|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 28, 2011 18:47:54 GMT -5
Smimmy hit a real issue. Aren't many of the Divorce proceedings, custody formulations and domicile decisions Gender Based? How do we decide who takes what role or do we change the rules for everyone to accommodate same gender Divorce? I don't think these things were clearly spoken about when the law passed by 1 single vote!
The problem with Gay Marriage isn't in the Marriage at all, its if things go south. I would like to see the statistics from the 5 other states on how divorces of Gay Parents went.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 28, 2011 18:47:55 GMT -5
Today a friend who is very pro same sex marriage brought up a possible problem. Will employers who previously granted medical coverage and other benefits normally granted to hetero couples now .... since gays are allowed to marry just like heteros ... tell gay couples they're no longer covered UNLESS they get married? He said he had heard that from a gay person he knows who is worried about it.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 28, 2011 19:16:21 GMT -5
Smimmy hit a real issue. Aren't many of the Divorce proceedings, custody formulations and domicile decisions Gender Based? How do we decide who takes what role or do we change the rules for everyone to accommodate same gender Divorce? I don't think these things were clearly spoken about when the law passed by 1 single vote! The problem with Gay Marriage isn't in the Marriage at all, its if things go south. I would like to see the statistics from the 5 other states on how divorces of Gay Parents went. Those proceedings are supposed to be gender neutral.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 29, 2011 6:03:29 GMT -5
Ah, yes, and they are. There is no presumption of custody for the mother. And the law was amended, mostly, so that the implied preferences were removed. Now, more fathers are obtaining primary residence or sole custody and bigger visitation arrangements than before. However, if a gay couple breaks up and there is a child involved, the non-biological parent has no legal standing to petition for custody or visitation.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 29, 2011 6:04:49 GMT -5
Dave, thats a good question. Colgate does the same thing, Im going to have to call HR and see what their take on that is. I also wonder what effect adding those bodies to the pool will have on current premiums and Benefits. They have yet to determine how Obamacare effects us yet so my guess is they really dont know the answers any more than those that voted to pass this.
I dont think they have truly considered that generalizing a set of Judeo-Christian laws that were unquestionably designed as guidelines whos basis for Marriage and Divorce is between a man and a woman cannot directly apply to same sex Marriages. I haven't heard anyone in Albany discuss what wont translate and what to do about it!
Custody, support and domicile issues while clearly not legally gender based decisions, seem to bend towards Mothers/ Wives not Fathers/ Husbands well over 50% of the time. Men rarely get Custody or support, Women often get both.
Now that we in NY are so cutting edge, progressive and Generic, isn't it time to Dump Affirmative Action and other forms of Legalized Reversed Discrimination? I dont think its fair or wise to create and support special populations. If were going to mandate an androgynous NY, lets do it across the board, why stop with gender?
Our laws should reflect our commitment to Equality, this decision has greater ramifications than just allowing Gays to Marry. The reason its wrong to deny a legal partnership between two consenting adults is the same reason there should be no disparity at all between genders, races, ages or sexualities. You cant just pick the parts that you like, grab this dog by the tail and you get the whole dog, teeth and all.
Time for a Constitutional Convention! NY States Laws, Legislative Doctrine and procedures are in question now.
Time to clear the books of Gender, Age, Race and Religious references that divide us. If all People are Created equal, make it so! No more Minorities, Juniors, Seniors, Genders, Special Populations or Majorities, just Minor or Adult NY State Citizens!
This should be something we can all agree on!
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 29, 2011 6:33:52 GMT -5
One last comment. A friend of mine who is very Liberal told me a few years ago before the primaries that he was excited to have the opportunity to vote for a Black Man for President (notice, I didnt refer to him as a Liberal Friend, I said he's a friend who is Liberal). I asked him why Black was what he was voting for instead of his opinion of the best choice for the Nation. He was stymied for a second and said something like "Because Its about time we had a Black President".
I don't have any Gay, White, Black, Senior Citizen or Foreign Neighbors, Coworkers, Friends or Family Members. I couldn't imagine introducing someone as my Hispanic Friend, a Gay Neighbor or A senior Citizen Coworker cause thats not who they are, its a small part of their entire person! While they may be any or all of these, thats not how I see them or describe them. They aren't all equal in my eyes either, I like some better than others but never because of a label, its because of the preponderance of all of my considerations and perceptions of the person.
