Household Rights?

[HumanBear]

So Qin Shi Huangdi you’ve heard the arguments as to why household rights in general are not being granted, and they seem pretty reasonable to me. So have you changed your mind about this idea? Have you learnt anything? What do you think of the arguments so far?

[SanVito]

@HumanBear

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.

This was essentially what happened in the UK Civil Partnership Act. The Government identified a need to bring equal rights to gay couples and didn’t want to get bogged down in arguments about (a) how to give rights to all manner of ill-defined relationships or (b) the use of the word ‘marriage’ which would’ve made the bill much harder to pass.

[villa]

@SanVito

This was essentially what happened in the UK Civil Partnership Act. The Government identified a need to bring equal rights to gay couples and didn’t want to get bogged down in arguments about (a) how to give rights to all manner of ill-defined relationships or (b) the use of the word ‘marriage’ which would’ve made the bill much harder to pass.

Which is, of course, one of the major differences between England and the US when it comes to this.

The U.S. faces the problem that marriage is a traditionally speaking a matter of state law, but a very significant percentage of the rights which attach to married couples are granted by the federal government.

So the battle for equal rights is fought on two different levels here - getting the states to recognize the right to marry for gay couples, and also getting the federal government to extend the benefits it extends to married heterosexual couples to married gay ones too.

[hogarth]

@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. Still less is there any reason why they should expect to inherit one another’s property on intestacy.

A couple of “pseudo-married” roommates (like you’re talking about) are not really any different than a childless married couple.

[The_Hamster_King]

@hogarth

A couple of “pseudo-married” roommates (like you’re talking about) are not really any different than a childless married couple.

Of course there’s a difference. Marriage involves permanently joining your fortunes with another person, accepting joint responsibility, and creating an expectation of reciprocity. That goes far beyond merely sharing living quarters. Do you want your roommate making medical decisions for you? Inheriting your estate?

[Sailboat]

@Sandwich

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.

Yeah, this smells like an oblique attack on gay marriage. Where was the interest in “Household Rights” two years ago? Ten? Forty? A hundred? Because gay people have wanted to marry…well, probably since the first time a gay person attended a straight wedding. Whereas this is the first I’ve heard of “Household Rights,” the week the President supports repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.”

[Dangerosa]

@The_Hamster_King

Of course there’s a difference. Marriage involves permanently joining your fortunes with another person, accepting joint responsibility, and creating an expectation of reciprocity. That goes far beyond merely sharing living quarters. Do you want your roommate making medical decisions for you? Inheriting your estate?

I’m of the opinion that deciding that on the basis of who you have sex with is a rather silly thing. I should be able to create a reciprocal relationship with any other human being I want…if its my best friend, or my sister, or my widowed mother…that grants me at least some of the rights associated with marriage.

i.e. there should be some sort of simple reciprocity agreement that serves as a binding and official “next of kin” for people who choose to override the spouse/parents/siblings hierarchy. Barring documentation to the contrary, that is the person I want making medical decisions and inheriting my estate - regardless of whether we have sex, or even live together. I would leave property as a separate issue as long as both persons are alive and competent - they can sue each other about who gets the dining room set.

[Cheesesteak]

@The_Hamster_King

Marriage involves permanently joining your fortunes with another person, accepting joint responsibility, and creating an expectation of reciprocity. That goes far beyond merely sharing living quarters. Do you want your roommate making medical decisions for you? Inheriting your estate?

This is where I generally think that anyone should be able to form a marriage-equivalent civil partnership, with anyone else who is competent to agree. You only get one marriage partnership at a time.

People won’t do it willy-nilly because you are now “permanently” forming a social unit with the other person. Meet that special girl, you’ll have to let her know that you can’t marry her until you divorce your roommate. You better hope your roommie is a decent guy who isn’t going to see the divorce as a big cash grab, since you have a WAY better job, and tons more in the bank than his lazy ass.

