It's impossible to get the government out of marriage

[Nobody]

Whenever the subject of gay marriage is debated, there are those who ask why government is involved with marriage at all. The reason is because we the people have drug it in, and it's too deeply entrenched to be taken out.

Let's say a couple divorces and a property dispute erupts over who keeps what. How would you resolve it? Take it to court? Courts make rulings based on law. Law comes from governments. Thus, remove the government from marriage, and there will be no laws for the courts to rule on.

Or say someone dies, and doesn't leave a will. The spouse will claim that they automatically inherit everything, or almost everything. But what if a child of the deceased claims the inherence? How do you settle that without marriage laws?

What about child custody disputes? Again, who gets primary custody, and who only gets visitation, is determined by courts, who, again, rule on laws, which are passed by governments. If the state and federal governments have nothing to do with marriage, how would disputes like this be resolved?

Also, a big reason that gay and lesbian couples want state sanctioned and recognized marriages, is so that they can gain certain legal privileges and protections granted to married heterosexual couples. But take the government out of it, and now, not only do the heterosexual couples loose government protection, the governments (state and or federal) would no longer be in a position to grant them to homosexual couples since they would be having nothing to do with marriages any more.

[BrotherCadfael]

Most of the proposals I have heard for "getting the government out of marriage" would replace the legal concept of marriage with some form of "domestic partnership" which provides the legal framework for community property, inheritance, child custody & support, et complex cetera.

Under this concept, "marriage" would be entirely a religious concept, between the parties and their church, if any. Hence, the government is out of marriage, but heavily involved in the legal and financial affairs of the parties through the "civil union".

There are no serious proposals to "get the government out of marriage" by repealing the whole concept.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by uhluhtcdaerd

Well, you could reduce governments roll in marriage, if people would simply create their own personalized contracts covering the stuff you mentioned when they enter into a relationship, rather than having a "once size fits all" approach of government sanctioned marriage. And there you don't HAVE to have relationships have special rights in the name of the law, just treat everyone as individuals.

The problem with that is that a contract only binds the parties to it; it doesn't bind anyone else. Marriage is a status that confer rights that are good against all the world.

For example, suppose Joe and Mary are married. If Joe is seiriously injured in a car accident, Mary would have the primary decision-making power, and unless she abused that power, no-one else could object. But if all Joe and Mary have is a contract that just binds them, and Joe is injured, then Joe's blood relatives have a stronger claim in law to decide Joe's treatment and so on.

Same with intestacy - if Joe and Mary are married, and Joe dies without a will, Mary gets a certain amount, as a matter of law. If they're not married, a contractual agreement between them may not defeat the claims of Joe's blood relatives under intestacy laws.

The other problem is that if marriage is left to churches, then couples who do not have religious beliefs (or do not have compatible beliefs that would allow a religious ceremony) would not be able to get married.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael

Most of the proposals I have heard for "getting the government out of marriage" would replace the legal concept of marriage with some form of "domestic partnership" which provides the legal framework for community property, inheritance, child custody & support, et complex cetera.

Which is exactly the way things work now. You'd just be replacing the term "marriage" with the term "domestic partnership".

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael

Most of the proposals I have heard for "getting the government out of marriage" would replace the legal concept of marriage with some form of "domestic partnership" which provides the legal framework for community property, inheritance, child custody & support, et complex cetera.

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, no? I don't understand what difference does it make whether it's called a domestic partnership or a marriage when they both boil down to the same thing.

Under this concept, "marriage" would be entirely a religious concept, between the parties and their church, if any. Hence, the government is out of marriage, but heavily involved in the legal and financial affairs of the parties through the "civil union".

Marriage has never bene entirely a religious concept in western civilization. In fact religion doesn't have to play any part in marriage in the United States.

Marc

[Wrenchslinger]

Originally Posted by uhluhtcdaerd

Well, you could reduce governments roll in marriage, if people would simply create their own personalized contracts covering the stuff you mentioned when they enter into a relationship, rather than having a "once size fits all" approach of government sanctioned marriage. And there you don't HAVE to have relationships have special rights in the name of the law, just treat everyone as individuals.

