TOTALLY GEEKED!

Squeakers · Regular

RE: Help! The Law Finally Allows Me to Marry My Boyfriend—but He Doesn’t Want To. Slate

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
I didn't say lie. A relationship is a relationship. It doesn't have to be romantic. Just like a marriage does not have to be romantic.
Lily's daughter is NOT gay. To say she is in a domestic partnership and intends to get married would be a LIE. Do I need to define lie to you? It seems to be a concept you're having difficulty with.
As long as she intends to marry, it isn't a lie. You don't have to be in love to marry. It could be a business relationship. I vaguely remember being argued with by gay marriage opponents that love and romantic feelings didn't matter and some people marry for benefit reasons.

So why cant a parent put their 30 year old on their insurance?

Intend to marry doesn't have to mean they intend to marry the person they share a policy with.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Straight people have the right to marry. They did not. And it is NOT illegal to marry for benefits, bee tee dubs.
But they lied about it. They essentially said they were married--but when push came to shove, they backed out.

At least they'll lose the benefits.
They didn't say they were married. They said they intended to get married. And at least one of them did.

No, you are wrong. Since they couldn't legally get married, what they signed was that they WERE, for all intents and purposes, married--NOT that they "intended" to.

Squeakers · Regular

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.

Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.
Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.

They had no such "intention". It was BS from the beginning to get benefits.

Squeakers · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Straight people have the right to marry. They did not. And it is NOT illegal to marry for benefits, bee tee dubs.
But they lied about it. They essentially said they were married--but when push came to shove, they backed out.

At least they'll lose the benefits.
They didn't say they were married. They said they intended to get married. And at least one of them did.
No, you are wrong. Since they couldn't legally get married, what they signed was that they WERE, for all intents and purposes, married--NOT that they "intended" to.

No. They signed saying they were not able to get married but they were in a relationship.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Fact is they got a privilege that is not afforded to others.

There fore the cry for equality means nothing.

Because the second they got treated equal, they didn't like it.

cadiver · Senior Member

huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Straight people have the right to marry. They did not. And it is NOT illegal to marry for benefits, bee tee dubs.
But they lied about it. They essentially said they were married--but when push came to shove, they backed out.

At least they'll lose the benefits.

They did not lie. As pointed out an egagement that falls apart is not a lie when the couple does not marry.

Besides the affidavit does not state that they intend to marry it states that they are in a long term commited marriage and it is illeagle to marry in there state. It did not require to be stated they intended to marry.

Squeakers · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.
Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.
They had no such "intention". It was BS from the beginning to get benefits.

Oh yeah? So the guy who wants to get married now, had no intention? And you know the other guy personally to know this was all just for benefits and he never wanted to marry his boyfriend?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Only one of them "intended" to get married. So someone was playing the system.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Straight people have the right to marry. They did not. And it is NOT illegal to marry for benefits, bee tee dubs.
But they lied about it. They essentially said they were married--but when push came to shove, they backed out.

At least they'll lose the benefits.
They didn't say they were married. They said they intended to get married. And at least one of them did.
No, you are wrong. Since they couldn't legally get married, what they signed was that they WERE, for all intents and purposes, married--NOT that they "intended" to.
No. They signed saying they were not able to get married but they were in a relationship.

No, you are dead wrong. It was a replacement for marriage since hetero couples did not have the same option. They did it because gay marriage was not legal--so what they signed replaced the MARRIAGE, NOT the engagement.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.
Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.
They had no such "intention". It was BS from the beginning to get benefits.
Oh yeah? So the guy who wants to get married now, had no intention? And you know the other guy personally to know this was all just for benefits and he never wanted to marry his boyfriend?

Maybe he did, but not the other one.

It was all for the benefits--or this wouldn't be an issue. They'd be setting a date.

Squeakers · Regular

lilyofcourse wrote:
Fact is they got a privilege that is not afforded to others.

There fore the cry for equality means nothing.

Because the second they got treated equal, they didn't like it.

Others pointed out that it is afforded to others.

So so this ONE COUPLE invalidates all work for marriage equality?

They at are only being treated equal NOW when they actually have the option to marry. They were not equal before. In a heterosexual relationship if one lost their job and insurance they legally were able to marry. This couple was NOT. Now they are legally able to marry and must to carry on insurance Benefits. NOW they are equal.

