LET'S WIN the Gay Marriage Debate!

Game the system.

This requires no action from politicians or ballot initiatives. There is no marching or protests required. This requires efforts by the gay community itself, and it will be a tough thing to do, but is extremely doable.

The center and right demands that marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman. The key is to stick to the letter of that and all laws within the state regarding marriage.

Before I go into details, this will require research into each state regarding both marriage and divorce laws as well as a committed understanding between four or more individuals. Here are some basic requirements:

1) A committed long-term male homosexual couple.
2) A committed long-term female homosexual couple.
3) Attorney advice.
4) Tax advise
5) Patience and trust between all individuals involved.

Here's the plan. The two sets of committed couples must marry each other, male to female. Deciding which male marries which female must be calculated to the best tax advantage possible. Husband A turns over power of attorney regarding wife A to wife B. Wife A turns over power of attorney to wife B regarding husband A. The same holds true for the other side so that we have power of attorney documents turning over that power to the appropriate partner for the appropriate partner. Wills are written to explicitly designate heirs in the way the actual relationships work.

Benefits could be derived from both couples going in together on a two flat. This system can be expanded to accommodate any even number of couples into a communal marriage arrangement (think in terms of eight couples purchasing an eight flat and cooperating under these sorts of arranged marriages). 100% of the benefits heterosexuals gain from marriages are obtained legally throughout all actual relationships, and everything is done 100% within the framework of existing laws. In some states, all that is necessary to gain a divorce is to not have sex with the spouse, and that's already occurring by definition in the arranged marriage communities. Many religious groups in the United States have been involved in arranged marriages for years and it is 100% legal, so that cannot be a reason to stop these arranged marriage communities.

Homosexual couples engaging in these sorts of arranged marriage communities can further game the system by strategically divorcing and re-marrying to gain the best advantage in taxes, ending up paying far less money in taxes than an equal number of heterosexual couples making precisely the same total income as the homosexual marriage community.

It won't be easy, but in the end if the religious right wants to stop this, they must further define marriage in ways that will affect the heterosexual community such as a procreation requirement, thus losing before they even get started.

Checkmate. In the end, the debate is won and capitulation is achieved because legal definitions must change to accommodate homosexual relationships being recognized under the law.

It won't be easy, but no fight for basic human rights ever is.

I thought the same thing last night when pondering this......a gay marries a female gay.....legal right?.........they get the marriage credit rebate.they get the benefitys of insurances..their other partners marry ............same thing....they get the credits.......being said.......one thing for sure......they should buy property beside each other .......normal couples just gettiong along.that'd shut theior freaking neighbors up.

as I see it......the single gays pay separate or single bracket taxes.....if legalized marriage they would get more back in refunds.thisis what the gOP doesn't want to do.....so just think about our ideas.

it won't hurt to have an open mind here and this may come back to bite them in the ass!!!

thanks for thinking about it.

You have a legal marriage and the legal spouse is entitled to those things. The legal spouse is a part of the marriage community.

The money does not go away, but this is why trust is imperative in this system.

it creates enormous gift tax problems every year. Any time money leaves the "legal" marriage the gift tax implications must be considered (and if large enough, reported on the annual tax return). (By the way, these problems exist for all unmarried couples (hetero or gay) when one partner pays more than his/her fair share of the bills. Consideration of gift tax consequences of money passing within an unmarried couple should be considered and a conscious decision made to comply with the law or risk suffering any financial or legal consequences that may follow if a gift tax return is not filed when too much money flows in one direction)

In addition, once one legal spouse dies the money passes without tax implications - but when it passes from the widow/widower to the real spouse it is subject to the reporting/payment of gift taxes.

Nice idea, but there are 1000+ federal rights that are created by the contract the state makes with the couple. Those rights/benefits are not transferable from the legally recognized spouse to the real spouse.