People already have these sort of informal, "personalized" contracts. The understanding that exists between two people who choose to engage in some kind of emotional commitment is a kind of understanding between two separate parties. Therefore it is a kind of contract.

BUT it is not a legally binding one. And for all of the reasons above stated (and many more I'm sure) legal recognition is vitally important. The law and government (as the body which creates and enforces the law) exist solely as a way to resolve disputes between two parties. George is in a coma, his partner wants to keep him on life support, his parents want him to die naturally. Who has final say in this matter? Will your "personalized contracts" take this into account? Will they take into account every possible crisis and conflict that can come about?

You know what marriage really is? When it comes right down to it marriage is all about saying I choose this person to be the most important person in my life. The wishes and rights of my partner come before everyone else's. They have the ultimate say in every matter for which I can't speak myself. I wonder how many young people would rush into unwise choices if they realized that?

And stop hating on government so much. Just think how bad life would be without it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by uhluhtcdaerd

Both cases can be handled by simply making voluntary contracts override the concerns of blood relatives. And include in the contracts what will happen if one party dies or is incapicitated. Simple as pie.

That pie is anything but simple. Marriage is a status, not simply the result of a contract, and it covers by default a wide variety of circumstances. Trying to do away with it and replace it with simple contract law will require dozens or hundreds of extra inclusions. A legal contract trying to cover all the bases currently absorbed by marriage could run to hundreds of pages, trying to spell out exactly what should happen under every imaginable circumstance.

Besides, as has been pointed out already, you can't "make" a voluntary contract override the concerns of blood relatives or anyone else. John and Mary (or Adam and Steve, for that matter) can sign whatever contract they like, but how does that compel a third party (a relative of one of the contractees, an employer considering extending health benefits to a worker's "spouse", a probate judge, a child-services social worker, etc.) to play along with any of the terms?

Once a couple gets marital status, though, the courts, government agencies, and regulated insurance companies cannot ignore that status.

If marriage was just a matter of property rights, then forming a standard legal partnership (or even a corporation) with two members would suffice. Except it isn't.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by uhluhtcdaerd

Both cases can be handled by simply making voluntary contracts override the concerns of blood relatives. And include in the contracts what will happen if one party dies or is incapicitated. Simple as pie.

The general rule is that private parties cannot contract out of public statutes, unless the statute itself allows for it.

Suppose you have a statute for substituted decision-making in the case of someone on life support that says something like this:

"In the event a person is not capable of giving consent to medical treatment, the following people have the power to decide:

a) the person's legally married spouse;

b) if the person is unmarried, the person's parents;

c) if the person is unmarried and the person's parents are not alive, the person's siblings."

If Joe and Mary aren't married, and Joe's in a coma, then Mary has no legal power to make a decision, regardless of what any private contract says. The statute gives that right to Joe's parents or siblings. Joe and Mary can't by contract take that statutory right away from Joe's parents or sibs (unless the statute itself had a clause recognising such contracts).

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by Wrenchslinger

George is in a coma, his partner wants to keep him on life support, his parents want him to die naturally. Who has final say in this matter? Will your "personalized contracts" take this into account? Will they take into account every possible crisis and conflict that can come about?

If George gives a living will and durable power of attorney to his partner, his parents have no say in the matter. The law already provides for this. For the most part, you can right now by contract or other means accomplish most of what the law currently confers to married couples. And many gay couples do just that. About the only thing right now you can't do via contract is survivor benefits for Social Security and government pensions (although some states and municipalities do that too).

That's why most of the arguments being made in this debate are about societal recognition of the relationship.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

If George gives a living will and durable power of attorney to his partner, his parents have no say in the matter. The law already provides for this. For the most part, you can right now by contract or other means accomplish most of what the law currently confers to married couples. And many gay couples do just that. About the only thing right now you can't do via contract is survivor benefits for Social Security and government pensions (although some states and municipalities do that too).

