Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
She gets your SS, sweetie.
Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
She gets your SS, sweetie.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
The most populous (and liberal) state is not on that list sweetie. They shot you down...
And the SCOTUS is going to strike that down.
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #983
Uh, no she doesn't, sweetie. It depends on the situation. I know more than a few people who lost their spouse and never saw a single penny from a government Ponzi scheme which they were forced to pay into their entire life.
But more importantly, if you actually think your pitiful SS is going to provide for your family should something unfortunate happen to you, I actually feel sorry for you.
Just go buy a life insurance policy and take some personal responsibility for once. I know you liberals are adverse to that concept, but you would be amazed at how rewarding it is if you'd actually try it.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
You are correct, it does depend on the situation:
1. If your legally Civilly Married spouse must be of the opposite gender.
2. To qualify for your deceased spouse benefit, that spouse must be eligible for a benefit in their own right. (Certain workers don't pay into SS, therefore there is no benefit of theirs to collect.)
3. The benefit the deceased spouse would have received must exceed the benefit you qualify for on your own.
2. To qualify for your deceased spouse benefit, that spouse must be eligible for a benefit in their own right. (Certain workers don't pay into SS, therefore there is no benefit of theirs to collect.)
3. The benefit the deceased spouse would have received must exceed the benefit you qualify for on your own.
True, Social Security will not on it's own take very good care of a surviving spouse. However it is irrefutable that for most people who are in SS eligible jobs, that SS is part of an overall retirement planning scenario.
My wife and I are 10-15 years out from retirement, our retirement planning provides 8 sources of income during our retirement years. I have worked and qualified for two separate pensions, she has worked and qualified for two separate pensions, we have each worked and qualified for Social Security, and we each invest in personal investments. She will be eligible to continue to receive (at reduced amounts) income from my state pension, federal pension, and social security if I die before her. ETA: My personal investments will also transfer to her tax free because the IRS recognizes our marriage.
The only factor that changes the situation for a different-sex, legally Civil Married couple in the same situation is the gender of the spouse. Because I'm in a different-sex Civil Marriage my wife qualifies, if I were in a legal Civil Marriage to someone of the same sex, they wouldn't qualify.
>>>>
Last edited:
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Yes or no, puppy, if you were to get hit by a bus tomorrow, would your legal spouse be entitled to your Social Security?
Are you the Primary breadwinner? I am. My spouse does not work outside the home. Because of DOMA, she would not be entitled to my SS as yours, likely, is.
I have two life insurance policies, but that does not mean that my legal marriage should entitle me to fewer federal benefits and protections than yours.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
That would depend on (a) does he work in a job exempt from Social Security(?), (b) if he/she has a spouse is/would his/her benefit amount exceed the amount is spouse us eligible for on their own(?), and (c) his/her gender compared to his/her spouse the same(?).
If the answers are (a) No, (b) Yes, (c) No - then yes his/her spouse is eligible to receive benefits.
>>>>
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #987
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea (and I don't care). Unlike you, I don't worship government. Unlike you, I figured out a long time ago what a bunch of mumbling, fumbling, bumbling buffoons work in govenrment (let's be honest, talented people take their skill sets to the private sector where the sky is the limit - notice Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didnt become mayors???). Therefore, I don't rely on them for shit. My wife and I sat down, figured out how much we would need for our children to live comfortably, and then we took out life insurance policies for that amount with private organizations. We take care of our own children instead of relying on (and demanding) that society do it for us. You should really try it sometime.
Allow me to share a true story with you which illustrates reality (and why I have no idea what - if anything - my wife would receive from SS):
I know a man who died not too long ago at the age of 59. He had been working since he was 16 (that's 43 years of the government taking more than 50% of everything he earned). After 43 years of parasites being handed his hard-earned money, when his wife needed help the most, the federal government essentially told her "go **** yourself". If they were not forced at gunpoint by government to pay into the bullshit system, she would have had the money she desperately needed. Instead, the government refused her even a single penny.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Why did you get a legal marriage? If you don't care that legal marriage comes with over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges, why do it?
Gosh, an unverifiable "story" that starts with "I knew a guy"...
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #990
Because I loved my then-girlfriend and wanted to make a life-long commitment to her. It was about our relationship and God. It had nothing to do with the ******* despicable government. It never did and it never will. Unlike you sweetie - I wasn't married by my government. I was married in a church by our pastor.
The fact that you just made that statement, not to mention the fact that you know how many "benefits" go along with it, verifies what I have been saying since your first response in this thread - you are in it to **** the American people out of every penny you can. It was never about your commitment to your partner. Yours was strictly a business decision for perks and benefits.
Gosh, an unverifiable "story" that starts with "I knew a guy"...
Just curious - why exactly would I make that story up? It doesn't dispute one single thing you said. It was just used to illustrate the fact that I have no idea what my wife would or would not receive from SS if something were to happen to me. Up until this happened to these people I know, I was under the impression that a person was entitled to their spouses SS. Turns out that is not the case (at least, not in every case).
