when gay people ask for equal rights, what rights do they think are presently unequal ?

Question

my friend was saying that he wants equal rights to heterosexuals, specifically mentioning when people die without a will, in that it is unfair if two men live together for 30 years but if one dies their estate goes to the family. I thought that this is already equal,as if a man lives with a woman for 30 years and dies without a will, i thought the man's family recieved his estate, or at least the majority, even if he hadn't seen them in years.
The other one mentioned was to do with decisions made if one falls ill and is unable to speak on their on behalf, but again i thought that this is the same for heterosexuals. If i were to fall into a coma, i think that despite the wishes of any girlfriend i may have, the family's wishes would prevail as to treatment.
Am i wrong? Also, what other things are currently unequal between hetero and homo sexuals ?

yes sorry i should have said, i live in England, though it is interesting to hear from people overseas who seem to have depressingly similar problems

Answer 1

No, his "next of kin" receives his assets after death. A legal SPOUSE is next of kin. No need for a will. A gay couple, on the other hand, has to jump through numerous legal hoops just to make sure their property is transfered to one another in the event of one of their deaths and even THEN, families contest the legal wills and often WIN.

Also yes, it's true, even with proper documentation, families often dispute gay partner's legal right to medical proxy. There is a LOT of discrimination that the courts let fall through the cracks.

Yes, there IS inequality. Even in Mass. where gay marraige is legal, they STILL don't get all the legal benefits. They aren't entitled to file jointly on federal taxes. There's more but... you can look it up for yourself.

Answer 2

I do not know the exact ins and outs of civil rights for gay people in the UK.

But I do know they are not able to be married. Yes, civil unions provide most of the legal rights that heterosexuals have. But it's called a civil union, not marriage. In other words, not the same as marriage. Marriages are life long, or that is the vow taken. Civil unions are not.

These are the sorts of things that are designed to appease the bigots, of which there are many or it wouldn't be necessary.

From your question, the issue is to be treated fairly and equally in every regard. Aside from the legal aspects, can you truthfully say that gay couples are treated fairly and equally in every way, when compared to married couples?

The civil union legislation wasn't even passed in the UK until 2004. And don't for one minute think that heterosexuals woke up one morning and decided that it was time to treat gay people fairly. Passing this law is the result of years of struggle by lesbians and gay men.

A bill that absolutley bans employment discrimination and firing of gay people was passed. In 2003.

Why do you think it only happened so recently? There have always been gay people. Always.

The reason is that there is still an awful lot of bigotry against gay people. It has an ancient history. It's not as if the people who opposed equal treatement for gay people all of a sudden died when the legislation passed. And of course those attitudes are passed on to children.

Also, I do know that gay people in the UK are targeted for violence just as they are in other countries. Because I've read of too many cases of it happening. A lot of the times, it seems like there's a big stink about it, but then the criminals are given very lenient sentences.

What if you leave the UK, is a gay civil union recognized under international law so that gay couples will be treated fairly?

Remember, in the vast majority of countries throughout the world, gay people live in fear.

How about gay couples doing something really basic like linking arms and walking down a public street. Isn't it really not the best idea to do it in many areas, probably even the majority of areas once you get outside of very liberal enclaves in major cities? I'm sure some couples do it, but if it's anything like the England I recall from prior visits, it's unusual.

Some of these things are really societal attitudes regarding gay people. But if the best a country can do is create a second class civil union for gay people, and they cannot even bring themselves to call it marriage, that sends a clear signal.

Yes, the UK is much better than most countries around the globe. I understand. But gay couples are not really viewed the same. The laws passed are a very good start, though. And people are grateful that it's beginning to change.

But it's important to tell the truth about this issue, and to do that you've got to look at the full picture. Not just two acts of legislation, both of which have been passed only within the past three years.

Answer 3

Yes they are. The Girl friend becomes common law wife. This is how Lee Marvin was sued for Palimony. After living together such as the case with Goldie Hawn and Curt Russell the two have what is called a common law marriage. Gays do not have this occur because gay marriage is not legalized in most states. The wishes of the family in medical circumstances are all that is looked at in a gay relationship. The gay partner may not be let in to see the his or her partner. In common law they may not be treated like this. They still will have to do some legal work and it will be a hassle if they are common law married but they will win. A gay couple has no rights. Even the partnership laws are void of the same rights. Remember this has already been decided in Brown-VS the Board of education. Separate is not equal.

