KillerB, *OF COURSE* all our fine representatives read the bill in the 72 hours that the Speaker said the bill would be available prior to the vote. Oh, it wasn't available? Bah! No matter, it is for our own good dontcha know.

Hmmm I know, let's all turn over all our assets to the government and let them take care of all our medical, housing, food, and entertainment needs. Let's give all to the state. The State is Mother, the State is Father.

Also KillerB, the penalty you are looking for is on page 297 titled "Sec. 59B Taxation on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Coverage." The first .pdf I could find is at http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/...

Also here is another wonderful set of gems.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1556...
"Would I have to have health insurance?

Yes, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of your income. Hardship and religious waivers would be available, and some very low-wage earners would be exempt. The requirement would begin in 2013.

People who don't get insurance and don't pay the penalty face fines and possibly jail time.

Would my employer have to provide it?

Yes, or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payrolls under $500,000 would be exempt. Companies would have to pay 72.5 percent of the cost of the premium for a single worker and 65 percent of premium costs for a family policy, and small companies could get tax credits to help pay their costs.

Could I keep my current insurance?

Probably, at least for a while. Your employer could always change your carrier, <b>and it's possible employers might decide it's cheaper to pay the 8 percent penalty and drop coverage for workers, forcing you to buy coverage elsewhere.</b>

It's also possible your coverage won't meet standards for a basic policy, and would have to be changed when the bill is fully implemented."

I look forward to the day when all the people who want this react when in an effort to contain costs the government institutes a "social achievement" number and being the slackers they are they are among the lowest rung. As a result even emergency care will be denied to them. In that moment, a moment of realization, they will realize that they can freaking rot in Hell for all the sympathy they will get.

I look forward to the day when the government cuts R&D in new drugs as a way to cut costs and the same whiners wanting "the public option" never are treated by the medical advances which are never created.

I look forward to the great gnashing of teeth from the "public option supports" when waiting lists lengthen for procedures we take for granted.

I look forward to the demonization of employers who, in a cost saving move, dump their self coverage plans, pay a fine (which is cheaper than the coverage they currently provide), and dump their employees on the government. If we like our coverage we can keep it right? Not if the providers no longer provide it since mommy government is going to take care of us, right?

Congrats you freaking slackers, too lazy to look after your own health care; relying on mommy government to take care of your sniffles. Rot in hell.

IF you would like to help create a system where the government has access to all your medical records, despite many of you whining that the government obtaining phone billing records was the same as illegal wiretapping, by all means support a single payer health care system.

Atdleft, kinda like this eh? "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans groups are angry after President Obama told them Monday that he is still considering a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans' private insurance plans." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/o...

Or perhaps you are talking about this shill for the Retughs, http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid...

"by Aaron Glantz

President George W. Bush signed a $696 billion Pentagon spending bill immediately before his State of the Union address Monday night, which funds all Defense Department programs not directly tied to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, expands health care for injured veterans, and gives U.S. soldiers a pay raise." But but but BUSH DEFUNDED THE VA, right?

Besides atdleft links links links, where are they? I just did a dogpile.com search for "Bush defunding the VA" and got only 3 pages of links with nothing about the VA. I just checked google and got only two articles from alternate media/bloggers remotely talking about the VA in the first five. You would think that such a story would be more common, if it were true. Come up with some links.

Atdleft currently you on the left are saying that Medicare is a wonderful system, but it can be more efficient. Well fix it first to show us how efficiently it can run and then I will give up my medical privacy to the government.

Just curious to all you lefties, if the government is supposed to be out of our bedrooms and the government is supposed to take care of our health, does that mean my partner can only get an abortion if we have sex outside of the bedroom?

Actually ksand, it is not debunked. Imagine a church trying to not marry an interracial couple. Imagine the public outcry. After all it has been an established right for the past 40 years. Once gay marriage becomes an established right, imagine the public outcry if a church declines to conduct a ceremony.

Again, why are you equating the conclusion that some gay couple somewhere will try to force the issue with scare mongering? Why do you feel that it is beyond the pale? In your worldview it is alright for gay couples to get married by beyond your comprehension that a couple will sit in the back of the bus er... try to get married at a church which has made it clear that they do not support gay marriage.

"That is infringing on their rights, according to you. Thanks, that's a great argument for marriage equality!"