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Just when I thought CCJ had reached the summit of pure stupidity, he goes and makes this post
So in your mind CCJ, being male or female is a "subjective perception"? We can't scientifically verify who is a man and who is a woman?
Obviously you donÂ’t understand.
This has to do with the fact that gender is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant concerning matters of personal liberty and the right to self-expression. That simply because one’s ‘equipment’ is of a given gender, does not mean he must be compelled by society to adhere to a subjective perception of an assigned gender role. Two men may marry, it’s happening now, those marriages are legal and recognized in their respective jurisdictions, regardless one’s ‘equipment.’
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #992
So in your mind CCJ, being male or female is a "subjective perception"? We can't scientifically verify who is a man and who is a woman?
Obviously you donÂ’t understand.
This has to do with the fact that gender is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant concerning matters of personal liberty and the right to self-expression. That simply because one’s ‘equipment’ is of a given gender, does not mean he must be compelled by society to adhere to a subjective perception of an assigned gender role. Two men may marry, it’s happening now, those marriages are legal and recognized in their respective jurisdictions, regardless one’s ‘equipment.’
Sure it's happening now - but the overwhelming majority of the U.S. completely rejects gay marriage (including the most liberal state in the union - California).
Seawytch has every opportunity under the law to marry a man - she chose not to. And now she wants special treatment. Marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. It really is that simple. If you and her want to redefine marriage, knock yourself out. But good luck with that. Even hard core liberals reject gay marriage as seen by California and hard-core liberal churches across America.
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,715
- 245
So in your mind CCJ, being male or female is a "subjective perception"? We can't scientifically verify who is a man and who is a woman?
Obviously you donÂ’t understand.
This has to do with the fact that gender is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant concerning matters of personal liberty and the right to self-expression. That simply because one’s ‘equipment’ is of a given gender, does not mean he must be compelled by society to adhere to a subjective perception of an assigned gender role. Two men may marry, it’s happening now, those marriages are legal and recognized in their respective jurisdictions, regardless one’s ‘equipment.’
there's a whole lot more involved with gender than just one's "equipment"......quit trying to promote your agenda by trivializing the difference between the two sexes...
a piece of government paper will never create for you a true marriage....
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
So in your mind CCJ, being male or female is a "subjective perception"? We can't scientifically verify who is a man and who is a woman?
Obviously you donÂ’t understand.
This has to do with the fact that gender is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant concerning matters of personal liberty and the right to self-expression. That simply because one’s ‘equipment’ is of a given gender, does not mean he must be compelled by society to adhere to a subjective perception of an assigned gender role. Two men may marry, it’s happening now, those marriages are legal and recognized in their respective jurisdictions, regardless one’s ‘equipment.’
there's a whole lot more involved with gender than just one's "equipment"......quit trying to promote your agenda by trivializing the difference between the two sexes...
a piece of government paper will never create for you a true marriage....
There’s no ‘agenda’ being ‘promoted.’
This is settled and accepted case law. Gender is irrelevant concerning personal liberty and the right to self-expression. Nothing is being ‘trivialized,’ it’s a simple matter where gender cannot be a determinative factor concerning one’s civil liberties, in this case the right to equal protection of the law, and the right to access the laws of a given state, including marriage law.
according to what authority?
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Are you trying to say that you didn't get a marriage license at all and just got the church marriage? You didn't file with with Clerk at all? Is that what you're saying Rotty, that you didn't get a marriage license?
I didn't marry for the benefits either, Puppy. Like you, I married my partner because I love her and we have a familiy together that deserves to say their parents are married just like everyone else. That doesn't mean that I should be denied the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage...things like not testifying against your spouse or the ability to visit them in the hospital if they are sick.
Just a few more weeks left in June, when the SCOTUS ruling will come down...
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
So in your mind CCJ, being male or female is a "subjective perception"? We can't scientifically verify who is a man and who is a woman?
Obviously you donÂ’t understand.
This has to do with the fact that gender is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant concerning matters of personal liberty and the right to self-expression. That simply because one’s ‘equipment’ is of a given gender, does not mean he must be compelled by society to adhere to a subjective perception of an assigned gender role. Two men may marry, it’s happening now, those marriages are legal and recognized in their respective jurisdictions, regardless one’s ‘equipment.’
there's a whole lot more involved with gender than just one's "equipment"......quit trying to promote your agenda by trivializing the difference between the two sexes...
a piece of government paper will never create for you a true marriage....
We already have a "true marriage", now we just want the legal protections that go with it.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
We already have equal access to religious marriage, Puppy, it's the legal aspect we don't and are fighting for.
Yes or no, Puppy, do you have a marriage license issued by the State? Did the pastor say "by the power vested in my by the state of ...."?
Similar threads