Answer 4

Some areas DO have common law marriages and such that would equate living with someone for 30 years to gaining SOME rights. More importantly, these are all rights covered by marriage that we are unable to choose. If a man lives with a woman for 30 years and dies unmarried, it is because they made a conscious CHOICE not to get married. If two men want to get married, or want to get CLOSE to similar rights, it can cost thousands of dollars, whereas a wedding license costs $40. And in some states, they may not even have access to these "loophole" legal agreements. Whether or not you want to argue that gay couples have access to some of these rights, they decidedly do not have EQUAL access to them. there's a LOT of unequal rights wrapped up in marriage, but beyond that is military service, employment and housing protection (sexual orientation is not covered on the national nondiscrimination policy), and adoption laws also vary state-by-state. An unmarried straight couple would usually have an easier time adopting than a gay couple, not to mention states that tie their adoption to marriage which, again, is NOT AN OPTION for gay people. It's unfair to compare a straight couple who did not excercise their rights to a gay couple who doesn't have them.

Answer 5

I think that perhaps what your friend may be speaking of has more to do with the legal rights brought to spouses and partners through marriage or common law marriage.

A gay couple does not have the same rights as a hetrosexual couple, primarily because they can not enjoy the benefits of marriage. Along with marriage, comes dual benefits such as survivor rights, health insurance, parental rights etc.

In many states, couples that are not married but have lived together for a particular time frame (varies based on state) have some benefits based on common law marriage. However, the states define couple as man and woman. Thus, a committed homosexual couple who may have lived together for 30 years generally gets no palimony rights.

I am not an expert in this area, this is all based on opinion I have formed through conversations with same-sex couples that I know.

Answer 6

Here in the US, it's mainly MARRIAGE rights, which you in the UK already have.
So, in regards to a man living with a partner but dies without a will, in LEGAL MARRIAGES the estate goes to the partner and children (if there are any), not the first man's brothers and/or sisters.
Actually there are roughly 1,400 rights, protections and benefits which legally married couples get that are denied to same sex partners because our federal government does not recognize same sex marriages.
It's these rights along with several other non-marriage rights we are still fighting for.
Here in the US not all states protect GLBT Employees from being fired from their job for being GLBT or even PERCIEVED as such!
Many states still do not allow second parent adoption or even gay adoption.
Several hospitals do not allow partners of gays and lesbians to remain at the bedside of their partners because they're not legally married and therefore not recognized as "next of kin."
(Granted, this is true with unmarried straight partners as well, but the straight partners have the OPTION to be legally married, whereas the gay/lesbian partners do not)
Many states recognize "Common Law" marriages, where as a couple is together for a number of years, usually around seven, and accourding to their state, they are recognized as "married" where as gay/lesbian couples are NOT recognized in this "common law" arrangement.

Answer 7

Whilst being on potentially tricky ground, a long term heterosexual relationship does offer some protection for the partners involved under what people know as 'common-law'. It was easier to establish some rights...
For example, you could name your partner as next of kin, something same sex couples could not.

More importantly though, is the issue of choice...heterosexual couples always had the choice of marriage to enable the full power of the law to be on their side...until December 2005, this choice was denied same sex couples.

In general, try telling a prospective employer you are gay, and still have a realistic chance of securing the job you wanted...
However much people like to think we live in a liberal, accepting society, there are still very many racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic people out there, in all sorts of positions of power.
These hard fought gains to our HUMAN rights (not gay/lesbian) would be taken away in an instant by many people in public life.
Just read lots of answers in this section to verify what I say.

Answer 8

You are wrong as far as the estates go...a woman can claim an estate as a common law partner....the family of the man can't touch it...
also with being critically ill..not only could my partner not make decisions for me he well may not be allowed into the hospital to see me as he is not considered a close relative.
These are all things that have happened to me.
Also our taxes are not fair..our income taxes paid are inapporpriate...people often will not rent to same sex couples..yes I know it can be disputed (but why should I have to go through that every time)....all kinds of other things...to many to mention right now....but I'm Canadian and now married so a lot (if not all) have been solved for me.

Answer 9

One big right they need is health insurance coverage--------so each does not have to pay his own. A wife/husband can have his spouse on his/her health insurance policy. Most times, this is not true for same sex partners.

A same sex couple must be very careful and have everything down on paper, and a lawyer should be used. A will is a must, as well as all other legal needs.

I am not really for same sex marriage, but I think a same sex legal union should give the same benefits as a marriage does.

Answer 10

there is not any 'good' to wealth and monopoly. while the stability of wealthy and poor get too a ways out of whack, with the wealthy being conceited and unthinking of the poor, issues happen, revolutions, social gathering adjustments, unionizing, greater supervision of how and the place those earnings are spent. this would not happen with out some strife, as those with no longer something to lose behave in tactics that are often violent. while it is going too a ways any different way, as in Socialist or Communist societies, human beings, sense entitled and unrewarded and don't make contributions in a fashion that grows the monetary device, this many times ends because it did interior the U.S., too many human beings, no longer sufficient workers. A stability is critical and it in easy terms seems to discover itself one for a quick era till now it swings too a ways lower back. yet lower back, wealth and belongings are no longer a superb.