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...

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:t7CZg.3954$9z6.1106@trndny03...
> 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...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
things are tough all over. Maybe the poor guy ought to have had a life
insurance policy on his 'wife'.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:17:45 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:

>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...
>

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.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...amy.html?imw=Y

http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_we...a_man_acc.html

http://www.newsdaily.com/Quirks/UPI-...s-bigamist.xml

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:17:45 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:

>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...
>

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

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


--

Scott in Florida

"Stuart Krivis" <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote in message
news:bktej2tt00gr7dc0jh94nn5j53rleokj3r@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:17:45 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>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...
>>
>
> 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.

Once again decency is ignored while Krivis moans and whines about the rights
of perverts.



>
> http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...amy.html?imw=Y
>
> http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_we...a_man_acc.html
>
> http://www.newsdaily.com/Quirks/UPI-...s-bigamist.xml
>

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:06:35 -0400, Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:17:45 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>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...
>>
>
> Yet if Studds had been married to a female, you'd have no problem with
> the govt paying out $62K a year, right?

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!"

>
> 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.
>
> http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...amy.html?imw=Y
>
> http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_we...a_man_acc.html
>
> http://www.newsdaily.com/Quirks/UPI-...s-bigamist.xml

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:21:41 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:06:35 -0400, Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:17:45 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>
>>>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...
>>>
>>
>> Yet if Studds had been married to a female, you'd have no problem with
>> the govt paying out $62K a year, right?
>
>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.
>

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. :-)


>>
>> 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.
>>
>> http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...amy.html?imw=Y
>>
>> http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_we...a_man_acc.html
>>
>> http://www.newsdaily.com/Quirks/UPI-...s-bigamist.xml

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:40:47 -0400, Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:21:41 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:06:35 -0400, Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:17:45 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet if Studds had been married to a female, you'd have no problem with
>>> the govt paying out $62K a year, right?
>>
>>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.
>>
>
> 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. :-)


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.


>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...amy.html?imw=Y
>>>
>>> http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_we...a_man_acc.html
>>>
>>> http://www.newsdaily.com/Quirks/UPI-...s-bigamist.xml

"Stuart Krivis" <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote in message
news:e6ofj296bflea0itk2nrhu8h7nnstnsesu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:21:41 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:06:35 -0400, Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:17:45 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet if Studds had been married to a female, you'd have no problem with
>>> the govt paying out $62K a year, right?
>>
>>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.
>>
>
> 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.

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


>
> 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. :-)

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


>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...amy.html?imw=Y
>>>
>>> http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_we...a_man_acc.html
>>>
>>> http://www.newsdaily.com/Quirks/UPI-...s-bigamist.xml

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:17:10 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:

>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>

>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.

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.

>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...amy.html?imw=Y
>>>>
>>>> http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_we...a_man_acc.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newsdaily.com/Quirks/UPI-...s-bigamist.xml

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.