It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You don't have to choose a lawyer to be your agent, but it is important to select someone you trust. The relative, friend or business you choose to be your Agent will be acting on your behalf regarding your financial or health care issues. You need to choose someone who won't abuse the powers you grant to them and will look out for your best interests.
In general, an agent is only held responsible for misconduct that's intentional, not for unknowingly doing something wrong. This type of protection is included in most power of attorney documents to help encourage people and organizations to accept the responsibility of being an Agent. Usually there is no financial incentive to serve as an Agent, most serve without compensation
Signing the Document
A power of attorney must be signed by the person granting the authority (known as the "Principal"). The Principal must be mentally competent at the time of the signing in order to make the document legally binding. If there is any question about the Principal's mental competence, a physician may be asked to certify in writing that the person understands the document and the consequences of signing the document.
The signature on a power of attorney should also be notarized. Notarization makes it harder for someone to challenge the validity of the signature. It also allows the document to be "recorded" for use with real estate transactions.
wheres your proof that it hasn't happened in these other countries?
Me: Show me where one of those countries has approved sexual abuse, sex with animals, or polygamy?
I'm still waiting for an answer.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.
thought you might also like to see that. Seems the supreme court has decided not to get involved in the issue.
Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa, California, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.
DOMA Section 2 is occasionally argued to be unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. Federal courts have been reluctant in the past to compel any state to apply the laws of another state when so doing would contravene its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.
DOMA Section 2 is occasionally argued to be unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. Federal courts have been reluctant in the past to compel any state to apply the laws of another state when so doing would contravene its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity. It would also prevent any state from legalizing same-sex marriages entered into within the state. Another alternative, endorsed by the 2004 Republican Party political platform, is for Congress to pass a law protecting DOMA from judicial scrutiny.
Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Originally posted by Mercenary2007
If you fight to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow same sex marriage you will lose since you will not get a majority vote to amend it.
The judges overstepped there bounds when the ruled against the ballot initiative.
The California supreme court decided they wanted to be activist and not remain nuetral and rule on the merits of the case.
If the supreme court ruled that only some jim crowe laws were unconstitutional they should have ruled they all were
And no they were not perfectly legal!
clearly the majority is on the side that same marriage should be between a man and a woman.
as for the health insurance do a little searching online for different plans and see for yourself.
as for the marriage tax breaks depending on the couples income.
See you were the one that stated as fact that those things have not occurred.
your fighting a loosing battle.
And Polls don't translate into votes my friend. and since the defense of marriage act has passed 30 states have banned same sex marriages clearly the majority so far hasn't agreed with you no matter what your polls say.
SACRAMENTO - As protesters took to the streets for a fifth day, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," he said about the same-sex marriage ban. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
Hundreds of protesters gathered near Saddleback Church in the Orange County city of Lake Forest as congregants attended services on the religious campus. The pastor of the megachurch brought Barack Obama and John McCain together last summer for a "faith forum."
In Oakland, a large protest at the city's Mormon temple led the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps to ensure pedestrian safety.
The pastor of the 4,000-member All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena spoke out against Proposition 8, calling the religious community's support of it "embarrassing." The church announced that while it could no longer legally marry same-sex couples, it would continue blessing gay civil unions.
"We will continue to bless same-sex unions here until we can legally celebrate same-sex unions again," the Rev. Ed Bacon told congregants. All Saints Episcopal has blessed same-sex unions for 16 years.
"It's very unfortunate and embarrassing that the [Christian religion] is in large part responsible for this act of bigotry," Bacon said.
I am glad to see that at least some 'sects' seem to be able to fully grasp the bigotry involved in amending the Law in this way.
The law that bans same sex marriage in Massachusetts was left intact!
In common law countries, such as the United States, and those with roots in the Commonwealth of Nations, judges have a number of powers which are not known to exist, or are not acknowledged to exist, in civil law legal systems, which collectively make the judiciary a more powerful political force than in civil law countries.