That's why most of the arguments being made in this debate are about societal recognition of the relationship.

I'm afraid that's completely incorrect.

Please see here for a report from the General Accounting Office listing 1049 "federal laws
in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital
status." They categorize them thus:

Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws

Please take a good look through this document. It really gives an excellent picture of the scope of the rights and privileges gained by signing a marriage license. The same package would be simply unattainable by contract.

I could care less about societal recognition of my marriage. Just recently, my partner and I had to give up our plan to buy the house we currently rent because without the ability to file taxes jointly, the interest deductions wouldn't have been sufficient to justify the purchase. The inability to be married under the law affects us in significantly detrimental ways, and it does so frequently.

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

I'm afraid that's completely incorrect.

OK, why don't you explain to me how gays are denied the benefit of Intellectual Property laws and Indian laws. Because I can tell you as a practicing IP lawyer who has studied Indian law pretty extensively, they aren't.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

If George gives a living will and durable power of attorney to his partner, his parents have no say in the matter. The law already provides for this.

You assume that every jurisdiction in North America has the same laws for living wills and durable powers of attorney. There can be considerable variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on whether these provisions are available.

As well, these types of things can in some cases be challenged by next of kin of the deceased, on grounds such as undue influence, mental incapacity and so on, in a way that the marriage status cannot be. In the case of an individual whose family has never accepted the relationship, which does happen for gay & lesbian couples, the illness or death of one partner can trigger litigation by the family trying to set aside the contractual arrangments to exclude the partner. It's not unknown for that to happen in the case of a married couple as well, but the burden on those trying to wrest control away from a spouse is much greater.

Some time ago, there was a thread here with a link to a news story of a gay couple that illustrated this point. (In consideration of the hamsters, I'm not going to try to search it out.) They had been in a long-term relationship when one of them died. The parents of the deceased had never accepted the relationship and were able to claim his body, over the objections of his partner. The parents held a funeral at an unknown location and refused to tell the surviving partner where they had buried him. Can you imagine the heartbreak not to even know where one's deceased love is buried? That simply could not happen if the couple were married.

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

You assume that every jurisdiction in North America has the same laws for living wills and durable powers of attorney. There can be considerable variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on whether these provisions are available.

Sure, and their are variations in state laws as to the rights of married people. So what? If you don't like your state laws on living wills, write your state rep.

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

As well, these types of things can in some cases be challenged by next of kin of the deceased, on grounds such as undue influence, mental incapacity and so on, in a way that the marriage status cannot be.

Right. A devise to a spouse has never be and can't be challenged in court for undue influence. Tell that to Anna Nicole Smith........

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

In the case of an individual whose family has never accepted the relationship, which does happen for gay & lesbian couples

To straights too. Particularly when it is a wealthy family and the spouse is considered a "gold-digger" or "gigolo"

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Some time ago, there was a thread here with a link to a news story of a gay couple that illustrated this point. (In consideration of the hamsters, I'm not going to try to search it out.) They had been in a long-term relationship when one of them died. The parents of the deceased had never accepted the relationship and were able to claim his body, over the objections of his partner. The parents held a funeral at an unknown location and refused to tell the surviving partner where they had buried him. Can you imagine the heartbreak not to even know where one's deceased love is buried? That simply could not happen if the couple were married.

Did the deceased have a will?
And it can happen to married straights if the deceased directs the parents in his/her will to be responsible for the estate.

[AZCowboy]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

As well, these types of things can in some cases be challenged by next of kin of the deceased, on grounds such as undue influence, mental incapacity and so on, in a way that the marriage status cannot be.

Try explaining that to Michael Schiavo. Or with regards to inheritance, ask Anna Nicole Smith.

To MGibson's point, the difference is simply politics. Those who don't place religious value on marriage could care less (about what the state calls their relationship), provided their legal protections aren't eroded.

But a substantial portion of the population considers marriage "sacred" based on religious tradition, not legal tradition. Changing the legal reference to "domestic partnership" allows all equal protection under the law, but preserves the religious sanctity of marriage.