Ummm YES idiot, that *IS* what I have been flipping point out. You have been running from that conclusion like a freaking homophobe. I am saying that that is the logical result of this process. You are saying that it is beyond the pale.

I am saying that there was a much less intrusive way, a "leastest" change in the law to allow for the "mostest" benefit (to quote my judicial reasoning prof from way back when) than what is going to be the logical conclusion. You, and the groupthink here, don't see that distinction.

"And finally, if religious liberty is your litmus test, of course you're in support of gay marriage. There are churches today who want the ability to marry GLBT individuals, but state laws currently prevent them from doing so."

Ummm no, churches have (and will have) the right to do whatever they want in a spiritual manner, what they will lose the right to do is to make it legally binding.

Hmmm alanj I haven't but when was the last time you heard of an interracial couple suing to get married? Interracial couples have a wide variety of churches to get married in; right now gay couples don't have any.

Each of you decrying my comments as "scare tactics" are underestimating the perception of equality. The flood doors have opened and will not be closed until gay couples have that perceived equality. If they can't achieve it by having a religious ceremony which is legally binding, they will work toward making sure that no one else does.

Again, I ask, why are they "scare tactics"? Do you not believe in the logical conclusion that if there is gay marriage they have the right to get married wherever they want? To prevent them from doing so is prima facia discrimination.

My bet is that the first challenge will be in California. It will be after Prop 8 is overturned in 2012. (Gay marriage forces are still shocked/disorganized as a result of what they felt was sure to be a judicial remedy - it will take them an election cycle to overcome that.) Call the first challenge occurring in 2015.

Also alanj, the 1998 Hawaii vote is what I was talking about. The reason I remember that time specifically is a group of Log Cabin Republicans (yes, Republicans have gay supporters too) made a presentation to the Illinois State YRs. I remember asking them about how the "full faith and credit" clause would affect other states if Hawaii passed its domestic partnership. They didn't have an answer; they probably were worried about the perceived (which as we can see over the past 10 years has turned into an actual) slippery slope.

As a result of the 1998 Hawaiian vote the first state Defense of Marriage Act (if you want to call it that) was passed by the state legislature. The best that the vast majority of what today are gay marriage supporters could then hope for was some type of domestic partnership. That was the status quo until they were able to have one liberal northeast state pass a gay marriage law (and even then the law was specific that it was valid for state residents only. People could not come in from out of state; thus avoiding a full faith and credit issue.)

*sigh*

Ksand, your right. Ever. Single. Current. Law. Has. Those. Protections. Laws starting in 10 years will not. (Of course not every state will change at the 10 year mark, that will be the start of the process.) Laws change. (After all how the hell did a "right to privacy" appear in the Constitution? (as an example.))

Will you at least acknowledge that 10 years ago the best gay rights proponents could hope for was somewhere domestic partnerships would be allowed. Hawaii was the first I believe, then Mass. Now people are going state by state with the argument, "Now six states have marriage or some type of partnership so it is time for this state to have it." At a certain tipping point all states will have it. That is one slippery slope.

Once all states have it, then someone will state we want to get married in a church, after all we are not equal until we can do that. Someone, somewhere (probably out here in the 9th appellate district) will have a bunch of wise guys/gals in black robe agree.

You should support gay marriage in a church as equality. I am saying that is a logical conclusion. You are calling it scare mongering.

""KillerB, just because your friend spent thousands doesn't mean that thousands are required." -- where did you get that from?"

Ummm oopps that should have been attributed to atdleft at 6/5/09 at 4:06 p.m. He was responding to you and I took the name from the top of the comments, my bad.

Atdleft, just because your friend spent thousands to create a corp does not mean they needed to.

---

"Legislating religious marriages is neither a "natural extension" of the argument for marriage equality, nor inevitable. In fact the argument for marriage equality, that LGBT should have the same right to marriage as straight couples PRECLUDES such a right to religious marriage, as their is no such right given to straight couples."

Ksand, that is where you are wrong. This whole process has been a slippery slope. The argument will be now that 6 states allow it, the next state has to allow it. Now that 7 allow it, the 8th has to ... and so on. *THAT* is part of the slippery slope.