Send me an e-mail, and I'll send it to you -- its the argument I think needs to be made to "win" the gay marriage debate! I am kind of wrapped up in the New Hampshire/All State recount stuff at the moment, otherwise I'd be willing to spear head a little more -- I've got some information (if you want it) about a marketing firm I was talking to about "my secret plan." :) Best, Ida

this is a start...and yes TRUST is the issue here........

we are trying .....and it may take time ..but I for one am not going to deny you people the equal rights that I have in my marriage.....its just not right.......your life style doean't effect me or my family.and I'm sure ours doesn't effect yours.........mine as "me".....

I'm not saying that the bible thumpers think the way I do.....and thats why I am a Liberal and member of the Democratic Party and more inportant.a member of the "Human Race"

We will in the future have all rights for everyone..but we have to start here......

I would certainly be doing the above or expanding on themes of the above...screw the government anyway you can if they are going to pull this shit over on you!

This is actually a very clever idea Walt... but I am wondering would the bush reich start sending out religious police to make sure these couples are actually cohabitating if people started doing this?

But... wait a minute, there's no law that says you have to live together when you're married is there?

I guess I am thinking of citizenship type laws so never mind!

from www.JuanCole.com a few days ago:

For instance, a lot of Democrats would like to see gay marriage or at least civil gay unions passed into law. This is a matter of equity, since gay partners can't even get into a hospital to see an ill partner because hospitals limit visits to close family.

This issue scares the bejesus out of the red states.

But if Democrats were sly, there is a way out. The Baptist southern presidential candidate should start a campaign to get the goddamn Federal government out of the marriage business. It has to be framed that way. Marriage should be a faith-based institution and we should turn it over to the churches. If someone doesn't want to be married in a church, then the Federal government can offer them a legal civil contract (this is a better name for it than civil union). That's not a marriage and the candidate could solemnly observe that they are taking their salvation in their own hands if they go that route, but that is their business. But marriage is sacred and the churches should be in charge of it.

If you succeeded in getting the Federal government out of the marriage business, then the whole issue would collapse on the Republicans. You appeal to populist sentiments against the Feds and to the long Baptist tradition of support for the US first amendment enshrining separation of religion and state.

But the final result would be to depoliticize gay marriage, because the Federal government wouldn't be the arena for arguing about it. The Federal government could offer gays the same civil contract status as it offers straight people who want to shack up legally but without the sanction of a church. As for gays who wanted a church marriage, that would be between them and their church (remember, the Federal government is not in the business, but would go on recognizing church-performed marriages as equivalent legally to the Federal civil contract).
Simple, and common sensical.

just say you are related.like sister or brother......even in heterosexual cases.(example.....Florida...Schavio case) the husband doesn't have the right to end his wifes life......the parents stepped in.........so all is not rosy in our situations either.

Legally recognized family generally trumps everyone else. Far too many gay couples have been devastated when a blood family member steps in and takes control. No matter who you say you are, you will be booted at that time. You may be prohibited from visiting, from being involved in medical decisions (remember HIPA prohibits disclosure of most medical information so the ability to get information or to participate in treatment has greatly diminished for anyone other than the spouse or parent, particularly if the legally recognized family members appear to challenge it.)

Rosy or not for straights, with gay couples it is fairly common for the legally recognized family to boot out the spouse of decades once the ill or injured partner is unable to speak for his/herself. Although it may occur in isolated instances for straight unmarried couples, it is far from routine. With a legally recognized marriage virtually all attempts by the non-spouse family to cut out the spouse fail. With the Schaivo case, the limitation on the husband's rights are very narrow - with gay couples the limitations tend to be very broad - including a total ban on visiting, transfer to a hospital/nursing home in a distant state, etc. if the relationship does not meet with approval of the legally recognized family.

insurance? I think that's one of the sad things about being denied marriage rights. I can add my hubby to my insurance. But, a gay person cannot add their partner.

Other than that, I love your plan.

Seriously, game the system further. Make all decisions about marriage and divorce within the marriage community based upon financial considerations.

Basically what I'm saying is in order to game the system, the gay community needs to game the system big time and by doing so, the system will work more to their financial advantage than it does for homosexuals because of the fat that loving committed relationships no longer factor into the decision of who is married to whom.