[Nobody]

Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael

Most of the proposals I have heard for "getting the government out of marriage" would replace the legal concept of marriage with some form of "domestic partnership" which provides the legal framework for community property, inheritance, child custody & support, et complex cetera.

Under this concept, "marriage" would be entirely a religious concept, between the parties and their church, if any. Hence, the government is out of marriage, but heavily involved in the legal and financial affairs of the parties through the "civil union".

There are no serious proposals to "get the government out of marriage" by repealing the whole concept.

What about external factors like health benefits? What would there be to make your boss give your domestic partner benefits? They wouldn't have to sign the contract. And without the weight of the government telling them that they must honor the domestic partnership, the employer might find it cheeper to only insure the employee.

Or, say the government got involved a little and said that employers must now treat domestic partnerships the way it use to treat marriages. Now that you've eliminated the need to buy a marriage license and find someone with power invested by the state to marry people, and now that you've eliminated difficulties and possible repercussions of getting a divorce, it would be too easy to make up contracts saying X and Y are now domestic partners, purely in order to gain medical insurance for one of the partners.

To guard against this, the government would need to define what kind of contracts are valid domestic partnership contracts, and which ones aren't. But wait, that defeats the whole purpose of the people deciding for themselves what a marriage is.

Let's say you view marriage benefits as flowers, and the government as a weed you want to pull out. The "weed's" roots are too deep and entangled around the roots of the flowers. You pull out the weed and you're going to rip out most or all of the flowers along with it.

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by Joel

What about external factors like health benefits? What would there be to make your boss give your domestic partner benefits? They wouldn't have to sign the contract. And without the weight of the government telling them that they must honor the domestic partnership, the employer might find it cheeper to only insure the employee.

The employer doesn't have to insure you, or your spouse, or your partner. But in fact, most big corporations actually allow "domestic partner" benefits that aren't contingent on marriage.

And how's this for irony:

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archi...20030319a.html

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

OK, why don't you explain to me how gays are denied the benefit of Intellectual Property laws and Indian laws. Because I can tell you as a practicing IP lawyer who has studied Indian law pretty extensively, they aren't.

It's not that gays are denied the benefit of Intellectual Property laws or Indian laws. It's that certain provisions of Intellectual Property law and Indian law apply to married couples and not to unmarried couples, and that couldn't be remedied by contract:

For one example, in the document, under "Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property"

The Copyright Act gives renewal rights and termination rights, in some
circumstances, to the widow or widower of the creator of a copyrighted work. The law defines "widow or widower" as the creator's surviving spouse under the law of the creator's domicile at the time of his or her death, whether or not the spouse subsequently remarries.

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

It's not that gays are denied the benefit of Intellectual Property laws or Indian laws. It's that certain provisions of Intellectual Property law and Indian law apply to married couples and not to unmarried couples, and that couldn't be remedied by contract.

I had a professor in law school who used to always say "The first thing you should do is read the statute.

Here's what 17 USC says on renewals:

304(C) In the case of any other copyrighted work, including a
contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a
cyclopedic or other composite work -
(i) the author of such work, if the author is still living,
(ii) the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the
author is not living,
(iii) the author's executors, if such author, widow, widower,
or children are not living, or
(iv) the author's next of kin, in the absence of a will of the
author,
shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in
such work for a further term of 67 years.

So if you are a gay copyright holder, and you want to pass the renewal rights on to your partner, all you have to do is make a will devising your copyrights to your partner.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

OK, why don't you explain to me how gays are denied the benefit of Intellectual Property laws and Indian laws. Because I can tell you as a practicing IP lawyer who has studied Indian law pretty extensively, they aren't.

Well, how about instead you explain to me how gays can legally obtain all of those 1049 benefits and priveleges the GAO report listed. Please include a detailed estimate of the legal fees involved in each step.

Keep in mind that, once you've gone beyond the usual $100 or so in fees, you've already found a major disparity in how heterosexual and homosexual couples are treated under the law.

