Benefits, rights, and privileges of marriage?

[Carnivale Ed]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The military is the government.

Fine, the government then. Tell them not to pay married people more than singles, just like every other industry used to do. That actually is discrimination, it's just not an argument for the new contract system you're proposing.

And, as for people in ICUs, those seem like reasonable people to allow in and to be making decisions. That's my point entirely. Only in a minority of cases would this be different (and, if it is, other arrangements can already be made). Doesn't seem like a good enough reason to completely revamp marriage into some sort of other binding social contract.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I disagree that it's a minority of cases. Many, many, many people are estranged from or at odds with their families and families contest "other arrangements" all the time, based entirely on the assumptions you are making...that they are concerned and caring because they are immediate family.

And I don't want to revamp marriage, I want to disentangle it from the bureaucracy. I simply want all these assumptions and implied rights to be spelled out and codified, agreed to by each individual in a more explicit manner, as well as be afforded to those who choose not to marry.

The assumption that a spouse and family actually do care is in no way far-fetched and not at all unreasonable. Do dysfunctional families exist? Yes. Can you already limit the decision-making power they have over you? Yes, again. The moral of the story is, if your marriage goes south, get your affairs in order.

You want to disentangle marriage from the bureaucracy by miring the rest of society in an endless series of confirmations through the bureaucracy? Hmmm.

I'll ask the question a third time. How, exactly, are people who choose not to marry being disadvantaged?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stephen, what if everyone had to declare someone a legal next of kin like when they register to vote or get their driver's license or ID? What if every law that currently reads "spouse" read "legally declared next of kin" including the tax law?

In that event, we're there! Two little old ladies who met while working in an aircraft factory during World War II and remained friends ever since can, if they so chose, declare one another next of kin and thereby have all the benefits and obligations currently enjoyed only by married persons.

Personally, I think this idea has merit. As a practical matter, though, it simply can't happen. It's politically untenable and would cost way too much.

Bringing this idea to fruition would likely require fifty-one fell swoops rather than one, as vm suggests. And imagine the opposition! Your proposal would, in all likelihood, dramatically increase the number of persons eligible for benefits and legal protections that currently only a spouse can get. The casualty insurers, who have what's arguably the most powerful lobbying organization on the planet, would never countenance any law that would increase the number of people entitled to recover for wrongful death or any other sort of tort claim. Insurers and employers would never go along with any proposal that would jack up the number of people entitled to receive workers' compensation death benefits that only spouses can currently claim. Similar increases in Social Security payouts would meet opposition from everyone given all the recent talk about that system's coming financial demise. Many would view changing the tax code in a way that reduces revenue as reckless during a time of record budget deficits. Etc., etc., etc.

The alternative, of course, is to withdraw all legal recognition of marriage and strike all references to marital status from the code books. That way no one gets any of the protections or benefits mentioned in this thread. Obviously, that'll never happen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We have discussed loss of consortium on the II thread. Per it's definition involving a number of criteria; compansionship, affection, help, and sex, not all married couples qualify (separated or estranged) and some non-married couples would qualify (any committed sexual relationship).

I suppose it's possible that some courts are progressive enough to define consortium that broadly. Where I'm from, though, the only people entitled to recover damages for loss of consortium are spouses, parents and children.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Then there is the whole insurance issue, as well.

That's a damn fine point. For instance, auto policies often afford coverage not only to the person who bought the policy but also to "family members." If you look up the definition of "family member" in your auto policy, you'll probably find something like "any person living in the named insured's household and related to the named insured by blood or marriage." Spouses of the named insured generally qualify for such coverage, but expanding "family member" coverage to any designated next of kin would require legislation. Auto insurers would likely defeat any attempt to pass such a law. And if the law did pass, insurers would justifiably increase premiums to cover the extra losses they'll incur. Higher premiums ---> fewer people buying insurance ---> more uninsured motorists.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Inheritance and such is better handled with a will.

I agree with you 100%. But sometimes people die without one, and what the current government is afraid of is this and the ensuing problems with fights over life insurance that will occur basically because of homophobic families contesting their gay loved ones' wishes in court if something like that does happen. I think its a rather overblown fear, but this is what insiders are saying, and something that I think could happen if gay marriage was allowed. I think it should happen, just to show these bigoted wankers that just because their father/daughter/son/whatever fucked someone they didn't approve of, they have no right to deny that person their legal due.

[LadyShea]

I'll ask the question a third time. How, exactly, are people who choose not to marry being disadvantaged?

It depends on what rights and privileges are only extended to spouses. I don't know what it's like where you live, but here there must be a number of somethings (and I apparently don't know them all either), that can't be granted by other means as I keep getting told there is nothing that can replace marriage and people keep getting upset when I propose changing things to make it more equitable. I mean, if nobody is being disadvantaged, why do we need marriage as a legal institution at all? Surely you must agree marriage has some legal advantages if you think it needs to remain as is?

[LadyShea]

As a practical matter, though, it simply can't happen.

Never thought it would, this is purely an intellectual excercise for me. I just feel things are currently not equitable. If marriage wasn't a big deal full of benefits, etc., people wouldn't get upset when you propose changing things.