PotteryChick · Member

There was ZERO complaint about losing benefits. It wasn't about being upset that he wouldn't be covered by insurance. This is a false narrative made up by those of you who oppose equal marriage.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

huskerbb wrote:

No, you are dead wrong. It was a replacement for marriage since hetero couples did not have the same option. They did it because gay marriage was not legal--so what they signed replaced the MARRIAGE, NOT the engagement.

Yes. Some are not getting this. They got special privileges because they CLAIMED to be married. Now when it comes time to sign the marital papers one doesn't want to. You don't get to play both sides of the fence.

Squeakers · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.
Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.
They had no such "intention". It was BS from the beginning to get benefits.
Oh yeah? So the guy who wants to get married now, had no intention? And you know the other guy personally to know this was all just for benefits and he never wanted to marry his boyfriend?
Maybe he did, but not the other one.

It was all for the benefits--or this wouldn't be an issue. They'd be setting a date.

Oh okay. Only heterosexuals are allowed to break engagements or get cold feet. Got it.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Fact is they got a privilege that is not afforded to others.

There fore the cry for equality means nothing.

Because the second they got treated equal, they didn't like it.

Others pointed out that it is afforded to others.

So so this ONE COUPLE invalidates all work for marriage equality?

They at are only being treated equal NOW when they actually have the option to marry. They were not equal before. In a heterosexual relationship if one lost their job and insurance they legally were able to marry. This couple was NOT. Now they are legally able to marry and must to carry on insurance Benefits. NOW they are equal.

Yes.

huskerbb · Guru

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.
Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.
They had no such "intention". It was BS from the beginning to get benefits.
Oh yeah? So the guy who wants to get married now, had no intention? And you know the other guy personally to know this was all just for benefits and he never wanted to marry his boyfriend?
Maybe he did, but not the other one.

It was all for the benefits--or this wouldn't be an issue. They'd be setting a date.
Oh okay. Only heterosexuals are allowed to break engagements or get cold feet. Got it.

Again, it's NOT comparable to the engagement, it's comparable to the actual marriage.

PotteryChick · Member

They didn't claim to be married. Where are you reading that?!?!?!

This is ridiculous.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Squeakers wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Fact is they got a privilege that is not afforded to others.

There fore the cry for equality means nothing.

Because the second they got treated equal, they didn't like it.

Others pointed out that it is afforded to others.

So so this ONE COUPLE invalidates all work for marriage equality?

They at are only being treated equal NOW when they actually have the option to marry. They were not equal before. In a heterosexual relationship if one lost their job and insurance they legally were able to marry. This couple was NOT. Now they are legally able to marry and must to carry on insurance Benefits. NOW they are equal.

Yep. And they received a special privilege when it was illegal to marry.

You really don't seem to grasp that.

And it is not afforded to everyone. I have given an example in which it isn't. Your answer was to lie.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Empyreal wrote:
More Merlot...

I've got Pinot...

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Common Law marriage is the only thing I can think to compare this special privilege to. And Common law marriage is now illegal.

Squeakers · Regular

How is it special when others have pointed out heterosexuals have carried their unmarried girlfriend or boyfriend on their insurance?

And your example of you not being able to carry your daughter on your insurance? Not remotely the same. This isn't a parent with a child. These are two adults in a committed relationship.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

The paper they signed was in lieu of marriage. Saying that they wish they were married RIGHT NOW. And since they couldn't legally marry then they are signing a paper saying they are married on paper for insurance reasons.

Squeakers · Regular

huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.
Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.
They had no such "intention". It was BS from the beginning to get benefits.
Oh yeah? So the guy who wants to get married now, had no intention? And you know the other guy personally to know this was all just for benefits and he never wanted to marry his boyfriend?
Maybe he did, but not the other one.

It was all for the benefits--or this wouldn't be an issue. They'd be setting a date.
Oh okay. Only heterosexuals are allowed to break engagements or get cold feet. Got it.
Again, it's NOT comparable to the engagement, it's comparable to the actual marriage.

It is totally comparable to engagement as they were NOT married.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
It isn't rude. She can do it just as a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex in all 50 states.
Nice deflection. That is NOT what you were talking about. You were advocating LYING and CHEATING and doing ILLEGAL activities to gain access to health insurance that you don't qualify. Not everyone is the type to just lie and cheat without a conscience. Some people have morals.
It is exactly what I was talking about as explained in the post right after.
It shows a lot about who you are that you advocate illegal behavior.