Anything less than marriage-like permanence and interlinked responsibility is a give-away. Here, have many of the benefits of marriage, but none of the responsibility.

[ctnguy]

@SanVito

This was essentially what happened in the UK Civil Partnership Act. The Government identified a need to bring equal rights to gay couples and didn’t want to get bogged down in arguments about (a) how to give rights to all manner of ill-defined relationships or (b) the use of the word ‘marriage’ which would’ve made the bill much harder to pass.

Much the same thing happened in South Africa with the Civil Unions Act. Originally it also included all sorts of provisions for less-than-marriage registered domestic partnerships, but they were stripped out in committee because they were confusing the debate. (For constitutional reasons Parliament went the other way on using the word “marriage”, though.)

[The_Hamster_King]

@Dangerosa

I should be able to create a reciprocal relationship with any other human being I want…if its my best friend, or my sister, or my widowed mother…that grants me at least some of the rights associated with marriage.

“Some of the rights” … see there’s the problem. What you’re proposing is inventing an entirely separate parallel system of laws to handle these non-marriage reciprocal relationships. Which aspects of marriage do you keep and which do you throw away? How do you design your parallel system so that it doesn’t become an attractive alternative for couples that normally would just get married?

The opponents of gay marriage often claim that allowing gays to marry would undermine traditional marriage. But, I’ve never heard them explain exactly how. However what you’re proposing would absolutely undermine traditional marriage by creating a looser parallel system. Rather than requiring long-term partners to accept the entire package of rights and responsibilities as we do now, you’d be enticing them with the prospect of “marriage lite”, a way to get some parts of marriage without the whole thing. Inevitably a number of young heterosexual couples will choose “marriage lite” instead of traditional marriage.

The fact such an idea is being floated as a “solution” to the problem of gay marriage is merely evidence of the bankruptcy of the anti-gay-marriage position. Apparently in order to save marriage from the icky gays we have to destroy it as an institution.

[Dangerosa]

@The_Hamster_King

“Some of the rights” … see there’s the problem. What you’re proposing is inventing an entirely separate parallel system of laws to handle these non-marriage reciprocal relationships. Which aspects of marriage do you keep and which do you throw away? How do you design your parallel system so that it doesn’t become an attractive alternative for couples that normally would just get married?

The opponents of gay marriage often claim that allowing gays to marry would undermine traditional marriage. But, I’ve never heard them explain exactly how. However what you’re proposing would absolutely undermine traditional marriage by creating a looser parallel system. Rather than requiring long-term partners to accept the entire package of rights and responsibilities as we do now, you’d be enticing them with the prospect of “marriage lite”, a way to get some parts of marriage without the whole thing. Inevitably a number of young heterosexual couples will choose “marriage lite” instead of traditional marriage.

The fact such an idea is being floated as a “solution” to the problem of gay marriage is merely evidence of the bankruptcy of the anti-gay-marriage position. Apparently in order to save marriage from the icky gays we have to destroy it as an institution.

Why do you care if this becomes an attractive alternative to people who would otherwise get married? Married lite doesn’t seem to be a horrible thing to me, and I’d want the freedom to declare my friend over my family as next of kin (my family is fine, but not everyone’s is deserving of being automatically the person who gets to make medical decisions or inherit). There are already rights in place for single people that determine next of kin - I’m simply suggesting that you be able to make the delegation to whomever you want. Personally, I’d prefer that it be reciprocal, and it certainly needs to be accepted by the person you are giving it to.

[elbows]

Equivalent to married statute, in your tax code, and you’re done.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@The_Hamster_King

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?

I wouldn’t term it “divorce”, just ending household rights. And if they wish to merge their finances they should.

@TriPolar

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.

I didn’t say three people though.

@UDS

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.

I was talking about my uncle and aunt applying for household rights, just them. And in such cases I think it should be far easier to dissolve them then marriage.

@SanVito

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:

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:

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.