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

Well, how about instead you explain to me how gays can legally obtain all of those 1049 benefits and priveleges the GAO report listed. Please include a detailed estimate of the legal fees involved in each step.

Well, if you'd have read just the header on the report you cited, you'd have seen that it doesn't purport to discuss "benefits and privleges":

GAO found that: (1) it conducted searches for various words or word
stems chosen to elicit marital status, in several electronic databases
that contain the text of federal laws; (2) this collection of laws is as
complete and representative as can be produced by a global electronic
search of the kind GAO conducted; (3) its data include only laws
classified to the United States Code; and (4) no conclusions can be
drawn from its identification of a law as one in which marital status is
a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married people versus
single people.

So you are citing to a word search the GAO did for the words "spouse" "widow" and the like through the entire US Code. That means nothing at all about whether the 1049 "hits" they came up with confer any benefit to a married that aren't also available to singles, gays, polygamists, or space aliens.

As I demonstrated with the copyright law cite (which was the only specific one anyone here pointed to), it is a load of bunk to say that gays are somehow denied rights under the statute. I challenge anyone here to point to a intellectual property or Indian law that confers a benefit on marrieds that singles or gays cannot exercise.

[KellyM]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

So if you are a gay copyright holder, and you want to pass the renewal rights on to your partner, all you have to do is make a will devising your copyrights to your partner.

No, that won't work. If you go back and re-read the statute, you will see that legatees are not listed. In fact, the order of descent is author, then widow(er), then children, then executor(s), then finally next of kin. Legatee is nowhere on that list, and if you have children naming your partner as your executor will be ineffective as your children will get it before your named executor. This is the exact opposite of the treatment that would arise if your partner was considered your spouse, and cannot be rectified by any permissible voluntary act by the author.

Care to play again?

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

Well, if you'd have read just the header on the report you cited, you'd have seen that it doesn't purport to discuss "benefits and privleges":
...
So you are citing to a word search the GAO did for the words "spouse" "widow" and the like through the entire US Code. That means nothing at all about whether the 1049 "hits" they came up with confer any benefit to a married that aren't also available to singles, gays, polygamists, or space aliens.

A partial quote. How interesting.

From a few paragraphs before the one you listed:

In connection with the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act, you
asked us, in your September 5, 1996, letter, to identify federal laws
in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital
status. Your staff agreed that we should identify more generally all
those laws in the United States Code in which marital status is a
factor, even though some of these laws may not directly create
benefits, rights, or privileges.

To find laws that meet these criteria, we conducted searches for
various words or word stems ("marr," "spouse," "widow," etc.), chosen
to elicit marital status, in several electronic databases that contain
the text of federal laws. From the collection of laws in the United
States Code that we found through those searches, we eliminated (1)
laws that included one or more of our search terms but that were not
relevant to your request[2] and (2) as agreed with your staff, any
laws enacted after the Defense of Marriage Act. The result is a
collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code
in which marital status is a factor.

Because of the inherent limitations of any computer search[3] and the
many ways in which the laws in the United States Code may have dealt
with marital status, the only way to create an exhaustive list of laws
in the Code implicating marital status would be to read and analyze
the Code in its entirety. We believe that such an effort would not
generate substantially more useful information than we have provided
here.

Now, how about it? Give me a detailed method that I can use to secure all the rights, responsibilities and privileges conferred upon married couples for my union with my boyfriend. The document I supplied should be an adequate guideline for the federal part of things. Also, we live in Arizona, if that'll help with the state laws. Give me a picture of how long it will take to get contractually married, in time and dollars. After all, you keep asserting it's possible to do so; outlining the procedure involved should be pretty simple.

Especially if it's going to be just as easy as going down to the courthouse and signing a marriage license.

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

A partial quote. How interesting.

From a few paragraphs before the one you listed:


Now, how about it? Give me a detailed method that I can use to secure all the rights, responsibilities and privileges conferred upon married couples for my union with my boyfriend. The document I supplied should be an adequate guideline for the federal part of things. Also, we live in Arizona, if that'll help with the state laws. Give me a picture of how long it will take to get contractually married, in time and dollars. After all, you keep asserting it's possible to do so; outlining the procedure involved should be pretty simple.

Especially if it's going to be just as easy as going down to the courthouse and signing a marriage license.

Sorry, chief, but the argument here was that the GAO report establishes that gays are denied a multitude of federal rights that marrieds aren't. And the GAO report doesn't support that. Not by a long shot. And you have yet to point to a single of the 1049 word search hits that support your contention (although I've already conceded at least one, which is that Social Security gives survivor rights that neither a gay couple, nor an unmarried straight couple, would be able to make use of).

Sure, going to the courthouse is easy. Filling out a will, a living will, and a durable power of attorney is not too difficult either. In fact, you can pick up forms for doing it in lots of office supply stores or from places like Nolo Press. And guess what -- as a single person with no kids, if I don't want the people who are legally recognized as my heirs in intestacy or my guardians in the case of incapacity (in both cases, my parents), then I have to do exactly the same thing. Or else, a result I don't like might happen if I die or am incapacitated.

If you think that is too inconvenient, fine -- lobby your Arizona state rep to put in place laws for guardianship and intestacy that make it easier for you to register with the government your desires.

Or else be honest and address what the issue really is here -- it isn't that you don't like that a bunch of statutes say "spouse" or "widow/widower" and therefore you're getting screwed by the government out of rights. Its that you want your government and US society to embrace your relationship, both legally and morally, with the same respect as they do a marriage between straights. And you think that any social or religious belief that says that only one man and only one woman can be joined in matrimony is outdated, prejudiced, wrong, and not worthy of society's respect or the government's imprimatur.

It's when I see that argument come out that I'll start giving props to the advocates for gay marriage.

[Glory]

That's an interesting op, but I'd much rather get religion out of marriage.

[Nobody]

Originally Posted by Glory

That's an interesting op, but I'd much rather get religion out of marriage.

That's possible right now. Just get married by a justice of the peace. Bada bing bada bang, no religion.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

Sorry, chief, but the argument here was that the GAO report establishes that gays are denied a multitude of federal rights that marrieds aren't.

Actually, the argument you made was, specifically:

If George gives a living will and durable power of attorney to his partner, his parents have no say in the matter. The law already provides for this. For the most part, you can right now by contract or other means accomplish most of what the law currently confers to married couples. And many gay couples do just that.

(Emphasis added).

I'm asking you to back up this contention. I've even provided a GAO report that should be of some help in establishing the federal regulations that pertain to marriage. If it's anywhere near as simple as getting married is, it shouldn't take you long to give me a set of guidelines that I'll need to secure my relationship's equal status with marriage under the law.

Oh, if you don't mind, please include the contract that we'll need to sign to be able to file federal taxes jointly. State and federal.

Thanks!

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

I challenge anyone here to point to a intellectual property or Indian law that confers a benefit on marrieds that singles or gays cannot exercise.

There are Hopi and Navajo life estates. The Hopi and Navajo reservations overlap, and both tribes claim some of the land, and have tried to evict members of the other tribe living there. So, to settle it, Congress passed a law better defining the borders, and establishing life estates for Hopi living on Navajo land, and Navajo living on Hopi land (giving them the right to live on their land until their death).

According to 25 CFR 700.339

No person may reside on a life estate lease other than the life tenant,
his or her spouse, and minor dependents and such persons who are necessarily present, as determined by the Commission, to provide for the care of the life tenant.

[schplebordnik]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

Oh, if you don't mind, please include the contract that we'll need to sign to be able to file federal taxes jointly. State and federal.

You don't want to file jointly. You'll pay more taxes:
http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000519.htm

Jesus -- the government is discriminating against straights! Equal protection! Those liberals in Washington are bigoted against married straights!

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

You don't want to file jointly. You'll pay more taxes:
http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000519.htm

Jesus -- the government is discriminating against straights! Equal protection! Those liberals in Washington are bigoted against married straights!

