Marriage Debate

Upchurch said:
Entirely possible, but I still fail to see the relevance to SSM, aside from the rather silly argument that "non-legal marriages are not legal marriages."
Click to expand...

I believe his stated purpose was that first one must define what a legal marriage IS (and perhaps its purpose) before extending the option to more diverse participants.

In that regard, I agree with him. It's difficult to determine the best public policy without knowing the purpose and/or objective of said policy.

As I've said before, I'd rather just scrap all legal recognition of marriage. I don't think it serves any unique purpose. Any recognition a couple wants the government to give to their marriage would be through contracts which stipulate inharitence, etc. I've come to this conclusion because I don't believe there ARE any purposes or objectives of this public policy. At least I haven't found any that justify the public expense and special treatments afforded married people.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
I believe his stated purpose was that first one must define what a legal marriage IS (and perhaps its purpose) before extending the option to more diverse participants.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is not a matter of extending the option to more diverse participants. It is a matter of not promoting one religion over others.

HeavyAaron said:
As I've said before, I'd rather just scrap all legal recognition of marriage. I don't think it serves any unique perpose. Any recognition a couple wants the government to give to their marriage would be through contracts which stipulate inharitence, etc.
Click to expand...
There is at least one situation that cannot currently be managed through contractual law: rights of hospital visitation. As it currently stand, there is no legal contract that can allow a gay person to visit their partner in the hospital if the partner's family wishes to deny visitation.

There are probably others that I'm just not thinking of at the moment.
 
Upchurch said:
There is at least one situation that cannot currently be managed through contractual law: rights of hospital visitation. As it currently stand, there is no legal contract that can allow a gay person to visit their partner in the hospital if the partner's family wishes to deny visitation.
Click to expand...

I'm opposed to using laws to determine hospital policies.

Aaron
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Medical benefits extended to the spouses of veterans, for one.
Click to expand...

As if there's some unalterable fundamental law that says the significant other of a veteran must have their medical needs paid for by the state...

But if you must, then like every other institution, change the policy to be "veterans benifits extend to the veteran and up to one additional person of the veteran's choosing." Personally, I stick to just the veteran.

Aaron
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Because you are in a relationship with your wife, and have expressed a desire to have her choice of sexual partners restricted by the force of law.
Click to expand...

But I've also expressed a desire to have my choice of sexual partners restricted by the force of law. So, why only comment on women?





I remember when pre-nups started coming into play. They were a way of giving people an escape hatch in case things didn't work out. There was a lot of debate about whether such things ought to be legal, and whether you could really override the marriage vows with a pre-nup. Now, ID and Upchurch think that the marriage vows aren't very significant, legally, and what really matters is the pre-nup.

I think we just slipped on a slope. Someone had better inform society that that's a fallacy.
 
HeavyAaron said:
But if you must, then like every other institution, change the policy to be "veterans benifits extend to the veteran and up to one additional person of the veteran's choosing." Personally, I stick to just the veteran.
Click to expand...
You're not overly familiar with military familes, are you?
 
Meadmaker said:
Now, ID and Upchurch think that the marriage vows aren't very significant, legally, and what really matters is the pre-nup.
Click to expand...
What country do you live in? Marriage vows have no legal meaning. This is not a controvertial subject.
 
HeavyAaron said:
Perhaps he would like a change in the default behavior of the courts sans a pre-nup?
Click to expand...


Yep.

Although, a slightly more accurate way of phrasing it is that I would like that in the absence of a pre-nuptual agreement, a nuptual agreement be considered a real agreement.
 
Upchurch said:
Agreed. Marriage vows are a part of the religious aspect of marriage. I'd like to see some evidence that marriage vows ever had legal power.

eta: under US law.
Click to expand...

You're serious, aren't you? Well, this should be easy, but it will take some time.
 
Meadmaker said:
Yep.

Although, a slightly more accurate way of phrasing it is that I would like that in the absence of a pre-nuptual agreement, a nuptual agreement be considered a real agreement.
Click to expand...
Please replace "real agreement" with a detailed list of the rights, restrictions and responsabilites you would like to see the courts apply to all married people of all genders and religious backgrounds.
 
Upchurch said:
And you don't think that a veteran's spouse doesn't also deserve benefits? That surprises me.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have suprised you.

This feels like a serious derail, but... here goes:

Tax law is what has caused this strange world we live in where medical insurance is part of the employment package.

The premiums are paid BEFORE income taxes are computed. People who purchase their own medical insurance do so with income AFTER it was taxed.

Thus the tax benifit provides encouragement for the free market to have the insurance as part of the employment package. If it weren't for this fact the employers would simply write employees larger checks, leaving employees free to shop for their own insurance or to self-insure.

This has lead to a further drive for homemakers to also get insurance through their spouces employer.

But fundamentally the entire system is designed to take advantage of a tax law technicality, that IMHO should not exist.

The much preferred solution to me is to pay the veteran more by the cost of the spousal insurance premium, leaving the couple free to purchase him/her insurance on the open market. Unfortunately this would involve a tax penalty. But don't blame me for that. I'd change the tax law if I could.

Aaron

P.S. I do realize that I'm ignoring a smaller advantage of emplorers securing the medical/life/dental/AD&D/LTE insurance, etc. in that they have more bargaining power. There's nothing to prevent individuals from forming coopts and such to do this if it weren't for the tax implications, however.
 
Meadmaker said:
You're serious, aren't you? Well, this should be easy, but it will take some time.
Click to expand...
Quite serious. I'm not talking about the legal wedding license. I'm talking about a wedding vow made in a church as part of a religious ceremony.

Take all the time you need.
 
HeavyAaron said:
The much preferred solution to me is to pay the veteran more by the cost of the spousal insurance premium, leaving the couple free to purchase him/her insurance on the open market. Unfortunately this would involve a tax penalty. But don't blame me for that. I'd change the tax law if I could.
Click to expand...
This would also give single miltiary personnel a higher DI than married ones, giving miltiary personnel a further disincentive to joining if they have or plan on having families. When an employer extends the the option of insurance for spouses and families to employees less than 100% take it. The money saved from those who do not take it is redistributed to those who do. Ergo, those who need the service get more of it and those who do not don't get it. It's an effective system for the allocation of a precious resource which ensures that those who need it get more than they would under laize-faire free market systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom