difference between food and medicine or just one of the two each month.
All this is still up in the air as to what the Windsor ruling and the one that's coming are going to result in. The state's still have a say as who is legally married under their laws. Couples living in states which still recognize common law marriage, like Kansas, will make this interesting. I know couples who would have qualified as married decades ago, if they weren't of the same sex. Like you, they can prove joint tenancy in common and having met the other requirements of having a common law marriage going back to the 70's and 80's. They will have a case.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#15 Jul 18, 2014
RalphB wrote:
Hope that includes Social Security benefits. It could make a world of difference to a surviving spouse if they have only been married a couple of years and one of them dies.
Social Security Benefits are the biggies that I'm thinking of. Some of the survivor benefits require 10 years of marriage (or so I'm told). My husband and I have only been married just shy of two years, but we've been together for nearly 21 years and would definitely have got married 12 years ago when we bought a house together and re-wrote our wills and did the power of attorney and all that good stuff.

We can definitely prove that we would have got married had that right not been unconstitutionally withheld from us. And I'll be most happy to sue to recover benefits if I'm ever in that position. But it would be a lot easier if the courts would recognize that the bigot-bans on marriage equality unjustly kept those benefits from us.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#16 Jul 18, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>I imagine that the best most couples can hope for is marriage recognition only from the date of their legal marriage, unless they can document the relationship as being legally recognized in some other form (domestic partnership registry, civil unions, etc) prior to their marriage. It's unfortunately those couples who have been together the longest that are likely to get the short end of the stick.
I think you're right on the surface. But this couple just got their marriage rights that had been unconstitutionally withheld from them recognized, right? We may have to sue for them, but I'm thinking I could easily make the case that writing wills, issuing powers-of-attorney and putting every possible legal protection we could with our marriage being banned and then buying property as tenants in common with full rights to survivorship is a clear indication that we would have married had the bigots and the idiots not all crapped their pants and banned equality.
passing by

Salina, KS

#17 Jul 18, 2014
eJohn wrote:
I think you're right on the surface. But this couple just got their marriage rights that had been unconstitutionally withheld from them recognized, right? We may have to sue for them, but I'm thinking I could easily make the case that writing wills, issuing powers-of-attorney and putting every possible legal protection we could with our marriage being banned and then buying property as tenants in common with full rights to survivorship is a clear indication that we would have married had the bigots and the idiots not all crapped their pants and banned equality.
The states still and will have the say as to which couples are married and they will also likely be given the power to determine when they were married. A lot of this won't be pretty. Retroactive recognition is going to be piecemeal, if at all.
dawgs

Manchester, KY

#20 Jul 19, 2014
All homosexuals will burn in hell according to the Bible. Just the facts!
Cordwainer Trout

Campbellsville, KY

#21 Jul 19, 2014
Bohanon wrote:
How far is the US government going to bend over backwards to kiss the asses of 2.3% of the population?
This extreme exaggeration is getting old. It is an exaggeration to claim more than 1.5% of any population is homosexual. One can travel endlessly throughout the world and never be in contact with a homosexual. They congregate in certain cities, so their numbers are easily misapplied. They are only a little more prevalent than small pox these days.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#22 Jul 20, 2014
dawgs wrote:
All homosexuals will burn in hell according to the Bible. Just the facts!
The real text never said anything about homosexuals. You have been reading the false Bible again. What's more, you are practicing idolatry.
passing by

Salina, KS

#23 Jul 20, 2014
Frank Stanton wrote:
Here's an easy concept that everyone should, but for some reason doesn't agree on: "Equal protection of the laws" means "Equal protection of the laws". Pretty simple, right ?
We've been discussing couples who've been together much longer than there has been any form of legal recognition, let alone marriage. Federal law basically says that a marriage only begins at celebration, prior to that, you're legal strangers. A couple getting married today, after being together without benefit of government recognized legal contract for ten/twenty/thirty/forty/fifty years, won't be getting credit for their time together when they couldn't be married. Here the equal protection of the law is the receiving end of something not pleasant.
passing by

Salina, KS

#24 Jul 20, 2014
dawgs wrote:
All homosexuals will burn in hell according to the Bible. Just the facts!
A) Your reading comprehension skills, not nearly as good as you think they are.

and//or

B) You're being spoken to by inanimate objects. Not a good sign, seek professional help.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Personal Finance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... 10 min spud 4,336
News Think About Sending Financial Valentines to Lov... 7 hr matchmate1 1
News In a Japan that celebrates sexuality, few seem ... 11 hr DRUGCHANGFRAMDEBD... 48
News Yes, Catholics may vote for Bernie Sanders Wed Jerry Bergein 1
News City Council To Address Walmart Concerns Thursday (Feb '11) Wed Sam 6
News Marriage Licenses Steven Gibson (Oct '12) Wed Big moe 7
News Toohil mulls legislation to allow Hazleton to l... Wed Bwahahaha18249 2
More from around the web