Actually, we do want to file jointly, as we want to buy the house we currently rent. The interest deduction for either of us individually would not be sufficient to justify buying it; however, the deduction for our joint income would have been.

So, we continue to rent.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

Sure, and their are variations in state laws as to the rights of married people. So what? If you don't like your state laws on living wills, write your state rep.

Well, but that's not what you said initially. Here's your original assertion:

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

If George gives a living will and durable power of attorney to his partner, his parents have no say in the matter. The law already provides for this. For the most part, you can right now by contract or other means accomplish most of what the law currently confers to married couples.

But when I point out that you are not correct, you shift to the "change the law" mode. By doing that, you are essentially admitting that it is not possible to gain the equivalent status to marriage across North America.

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

Right. A devise to a spouse has never be and can't be challenged in court for undue influence. Tell that to Anna Nicole Smith........

I'm not talking about a devise to a spouse. I'm talking about the rights that a spouse automatically has under the laws of the particular jurisdiction, just by virtue of being the surviving spouse. Even if the next-of-kin are able to set aside particular devises that the deceased made to his or her spouse, they can't set aside the rights that the spouse has under the law of the particular jurisdiction, such as property rights, rights to care for the spouse, to make decisions about the spouse's care, and so on.

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

Did the deceased have a will?
And it can happen to married straights if the deceased directs the parents in his/her will to be responsible for the estate.

But as you've pointed out, wills can be set aside; marital status and the rights that flow from it cannot be.

Originally Posted by schplebordnik

Or else be honest and address what the issue really is here -- it isn't that you don't like that a bunch of statutes say "spouse" or "widow/widower" and therefore you're getting screwed by the government out of rights. Its that you want your government and US society to embrace your relationship, both legally and morally, with the same respect as they do a marriage between straights. And you think that any social or religious belief that says that only one man and only one woman can be joined in matrimony is outdated, prejudiced, wrong, and not worthy of society's respect or the government's imprimatur.

It's when I see that argument come out that I'll start giving props to the advocates for gay marriage.

That argument is being made, along with the arguments based on legal disabilities. The most recent article I saw that takes exactly that approach was in that bastion of radicalism, TIME magazine, by Andrew Sullivan. Since it's more than a week old, the whole thing isn't available on-line for free, but I'm sure you could find it in a public library: Why the M Word Matters to Me: Only Marriage Can Bring a Gay Person Home

[Futile Gesture]

Originally Posted by Joel

That's possible right now. Just get married by a justice of the peace. Bada bing bada bang, no religion.

Except religious concerns have, to date, dictated the legal restrictions on who you can marry.

Originally Posted by MGibson

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, no? I don't understand what difference does it make whether it's called a domestic partnership or a marriage when they both boil down to the same thing.

The value of the excellent suggestion of a "domestic partnership" is that it is not at all what we presently have called "marriage" because what we have called "marriage" is defined by religious law. And that by definition excludes same-sex. In the eyes of the government it shouldn't make the slightest difference what the sex of your proposed partner is, as long as they a legal adult in command of the mental facilities. It shouldn't matter any more than my gender matters when I apply for a driving licence. Or when I vote. Or if I commit a crime. The government should be gender-blind in all but a few issues where it really makes a difference. (e.g. maternity leave.)

Now, if the government wish to encourage procreation, then that's a different matter and should be given whatever tax-breaks deemed necessary with whatever attached conditions considered desirable on the production of offspring. (We don't want baby production to become a means of tax-avoidance. We want taxes to encourage responsible parenting.) But that's an entirely separate from partnership. I don't see why a couple require a different status in regards to the taxman simply because they have chosen a long-term relationship. That isn't changing their earnings.

So the answer is two-fold:

1/ Get religion out of legal recognision of partnership. If you want a religious dimension you are free and entitled to take your pick. Places of religion can provide the legal paper-work requirements for recognision of this with a dollop of religion on top to suit your personal tastes.

2/ Get the governmental tax-system out of partnership.