One of these powers is the "contempt of court" power. In a common law system, a judge typically has the power to summarily punish with a fine or imprisonment any misconduct which takes place in the courtroom, and to similarly punish violations of the court's orders, after a hearing, when they take place outside the courtroom. This power, in turn, may be used by common law judges to enforce orders for injunctive relief, which is a court order to take or refrain from taking some particular act, directed at the individual who must do so. This power is a vestige of authority that members of the nobility had when they personally presided over disputes between their subjects. It has the effect of giving common law country judges great power to fashion remedies, such as school desegregation orders and restraining orders directed at individuals. Civil law judges, in contrast, outside of specialized courts with narrowly delineated powers, generally lack contempt power or the power to impose injunctive relief.
Another power of every judge in the United States, generally right down to the level of the magistrate, is the power to declare a law unconstitutional and invalid, at least as applied in a particular case. In contrast, most civil law countries limit this power to a special constitutional court, and all other judges are required to follow the enacted laws, even if the judge personally believes those laws to be unconstitutional, in the absence of an order from the constitutional court. However, if a person believes that a law applied against them in court is unconstitutional, they can apply for consideration in the constitutional court and, if the law is indeed declared unconstitutional, file an appeal against the ruling based on the now-invalidated law.
section 300 defined marriage as:
a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. 
Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:
A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.
The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
What they did was completely legal.
I didn’t say the majority, yet, I said the trend of support is going our way, all polls and exit polls clearly show this.
I have, mostly I see the same things stated about civil unions. Your medical links don’t mention civil unions. The link I gave you goes over what families in civil unions deal with; one of the issues was medical. I have yet to see you post any links that tackle what you claim those in civil unions really go through medically. I’m still waiting, you've just been quoting a few medical sites that do not mention civil unions. Though I think you may be right about the medical issue in some states none of the medical statements you list mention civil unions, that is what we are discussing, can you find me one that counters that civil unions do not go through that trouble medically in every state they are legal in?
Just Google it, there are no sites that say “hey, we didn’t legalize any of those other things in this country after we allowed gay marriage” it just isn’t out there. They haven’t prepared for people to make stupid slippery slope assumptions that they need to defend. You made the “slippery slope” argument and I countered it, please produce proof that this argument is in any way valid with gay marriage, or drop it.
The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity.
Okay, how about Connecticut? Laws against gay marriage or imposing Civil Unions have been struck down in California and Connecticut this year.
I know, people try to make this about religion versus us but there are plenty of religious people and tolerant churches that grasp this situation.
They went against what the constitution says since sexual orientation is not a protcted class,
race is not a choice. gender isn't a choice when you are born but you can later choose to change your gender
they violated the very same constitution they are suppose to use not to mention violates Californias own law that was already on the books!
you provided old polls And just look at past elections for your proof (2000,2004) that you can't depend on exit polls or on younger voters under the age of 30. since usually most high school seniors and college students do not vote in elections.
since usually most high school seniors and college students do not vote in elections.
It soesn't matter if your gay or straight when it comes to power of attornies.
i said that it could open the door up to those possiblities and guess what it has.
So see i already proved you wrong on the issue!
Do you do any research on your own? once again the law In The state of Connecticut was left standing since it allowed civil unions it was the bill was amended to include marriage. theres a difference between being struck down and ordering an amendment esspecially since the law allowed civil unions.
And prop 8 wasn't struck down this year and so far prop 8 hasn't been struck down either. now are you going to continue posting statments that you know are false?
Conn. court overturns same-sex marriage ban
Maybe because YOU falsely accused people of being religious and only supported the ban because of their religion!
Wait, wasn’t race not a protected class when those laws were struck down as well?
They’re meant to interpret it as well are they not?
a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.
and another section governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:
A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.
Proved me wrong about what? You said a slippery slope is plausible, I said it was not and you have no evidence to support this. That quote is not evidence.
I wasn’t talking about Prop 8, you do know what happened before it was put to a vote right?
Correct, with you I did assume you were religious because you are so zealously against something that does not lawfully affect you.
so again whats your point?
A person cannot choose their race
Yes they are suppose to interprete it as long as their ruling does not violate laws already on the book
Tell me again just how you proved it wasn't possible again?
you might want to go look i corrected my mistake while you were repling
does lawfully effect me
Honestly have you seen the news lately?
people on your side
Like i've said before yes its unfair that gays can't marry, but after the actions of the last few days i'm beginning to feel they don't deserve the same priviledge as heteros. the saying the bad apples of the group ruin it for the rest really does happen!