# Household Rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808 "2011-07-21T03:40:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/1 "2011-07-21T03:40:56Z")
Should many of the rights of marriage (such as filing joint tax returns or hospital visitation rights for example) be extended to any sort of househould where people live together-ie parent and child or siblings or friends. If these rights were extended to any sort of household it would solve many of the problems involved in the gay marriage debate for example. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/2 "2011-07-21T03:46:03Z")
But it would create other problems, wouldn’t it? There’s no obvious reason why, say, roommates who share accommodation for reasons of friendship or cost, but whose financial affairs are otherwise wholly separate and who in particular have no obligation to maintain one another, should be allowed to file joint tax returns. Still less is there any reason why they should expect to inherit one another’s property on intestacy. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/3 "2011-07-21T03:46:41Z")
It gets really complicated once more than two people are involved. All of the existing rules were written assuming a couple. The simplest solution is just to let gays and lesbians get married. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/4 "2011-07-21T03:50:05Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > But it would create other problems, wouldn’t it? There’s no obvious reason why, say, roommates who share accommodation for reasons of friendship or cost, but whose financial affairs are otherwise wholly separate and who in particular have no obligation to maintain one another, should be allowed to file joint tax returns. On the other hand it is unfair that say two brothers living together cannot file a joint tax income despite everything. And they’ll be only able to do so as long as they live together. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/5 "2011-07-21T03:53:04Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > It gets really complicated once more than two people are involved. All of the existing rules were written assuming a couple. The simplest solution is just to let gays and lesbians get married. That still doesn’t solve the problem for say siblings who live together. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/6 "2011-07-21T04:00:35Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > On the other hand it is unfair that say two brothers living together cannot file a joint tax income despite everything. And they’ll be only able to do so as long as they live together. If two lifelong bachelor brothers wanted to merge their finances, I agree that it would be fair to help them to do so. However, how often do such situations really occur? Laws should be designed around primary use cases, not rare and unusual exceptions. There are lots of gay couples who want to get married. Have any actual siblings spoken up in favor of the arrangement you’ve described? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/7 "2011-07-21T04:04:19Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > If two lifelong bachelor brothers wanted to merge their finances, I agree that it would be fair to help them to do so. However, how often do such situations really occur? Laws should be designed around primary use cases, not rare and unusual exceptions. There are lots of gay couples who want to get married. Have any actual siblings spoken up in favor of the arrangement you’ve described? Yes actually. My uncle and aunt (who are siblings) live together with my grandmother. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/8 "2011-07-21T04:12:33Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Yes actually. My uncle and aunt (who are siblings) live together with my grandmother. And they’ve expressed a desire to merge their finances and otherwise submit to the standard restrictions and duties we impose upon married couples? So, for example, if at some point in the future they would have no objection to being required to file for divorce if they decided to live separate lives? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/9 "2011-07-21T04:18:39Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Should many of the rights of marriage (such as filing joint tax returns or hospital visitation rights for example) be extended to any sort of househould where people live together-ie parent and child or siblings or friends. If these rights were extended to any sort of household it would solve many of the problems involved in the gay marriage debate for example. You aren’t far off. If we insist on making marriage a government function (not something I agree with), and as a result bestow special privileges on a married couple, then no pair of people should be denied the opportunity to get married. That’s not the same as any providing 3 or more people the ability to marry though. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/10 "2011-07-21T04:21:46Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > If we insist on making marriage a government function … Marriage is already a government function. The fact that some religions choose to tack on additional ceremonies does not alter its legal status. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/11 "2011-07-21T04:37:20Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Marriage is already a government function. The fact that some religions choose to tack on additional ceremonies does not alter its legal status. Actually, marriage is a social reality which precedes both church and state, but which church and state both recognise and attribute significance to for their respective purposes. But marriage would be just as real even if they didn’t recognise it, which is why they both need to keep their recognition more or less in line with the social facts, or suffer the consequence of declining relevance. And it is this which will ultimately compel the state to recognise same-sex marriages. **Qin Shi Huangdi** , allowing your aunt, uncle and grandmother to file joint tax returns would not put them in a position analogous to that of a married couple. In the first place, if they want to merge their financial affairs they would also have to accept the financial obligations of marriage - the right/obligation to support one another financially, the power of the state to impose financial settlements on them should their household ever break up, etc. Secondly, even if they did that they wouldn’t be in a position analogous to a married couple. The point about marital rights and obligations is that they are _exclusive_. If I marry you, then I cannot also marry, say, **TriPolar** , and neither can you. So if your uncle has this marriage-like financial arrangement with your grandmother, then he cannot also have it with your aunt and, if he can, then it’s no longer marriage-like. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/12 "2011-07-21T04:42:49Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Marriage is already a government function. The fact that some religions choose to tack on additional ceremonies does not alter its legal status. I wasn’t talking about religion at all, and I know it’s already a government function, but I don’t think there should be a special class of marriage contracts. If there is some real societal need for a special contract of that nature, then any pair of people (of majority age) should not be excluded from it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/13 "2011-07-21T04:45:44Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > If I marry you, then I cannot also marry, say, **TriPolar** , and neither can you. I had no idea you guys felt this way. I’m flattered, but I have to decline. