Dead State Troopers Family Denied Benefits

[CarmelHP]

These points were completely skipped over, its disturbing,maybe we should start to bash the U.S. Soldiers next saying that they don't deserve the millions of dollars they get in VET care after their service, after all its only a job, no different than a INGO Mod (or what ever).

But it's what you bargained for, if you unilaterally decide, after the service is over, that you don't like the bargain, that does not give an unlimited claim on the public treasury. And if it's a duty, rather than employment, why do you demand any extra that was bargained for when it was your duty to do?

 

[dross]

How the hell is it "bashing" or "denigrating" to talk about what should and shouldn't be someone's compensation? Do you deserve a million dollars a year? No! Do you deserve to make more than 10K a year? Yes! Now we're just talking about how much. When someone says other jobs aren't as dangerous, and that point is countered, it is NOT bashing or denigrating to point out what the actual numbers are.

I am happy and grateful there are people who have the ability and who are willing to take emergency responder jobs. I think it takes a rare skill set, and they are of incalculable value to society. The same is true of many other jobs. Now that I'm on the record with my sincere appreciation may I politely with ever so much respect, disagree on a couple of points without hurting anyone's feelings, or making anyone feel denigrated or bashed?

 

[Joe Williams]

If I come off as nasty, I apologize.
My passion for this subject is drawn from thirty eight years of living in that situation. I get somewhat angry when the ER's, and LEO's in particular, are denigrated for doing a job that most people are not willing, or capable, of performing. (See, there I go again. Sorry.)
Mike

Hasn't been a person in this thread denigrate LEO, firemen, or any other emergency responder. Merely pointing out that there are many other dangerous, and more dangerous jobs, out there isn't an attack, it's a simple reality.

 

[UncleMike]

Hasn't been a person in this thread denigrate LEO, firemen, or any other emergency responder. Merely pointing out that there are many other dangerous, and more dangerous jobs, out there isn't an attack, it's a simple reality.

OK
Mike

 

[Joe Williams]

Now, I will grant you this. People in all those other jobs get to run away from danger, if they can. Emergency responders have to run toward it... That in and of itself is worth a few bucks.

 

[dross]

If everyone's going to make nice, I'm leaving.

 

[Joe Williams]

If everyone's going to make nice, I'm leaving.

Your toenail polish just doesn't go with your skin tone.

Better?

 

[hornadylnl]

Once again I don't know where you are getting your "facts". Perhaps some of the ranking Officers in one of the four "big" cities in this state make $50K per year. The facts are that the majority of ER's in this State work for small towns and low revenue counties. The only way that they will ever see $50K per year is to make Chief of Police or ER Director. (Odds of that are pretty slim) Also everyone pays the 6% into the PERF but everyones monthly pension amount is based on the LOWEST persons salary. That $50K person that you mentioned will likely make $15K per year retired. Which means that he/she must get a private sector job to survive. Once again, the retiree will only get 1/3 of their calculated SS benefits because they are getting the monumental sum of $15K per year from PERF.
As far as longevity, the average length of life after retirement for an LEO is less than 20 yrs, and remember he/she is working in the private sector all of that time.
Yup, it takes a special person who wants to work all of their adult life in a dangerous job, that many of the Public despise, for a low dollar pension, that screws you out of 2/3 of your SS benefits.
That said, I don't regret for one minute having done that job for twenty three years. The personal satisfaction of having performed a worthwhile service to the community far outweighs the crappy things that happen.
And if you believe that I'm clouding the issue with emotion. Tough!!
YOU can do that job for a couple of decades and then come back and tell me how easy is was and how good the perks are.
Rant over.
Nuff said!!
Mike

I just picked $50k for an easy number. It just furthered my point by over estimating the salary.

So lets pick lower numbers. $35k x 6% = $2100 x 20 years = $42,000 paid in by the LEO. You said you draw $15,000 per year from PERF. How many years before your $42,000 dries up? Less than 3. I just did an interest calculator figure assuming you put your $42k in a lump sum up front. That would get you $282,555 with 10% interest. Divide that by $15,000 and you still get less than 19 years. Since your $42k is put in over the course of 20 years, you won't be anywhere near $282k.

