Obama to give "Friends with Benefits" new meaning.

[immto]

Ok, so if your heterosexual you need to be married in order to gain benefits for your F*&k buddy. Sorry I mean Husband or Wife. But now if your homosexual you can get benefits for your husband or wife, or F*&k buddy. Wait a minute, how does this work?

 

[WillowTree]

 

[WillowTree]

we could screw with their minds and all claim homosexuality, then no need to go through marriage at all. Kick it to the curb. No marriage, no divorce, look at all the money we save.

 

[tarkyo]

we could screw with their minds and all claim homosexuality, then no need to go through marriage at all. Kick it to the curb. No marriage, no divorce, look at all the money we save.

LOL-

Wouldn't that also help with the Health Care situation? Aren't employers obligated to insure their employees F-Buddy's.

 

[Gurdari]

Is this real? Isn't there a 'common-law' provision in law for people who co-habitate? Share the ownership of the home, etc.?

Or is this because marrying is illegal so this to take care of gay people in this regard without allowing real marriage?

 

[neurosport]

What about some benefits for pedophiles ?



it's not my fault i am not gay

 

[Gunny]

Ok, so if your heterosexual you need to be married in order to gain benefits for your F*&k buddy. Sorry I mean Husband or Wife. But now if your homosexual you can get benefits for your husband or wife, or F*&k buddy. Wait a minute, how does this work?

I'd say it probably works the way it should ... that Obama is seeking stop insurance companies from deciding who someone can list as primary next of kin and/or beneficiary.

The real issue when you dust off all the gay marriage sensationalism. And I agree that ALL US citizens should have the right to claim legally whoever they wish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is this real? Isn't there a 'common-law' provision in law for people who co-habitate? Share the ownership of the home, etc.?

Or is this because marrying is illegal so this to take care of gay people in this regard without allowing real marriage?

First of all, most states don't recognize common-law marriage any more, and none of them allow the formation of such now.

Second, anyone can co-own a home, regardless of relationship. It just requires both names being on the deed. As an example, my daughter and my mother bought a home together.

Third, whom employer-provided insurance covers depends entirely on the employer, not the law, and I for one have a real problem with legal incursions like this into private business decisions. Disney Co., for example, offers employee benefits to homosexual and cohabitating couples as well as married couples and dependents.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok, so if your heterosexual you need to be married in order to gain benefits for your F*&k buddy. Sorry I mean Husband or Wife. But now if your homosexual you can get benefits for your husband or wife, or F*&k buddy. Wait a minute, how does this work?

I'd say it probably works the way it should ... that Obama is seeking stop insurance companies from deciding who someone can list as primary next of kin and/or beneficiary.

The real issue when you dust off all the gay marriage sensationalism. And I agree that ALL US citizens should have the right to claim legally whoever they wish.

What about the right of employers to decide whom they do and don't want to contribute to? Having been a human resources secretary in the past, I can say that I wouldn't be excited as an employer to take on the added expense and work needed to cover people and their serial-monogamy relationships, not to mention the amount of gaming the system this would invite.

 

[immto]

Ok, so if your heterosexual you need to be married in order to gain benefits for your F*&k buddy. Sorry I mean Husband or Wife. But now if your homosexual you can get benefits for your husband or wife, or F*&k buddy. Wait a minute, how does this work?

I'd say it probably works the way it should ... that Obama is seeking stop insurance companies from deciding who someone can list as primary next of kin and/or beneficiary.

The real issue when you dust off all the gay marriage sensationalism. And I agree that ALL US citizens should have the right to claim legally whoever they wish.

What about the right of employers to decide whom they do and don't want to contribute to? Having been a human resources secretary in the past, I can say that I wouldn't be excited as an employer to take on the added expense and work needed to cover people and their serial-monogamy relationships, not to mention the amount of gaming the system this would invite.

Can you imagine how much of a headache it would be to keep changing the partner.

 

[hjmick]

Is this real? Isn't there a 'common-law' provision in law for people who co-habitate? Share the ownership of the home, etc.?

Or is this because marrying is illegal so this to take care of gay people in this regard without allowing real marriage?

First of all, most states don't recognize common-law marriage any more, and none of them allow the formation of such now.

Second, anyone can co-own a home, regardless of relationship. It just requires both names being on the deed. As an example, my daughter and my mother bought a home together.

Third, whom employer-provided insurance covers depends entirely on the employer, not the law, and I for one have a real problem with legal incursions like this into private business decisions. Disney Co., for example, offers employee benefits to homosexual and cohabitating couples as well as married couples and dependents.

Common-law marriage can still be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia, can no longer be contracted in 26 states, and was never permitted in 13 states.

Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.

Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.

Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.

Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married
.
Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.

Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.

Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage was established if, before 1/1/2005, a man and woman exchanged words that indicated that they intended to be married at the present time and they also held themselves out to the community as married (introducing eachother as husband and wife, filing joint taxes, etc.).

Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.

South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.

Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.

Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.

Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.