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/14 "2011-07-21T05:03:17Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I had no idea you guys felt this way. I’m flattered, but I have to decline. Well, :(. But at least my decsion between you and **Qin Shi Huangdi** is consderably simplified. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/15 "2011-07-21T05:42:29Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > It gets really complicated once more than two people are involved. All of the existing rules were written assuming a couple. The simplest solution is just to let gays and lesbians get married. > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > That still doesn’t solve the problem for say siblings who live together. Fine. Siblings can get married too. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/16 "2011-07-21T06:19:08Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > … it would solve many of the problems involved in the gay marriage debate for example. But remember, only one side of that debate has any problems with gay marriage. And that side is not inclined to offer the solution you are proposing (because it would allow gays to marry). So this doesn’t really go anywhere. If you are flying a kite for the argument: [ul] [li]if gays can marry then households should be allowed to marry,[/li][li]letting households marry is unworkable,[/li][li]therefore gays can’t marry, then[/li][/ul] just say so and someone will be happy to shred that argument for you. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/17 "2011-07-21T07:56:22Z")
The California Domestic Partnership bill, as originally drafted, would have allowed any two adults living together to enter into a domestic partnership, granting them limited rights (although joint tax filing was not one of them). I think that remains an interesting idea that deserves consideration: to have both “marriage” and a more limited “domestic partnership”. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/18 "2011-07-21T08:10:11Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > The California Domestic Partnership bill, as originally drafted, would have allowed any two adults living together to enter into a domestic partnership, granting them limited rights (although joint tax filing was not one of them). I think that remains an interesting idea that deserves consideration: to have both “marriage” and a more limited “domestic partnership”. I think they’ve had such a system in France for a fair spread of years. **Clairobscur**? You there? ---
**Author:** ![HumanBear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@HumanBear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumanBear)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/19 "2011-07-21T08:25:16Z")
But I get the feeling that laws aren’t usually made by people deciding what would be fair or even what’s best, but by what’s required to solve a particular problem. The problem of siblings sharing finances is not a problem, who’s seriously saying they need to do that as they are feeling marginalized? Where for same sex marriage there are people who are not happy and who don’t feel they are part of society and they have successfully sold that message to many other people making it something that needs to be dealt with. We could all sit down and point at things that aren’t fair, but it would take millions of lawyers, judges and politicians to create a whole new set of laws to remove all unfairness, and it would ultimately be impossible and a thankless task. Meanwhile we try to focus on the things that are important now, and same sex marriage is one of things that we have decided is important at this moment in history. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808/20 "2011-07-21T09:47:15Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Should many of the rights of marriage (such as filing joint tax returns or hospital visitation rights for example) be extended to any sort of househould where people live together-ie parent and child or siblings or friends. If these rights were extended to any sort of household it would solve many of the problems involved in the gay marriage debate for example. Interestingly this was an argument put forward in parliamentary debate in the House of Lords of the Civil Partnership Bill in the UK, although it was perceived as an argument pushed by peers who were primarily opposed to the idea of ‘gay marriage’ and who were trying to muddy the issue at hand - which was giving gays equal rights to marriage. The House of Lords tabled an amendment to the bill as follows: > [@](#): > > On 24 June 2004, an amendment was passed at Report Stage that would widen the scope of the civil partnership scheme and allow close relatives (whether of the same sex or of the opposite sex) who are over the age of 30 and have been living together continually for 12 years to form a civil partnership. The Government rejected this amendment and overturned it in the Commons as it fundamentally changed the original purpose of the Bill. This was an example of the Commons flexing its muscle over the Lords. The Governments’ reason was thus: > [@](#): > > […] It has never been the Government’s policy to apply these provisions to the wider group who can form a civil partnership as a result of last week’s amendment. > > The Government are not able to give an adequate explanation of the policy underlying these further or additional changes or their legal effect and consistency with other provisions on the statute book or in the Bill. A further difficulty is that before introducing the Bill, the Government consulted widely about their plans for the new legal relationship and the legal rights and responsibilities which should attach to it. This fundamental change, without any additional consultation, deprives the Government of important background to policy making. > > Those considerations will also make it difficult for the Government to comment on other issues raised by the Bill and other amendments which have been tabled today. However, we shall attempt to describe the crucial issues in outline. In a few cases that has meant that we have not been able to table minor amendments because they are closely linked to the substantive amendment, which the Government have decided not to move, for the reasons that I have just explained. Which in a nutshell says it’s too complicated, we’ve already done our consultation and would have to do it again, and it would hold up passage of the bill, so stop trying to steal our ball. I think the problem that was argued by some was that it would be much more complicated to legislate, as relationships vary so wildly and the CP Act essentially mirrors the relatively straightforward marriage that unites a bonded couple into one unit rather than encompassing the vast complexities of human relations. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/household-rights/589808.md?page=2)