Well I see the problems in that. If the bill was proposed independently later on though wouldn’t it not hold up the bill’s passage?

[David42]

@TriPolar

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.

I do not find any argument for gay marriage that would not also apply to polygamy.

[Peremensoe]

@UDS

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.

I don’t see how exclusivity is the point, or has to be the only point.

@David42

I do not find any argument for gay marriage that would not also apply to polygamy.

Heck, I don’t find any argument for monogamous heterosexual marriage that would not also apply to polygamy.

[David42]

@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”.

This solves a host of problems in the nature of if-gays-get-it-we-get-it-too. Seems reasonable to me. But gays argue that they feel put down if its anything less than full equivalency with straight marriage, in the style of race relations. But their arguments as to why they are entitled to marriage seem to apply to any adults who censent without violating the rights of the other. It seems only children and beasts are left out by logic, as there is no consent. Anyone else in any domestic situation that is long term should also get benefits, but wouldn’t we have a hard time saying that two brothers are married?

I know two brothers and a sister who have lived together and benefit from it by saving money on bills for over ten years. Honestly, and with our current fiscal crisis in mind as well, I don’t think they deserve tax breaks, but some marital privileges might still be just. I don’t think either straight or gay married couples should get tax breaks if they aren’t raising kids, either. Getting a tax break for saving money by sharing expenses doesn’t make sense to me. Getting a tax break for added expenses does.

[Peremensoe]

@David42

I don’t think either straight or gay married couples should get tax breaks if they aren’t raising kids, either. Getting a tax break for saving money by sharing expenses doesn’t make sense to me. Getting a tax break for added expenses does.

I’m not sure that any of the personal arrangements mentioned in the thread should get tax breaks as such. If it’s support for families raising children that has the social value (and I think it does), another way to accomplish that is with public facilities to provide free or low-cost services that children and families can use.

[SanVito]

@David42

This solves a host of problems in the nature of if-gays-get-it-we-get-it-too. Seems reasonable to me. But gays argue that they feel put down if its anything less than full equivalency with straight marriage, in the style of race relations. But their arguments as to why they are entitled to marriage seem to apply to any adults who censent without violating the rights of the other.

No, our argument is that a gay couple is no different from a straight couple (which is distinctly different from two brothers). This argument that if gays can marry than anyone cohabiting can is a pretty weak attempt to continue to deny marriage rights to gay couples.

[Strassia]

@David42

This solves a host of problems in the nature of if-gays-get-it-we-get-it-too. Seems reasonable to me. But gays argue that they feel put down if its anything less than full equivalency with straight marriage, in the style of race relations. But their arguments as to why they are entitled to marriage seem to apply to any adults who censent without violating the rights of the other. It seems only children and beasts are left out by logic, as there is no consent. Anyone else in any domestic situation that is long term should also get benefits, but wouldn’t we have a hard time saying that two brothers are married?

The opposite sex couples barred from marriage are close relatives. You can marry any person of the opposite sex you want to as long as they are not first cousins (in some states) or closer relatives. Love and sex are not requirements. But they are the cultural norm.

Also, most of the benefits are supposed to be about forming a new family unit, which does apply to both straight and gays but not to siblings.

I know two brothers and a sister who have lived together and benefit from it by saving money on bills for over ten years. Honestly, and with our current fiscal crisis in mind as well, I don’t think they deserve tax breaks, but some marital privileges might still be just. I don’t think either straight or gay married couples should get tax breaks if they aren’t raising kids, either. Getting a tax break for saving money by sharing expenses doesn’t make sense to me. Getting a tax break for added expenses does.

What tax break are you talking about? My taxes went up when I married. From everything that I have seen you are better off living together unmarried when it comes to taxes. Especially if you are a couple of DINKs (dual income, no kids). The rates are such that married filing jointly your base rate is almost exactly the same as the two single people filing separately, but the phase out on deductions means you end up paying more.