This thread is moving way to fast to keep up with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dellwear
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SMHarman
A will resolves this and should be written even if you are married (or straight and cohabiting). Insurance companies are more forward thinking than the government and will hapily pay a life insurance policy over to a gay partner if that is what the policy holder nominated. As a married couple your automatic rights to your partners estate are severely impared if you have children, to the point they could take sufficient ownership of your home that they could force you out (though unless you adopt I realise this is a bit of a technicality)
|
Again though these are things that are given to married couples, an option we are denied.
|
Being married to an "Alien", we both lose most of the taxable breaks over each others estate, so marriage has not given this one to me (I know mine is an exception - but in these days of cheap airfares and globalisation a growing exception - , I'm just pointing out that exceptions even exist in the current framework).
I'll PM you a will framework you just need to put your name and his into it and get some friends who are not financially linked to the will to sign it and you are done. Costs nothing. Regarding eers and forms, I have to fill the same forms in too, even though i'm married. You also need to consider that the trusteed of any firm insurance have ultimate discretion on the payouts, so they could pay to you even if documentation did not exist.
For a rental property I don't know how it works, but at the next 12month contract signing you probably should be put on the lease.
In the examples above all you are losing out on is the right to the estate tax free on death. This is probably the only fiscal benefit of note left for marriage, and a valid reason why OBs father and stepmother married.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dellwear
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SMHarman
Yes you do, a good (or even a very average) property conveyencor would suggest you own the property as tennants in common (not joint tennants), tennents in common both own a shadow 100% of the property in event of death of a tennant, then ownership automatically is shared between the rest of the tennants.
|
Again cost and hassle to us that we wouldn't need to go through should we have the option of a "marriage" type contract. |
No more cost and hassle than when I bought a property with an ex girlfriend. A simple change of words (in reality, more transactions are probably done in common now due to the tax benefits). Joint is better if one is bringing more into the property and wants to reflect that, e.g. one is paying a 100k deposit on a 200k house you may split the ownership 75/25.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dellwear
What I'm saying is that if I apply for financial support to help pay toward the cost of my degree I am unable to prove my income making it almost imposable to get any form of help because the government do not see our finances as joint.
|
I'm being very thick here - isn't this an advantage. You are therefore a student earning 0, the government has forced itself to be unable to look at his income, therefore you get money?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dellwear
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SMHarman
Nothing a living will won't resolve. In reality if you have a healthy relationship with him and his parents, you would want to be including them in the decision and they would want you to be included in the decision regardless of what the law said. Similarly the NHS will pretty much overlook the law for visitor rights etc. I know if I had to make a decision to turn of Mrs H life support I would be making this decision in conjunction with her Mother and rest of family regardless of whether I had the ultimate right to overrule.
|
Again something we have to go out and do that is automatic to straight couples, even with a living will I don't have any rights, he would detail what he wants happening, hardly the same.
Like I said in a past post, we don't get on with his family and should something happen to him I'd have no right to organize the funeral, dispose of his belongings or his/our money. |
This is one of the areas more difficult to resolve without civil partnerships (which I hope you can see I agree with). But his living will could detail that he wants you to decide with guidance from the medical profession what should happen.
A will could certainly cover the rest, who the executor is, who decides on the funeral arrangements, how his assets are distributed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dellwear
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
However in this case we are dealing with something which is not going to gradually become accepted, but which would (in theory) go from being illegal one day to legal the next. This makes little allowance for the fact that attitudes can change a lot more slowly than laws do and I think goes some way towards explaining why it is only gay marriage that is causing objections
|
Surely this is how it worked for non-religious marriages, the law was changed on one day and the next it wasn't illegal, I can't see the HUGE difference allured to by some.  |
Indeed. What is the difference. Opinions didn't change overnight when Homosexuality was legalised, now we have "queer eye for the straight guy".
(hope I got all these quotes right.)
edit, to save adding more posts to this thread
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dellwear
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SMHarman
Dr Wadd said - stop killing each other? Well yes. Have some kind of civil arrangement - yes - if Homosexuality has been legalised, then the logical progression is that a declaration of partership that is equivilant in the eyes of the law (though not necessarily the church) should exist. After all the Church doen't really recognise a civil marriage (unless you are trying to remarry).
|
Then where's the problem with calling it marriage? If the church don't recognize civil marriages but let them call it marriage then why not gay marriages?? |
Absolutly none IMHO, but if you want to get it past the general public, the house of commons, lords (probably the easiest part) and into law, you'd be best not to put the word marriage in there.
(I think we need an Incognitas "Longest average post award" for this thread)