But why? Why wouldn't they legislate ROS to protect some of these oldsters from poor planning?
Do any other states not have this as an automatic thing when a spouse dies? I assumed that was the case everywhere; pretty sure it is here. On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 9:37:21 PM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Hey Perp; > > It's the "Common Law"; as it was prior to Code.... > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:29 PM, 'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On a side note, SC is one of the most back-assward states in America when >> it comes to their laws. My dad retired down there and when he got sick I >> learned that he nor his wife had any kind of legal documents (wills, >> medical directives, powers of attorney). I found out that SC doesn't have >> an automatic right of survivorship for the home and other assets when one >> spouse dies. Luckily I got it all in place for them in time before he died, >> or she'd have ended up with nothing and the house and his retirement >> account would have gone to me and my brothers. We would have signed it over >> to her, but still, I'm sure there are people out there who might not. >> >> That was just 12 years ago. I would have thought most states had those >> sorts of protections for spouses in place by now; I imagine oldsters who >> have no such plans/documents in place isn't completely uncommon. >> >> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:29:58 PM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> Therein you've adopted the redefinition of marriage. There is no such >>> thing as, "Heterosexual Marriage"; a marriage is between a man and a woman, >>> and has been for eons....Until our government, against the will of the >>> majority of people, decided to redefine it. >>> >>> Get ready for more headaches: >>> >>> http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html >>> >>> Same-sex legal groundbreaker: Judge says Rock Hill couple married in >>> S.C. for decades >>> >>> BY ANDREW DYS >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> - >>> >>> <http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html> >>> >>> - >>> >>> <https://twitter.com/share?text=Same-sex%20legal%20groundbreaker%3a%20Judge%20says%20Rock%20Hill%20couple%20married%20in%20S.C.%20for%20decades&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html> >>> >>> - >>> >>> - >>> - LINKEDIN >>> >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html&title=Same-sex+legal+groundbreaker%3a+Judge+says+Rock+Hill+couple+married+in+S.C.+for+decades> >>> - GOOGLE+ >>> >>> <https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html> >>> - PINTEREST >>> >>> <http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2farticle139540723.html&description=Same-sex+legal+groundbreaker%3a+Judge+says+Rock+Hill+couple+married+in+S.C.+for+decades&media=http%3a%2f%2fwww.heraldonline.com%2fnews%2flocal%2fv7is9s-Attorney-talks-about-York-County-groundbreaking-same-sex-marriage-court-ruling%2fALTERNATES%2fLANDSCAPE_1140%2fAttorney%2520talks%2520about%2520York%2520County%2520groundbreaking%2520same-sex%2520marriage%2520court%2520ruling> >>> - REDDIT >>> >>> <http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html> >>> - PRINT >>> - ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY <http://www.mcclatchyreprints.com/> >>> >>> ROCK HILL >>> >>> Debra Parks wanted to be treated the same as anybody else by the courts. >>> At 62, she’s disabled, and split from her partner of almost four decades. >>> She filed a lawsuit because she wanted her relationship, which ended last >>> year, to be considered a common law marriage under South Carolina law. >>> >>> Parks is gay. But until 2015, same-sex marriage was illegal. >>> >>> “I was in a same-sex relationship for all those years,” Parks said. “We >>> owned a house together. We were a family, even when society didn’t accept >>> it.” >>> ADVERTISING >>> >>> Now, in what legal experts and Parks’ lawyers say is a groundbreaking >>> case for South Carolina, and possibly for other states with common law >>> marriage, a Family Court judge in York County has ruled that Parks and her >>> former partner had a common law marriage under state law. And the state >>> must recognize that their common law marriage has been legal for almost 30 >>> years, the judge ruled. >>> >>> The ruling means same-sex couples now have the same rights as >>> heterosexual married couples, experts say. Those rights include alimony, >>> health insurance, taxes, the division of property and others. >>> >>> The ruling immediately becomes a legal precedent, and has the potential >>> to impact thousands of people in same sex relationships, experts and Parks’ >>> lawyers say. >>> >>> The ruling states a same sex marriage can be a common law marriage, and >>> backdates the period of effect to the beginning of the common law marriage. >>> >>> The order from Family Court Judge Thomas White states that, before the >>> ban on same sex marriage was lifted in 2015 by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, >>> there were no other South Carolina cases addressing same sex marriage, >>> whether licensed or common law. >>> >>> “Quoting William Shakespeare, ‘A rose by any other name would smell as >>> sweet,’” White wrote. “The law established by the U.S. Supreme Court in >>> Obergefell (the supreme court case overturning the gay marriage ban) should >>> be applied retroactively in South Carolina.” >>> >>> South Carolina allowed legal gay marriages in November 2015. >>> >>> The ruling is the correct legal ruling to protect spouses of the same >>> sex, now that the same sex marriage ban has been ruled to be illegal and >>> discriminatory, legal experts say. Common law marriage is a marriage >>> without ceremony or license but includes the other aspects of a marriage >>> such as living together and joint property. >>> >>> “This is definitely new,” said Marcia Zug, a family law and marriage law >>> expert and professor at the University of South Carolina law school. “It is >>> the first of its kind. And not only is it a new decision. It is the right >>> decision.” >>> >>> Zug said the ruling seems to be morally and equitably right and >>> addresses fundamental fairness, yet could face a legal challenge because it >>> is a new ruling. >>> >>> “The judge wants to be on the right side of history. It is a fact that >>> for all those years America did not let (same sex couples) get married,” >>> Zug said. >>> >>> South Carolina is one of eight states that recognize common law >>> marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures Web >>> site. Parks’ lawyers, Jim Tucker and David Martin of Rock Hill, said the >>> case is important because same sex marriages were not recognized until 2015 >>> and left an entire group of people “out in the cold” without the >>> protections the law provides to heterosexual couples. >>> >>> “This is the first one we are aware of