[erimir]

I agree with LadyShea.

I don't see anything special about marriage that gays need it so bad compared to creating an entirely new system and having the government stop doing marriage altogether.

But that solution is too practical and non-discriminatory.

So, maybe someday there will be gay marriage nationwide, but it'll take a while longer before people will want to completely overhaul the marriage system. And just changing the wording from one man and woman (with a few caveats regarding incest) to two people is not a complete overhaul (and in fact, in some states the law code didn't specify one man, one woman and so allowing gay marriage didn't require any changes to the law at all). What you're suggesting would require a lot more changes.

Not that I think that's a reason not to do it, I just think that's a reason it won't get done.

[Carnivale Ed]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I mean, if nobody is being disadvantaged, why do we need marriage as a legal institution at all? Surely you must agree marriage has some legal advantages if you think it needs to remain as is?

As to why we have and need marriage, see my original post on this thread.

If marriage has some legal advantages, and I'm no expert either, I'll bet they're common-sense advantages based on the nature of the relationship and the higher regard we hold it in as a society. You've yet to offer me a compelling reason why this is unreasonable.

The best example given so far, that illustrates my point, is that of marital privelige. Does it seem reasonable for me to extend this right to my roommmate if I chose? Is it sensible to assume, legally, in the absence of a romantic relationship, that my communications with this person are so highly prized by me that they rise to a level that should be legally protected?

And, to make this example slightly more ridiculous, what's to stop me from naming the chief witness against me in some trial as my 'next-of-kin', to stop them from testifying? That's the other problem with your idea - no acceptance. A marriage must be jointly and freely entered into. Under your proposal, a person can just impose legal obligations on someone without their knowledge or consent (because you can't just take the good of marriage, you also have to take the bad).

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Carnivale Ed

a person can just impose legal obligations on someone without their knowledge or consent

So such a designation would have to require their consent. Wouldn't that solve most of these problems?

[Carnivale Ed]

And how exactly, then, is this new system any different from marriage? Seems to be looking an awful lot like it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Carnivale Ed

And how exactly, then, is this new system any different from marriage? Seems to be looking an awful lot like it.

The new system doesn't involve sexual relations. I just flat out don't get why love/sex are involved in legal rights and responsibilities. Why base laws on who one romantically loves and/or has sex with? That is my biggest question.

Is it sensible to assume, legally, in the absence of a romantic relationship, that my communications with this person are so highly prized by me that they rise to a level that should be legally protected?

Why not? Why should the government make assumptions about your relationships? What is so particularly special about a romantic relationship that is should be more "highly prized" than a deep and abiding friendship, for example? And, since marriage is barred to same gender people, non-romantic relationships, and family members, it is discriminatory.

what's to stop me from naming the chief witness against me in some trial as my 'next-of-kin', to stop them from testifying?

What's currently stopping people from marrying their chief witnesses? You can't just be able to name some random person. It would be a contract.

Even under current law, marriages are investigated for immigration purposes, and possibly even in loss of consortium or marital privilege cases to ensure there is a real relationship there. The same could be done with the next of kin relationship.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even under current law, marriages are investigated for immigration purposes, and possibly even in loss of consortium or marital privilege cases to ensure there is a real relationship there. The same could be done with the next of kin relationship.

If next of kin privilege is substituted for marital privilege, how many next of kin do you get to invoke?

[Dingfod]

Only one, except in Utah, where there is no limit.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

If next of kin privilege is substituted for marital privilege, how many next of kin do you get to invoke?

One. And that relationship should be evidenced to have been established well before the trial or arrest or whatever. Just like they currently investigate marriages for immigration purposes.

But, as I told lisarea, I do not see a problem with keeping marriage set aside for a very few things, like marital privilege and immigration. I don't think it's a huge deal to extend those rights to non-spouses, but I can see some reasonaing behind it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Bringing this idea to fruition would likely require fifty-one fell swoops rather than one, as vm suggests.

Actually that was a genuine question, not a suggestion. Assuming everyone thought it was a great idea to broaden the legal definition of 'spouse' across the board, could it be done? If so, how? (In Schoolhouse Rock terms, preferrably).

[Dragar]

I agree with Dragar.

Much as I love those words, it seems I had misunderstood Lady Shea's position. I think she's quite right - let there be civil unions between any two consenting adults, which confer all the legal benefits that previously marriage allowed. Marriage ceremonies (which is what I was arguing we might want to keep around) can be handled away from legalities.

[ManM]

I think we might want to reconsider marriage benefits across the board. They are byproducts of a different age, one where the family/estate was considered to be the primary unit, not individuals. Things such as shared health insurance don't make much sense without a homemaker. Since so many of the legal benefits are based on outdated social norms, why not scrap the whole thing? Marriage can be preserved as a cultural/religious institution, but would carry no government/social subsidies.
[/devil's advocate]

[erimir]

I didn't get the impression she was advocating the rights, ok the one thing, insurance.

She was referring to things like hospital visitation, inheritance, and so forth.