US Soon To Lag Behind Albania In Gay Rights

[IanKennedy]

Actually if legal dramas are anything to go by you do. I've seen lots of them talking about just that thing. Now I'm perfectly prepared to believe that it's not the way it is but it would seem odd for them to use it so much. Also, certainly in California the wife can get 50% of all assets just because she's stayed at home and enabled him to go to work.

[Tyyr]

Yeah but marriage is now no longer overseen by the government under his system, so one could...say kick the wife out of the house, change the locks and she is f***ed.

You operate under the same kind of rules people do who cohabitate right now. If I lived at a buddy's place but only his name was on the mortgage and one day he decided to toss my ass out then yeah, I'm kinda fucked. In order to avoid that kind of mess you would take steps at the start of the relationship to cover your ass, like having your name added to the mortgage, making sure your checking accounts are joint, etc. And maybe, just maybe, being a bit pickier about who you decided to marry.

[Tsukiyumi]

...because she's stayed at home and enabled him to go to work.

So... She can teleport him to work?









I assume you mean, "by raising the kids", but it still looked funny to me.

[IanKennedy]

...because she's stayed at home and enabled him to go to work.

So... She can teleport him to work?

I assume you mean, "by raising the kids", but it still looked funny to me.

Not only that. Kids didn't need to be involved. I think the correct term is community property, it refers to everything the two of them have made during the marriage and, unless there's a good reason not to, it gets split 50/50.

[Aaron]

You operate under the same kind of rules people do who cohabitate right now. If I lived at a buddy's place but only his name was on the mortgage and one day he decided to toss my ass out then yeah, I'm kinda f***ed. In order to avoid that kind of mess you would take steps at the start of the relationship to cover your ass, like having your name added to the mortgage, making sure your checking accounts are joint, etc. And maybe, just maybe, being a bit pickier about who you decided to marry.

You know that stuff like that only works because your recognized as being married right?

[IanKennedy]

It makes me wonder how they would control insurable interest. If your don't know about this it goes as follows. Not just anyone can take out an insurance policy on anyone else. You have to have an insurable interest in the person you are taking the policy out to cover. This is to stop, for example, a murderer from taking out policies on people and then killing them. So a wife can take out a policy on her husband, and vice-versa, because they are married. How would that work without marriage.

Marriage is not going to go away anytime soon. People like being married, they like the commitment and the respect shown from the state, courts and society in general it provides.

[Mikey]

Good point, Ian. I was so busy thinking of named vs. assumed beneficiaries that I forgot about insurable interest.

[Tyyr]

You know that stuff like that only works because your recognized as being married right?

And again, if it's legal status is removed standards will have to change.

It makes me wonder how they would control insurable interest. How would that work without marriage.

See above. Off the top of my head I'd require both parties to certify there's a good reason to be insured.

Marriage is not going to go away anytime soon. People like being married, they like the commitment and the respect shown from the state, courts and society in general it provides.

I dunno, getting my marriage license required filling out a form and paying a fee. I didn't feel any real commitment or respect from the state at that point just their burning desire to make a bit more cash and file paperwork. With a 50% divorce rate I'm not feeling a lot of respect or commitment from society either. Finally given that the courts are the ones dissolving all those marriages I'm not feeling it there either.

And that's before you get to the fact that there are a lot of people pissed off about who the state will and will not let get married now.

[Mikey]

And again, if it's legal status is removed standards will have to change.

You keep going back to this point. A lofty ideal, but I don't see it as practicable. The only way to ensure that these standards change is to legislate such change; and then we're back where we started, no?

Off the top of my head I'd require both parties to certify there's a good reason to be insured.

And what constitutes "certifiable" interest? In the finaly analysis, it would have to be a regulated status; and then, again, we're back where we started.

[Tyyr]

You keep going back to this point. A lofty ideal, but I don't see it as practicable. The only way to ensure that these standards change is to legislate such change; and then we're back where we started, no?

No, you don't have to legislate it. Companies will have to change if they want to keep in business. If for instance, banks only allow one signer on a loan and no others what happens when the first bank decides to accommodate people and allow multiple signers for people claiming to be married couples? First, that bank corners the market for a while until the others move to follow suit. If companies dig their heels in and refuse to change the market will take care of it by rewarding those who are flexible and either naturally forcing the rest to change or deal with significantly reduced market share or even extinction.

And what constitutes "certifiable" interest? In the finaly analysis, it would have to be a regulated status; and then, again, we're back where we started.

And what wouldn't be certifiable about two people both signing a document saying they had reason to insure one another? What would the insurance company care anyways? Policies are made to be paid. The insured is aware someone has insurance out on them. There is a record that party X and party Y both agree to the situation. Someone is going to make the payments on the policy. What's the insurance company's downside compared to the current system of letting one married people be insured with payment to one another?

Yes, I admit to not having every single answer to any question that could be raised about this. However I don't see any good argument for keeping the current system aside from "That's the way we've always done it," and "We want the government to hold our hand." Frankly neither carry tremendous water with me on this issue. It's just another case of the government being involved in something it doesn't need to be and dicking it all up.

[IanKennedy]

and that's where we disagree, I see absolutely no problem with the government running such an important thing, what next remove the other functions of that same office (Births and Deaths)? The vast majority of the population has no problem with the process for Marriage as it is run by the government now. The only complaints I've ever heard is on the grounds of eligibility, that will be fixed in time, I'm sure.

One big issue with changing it is quite simple. To change it from where it is now will cost a fortune, lots of systems will need to be modified across lots of industries and government agencies. All for what, some abstract concept you seem to have that the government should have anything to say on how the populous partners up. I can't see it's worth the cost of changing.

[Mikey]

And what wouldn't be certifiable about two people both signing a document saying they had reason to insure one another? What would the insurance company care anyways? Policies are made to be paid.

Not by a long shot they aren't. We live in the day of the mutual insurance company - policies are made to generate enough to cover the average of the other outstanding policies which are statsitically likely to be due in a fiscal year. If policies were made to be paid, then insurers would seek out the beneficiaries of outstanding death benefits. Two complete strangers could walk into a producer;s office and sign anything they wanted to - "certifying" insurable interest in this manner doesn't actually indicate that true insurable interest exists, and further could be construed as "twisting" (slang in the insurance world for setting up a policy under false pretenses) which carries penalties in most states ranging from loss of licensing to steep fines. If I were a producer or underwriter, I wouldn't touch that sort of thing with a ten-foot pole.