 

[UncleMike]

I just picked $50k for an easy number. It just furthered my point by over estimating the salary.

So lets pick lower numbers. $35k x 6% = $2100 x 20 years = $42,000 paid in by the LEO. You said you draw $15,000 per year from PERF. How many years before your $42,000 dries up? Less than 3. I just did an interest calculator figure assuming you put your $42k in a lump sum up front. That would get you $282,555 with 10% interest. Divide that by $15,000 and you still get less than 19 years. Since your $42k is put in over the course of 20 years, you won't be anywhere near $282k.

OK.
Mike

 

[dross]

Your toenail polish just doesn't go with your skin tone.

Better?

And to think I painted them just for you.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If Kelly were a woman then they would have met the legal test in order to get married under Missouri state law, and therefore may have chosen to exercise that right. At this point it is pure conjecture, even on the part of Kelly, whether they would have married or not.

There are far more men cohabitating with women than men cohabitating with men or women cohabitating with women. Should all cohabitating couples get benefits? Does that not discriminate against non-cohabitating couples? What about someone that goes out on a first date and decides they just met the person they want to spend the rest of their life with? If they had an advocacy group as loud as GLADD or one of the other homosexual rights groups would they have benefits as well?

It is a strawman argument to say they would have gotten married. If they had wanted to, they needed only drive north a few hours and they could have married in Iowa. While such a marriage would not have been recognized in Missouri, it would have demonstrated intent, something that is missing in this case.

If Kelly were a woman they would not have been denied the right of marriage and would have been eligible for all the same rights.

 

[dross]

If Kelly were a woman then they would have met the legal test in order to get married under Missouri state law, and therefore may have chosen to exercise that right. At this point it is pure conjecture, even on the part of Kelly, whether they would have married or not.

There are far more men cohabitating with women than men cohabitating with men or women cohabitating with women. Should all cohabitating couples get benefits? Does that not discriminate against non-cohabitating couples? What about someone that goes out on a first date and decides they just met the person they want to spend the rest of their life with? If they had an advocacy group as loud as GLADD or one of the other homosexual rights groups would they have benefits as well?

It is a strawman argument to say they would have gotten married. If they had wanted to, they needed only drive north a few hours and they could have married in Iowa. While such a marriage would not have been recognized in Missouri, it would have demonstrated intent, something that is missing in this case.

If they had "demonstrated intent" it wouldn't have made on bit of difference as to Indiana law.

I'm not making the argument that cohabitating couples should get benefits, I'm making the argument that the state has no business deciding who you may or may not legally bind your life to. Right now, the state only recognizes that legal bind between two people of different sex.

Agree or disagree, but that is the issue.

 

[MTC]

Hmmm.
Whether the state is involved or not, marriage = a bond of matrimony between one man and one woman.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The argument is that they were gay so they couldn't marry, and since they couldn't marry, Kelly was denied benefits.

My point was there was no demonstrated intent that they would have even had they had the opportunity. They could have gotten married in Iowa, and Kelly could then have fought to have the marriage recognized in Missouri. They didn't. That's the issue in the current situation.

The state has an absolute responsibility to regulate marriage, and peripherally who has sex with whom. Siblings, parents and children, all the way out to first cousins can't marry legally. Underage children can't marry. A man can't marry his goat or sheep. It's also unlawful to have sex with anyone in the above situations. The state also disallows marriage to multiple people at the same time. The state rightfully regulates marriage to protect at risk members of the society the government was established to protect.

For thousands of years the state has used the one man and one woman to standard to define a married couple. There are other legal ways (living will, will, joint ownership, etc.) where the contract rights of non-married individuals may be confered without joining in Holy matrimony, which is what marriage is all about.

If they had "demonstrated intent" it wouldn't have made on bit of difference as to Indiana law.

I'm not making the argument that cohabitating couples should get benefits, I'm making the argument that the state has no business deciding who you may or may not legally bind your life to. Right now, the state only recognizes that legal bind between two people of different sex.

Agree or disagree, but that is the issue.

 

[dross]

The argument is that they were gay so they couldn't marry, and since they couldn't marry, Kelly was denied benefits.

My point was there was no demonstrated intent that they would have even had they had the opportunity. They could have gotten married in Iowa, and Kelly could then have fought to have the marriage recognized in Missouri. They didn't. That's the issue in the current situation.

