Thanks, Remy, but I just can't take Kirk Cameron today. It's not just his fundamentalist position that irks me but his lack of insight into the limited scope of his views. As much as I love to rage against the bigotry, I've learned to be selective in my exposure/responses because too much just overwhelms me and leaves me on edge for the rest of the week. :D
The article didn't come up :(
"The issue here that affects 'everyone' (since you seem to feel that is the only justification of 'rights') is that a single person, such as myself, might have my estate/power of attorney designations overturned by family members who manage to find a judge to trump my choices - which can, has, and does happen. In the case of marriage, the closest living relative is the spouse and therefore cannot be trumped by other family claims."
On what grounds would a judge make the decision to overturn a deceased individual's instructions laid out in a legal will? Those documents are intended to be binding.
Try googling the phrase "family contests will". In fact, declare here, openly and without exception, that you have NEVER heard the phrase "family contests will". Please don't insult my ignorance here.
I, Ed, do openly declare here and w/o exception that I have heard the phrase "family contests will."
I was unaware of the Family Protection Act 1955.
Heather , I'll never intentionally insult your ignorance or intelligence.
actually a will can be contested by a family member...A will contest is a challenge to a will, usually initiated by a family member or a beneficiary who feels slighted by the testator’s choice of property distribution. Valid grounds for a will contest include claims that it was improperly executed (e.g., the testator did not sign it), the testator lacked testamentary capacity (e.g., he did not understand what he was doing), it contains a mistake, or it is the result of fraud, undue influence, duress, or insane delusion. I just went though this process and all people concerned or mentioned in the will were notified and then they have to right to contest the will or ask to become the executor . They just have to show up in the court. Its really best not to make a will. Just put , the people s names on your accounts and as beneficiaries. When the state is involved u loose a lot of money to fees, bonds, adds in paper that are required, court fees. and in the end the state comes forth and trys to take it all away especially if it is an older person they can sue their estate for medicare recovery . They took all of my mothers money away after we had already written out the checks to the started persons that were to receive the money and they the grand children had already cashed the checks. then we had to refinance our house to pay the state recovery unit their money and a lawyer . So beware of making a will ...... my dad didn't make a will he just signed everything over to his wife, no will, no fees, no taxes no lawyers, no lose of money . EASY !!!
Sorry for chopping back rather hard, Ed - I have just been spending days with people who've been arguing hard that whatever they write in their will is absolutely binding, without exception, so gay marriage means nothing. I directed my frustration in the wrong direction and I do apologize.
Shabaka, What do you mean by "Your "facts" aren't my "facts"...that makes me a bigot? " Facts are facts. You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
lol no facts sometimes are not facts..depends on the belief levels.
But beliefs are not based on "facts" they are based on faith. There are no facts in beliefs
fact noun /fakt/
A thing that is indisputably the case.
So, by your reasoning, a thing that is indisputably the case is sometimes not indisputably the case. You know how mental that sounds, right?...
Would you also argue that evolution is not a fact since 40% of Americans apparently don't believe it? By your reasoning, since the "belief level" in evolution is low, it is not a fact?
try to influence everyone to accept their behavior.
No one is saying anyone has to accept or like the behavior of homosexuality. They are saying people who choose that lifestyle should be entitled to the same rights that you have. What is your concern with that?