GAY RIGHTS SUPREME…
By ATWadmin On December 13th, 2006
I was disgusted to read that two elderly spinster sisters face the agony of selling the home they have shared for 40 years when one of them dies – after judges ruled they are not entitled to the same rights as gay and lesbian couples.
Joyce and Sybil Burden, who have lived together all their lives, argued they should be spared inheritance tax in the same way as married couples, or homosexuals who form a civil partnership. But yesterday the oxymoronic European Court of Human Rights threw out their case, by a 4-3 verdict, landing them with a £10,000 legal bill and facing certain future heartbreak.
Here we see the true menace of so-called "Equality legislation" framed by the homosexual lobby and embraced by the liberal intelligentsia. It seems whilst the all people are equal, but gay and lesbians are more equal than others.
Maybe these two sisters should claim to be Lesbians in order not to lose their home when one passes away????
Nothing much seems to have changed since the days when the Sheriff of Nottingham gorged himself on suckling pig and fine wine while good Saxons struggled to survive. Then as now the avaricious taxman deserves no more than a barbed arrow through his bloated belly. Robin, where art thou?
This is disgraceful!
Well that clarifies things. All the arguments about inheritance rights for people in a committed relationship were bogus. Extending the same rights to Joyce and Sybil Burden would have undermined and diluted the true objective of the gay marriage campaign which is to attack marriage and the family as traditionally understood in Christian societies.
The reality is that every society has a dominant ethos. The west has opted for extreme secularism to replace Christianity. That will turn out to be a demographic dead end.
"Gather ye rosebuds while ye may
Sharia law is on the way"
Henry,
You’re 100% correct, we are sliding into extreme-secularism.
. There is a valid argument in allowing people who share a home to avoid having to pay inheritence tax but this is nothing to do with favouring gay couples. Adter all they are being denied the same rights as heterosexual married people as well as gay couples. Even before the civil partnership legislation came into affect these 2 women would have been in exactly the same position (as would a brother and sister) and would have been discriminated against in comparison to married couples. But it seems as if complaints about their plight and sympathy for them only rears it’s head as a way of attacking the Civil partnership legislation.
Colm
the point is that the civil partnerships was introduced with arguments about the unfairness. If that was the case the argument should hold for these sisters. The fact that it doesn’t does raise questions.
Aileen
Yes I know and I accept that, but it’s an unfairness that has always existed for siblings or non married sharers of a home, it didn’t just materialise as a result of the Civil partnership laws. But would David and Henry have been so exercised by this ommision had these sisters raised it long before the civil partnership laws had even been thought of.
Colm
David and Henry can speak for themselves. What exercises me is the state-mandated theft of these ladies’ home. Look at them again. Two old women who probably haven’t broken a law in their lives. Then along come the politicians to confiscate what they’ve no doubt worked hard for and loved for most of their lives. Ahhh makes you f***in proud eh?!
Regarding these two women alone, the point is that inheritence tax is morally indifensible whoever’s property is being stolen. But the left made such a song and dance over a supposed (but, in fact, non existent discrimination against gays) that their silence when two old white women are being monstrously treated is deafening.
Pete
In what way was it a non-existent discrimination against gays? It was real, and what has the colour of these women got to do with the issue at stake.
Colm
the point is though that the reason that it was raised as an issue that was unfair for gay people (and it was) but the logic should have extended to those like these sisters (and it didn’t). It fact that it was unfair on all of them before doesn’t excuse the failure to extend the logic and does question how much some of those advocates really cared about fairness.
I’m not speaking as someone who is against civil partnerships because it was unfair.
Colm
You view is too simplistic. It’s that because heterosexual couples could marry and (traditionally) benefit in various financial ways, and yet gay couples could not, then gays were discriminated against.
The reality is that gays were treated just the same as everyone else. Co-habiting brothers, sisters, other relatives, friends, strangers, backpackers, whether straight or gay, were all treated the same. Only married couples were treated differently, and this was becauue society rightly recognised the two parent family as the bedrock of our civilisation and the ideal for raising children. This commitment between a man and a woman, to each other and to the future was recognised and given certain priviledges to the exclusion of absolutely everyone else.