Its sad that the only humans on this planet that truly are untainted by these labels are too young to speak, Developmentally Disabled or Blind and Deaf. Us normal folks are the Label maker Pro's!
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 29, 2011 6:44:46 GMT -5
I've given our hypothetical more thought. I haven't worked seriously for anyone who offered benefits in 15 years, so my impressions may be dated, but wouldn't it be accurate to presume that if a company (or university) offered benefits to gay couples, then they would almost have had to have offered them to hetero couples, and probably anyone living in a domicile of an employee. After all, who would require people living in one domicile be romantically linked to get benefits? What about two brothers sharing a house, for example? So if they offered benefits to a gay couple, I think they would have had to offer them to two heteros ... even two fishing buddies ... living in a domicile. If not, then the qualifier for receiving benefits would have been the existenc of a romance, hardly verifiable.
Given that, it seems unlikely, a company would now renege on gay couples or on all those type of couples just because one type (gay) were now allowed to marry.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 29, 2011 6:53:21 GMT -5
Custody, support and domicile issues while clearly not legally gender based decisions, seem to bend towards Mothers/ Wives not Fathers/ Husbands well over 50% of the time. Men rarely get Custody or support, Women often get both. That's because the facts don't always support fathers having primary residence or sole custody. Many times, the mother truly is the primary caretaker and the father is the bread winner. Mom will wake the children, feed them, get them bathed and showered, give them lunch money, pick them up after school, help them with homework, feed them dinner, put them to bed, etc. Not that the father is absent from it all, but the father will take a supporting role, but want the primary role only after the break up. Sometimes it is to avoid having to pay child support, other times it's an attempt to punish their ex-partner for leaving them. But I have found that the fathers who are the primary caretakers do in fact end up with custody. As for support proceedings, each parent is under a mandatory state law to support their children until their child's 21st birthday. However, if the children's needs are met, then the courts are free to modify the presumptive amounts. What I find is that the fathers obtaining custody of their children do not seek child support because most of the mothers in those cases are only concerned with support. They will gladly give up their children on condition that the father's don't sue them for support. Legally, they are entitled to it. But because they care more about the children they don't go after the mothers. This should be something we can all agree on! I disagree! But only because you said that. lol
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jun 29, 2011 8:06:16 GMT -5
I've given our hypothetical more thought. I haven't worked seriously for anyone who offered benefits in 15 years, so my impressions may be dated, but wouldn't it be accurate to presume that if a company (or university) offered benefits to gay couples, then they would almost have had to have offered them to hetero couples, and probably anyone living in a domicile of an employee. After all, who would require people living in one domicile be romantically linked to get benefits? What about two brothers sharing a house, for example? So if they offered benefits to a gay couple, I think they would have had to offer them to two heteros ... even two fishing buddies ... living in a domicile. If not, then the qualifier for receiving benefits would have been the existenc of a romance, hardly verifiable. Given that, it seems unlikely, a company would now renege on gay couples or on all those type of couples just because one type (gay) were now allowed to marry. Faxton-St. Lukes has been offering medical coverage to hetero, non-married couples. My daughter looked into it during the period when she was engaged but not yet married. At the time there was a considerable amount of documentation required to established that they were a couple. It looked like a lot of hassle. In the end they decided to continue with each getting insurance from their respective employers.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 29, 2011 10:39:33 GMT -5
Ah, yes, and they are. There is no presumption of custody for the mother. And the law was amended, mostly, so that the implied preferences were removed. Now, more fathers are obtaining primary residence or sole custody and bigger visitation arrangements than before. However, if a gay couple breaks up and there is a child involved, the non-biological parent has no legal standing to petition for custody or visitation. Not even as a step-parent or foster/adoptive parent? Yes, support cases can vary from the percentages. As long as social services or other government support is not a factor, the parents of a child(ren) can agree to lower support amounts given their circumstances. I have seen this happen.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 29, 2011 10:54:11 GMT -5
Even step-parents have no legal standing to sue for custody of their step-children. The step-parent would first have to adopt the child and then sue for custody or visitation. However, in many instances, the grounds for adoption simply do not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 29, 2011 12:19:36 GMT -5
While I am very happy with the passage of the law in NY State, and believe that it is simply a civil rights issue, and that ALL Americans should be granted the same rights, regardless of all the usual determining factors, such as gender, ethnic origin, race, it IS NOT so here in the South. All the legal issues as to custody, spousal support and other issues will have to evolve and work their way through the courts and legal system, just as they did over the years where they apply to heterosexual marital affairs.
