{OT} Yet another OT; Gerry Studds "Husband" denied Survivor's Pension

Gerry Studds, 'married' in 2004 to his 'husband' (does that mean Studds was the 'wife'?) did not pass along his Federal pension to his 'survivor', a Federal judge ruled yesterday. The Federal Government, abiding by the Marriage Protection Act, does not recognize gay marriage, currently performed only in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

A spokesman for the Government said Studds could have set up a Survivor's plan, similar to an insurance policy, to provide his 'spouse' with an income after Studds' death.

This means the Federal Government will not have to shell out..Sit down for this one...$62,000 a year to Studds 'husband', with adjustments for inflation...

Reply to
Hachiroku
Loading thread data ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ things are tough all over. Maybe the poor guy ought to have had a life insurance policy on his 'wife'.

Reply to
mack

Yet if Studds had been married to a female, you'd have no problem with the govt paying out $62K a year, right?

Instead of worrying about gay and lesbian marriages, why don't you guys worry about the 3 or more people recently charged with bigamy in Georgia. It's evidently become a big money-making thing there to marry aliens so they can get their green cards.

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Stuart Krivis

He was not 'married' when he started taking his pension.

That is a requirement in all the pensions I'm familiar with....

Reply to
Scott in Florida

Not at all, Stuart!

I don't think gays can get 'married', period, and I wouldn't expect my pension to go to my 'live-in' wife without a Marriage Certificate.

God: "Me Dammit, I made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

formatting link

Reply to
Hachiroku

How about if a gay man married a woman and had a platonic marriage; maybe even living in different places?

The pension would then go to the wife.

That certainly isn't a marriage that fits the Christian viewpoint.

It's a tiny step from there to gay or lesbian marriages. What should count is whether two people love each other, want to be together, and are willing to make a commitment. Who the two people are is nobody else's business.

It's the "straight" people who are making a mockery of marriage. Look at all those movie stars that get married and divorced again all in one day. :-)

formatting link
>

Reply to
Stuart Krivis

Oh, God, he's talking about Britanny! She must have REALLY tied one on that night! Even Lindsey Lohan hasn't gotten THAT plastered...yet!

No, I don't agree with that, either. That's just idiocy. When it comes down to it, it is really up to the employer! In this case the employer was the Federal Government, and they decided not to pay.

formatting link
>>

Reply to
Hachiroku

Who the HELL are you to interpret anything even remotely associated with Christianity?

Yeah, right, it's always THEIR fault...never your own. Look to your own family if you want to see lots of dysfunctionality.

formatting link
>>

Reply to
sharx35

No, it actually isn't up to the employer. My cousin worked for the IRS for many years determining whether pension plans were ok or not. An employer has to adhere to certain rules and regulations when setting up or changing a pension plan.

Survivor benefits are not something that the employer can be selective about. They have to follow the law.

formatting link
>>>

No comment on this yet. So you think gay marriage is a bigger problem than marriage-for-hire? :-)

I really don't understand why anyone would oppose gay marriage. It makes me wonder if homophobia is what is causing the opposition.

Reply to
Stuart Krivis

formatting link
>>>>

IT's more like...disgust?

BTW, on this topic, Google the Studds Standard...interesting reading...

Reply to
Hachiroku

formatting link
>>>>>

It makes ME wonder how imbeciles like you are able to both shit and breathe at the same time.

Reply to
sharx35

formatting link
>>>>>>

formatting link
>>

Who...ME?!?!

Geeze...come to think of it...

Reply to
Hachiroku

formatting link
>>>>>>>

formatting link
>>>

Whoever it was who claimed that gay marriage is normal.

Reply to
sharx35

formatting link
>>>>>>>>

formatting link
>>>>

I know...I'm just funnin with ya... But, you did reply to ME and it was Stuart that made the comment.

Reply to
Hachiroku

I've seen a lot of hetero couples that present a pretty disgusting picture. I don't _even_ want to think about some people being intimate.

But I don't therefore say that, for instance, fat people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Reply to
Stuart Krivis

I would pay $20 just to discover how two very fat people can actually get together to have sex LOL

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Reply to
.//Hachiroku

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.