We know what the leftie game is. You didn’t want gay marriages becasue of discrimination, you wanted them for the damage that would be done to the institution of marriage. Why marry and raise children in the right, natural environment if you can shag away and the advantages of marriage no longer exist?
Gays shouldn’t pay inheritence tax because no-one should pay it. But gays shouldn’t get any advantages over anyone else either. There’s no need for it.
PETE
There is no logic to your argument. How does Civil partnerships for same sex couples act as an attack on heterosexual marraiges. It doesn’t reduce the validity of marraige one iota. It’s not as if there is a quota on partnership licences and if the gays snap them up there will be fewer marraige licences for heterosexual couples. As ridiculous as saying that giving anti discrimination rights to black people is an attack on the white population.
Please explain what it is that gays get which is an an advantage over everyone else.
Ps – I have no problem with and indeed I support financial and strategic advantages given to married heterosexual couples over and above other units including gay couples , and I agree that these sisters are being treated unfairly and should not be burdened with inheritance taxes , but that doesn’t mean that same sex couples should have no official or legal recognition by the state.
COLM
"Please explain what it is that gays get which is an an advantage over everyone else."
Following this, you answer it yourself. Look at the point of the post. If these two elderly sisters weren’t sisters, but were lesbians, they wouldn’t be ruined and left woi wallow in misery in theri remaining years because of the state. No word from Shami Chakrabati yet on this one.
"I have no problem with and indeed I support financial and strategic advantages given to married heterosexual couples over and above other units including gay couples … but that doesn’t mean that same sex couples should have no official or legal recognition by the state."
What’s the point of that then? Is gay love enhanced by the approval of the state? I go and watch the Arsenal every week, but my enjoyment of seeing us do Spurs 3-0 wouldn’t be any greater fro being a state-registered Gooner.
The point of the state recognising marriage and not stealing as much from married couples as from other people was an explicit recognition of the family as the bedrock of society. It is that very principle which has come under attack through the destruction both of it’s practical financial rewards and its unique, special status. The official view is that civil partnerships, living in sin being a single parent are merely alternative lifestyles to the traditional family. They are not.
The spousal exemption on IHT does not cover children or siblings however there are still ways in which they could avoid IHT.
This is a non-issue
Pete
You still haven’t and can’t explain how gays get an advantage over EVERYONE else , because they don’t. They get the same privileges as a registered couple as a married heterosexual couple would. You may diagree with that but it isn’t a special privilege only available to gays.
Colm is right, this has zero to do about homosexual couples in particular (except for the opportunity to stir the anti-homosexual crowd with a new "outrage").
The Telegraph – Monday:The complete item.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/11/ntory11.xml
‘Dave’s’ quote from the above item;
"Mr Cameron has been quick to throw his weight behind Mr Duncan Smith’s report, indicating that family-friendly policies such as a tax breaks for families could form part of the next Tory manifesto."
"It underlines my belief that the family is the most important institution in Britain and that if we are serious about tackling the causes of poverty and social breakdown then we must look at ways of supporting families and also supporting marriage so that couples are encouraged to get together and stay together," he said.
Only problem there is the ‘and also’ bit.
And yet another from the same source;
"is bound to deepen tensions between traditionalist Tories and the modernisers who recently suggested Tories should adopt a more liberal approach of the sort championed by Polly Toynbee,"
For what it’s worth, I think that all three major partys, can – as they say – "Talk the talk, but none can, or will, walk the walk".
The problem here is the Inheritance tax itself, and the way it has been reworked and implemented over many years.
First it was the ‘landed gentry’ who suffered massive tax bills on the death of the Head of the family, then it was farmers, then it was the middle classes turn, and now we are down to the bottom of the barrel – persecuting impoverished pensioners and geriatrics.