Give it a rest.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Squeakers wrote:
How is it special when others have pointed out heterosexuals have carried their unmarried girlfriend or boyfriend on their insurance?

And your example of you not being able to carry your daughter on your insurance? Not remotely the same. This isn't a parent with a child. These are two adults in a committed relationship.

You're right. Isnt remotely the same. A child and parent are actually family. These two are not. No matter how they like to pretend they are not family.

And I don't know of a more committed relationship as that of a parent and child. In most cases anyway.

Squeakers · Regular

You will have a point when a parent can carry their gay child on insurance and not their Hetero child. Until then, your point doesn't apply.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Squeakers wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Rushing into a marriage you intended to enter into anyway is one thing. Getting married for no other reasons than to get benefits you wouldn't qualify for otherwise is something entirely different.
Well they intended to get married. now one backed out. Maybe. It said he WASNT SURE.
They had no such "intention". It was BS from the beginning to get benefits.
Oh yeah? So the guy who wants to get married now, had no intention? And you know the other guy personally to know this was all just for benefits and he never wanted to marry his boyfriend?

Yes, husker knows him PERSONALLY and he has read his diary...

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
I didn't say lie. A relationship is a relationship. It doesn't have to be romantic. Just like a marriage does not have to be romantic.
Lily's daughter is NOT gay. To say she is in a domestic partnership and intends to get married would be a LIE. Do I need to define lie to you? It seems to be a concept you're having difficulty with.
As long as she intends to marry, it isn't a lie. You don't have to be in love to marry. It could be a business relationship. I vaguely remember being argued with by gay marriage opponents that love and romantic feelings didn't matter and some people marry for benefit reasons.
So why cant a parent put their 30 year old on their insurance?
Intend to marry doesn't have to mean they intend to marry the person they share a policy with.

Because a THIRTY-YEAR-OLD is an ADULT.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

PotteryChick wrote:
They didn't claim to be married. Where are you reading that?!?!?!

This is ridiculous.

You with your logic...STOP IT. That has no place here.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

flan327 wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
It isn't rude. She can do it just as a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex in all 50 states.
Nice deflection. That is NOT what you were talking about. You were advocating LYING and CHEATING and doing ILLEGAL activities to gain access to health insurance that you don't qualify. Not everyone is the type to just lie and cheat without a conscience. Some people have morals.
It is exactly what I was talking about as explained in the post right after.
It shows a lot about who you are that you advocate illegal behavior.
Give it a rest.
flan

Nope. I can post wherever I want. And if someone advocates lying then that shows a lot about their moral character. So sorry that offends you.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Squeakers wrote:
You will have a point when a parent can carry their gay child on insurance and not their Hetero child. Until then, your point doesn't apply.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

That is exactly what you are advocating. That a gay couple have a privilege that a hetero couple does not.

A parent cant carry a child period. So you have nothing with your comment. It is empty and void.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Squeakers wrote:
I didn't say lie. A relationship is a relationship. It doesn't have to be romantic. Just like a marriage does not have to be romantic.
Lily's daughter is NOT gay. To say she is in a domestic partnership and intends to get married would be a LIE. Do I need to define lie to you? It seems to be a concept you're having difficulty with.
As long as she intends to marry, it isn't a lie. You don't have to be in love to marry. It could be a business relationship. I vaguely remember being argued with by gay marriage opponents that love and romantic feelings didn't matter and some people marry for benefit reasons.
So why cant a parent put their 30 year old on their insurance?
Intend to marry doesn't have to mean they intend to marry the person they share a policy with.

Because a THIRTY-YEAR-OLD is an ADULT.
flan

So? What's your point? I am assuming this couple is over 20. And they got a privilege others can not have.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Like I said, I see both sides. Not that I agree with gay marriage, but it's true they are disadvantaged because the law won't allow them to marry, for no apparent reason. So really they need this crutch because otherwise they get nothing.

But it does stink for the rest of us who have to follow the law. For the record, I know not very much about insurance, so if it is the case that straight people who cohabitate can share insurance well I don't agree with that either.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

There was a purposed change to an insurance law in Tenn. in Chattanooga actually.