The state has an absolute responsibility to regulate marriage, and peripherally who has sex with whom. Siblings, parents and children, all the way out to first cousins can't marry legally. Underage children can't marry. A man can't marry his goat or sheep. It's also unlawful to have sex with anyone in the above situations. The state also disallows marriage to multiple people at the same time. The state rightfully regulates marriage to protect at risk members of the society the government was established to protect.

For thousands of years the state has used the one man and one woman to standard to define a married couple. There are other legal ways (living will, will, joint ownership, etc.) where the contract rights of non-married individuals may be confered without joining in Holy matrimony, which is what marriage is all about.

Again, I said nothing about marriage. Because the state regulates against marrying animals or children or having sex with them, it does not follow that it should also regulate sex or a legal arrangement between consenting adults. And as far as I know, it's not illegal to have sex with a relative in most states.

Yes, they could make a contractual arrangement, but the state won't honor it.

 

[CarmelHP]

it's not illegal to have sex with a relative in most states.

It depends on what you mean by "relative." Most states have incest laws prohibiting sex, including between adults, who are within certain degrees of consanguinity.

 

[dross]

It depends on what you mean by "relative." Most states have incest laws prohibiting sex, including between adults, who are within certain degrees of consanguinity.

I didn't know that. I disagree with those laws as well.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Every state has a law against incest. Every state also has a law against bigamy and beastiality. Indiana's can be found at IC 35-46-1-3.

Incest

Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.

(b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if it was valid where entered into.

It is not illegal for two men to have sex anywhere in the US. Is is perfectly legal to name whomever you want a caretaker in a living will, unless you are married, in which case it will be your spouse. It is also perfectly legal to name anyone a beneficiary in your will. You can legally define succession in life insurance policies to persons you are not married to. You may enter into a contractual relationship (mortgage, auto loan, credit cards, etc.) and jointly own property with someone you are not married to.

The real issue is that homosexuals want to use the term "marriage" to legitimize and normalize their behavior and lifestyle choices. With but a couple exceptions, all rights conferred and attained under marriage are available inside a carefully-crafted contractual relationship.

Marriage laws protect the natural order and come from the time of Abraham. Laws shouldn't be changed because of devolving moral standards Laws should change when there is a legitimate public policy dictate. There is no legitimate public policy need to change marriage from the current definition.

Again, I said nothing about marriage. Because the state regulates against marrying animals or children or having sex with them, it does not follow that it should also regulate sex or a legal arrangement between consenting adults. And as far as I know, it's not illegal to have sex with a relative in most states.

Yes, they could make a contractual arrangement, but the state won't honor it.

 

[dross]

Every state has a law against incest. Every state also has a law against bigamy and beastiality. Indiana's can be found at IC 35-46-1-3.

Incest

Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.

(b) It is a defense that the accused person's otherwise incestuous relation with the other person was based on their marriage, if it was valid where entered into.

It is not illegal for two men to have sex anywhere in the US. Is is perfectly legal to name whomever you want a caretaker in a living will, unless you are married, in which case it will be your spouse. It is also perfectly legal to name anyone a beneficiary in your will. You can legally define succession in life insurance policies to persons you are not married to. You may enter into a contractual relationship (mortgage, auto loan, credit cards, etc.) and jointly own property with someone you are not married to.

The real issue is that homosexuals want to use the term "marriage" to legitimize and normalize their behavior and lifestyle choices. With but a couple exceptions, all rights conferred and attained under marriage are available inside a carefully-crafted contractual relationship.

Marriage laws protect the natural order and come from the time of Abraham. Laws shouldn't be changed because of devolving moral standards Laws should change when there is a legitimate public policy dictate. There is no legitimate public policy need to change marriage from the current definition.

What is your view on interracial marriage, and what was the public policy need to repeal those laws? For that matter, what was the public policy need to repeal the laws against consensual sex between members of the same sex?

And don't all of the above violate the "natural order"?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Just for a rhetorical follow-up then, Dross... theoretically then a) plural marriage of any variety should be sanctioned and b) I should be able to marry my donkey...

Just illustrating by carrying it to the logical conclusion...