A small query – could the Ladies not have put the property in question, into joint ownership, thereby forestalling any problem?
Was there no solicitor able and willing to offer advice, or did they see no profit in such ‘pro bono’ advice?
<em>could the Ladies not have put the property in question, into joint ownership, thereby forestalling any problem?</em>
Yes, the surviving sibling would have recieved the property through right of survivorship.
Any solicitor would have been able to give them proper tax advice and planning.
BTW, does anyone know how much this house is worth?
COLM
JUst to be clear, because you either misread me or I was ambiguous – civilly partnered gays now receive the same priviledges as married couples and, because of this, now receive preferential treatment which everyone else (excluding married couples) don’t get. And, no doubt repreating myself, they shouldn’t get those priviledges.
£850,000 apparently
Chris,
Supposedly some £870,000….£7,500 to build in 1965…
and they say there is little or no inflation….lol!
PETE
So they receive exactly the same treatment as anyone else in the UK who registers their relationship through Marraige or civil partnership. It’s a privilege that is now available to all people of either sex. The preferential treatment is based on the nature of the relationship (non blood related declared partnerships) nothing to do with sexuality at all.
The gain can be indexed though Ernest, that said if these women had a solicitor he should have been shot.
The price of the house is well outside the £285,000 nil rate band. These women should seek some immediate tax planning advice before one of them dies ( not being harsh here, just reaslistic)
Pete
The privileged treatment is now available to everyone in the UK who recieves state recogntion of their non-blood related unions. The privilege is based on the nature of the relationship not sexuality. No matter how you try and explain away a ‘privilege’ that gays have over everyone else, they don’t.
Oops I posted again because I thought one of my posts had not gone through.
Chris,
I fancy that they may well have had ‘professional’ advice, certainly enough to direct them to the Court of Human Rights…do you think they may be being ‘used’?…
Incidentally, at 850,000 pounds their compound interest on the original sum, is way in excess of 20% p.a.!
I always knew that property was a good investment, but not quite that good!…what you might call a Warren Buffet moment..
<Q>if these women had a solicitor he should have been shot.</Q>
A hyperbolic figure of speech I trust?
of course MR
LOL – I was just wondering if the Law Society had taken a new line, influenced by the new generation of "Young Turks" who have joined the profession
MR,
Getting your ‘T’s and ‘J’s muddled?…
LOL Ernest – Chris is very radical! But he needs to remember how Henry II blotted his copybook
Just a passing thought – given that the increase in property values is largely inspired by government manipulation and intervention, or even non-intervention.
Does one suppose that they are ‘fattening the goose, for Christmas’, as it were, after all there is a large pot of ‘unearned income’ there, to be taxed?
In fact I would not be surprised to see ever more tax levied on property in the future, – all in a very ‘imaginative way’, of course… the politician hasn’t been born who could resist such an easy target…
Being a a born again cynic, I really cannot see either a Labour or Tory government giving up, or even changing the Inheritance Tax in any significant way, and certainly not in favour of the public.
MR
Do you mean Henry II or Henry 94
Ernest
Haven’t the Tories promised to abolish Inheritence tax on property ?
David,
the civil partnership laws Ireland is planning to introduce wouldn’t let this happen. Siblings and co-habiting couples could also form civil partnerships.
This seems to me like the British government deciding it wanted the cash of people like these. They could have legislated for situations like this.
Colm,
Promises, promises, – I bet you stiil believe in Father Christmas…
If they abolish what is called Inherinace tax, they will replace it with something akin to a windfall tax. That’s what I was referring to with the "very ‘imaginative way’", remark…
Ernest
I was only mentioning that they had said they would do so, not that I believe necessarily they will honour it. I don’t have a high opinion of politicians, Labour or Tory, I mean remember all the things Tony Blair promised in 1997…
<Q>Do you mean Henry II or Henry 94</Q>
Are you trying to get me in trouble Colm ?
Henry II was a man of action – no skulking hundreds of miles away in a foreign country for him!