Every year you check your balance sheets, determine strategic divorces and remarriages for the year, plan visits to the courts for both (civil marriages performed by judges are the cheap way to go.

In fact, in many states, all of the divorces would probably be done pro se.

If the gay community begins forming marriage communities the best part of it will be the fundies will get even more pissed because there is NOT ONE THING THEY CAN DO TO STOP IT!!!!

That would be absolutely hilarious. I hope some will try it.

Let's just believe that an adult can make a decision about how they live their life. Right wrong or indifferent. Let's pretend that (just for a minute)in the USA an american can behave the way way that they want to without some religious smartass kicking the shit out of them. I JUST do not give a rats ass what's right or wrong, citizens of this great land can decide this for themselves what is right or wrong. As long as it doesn't affect me or my family directly I JUST DON't CARE!
Let's just not make this the centerpiece of our political struggles.
(am now preparing for a flamethrower) Bring it....

and I have no clue what the fuck you are trying to say.

kick...................we are trying to help.......

...where the "real" couples can tie up the spiritual end of things secretly. If the two sets of couple are close, it can even be a double ceremony.

It's fuked up that things have to be done this way-but now is not the time to give up.

Get it all over the cable media and talk shows. It's a definitive win if the likes of Rush Limbaugh rail about it for three days running.

Of course, somebody actually has to form a marriage community before the publicitiy can start, so right now this is a mote point.

...about the non-binding Church marriges?

I'm saying that couples can still have the "spiritual" end of this taken care of by Liberal Churches who would be willing to sanctify the "real" marriage...would this even be legal?

I think it's fucked up that we are even discussing this-SECRET marriges???- in a DEMOCRACY???

...But at the same time- it's an interesting way to beat the fundies- and they need to be beaten!!!

Arranged marriages exist and continue in multiple communities in the United States. This is a fact that is undeniable.

A gay marriage community needs to be open about how it works, how they plan on strategic divorces and marriages for financial benefit and ho, since emotion is not a consideration within the legal portion of the gay marriage community, things actually run more smoothly.

If a gay marriage community is trusting enough within itself, artifical insemination could be utilized so that there are actually children within the gay marriage community, however, that will complicate matters somewhat because it is no longer as simple to get a divorce for financial benefits.

The best place I can think of the first openly gay marriage community beign formed would be Texas. Tht would throw the biggest monkey wrench into the entire works of the fundies that could ever be thrown!

I'll understand all this better w/ that info...

Also the Indian Hindu communities, some of the more orthodox and fringe Christian communities. Some breakaway branches of Mormonism.

There are tons of arranged marriages in the United States every year, and there is absolutely nothing illegal about them.

The real beauty is that the only way to stop this is to redefine marriage in a more granular fashion such as Alan Keyes' definition whereby marriage is ONLY for procreation, and the homosexual community can get around that anyway but it will piss off the fundies royally, AND THEY CANNOT DO THING ONE TO STOP IT!!!

Of course, as with all things, there is a down side. The gay community will find that they can address their issues all by themselves and thus they no longer feel a need or a desire to be members of the Democratic Party.

...no one wants to need the Democrats...

...on the flip side, it would be Dems & Liberal judges who end up sanctioning it someday...

...this is all interesting- I would love to see the Gay community best the fundies on this.

This was actually my wife's idea (she's an attorney). She doesn't blog, so I put it oiut there for her.


Oh, BTW, I think it's a brilliant idea, too!

:kick:

not integrating into society?

Benefits could be derived from both couples going in together on a two flat. This system can be expanded to accommodate any even number of couples into a communal marriage arrangement (think in terms of eight couples purchasing an eight flat and cooperating under these sorts of arranged marriages).

Unless I misunderstood, your plan above could eventually lead to gay communities, and maybe to gay cities filled with duplexes.
That seems to make the gay community even more distant, and would open up further discrimination (oh.... you live in gayville, I'm sorry, the position has been filled).