It was to make it lawful for those living in the same home, no matter the relationship, to be on county insurance.

They had to prove they lived there 51% of the time.

That would have been fair. It would apply to any and every relationship. Romantic or family or just shared expenses.

I don't know what happened to it.

My point is, making an exception due to something like a orientation is not right. That isn't equality. That is special treatment.

Divine Geek · Guru

I don't think the letter is about insurance at all. It's about 1 person that went into a commitment with certain expectations and they were not met. It's similar to ok, we will move in together and get married in a year. Then when that year is up, one person still "isn't ready for that commitment"

For the record, I have worked at multiple companies that allowed domestic partners to be covered on my insurance - regardless of orientation. There was at least 4 pages of required information about you, your partner, and your relationship. You had to swear your were in a long-tem committed relationship, that you lived together, shared expenses, weren't married to anyone else, etc.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Divine Geek wrote:
I don't think the letter is about insurance at all. It's about 1 person that went into a commitment with certain expectations and they were not met. It's similar to ok, we will move in together and get married in a year. Then when that year is up, one person still "isn't ready for that commitment"

For the record, I have worked at multiple companies that allowed domestic partners to be covered on my insurance - regardless of orientation. There was at least 4 pages of required information about you, your partner, and your relationship. You had to swear your were in a long-tem committed relationship, that you lived together, shared expenses, weren't married to anyone else, etc.

As I said, it's never JUST a phone call.

Divine Geek · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Divine Geek wrote:
I don't think the letter is about insurance at all. It's about 1 person that went into a commitment with certain expectations and they were not met. It's similar to ok, we will move in together and get married in a year. Then when that year is up, one person still "isn't ready for that commitment"

For the record, I have worked at multiple companies that allowed domestic partners to be covered on my insurance - regardless of orientation. There was at least 4 pages of required information about you, your partner, and your relationship. You had to swear your were in a long-tem committed relationship, that you lived together, shared expenses, weren't married to anyone else, etc.
As I said, it's never JUST a phone call.

To discontinue it would have been. Or rather 1 piece of paper that said you were dissolving your domestice partnership

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Divine Geek wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Divine Geek wrote:
I don't think the letter is about insurance at all. It's about 1 person that went into a commitment with certain expectations and they were not met. It's similar to ok, we will move in together and get married in a year. Then when that year is up, one person still "isn't ready for that commitment"

For the record, I have worked at multiple companies that allowed domestic partners to be covered on my insurance - regardless of orientation. There was at least 4 pages of required information about you, your partner, and your relationship. You had to swear your were in a long-tem committed relationship, that you lived together, shared expenses, weren't married to anyone else, etc.
As I said, it's never JUST a phone call.
To discontinue it would have been. Or rather 1 piece of paper that said you were dissolving your domestice partnership

They always ask you to sign SOMETHING. And yeah, it's way easier getting someone off the insurance than on. But even then, with some companies, it can be different. I used to work for a company and you weren't allowed to take anyone off or put anyone on except for death, marriage, birth/adoption. And then the paperwork was pretty lengthy. Everything else had to be done during open season.

chillepeppa · Regular

The "other guy" in the OP is still a dick. He used the LW.

As pointed out, there are instances where this supposed special privileged is not so special because everyone can enjoy it, so for me, it boils down to dude's a dick, LW needs to reassess his relationship because "other guy" is just not that into him. I would also than make arrangements to get dick dropped of the insurance asap and move on.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I said this exact thing chille and they said that this guy intended to marry the other guy in the beginning. I said he sounds like a user and I would have already dumped him off my insurance and out of my life if he now decided he didn't want to marry me. But then people said I wasn't being fair. That maybe he does want to get married but just not right now.

huskerbb · Guru

Divine Geek wrote:
I don't think the letter is about insurance at all. It's about 1 person that went into a commitment with certain expectations and they were not met. It's similar to ok, we will move in together and get married in a year. Then when that year is up, one person still "isn't ready for that commitment"

For the record, I have worked at multiple companies that allowed domestic partners to be covered on my insurance - regardless of orientation. There was at least 4 pages of required information about you, your partner, and your relationship. You had to swear your were in a long-tem committed relationship, that you lived together, shared expenses, weren't married to anyone else, etc.

Not the case here, though.