www.ditl.org

GrahamKennedy wrote:So what? The question is not whether they have, it's whether they should.

Sorry, I thought you said, "Since when..." so that's what I was addressing.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Does that make any sense at all?

No. However, making sense has never really been a high priority in governmental matters.

Tyyr wrote:Designate a next of kin. The government would no longer use marriage status to determine who gets the benefits. You designate a next of kin in such situations and they recieve those benefits. Estate planning, they're called wills.

Yes, if things worked that simply you'd be fine. We have testate law now, but guess what? People still die intestate. How about insurance? Insurance benefits do not follow estate nominations AT ALL, and most policies do not leave room to name anything more than a teritary beneficiary. Now, what happens if your named beneficiary is non compos mentis when you die, or is a minor, you're screwed.

What about employment benefits? How do you determine who's eligible if there's no legal definition of "spouse?" Or, if there were no secular state of marriage, how would I have applied for FMLA time to care for my wife after her surgery? etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Mikey wrote:Yes, if things worked that simply you'd be fine. We have testate law now, but guess what? People still die intestate.

If you don't write a will it'd be like not bothering with life insurance, pretty reckless and it would leave your spouse up a creek if something happened. Responsible adults would get a will made and not have to worry about it.

How about insurance? Insurance benefits do not follow estate nominations AT ALL, and most policies do not leave room to name anything more than a teritary beneficiary. Now, what happens if your named beneficiary is non compos mentis when you die, or is a minor, you're screwed.

It wouldn't be an estate benefit. If the government doesn't officially sanction marriages how is an insurance company going to prove married status? They can't, there's no marriage certificate, at least no legally binding one. At that point they'll either have to accept who you designate as being married or have you designate a next of kin. In order to accomodate other possibilites a tertiary beneficiary or more would have to designated. In the case of minors designate an adult to act as caretaker of a trustfund until the minor reaches adulthood.

What about employment benefits? How do you determine who's eligible if there's no legal definition of "spouse?" Or, if there were no secular state of marriage, how would I have applied for FMLA time to care for my wife after her surgery? etc., etc., ad nauseum.

See above. Without a legal document that employeers could pin marriage to they will either have to accept who you designate as your spouse or allow you to designate a next of kin.

Tyyr wrote:In order to accomodate other possibilites a tertiary beneficiary or more would have to designated.

Unfortunately, most policies don't allow for further than tertiary beneficiaries.

Tyyr wrote:Without a legal document that employeers could pin marriage to they will either have to accept who you designate as your spouse or allow you to designate a next of kin.

Or, more likely, would take the opportunity to not offer to extend benefits to anyone other than the employee.

Mikey wrote:Unfortunately, most policies don't allow for further than tertiary beneficiaries.

If the legal status of marriage is revoked that's a policy that will have to be re-examined.

Or, more likely, would take the opportunity to not offer to extend benefits to anyone other than the employee.

At which point you have a huge number of outraged employees looking for work elsewhere.

Tyyr wrote:If the legal status of marriage is revoked that's a policy that will have to be re-examined.

Unfortunately, I believe it's a policy of the companies, not one of regulation. I haven't had a producer's license for a few years now, so I may not have the most current info.

Tyyr wrote:At which point you have a huge number of outraged employees looking for work elsewhere.

You'd think so, but then you'd think that would have been the case with all the workers who have substandard benefits now - and it hasn't been.

Mikey wrote:Unfortunately, I believe it's a policy of the companies, not one of regulation.

I realize this, however the current system exists in an environment with government sanctioned marriages. You can assume some things in that case. Without legal status for marriage what does the company have to fall back on? The benefit has to be paid to someone. It's in the company's best interest to ensure a clear line of succession for the benefit lest they find themselves embroiled in a legal battle. With a clear line of succession as defined by the purchaser the company can point to the paper, pay the money out, and wash their hands of it.

Tyyr wrote:You'd think so, but then you'd think that would have been the case with all the workers who have substandard benefits now - and it hasn't been.

There's a difference between taking a job with known benefits and taking one with known benefits, then having the company yank a huge chunk of them.

Tyyr wrote:The benefit has to be paid to someone.

Actually, as much as it sucks... legally - no, it doesn't. In my little state alone as of 10 years ago (when I was studying for my life producer's license) there were half a billion (yes, with a "b") dollars in unclaimed death benefits. The insurance companies are under no compulsion to attempt to pay if a claim isn't made by the first named beneficiary in succession.

As for divorce, who is going to ensure that one party or the other isn't going to get screwed over in a divorce?

Cpl Kendall wrote:As for divorce, who is going to ensure that one party or the other isn't going to get screwed over in a divorce?

I'd guess that under Tyyr's proposed system, both parties would leave with whatever they owned.

What about things like one partner putting the other through school? On one hand, it's a voluntary gift; on the other it's a huge liquid loss.

Mikey wrote:What about things like one partner putting the other through school? On one hand, it's a voluntary gift; on the other it's a huge liquid loss.

IIRC, you don't often get compensation for something like that under the current system.

I believe you're right, but AFAIK it can be used as a fulcrum for gaining concessions in other areas.

Mikey wrote:I believe you're right, but AFAIK it can be used as a fulcrum for gaining concessions in other areas.

Point to Mikey.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:As for divorce, who is going to ensure that one party or the other isn't going to get screwed over in a divorce?

I'd guess that under Tyyr's proposed system, both parties would leave with whatever they owned.

Or kill each other in the process. So the courts would get involved anyway just to stop the fighting.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
I'd guess that under Tyyr's proposed system, both parties would leave with whatever they owned.

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 fucked.