Civil unions for Illinois

[memphis]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

Killing olds and poors is the logical extension of GOP policies anyhow. At least he's up front about it.

[J. J.]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

Killing olds and poors is the logical extension of GOP policies anyhow. At least he's up front about it.

No bankrupting pensions and freeloading off others is a Democratic thing, as we see here.

I'm say, great, have same sex marriages but make everyone pay for their spouses.  Funny, nobody seems to want to pay for it.

[memphis]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

Killing olds and poors is the logical extension of GOP policies anyhow. At least he's up front about it.

No bankrupting pensions and freeloading off others is a Democratic thing, as we see here.

I'm say, great, have same sex marriages but make everyone pay for their spouses.  Funny, nobody seems to want to pay for it.
[/quot]
Except the two issues have nothing to do with one another.  You may as well tie SS or gay marriage to defense spending or farm subsidies. It's not like gay marriages are ever going to constitute a significant amount of SS spending. SS wouldn't even have a funding problem if not for Bush and his disasterous tax cuts. I'm so sorry you're single and can't fully take advantage of SS because of it. There's no need to starve widows to get back at the universe.

[J. J.]

Except the two issues have nothing to do with one another.  You may as well tie SS or gay marriage to defense spending or farm subsidies. It's not like gay marriages are ever going to constitute a significant amount of SS spending. SS wouldn't even have a funding problem if not for Bush and his disasterous tax cuts. I'm so sorry you're single and can't fully take advantage of SS because of it. There's no need to starve widows to get back at the universe.

You misspelled "quote."    You normally just misquote.

Would you please cite some examples where private pensions buy tanks or subsidize alfalfa?  This would include Social Security, which is technically separate from other spending.

People on this thread argue that it would be "discriminatory" to fund spouses in different sex marriages and not in same sex marriages.  Okay, this treats both equally and gives each pensioner the option of opting out.  Freedom of Choice, why do oppose that?

[The Mikado]

Most estimates say that somewhere between 3 and 5% of people prefer partners of the same gender.  Is this argument really such a huge deal given that it deals with such a small segment of the population?  Does gay marriage affect your benefits that much?

[Torie]

Most estimates say that somewhere between 3 and 5% of people prefer partners of the same gender.  Is this argument really such a huge deal given that it deals with such a small segment of the population?  Does gay marriage affect your benefits that much?

Yes, my suspicion is that this fraud thing is a bit of a make weight argument. It applies to any situation where a class of citizens gets something by being in it, rather than outside it. It creates an incentive to cheat to get inside the class.  So why is it so particularly salient with the relative handful of gays that want to hook up? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's not. It's a ridiculous excuse argument. It also hasn't shown any weight anywhere in the world where gay marriage and civil unions already exist.

[J. J.]

It's not. It's a ridiculous excuse argument. It also hasn't shown any weight anywhere in the world where gay marriage and civil unions already exist.

Well, there is a solution.

You end spousal benefits, unless the insuree pays extra.  As long as the insuree pays for the significant other, you don't have the problem.

It treats everyone with a spouse equally; it is the choice of the insuree.

Of course, mommy and daddy might not be able to put you through grad school or your house might be a bit smaller, but that's freedom of choice, isn't it?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Solution to what? That strikes me as a completely separate proposal that has nothing to do with gay marriage. You can implement it with or without gay marriage (won't be very popular though) and not implement with or without gay marriage. Might as well discuss how gay marriage relates to offshore drilling.

[J. J.]

Solution to what? That strikes me as a completely separate proposal that has nothing to do with gay marriage. You can implement it with or without gay marriage (won't be very popular though) and not implement with or without gay marriage. Might as well discuss how gay marriage relates to offshore drilling.

A solution to the sham marriage issue, same or different sex.

"Gay marriage" won't effect off shore drilling, but benefits for same sex partners will effect such things as employee health benefits and life insurance.

It removes the issue altogether.

Hey, both Muon and I give the same reason for opposing it, the actuarial reason.  This removes that reason and lets people make their own choices.