Chris is very radical! But he needs to remember how Henry II blotted his copybook
remind me MR
Chris – he allegedly said something along the lines of "The Archbishop of Canterbury who advised them should be shot"
Mad
Now I get you.
PS – No need to say allegedly , He’s been dead several hundred years. No need to fear a libel action no matter how clever lawyers can be
was he right?
Colm – discussions with lawyers make me uneasy, so at this stage I’ll withdraw claiming a moral victory!
a moral victory against who?
The legal profession
I mean – an hour of discussion and no Bill ?
Unheard of!
you always pay in the end MR, one way or another!
LOL Chris – It’s been a strange month – I heard it was so cold in Belfast that a Lawyer was seen with his hands in his OWN pockets!
Better his hands in his own pockets than up a cows a***
Vets are the real crooks!
Every job has it’s perks Chris
So this thread started of about the financial predicament of 2 virgin (presumably) spinsters, and ended up with comments about fisting cows! A Tangled web indeed!
Noli Umquam sed Bilgequam Colm!
Mad
Don’t know what that means but it sounds filthy!
It’s dog latin (boom boom!) for "Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it"
My lips are sealed !
until you’ve tried what exactly?
On second thoughts, best not.
If the house is in joint ownership does inheritance tax even come into it? I plead my total ignorance of tax and such matters.
<Q>We know what the leftie game is. You didn’t want gay marriages becasue of discrimination, you wanted them for the damage that would be done to the institution of marriage.</Q>
Unsurprisingly neither Pete_London nor anyone else has attempted (or been able?) to answer Colm’s question as to how gay marriage is at all harmful to "the institution of marriage."
Neal,
"Unsurprisingly neither Pete_London nor anyone else has attempted (or been able?) to answer Colm’s question as to how gay marriage is at all harmful to "the institution of marriage."
Indeed. Maybe the objectors have a personal interest. After all, if there were to be no difference between the treatment of gays and non-gays, then perhaps they might be tempted themselves? Or perhaps they fear their wives might no longer have a reason not to jump the fence.
Is Gay Rights Supreme anything like the chicken dish?
>>as married couples, or homosexuals who form a civil partnership<<
I once knew two real heavy Hells-Angel-type gays who lived together for years, and all I can say is if that was a civil partnership I’d hate to see an uncivil one.
Aileen,
Did you mean [Chicken and] Wild Rights Supreme?
http://www.plank-road.com/cookbook/viewrecipe.php?id=1104874330
2 cups cooked chicken, cubed
1/3 c. mushrooms, chopped
1/3 c. onion, chopped
1/2 stick butter
1/3 c. flour
1 box Uncle Ben’s long grain and wild rice, prepared according to package instructions
1 c. chicken broth
1 c. cream (or another 1 c. chicken broth)
1/3 c. water chestnuts, chopped
Alan
Would Gay Rights do instead of the chicken?
The gulf of the Atlantic is evident in the recipe, with the use of cups.
My grandmother had a recipe for punch that was much admired, but no one had got it from her before she died. After her death, they made an exciting discovery, the hand written recipe, unfortunatley it was worse than having it in cups which at least would be proportionate. It was 3d worth of this and 4d with of that etc. Oh for the days of little inflation ;o)
BTW "d" is old pennies as in £ s d., which I would like to pretend was before my time.
Speaking ot the Atlantic Gulf, we are the Republic that still uses Imperial measures. None of yer d*mned metrics here!
We also still use pictures of black people on our food products, like Uncle Ben’s Rice and Aunt Jemima’s Maple Syrup. On the other hand (and to answer a question from another forgotten thread) do y’all still have pitctures of the Queen on yer postage stamps?
Alan
on the bog standard ones yes that’s bacically all there is. On the others there is a gold silloette of her. You’ve just reminded me of the Christmas cards that I haven’t yet written, never mind sent and I haven’t got the EU stamps and can;t be bothered to queue to get them so I’ll just get 2nd class bog standard non christmas ones and whack them on.
and then there’s the presents…….and….. and…