Way to go, Vermont!

[blue]

if you are single, there's no obvious answer as to who would inherit your estate if you died suddenly with no will, and you have more than one immediate relative.

As a single person, you should have a will, and a designated Power of Attorney assigned to someone just in case these things happen.

You stated the obvious answer, be prepared.

If you have the time and money to get married you have the time and money to see a lawyer to get your wishes spelled out in a court of law.

Different rights go against equal rights.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Adults have different "rights" than minors. At age 65, people have different "rights" than those under age 65 - people who have passed a driver's test have different "rights" than those who have not. Veterans have different "rights" than those who have not served in the military.

The problem is what the word "rights" means. I've said this before. It gets thrown around carelessly.

[blue]

Adults have different "rights" than minors.

Minors have privilages until they break the law.

At age 65, people have different "rights" than those under age 65

Please elaborate, I have another 30 years to hit that age.

people who have passed a driver's test have different "rights" than those who have not.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilage that is earned or lost.

Veterans have different "rights" than those who have not served in the military.

Veterans earned those benifits by serving, they are not "rights".

The problem is what the word "rights" means. I've said this before. It gets thrown around carelessly.

On this we can agree.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Veterans earned those benifits by serving, they are not "rights".

Trust me...people who get married EARN their different "rights" too!

[Puckstop31]

Trust me...people who get married EARN their different "rights" too!

Roger that. LOL

[Puckstop31]

FWIW, I too am glad that Vermont did what it did. What's better is that is was the result of legislative action, as it should be. The other states that did it, did so as the result of judicial action, which IMO is VERY wrong and scary.

Judges do not make law.

[Puckstop31]

Blue, I take it that you just recently did your taxes?

[pomtzu]

Good! I think all states should legalize it. I certainly do not agree with that lifestyle, but who are we to say they shouldn't have the right to choose a partner and live their lives together as a couple, and have the rights and benefits of a straight married couple? As long as they don't try to push their beliefs and lifestyle on others - who cares????
I personally know 2 same sex couples (not married) who have adopted children, and you couldn't ask for a better set of parents for the children. Some straight parents with kids could take some lessons from them!!!

[Puckstop31]

Adults have different "rights" than minors. At age 65, people have different "rights" than those under age 65 - people who have passed a driver's test have different "rights" than those who have not. Veterans have different "rights" than those who have not served in the military.

The problem is what the word "rights" means. I've said this before. It gets thrown around carelessly.

This is a good point...

To me, a right is something inalienable. Something that just IS, not granted or denied by a piece of paper. Perhaps government/controlling agency may not recognize a peoples inalienable rights, but they are still rights all the same. Further I belive that a true RIGHT is something that age, sex, creed, marital status, sexual preference, religion, etc, should be blind to. I think the US Bill of Rights pretty much hits it on the head.

I think, if I wrote the quoted part above, I would replace "rights" in the first paragraph with entitlements. Entitlements are a whol different ball game. A entitlement can be granted and taken away at the stroke of a pen. As such, people should not depend on them. But that gets too far off topic, eh?