As far as legislating religious ceremonies, it is going to be the opposite. If churches refuse to perform a gay wedding they will lose via legislation the ability to perform legal marriages. After all you are correct in that there is no right given to straight couples, after all they can be married by a justice of the peace (or elvis, or whomever.) Since there is no right to a religious marriage, churches could very easily lose the ability to conduct any marriages, if they don't marry gays.

Not a scare tactic, just following the logic to its conclusion.

"Cannon's resorting to scare tactics, rather than reading the text of the actual bill."

Nope, ksand, I am not resorting to scare tactics, I am just following the natural line of thought. Just take a look at the "gay marriage" debate over the past 10 years. 10 years ago, domestic partnerships were the pinnacle of what gay rights activist were asking for. Now it is marriage. After all things won't be equal until gay couples can say they are "married". Now 10 years from now things won't be equal until they can get married in a church. How is that fear mongering? It is the natural progression of "rights."

Hmmm your quick denial of this line of thought shows that you are perhaps a biggot who is ok with "those gays" getting a domestic partnership but are uncomfortable with the concept of them getting married in a church. After all it is not in the SB right now and anyone who says it possible is using "scare tactics" so it will never happen and you can breath easier. Man ksand, you are such a homophobe!

---

Ummm KillerB - A LLC hold property within the LLC (well assuming property was assigned to the LLC) corporations don't automatically dissolve when one of the members of the LLC dies, unless they were set up that way in the beginning, so property stays with the LLC. Even if the LLC does dissolve (umm the same as divorce/death) then there is a division of common assets (ummm the same as divorce/death). Hmmm kinda sounds like inheritance to me.

Or form a trust, whichever fits your specific needs for the partnership.

KillerB, just because your friend spent thousands doesn't mean that thousands are required. Hmmmm I bet if your friend spent the same amount of time researching (the benefits of a trust vs LLC) as couples spend planning their wedding then the costs would have been a lot lower because believe it or not a lot of things that people think "require" a lawyer, don't.

Atdleft-

You are correct that SB283 doesn't provide a religious mandate. However, using the same argument, domestic partnerships are not equal to church marriages. The next battleground will be that. Force those evil religious freaks to acknowledge your rights or remove their ability to conduct marriages.

As far at $5,000, that is quite a bit overstated. Various website (as an example) offer simple power of attorney forms and LLC forms for about the twice the cost of a marriage license (here in Clark county the marriage license is $60.) Let's see at one website we hear advertised (oh, my bad, you wouldn't have heard it advertised because it is advertised on that EVIL RETHUGIAN TALK RADIO) a simple LLC is $139. A power of attorney is $35. A will, which isn't necessary because of the LLC, but a good idea anyway, is $89.

Let's see, 139 + 35 + 89 = $263. Hmmmm I guess that the extra $200 (or about $110 without the will) is just suuuuuch an undue burden "for the forever lifepartner love of my life domestic partner."

The law should be about providing the "mostest" with the "leastest" change. There were already equality provisions; therefore, it is a bad legislative process to change the law.

"Las Vegas and our state is progressing beautifully thanks to all who look at the world in a positive light of equality and justice for all."

That's right. This "AWESOME WIN" is not enough. Now, it's time to force a church to perform a domestic partnership ceremony. After all gay/lesbians had the same rights before hand. (Property inheritance? Form a LLC for the partnership. Right to medical records? Sign an advance medical directive. Power to make decisions for the loved one? Power of Attorney.)

Yeppers, gay and lesbian couples ALREADY HAD the same rights. However they are still missing one now. NOW THEY MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THOSE EVIL CHURCHES TO PERFORM THE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP CEREMONY!!! If those evil religious freaks don't then the gay and lesbian community should sue them for discrimination! If those evil religious wingnuts refuse, then they should lose the ability to marry anyone. Right? (Within 10 years we will see an actual case where a church is sued for not performing a domestic partnership ceremony.)

Now, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I haven't been inside a church in 20 years, nor have I ever been (nor likely to ever be) married. What torques me off is the rights were already available. Part of the philosophy of law is to allow the most with the least impact. The least impact would have been for the gay/lesbian community to already use the laws in place. And even though I am not a church goer, I do see the scenario I have outlined above. Within 10 years a church will be forced to "marry" er domestic partnership some couple. (But but but... that is not what the gay/lesbian community is asking for... Not yet.)