in South Carolina and nationally >>> where a case was tried and had a judge determine that the common law >>> marriage was valid,” Martin said. >>> >>> Tucker said the other part of the ruling that is equally important is >>> that it’s retroactive. Before this ruling in York County, gay people in >>> common law marriages had no recourse under the law to seek relief after a >>> breakup, Tucker said, and the years of relationship were not recognized by >>> any court. >>> >>> The order states that Parks’ common law marriage is retroactive to the >>> time when Parks divorced her husband while already living with her same sex >>> partner. As a young adult Parks was married to a man and had two children. >>> She and her female partner became a couple in 1977. In 1987 Parks divorced >>> her husband, the order states, and the common law marriage began. >>> >>> Susan Dunn, legal director of the South Carolina American Civil >>> Liberties Union, said the ruling is the first of its kind in the state she >>> knows of. Yet the retroactive part of the ruling might face the toughest >>> legal challenge, Dunn said, because there is no other case to compare it to. >>> >>> “This is new,” Dunn said. “And important.” >>> >>> Parks and her partner split up last year, testimony showed. Parks filed >>> the suit so she so could seek a division of property and spousal support. >>> But her former partner fought the lawsuit, saying she never asked Parks to >>> marry and never intended to be married, court documents show. The partner >>> said, both she and Parks were free to leave the relationship at any time, >>> court documents show. The partner argued she did not consider the >>> relationship marital, court documents show. >>> >>> The spousal support part has not yet been ruled on but will be heard in >>> the coming weeks, Tucker said. >>> >>> Parks’ former partner cannot appeal the ruling until the second part of >>> the case concerning assets is finished, Tucker said. >>> >>> The Herald is not naming Parks’ former partner because court documents >>> show the woman is worried about negative repercussions on her job and at >>> the Catholic church she attends. The lawyer for Parks’ former partner >>> declined comment on her behalf. >>> >>> White’s decision is not surprising, said Miller Shealy, a professor at >>> the Charleston School of Law. >>> >>> “Once the courts recognized same sex marriage, everything else from the >>> marriage follows including rights of the parties,” Shealy said. “That >>> includes marital property, alimony, divorce, all of it...It is clear all >>> rights and duties of marriage now apply to same sex couples.” >>> >>> Gay couples have became more socially acceptable over time, but for >>> years the couple’s seemingly obvious relationship was shielded, White’s >>> order said. >>> >>> “Non-acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships was the >>> prevailing environment and atmosphere of the community at large during the >>> majority of the parties’ cohabitation,” White wrote. >>> >>> The couple was monogamous, court documents show, and clearly held >>> themselves out as married to some friends and family -- even if some family >>> objected. In a court hearing Parks’ family, including one of her grown >>> children, testified that Parks and her partner were “just like any married >>> couple.” >>> >>> Current York County property records show Parks and her former partner >>> listed as owners of the home they bought in Rock Hill. Parks and her >>> partner also bought other property together, had joint bank accounts, used >>> each other on tax documents, and lived together until 2016, court documents >>> show. >>> >>> “I want people in my situation to know they do have rights, and can get >>> help,” Parks said. “We were married.” >>> >>> Andrew Dys: 803-329-4065, @AndrewDysHerald >>> <https://twitter.com/AndrewDysHerald> >>> >>> Read more here: >>> http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article139540723.html#storylink=cpy >>> <https://twitter.com/AndrewDysHerald> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> expose their kids to such depravity. >>>> >>>> That is how you perceive it, many people understand there are all kinds >>>> of people with different relationships out there ... if heterosexual >>>> marriage was so good, why do more than half of them end in divorce!!! >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Regan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is no need to do anything other than inform people of the >>>>> content and message. Then they can decide whether to go spend their hard >>>>> earned dollars on it and expose their kids to such depravity. Disney >>>>> only >>>>> cares about profit, they don't give a crap about "Promoting equality and >>>>> diversity": itself a mindless statement devoid of any substance or >>>>> intellectual scrutiny. >>>>> >>>>> *Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid* >>>>> On Mar 20, 2017 4:48 PM, ImStillMags Mags <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You were very happy when Disney touted "morality" that agrees with >>>>> your views of the world, which they have done since the beginning. >>>>> >>>>> Now you're not happy when Disney holds up ethics and morality you deem >>>>> unacceptable, like acceptance of people as they are. >>>>> >>>>> Like I said, your problem. >>>>> >>>>> What do you want to do about it? Control what Disney does? Make >>>>> laws against Disney? Force Disney to only produce what YOU deem >>>>> acceptable? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:07:23 PM UTC-7, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'll go back to my original post, which is accurate, supported by the >>>>> articles I posted and even to the article that you attempted to post but >>>>> didn't read: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *"I'm aggravated that Disney feels the need to direct our moral >>>>> compass and generate what ethical standards should be in Western >>>>> Society."* >>>>> >>>>> You should be too, unless you're an Anti-American who wishes to see >>>>> our Nation become a third world or fourth world Nation-State.....Which >>>>> one >>>>> is it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 4:04 PM, ImStillMags Mags <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When you are tired of posting articles about how Disney touted morals >>>>> in the past maybe you can re read my sentence that Disney has been doing >>>>> this for eons. Of course back then it was "acceptable" if the morality >>>>> Disney touted agreed with you. Now, if you don't like the fact that >>>>> Disney is promoting equality and diversity.....that's your problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 11:09:22 AM UTC-7, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey Mags! >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> brine >>>> http://brineb.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