It is not surprising to me that here in the "Bible Belt" that Southern Baptists and other self righteous, judgmental, ultra conservative Christians, are ranting and wailing about the law being passed in NY and any efforts to further equal rights for gays. They are simply aghast with the entire idea that these gay people can now continue these "biblical abominations and offenses against God." These are the same overly invasive, nosy, biased, judgmental pains in the ass that have condemned me for "living in sin", and seem to have appointed themselves as the "perfect ones" while speaking racial epiphets, and judging others. These are the same folks that go to church three or four times a week, but somehow miss the scriptural passages that tell them that it is not for man to judge his fellow man.
Our editorial pages are constantly taken up by this judgmental, overbearing Conservative Christian drivel.
I have to think that the end days are going to be a bitch for those folks when they get to the pearly gates and find that St Peter is a gay, black Catholic man. He's more than likely going to be one mad son of a bitch, and their stay in heaven is going to be short lived.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 29, 2011 13:48:17 GMT -5
Even step-parents have no legal standing to sue for custody of their step-children. The step-parent would first have to adopt the child and then sue for custody or visitation. However, in many instances, the grounds for adoption simply do not exist. If the biological parent who the step-parent is in place of waived their paternal rights, then the step-parent could adopt though. I was in that situation as a step-parent but it has not progressed further.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 29, 2011 14:01:40 GMT -5
While I am very happy with the passage of the law in NY State, and believe that it is simply a civil rights issue, and that ALL Americans should be granted the same rights, regardless of all the usual determining factors, such as gender, ethnic origin, race, it IS NOT so here in the South. All the legal issues as to custody, spousal support and other issues will have to evolve and work their way through the courts and legal system, just as they did over the years where they apply to heterosexual marital affairs. It is not surprising to me that here in the "Bible Belt" that Southern Baptists and other self righteous, judgmental, ultra conservative Christians, are ranting and wailing about the law being passed in NY and any efforts to further equal rights for gays. They are simply aghast with the entire idea that these gay people can now continue these "biblical abominations and offenses against God." These are the same overly invasive, nosy, biased, judgmental pains in the ass that have condemned me for "living in sin", and seem to have appointed themselves as the "perfect ones" while speaking racial epiphets, and judging others. These are the same folks that go to church three or four times a week, but somehow miss the scriptural passages that tell them that it is not for man to judge his fellow man. Our editorial pages are constantly taken up by this judgmental, overbearing Conservative Christian drivel. I have to think that the end days are going to be a bitch for those folks when they get to the pearly gates and find that St Peter is a gay, black Catholic man. He's more than likely going to be one mad son of a bitch, and their stay in heaven is going to be short lived. To me, the issue is a non-issue. What business is it of mine who you are sleeping with? We live in the age of Paparazzi, where everyone has to know everyone else's business. WHY? And as if being gay is the very worst thing a person could be. Gee, I think I'd rather have sex offenders and murderers living in my neighborhood instead of gays. Yeah, makes absolutely no sense at all. If homosexuals are viewed as an abomination in a particular church, that is the church and congregation's view. This does not reflect the views of society as a whole however and someplace somewhere is a part of society where gays are accepted. It makes you wonder if those same ''holy rollers'' actually enjoy watching actors and performers who are gay, knowing it or not. I was raised Catholic, even was an altar server. I started going back to church last year after about a 20 year absence. However, I don't always agree with some of it. I see conflict in some of it. Gays are an abomination yet we should love thy neighbor? Where is the asterisk in the bible that says Love they neighbor *unless they are homosexual? I always found Dick Cheney's intentional silence on the issue of gay marriage interesting given his daughter Mary is a lesbian.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 29, 2011 14:42:06 GMT -5
True, Firstamendment. Where the biological non-custodial parent waives their rights, the step parent can adopt. I was referring to instances where the biological parents are equally involved in the child's life and the step-parent breaks up with one of the biological parents. That step-parent, regardless how involved with that child, has no legal standing to seek custody, visitation, or an adoption. There is the extraordinary circumstances provision, but that requires extraordinary circumstances and with both parents involved in the child's life, won't happen, absent some form of abuse, or parental consent.
|
|