Isn't freedom of choice, i.e. the freedom to choose a spouse of the same sex, what this is all about.  This extends that freedom, so why are you opposed to it?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The sham marriage issue already exists with or without gay marriage being legal. I'm opposed because I support both gay marriage and current pension programs. Since there has been no huge issues in Massachusetts or any countries where it's legal it's a moot point.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

With all possible respect... give me a f**king break.

[J. J.]

The sham marriage issue already exists with or without gay marriage being legal. I'm opposed because I support both gay marriage and current pension programs. Since there has been no huge issues in Massachusetts or any countries where it's legal it's a moot point.

Well, this will prevent any future sham marriages.  If you support current pension programs, you can't support "gay marriages," because they exclude same sex couples as a rule.

How do we know it isn't an issue in MA?  There medical won't be initially effected.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We're talking about 3-5% of marriages here. Not a huge increase. And in states with legal gay marriage they don't exclude same-sex couples. Can you please give any cites about how disastrous this has been in Massachusetts or any other state?

[J. J.]

We're talking about 3-5% of marriages here. Not a huge increase. And in states with legal gay marriage they don't exclude same-sex couples. Can you please give any cites about how disastrous this has been in Massachusetts or any other state?

Here is one:

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Wyoming-Marriage-Suit-a-Sham-4173676.html is one.

Because of the extending, even at a lower rate to just federal employees same sex spouses would be in excess of $400,000,000 over the next ten years.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/05/fringe_benefits_for_same-sex_p.html

[Smash255]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

I take it you favour making it illegal for the surving spouse in current marriages to get pension benefits? Surely 'sham' arrangements are prevailant in heterosexual marriage too.

No,those are factored into the system. 

I also would not have have a problem with paying extra for spousal coverage of pensions.  That would include same sex marriages as well different sex marriages.

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

No, but you apparently do favor destroying the pension system.  He is a compromise.  If a pensioner, in the future, wants their spouse to continue to receive the pensioner's benefit after the pensioner dies, the pensioner pays for the privilege.

Obviously, it doesn't discriminate against anyone on the basis of the sex of the pensioner or spouse.  The pensioner doesn't have to do it.  It doesn't effect anyone that wants to be in a same sex marriage in IL, since they are not permitted.  Since it is prospective, it won't effect anyone getting benefits now.

Seems ideal and representing complete freedom of choice.
[/quote


Ok so if the rate of straight marriage increases would you flip out and call on it to stop because it could destroy the pension system?

really this argument is as absurd as it gets.  It simply something pulled out of thin air as a way to disguise being pro discrimination.

[J. J.]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

I take it you favour making it illegal for the surving spouse in current marriages to get pension benefits? Surely 'sham' arrangements are prevailant in heterosexual marriage too.

No,those are factored into the system. 

I also would not have have a problem with paying extra for spousal coverage of pensions.  That would include same sex marriages as well different sex marriages.

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

No, but you apparently do favor destroying the pension system.  He is a compromise.  If a pensioner, in the future, wants their spouse to continue to receive the pensioner's benefit after the pensioner dies, the pensioner pays for the privilege.

Obviously, it doesn't discriminate against anyone on the basis of the sex of the pensioner or spouse.  The pensioner doesn't have to do it.  It doesn't effect anyone that wants to be in a same sex marriage in IL, since they are not permitted.  Since it is prospective, it won't effect anyone getting benefits now.

Seems ideal and representing complete freedom of choice.

Ok so if the rate of straight marriage increases would you flip out and call on it to stop because it could destroy the pension system?

really this argument is as absurd as it gets.  It simply something pulled out of thin air as a way to disguise being pro discrimination.

Actually, not absurd, but the crux of the issue.

I noted that some of the private insurances do permit a partner to be added, without differentiation for marital status, but also charge more for it.

BRTD gave an estimate of 3-5% of the population being involved in same sex marriages.  The WPo estimate was for 0.33%.  At 1.5%, half BRTD number, it's more than 1 billion over ten years.

This part has a profound effect on our insurence systems, including Social Security.

That effects all of us.  It uis not just a matter of liking or not liking same sex relationships.

(And in all fairness, there would be some offsets.)