Married Rights vs Unmarried Rights

[PhantomWolf]

From the "California Prop 8" thread. Wikipedia on Married Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States)

*sigh* I'm not arguing that unmarried couples should be denied all the things that are guaranteed for married couples.

So what things should they be denied? And why?

This is getting way off topic. This has nothing to do with Prop 8 anymore. Please start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion.

Fine so here's a new thread.

Two questions.

1) What rights that married couples have should be denied to commited long term unmarried couples and why should they be denied those things simply because they aren't married?

2) What things are married couples execpted to do by law that unmarried couples aren't?

[tyr_13]

1) Tax, health-care, and inheritance/attorny sharing.

2) I have no idea, besides file taxes jointly.

NOTE: Not an all inclusive list, just off the cuff. I'm interested to see where this thread goes. *gets popcorn*

[Meadmaker]

1) What rights that married couples have should be denied to commited long term unmarried couples and why should they be denied those things simply because they aren't married?


I will let other people explain why couples ought to have anything at all that singles do not. However, given that they do, why should a couple in a long term relationship that doesn't involve a marriage certificate be treated differently than a couple in a long term relationship where a marriage certificate has been issued?

It's chiefly a matter of identification. How does one know that a couple is "committed", if they have made no public declaration of their commitment. Otherwise, they are two people who happen to be sharing a domicile for as long as it is convenient to do so.


2) What things are married couples execpted to do by law that unmarried couples aren't?

This has evolved a great deal in the last fifty years. It used to be that chief among those things was to stay married. In fact, the government insisted on it unless there was a very good reason not to. Also, they were expected to maintain sexual fidelity. Outside of Islamic countries failing to do so isn't a criminal offense these days, but in some jurisdictions it can be considered a civil tort that can affect a property settlement in divorce.

[geni]

1) What rights that married couples have should be denied to commited long term unmarried couples and why should they be denied those things simply because they aren't married?

They have the right to be treated as a couple by the state. Unmarried couples have not made a clear statement to the state that they wish to be treated in that way.

2) What things are married couples execpted to do by law that unmarried couples aren't?[/QUOTE]

Under UK law meet each others debts.

[bickerer]

The only thing that I can see currently denied to unmarried couples is the ability to divorce when things get ugly. Why shouldn't all people have the same opportunities to be miserable? Well, why SHOULDN'T they???

[Dragoonster]

1) What rights that married couples have should be denied to commited long term unmarried couples and why should they be denied those things simply because they aren't married?

I don't think marriage should be legally recognized at all. As long as it is though, any domestic partner(s) should gain the exact same rights as married couples gain. "Married" should be a title and nothing more.

2) What things are married couples execpted to do by law that unmarried couples aren't?

Pay/share ownership of debts if entered into together or after death, pay for funeral arrangement/body disposal, pay alimony after divorce, not engage in adultery in certain states, care for a child of the marriage if the partner is gone, be the decider in certain medical decisions of the spouse, cosign some loans (?) ...

[Dragoonster]

The only thing that I can see currently denied to unmarried couples is the ability to divorce when things get ugly. Why shouldn't all people have the same opportunities to be miserable? Well, why SHOULDN'T they???

They might be more miserable without the closure of signing that paper!

"hmmm, honey are we really through or what?"
"umm, I don't know, I think so...well..."

But seriously, plenty of things are denied unmarried couples.
1. Transportability of the union between states due to DOMA
2. 1,138 federal legal rights
3. Any rights in their state that married couples get but they don't

[luchog]

It's chiefly a matter of identification. How does one know that a couple is "committed", if they have made no public declaration of their commitment. Otherwise, they are two people who happen to be sharing a domicile for as long as it is convenient to do so.

How about if they are legally prohibitted from such a declaration?

This has evolved a great deal in the last fifty years. It used to be that chief among those things was to stay married. In fact, the government insisted on it unless there was a very good reason not to. Also, they were expected to maintain sexual fidelity. Outside of Islamic countries failing to do so isn't a criminal offense these days, but in some jurisdictions it can be considered a civil tort that can affect a property settlement in divorce.
In many regions of the US, married couples are responsible for up to 50% of a partner's debt, if the partner defaults; or 100% if a partner dies indebted. This includes any and all debts accrued, even if the partner accruing the debt has long since abandoned the commitment, and is not cohabiting. (Note: divorce in a situation where one partner is negligent or simply refuses to follow through on the legal proceedings can be very difficult to obtain; and courts may still uphold the legitimacy of the 50% debt responsibility if the debt-accruing partner doesn't agree to 100% responsibility.)

[WildCat]

2) What things are married couples execpted to do by law that unmarried couples aren't?
A married person usually cannot be compelled to testify against his/her spouse in a criminal case.

[PhantomWolf]

1) Tax, health-care, and inheritance/attorny sharing.

You didn't answer why they should be denied them?

[tyr_13]

You didn't answer why they should be denied them?

Oh I completely misread the question. If it is too difficult to prevent fraud, as in, how do people prove that they are committed couples, then it might be convent to deny these privileges. You know, I just realized that these things aren't 'rights' really. They are privileges granted to married people for various reasons.

And except for the tax thing, I don't see how the others are really denied.

[PhantomWolf]

Oh I completely misread the question. If it is too difficult to prevent fraud, as in, how do people prove that they are committed couples, then it might be convent to deny these privileges. You know, I just realized that these things aren't 'rights' really. They are privileges granted to married people for various reasons.

And except for the tax thing, I don't see how the others are really denied.

Well try this senario. Two police officers get caught in an ambush and killed. One was an older officer who'd been on the job for 15 years. He'd been in a domestic partnership for 12 years and they had 3 kids. The second had only been on the Force for 2 years, and had married his high school sweetheart the week after graduating from Police College. They had no kids at the time of his death.

Under the law in the US the first partner gets nothing. She isn't entitled to any help or payments to compensate for the loss of her partner she can't even file a wrongful death suit.

In contrast, the second officer's wife will receive a $100,000 payout because her husband was killed in the line of duty, would likely get any pension her husband had been entitled too, and would retain any health benefits the Department offered. She could also instigate a wrongful Death suit assuming there was someone to sue and get money from.

How is this fair?

[rjh01]

Would the children in the first case (or the second) be able to get something, like an orphan's pension + civil compensation?

[chipmunk stew]

As a general principle, I'd say that the parental rights and responsibilities that married couples share should be automatically applied to unmarried couples as soon as a child is born (or legally adopted by the couple), unless and until one parent has full legal custody.* Custodial issues would have to be dealt with differently, though, because in marriage custodial issues only arise upon divorce or legal separation. There would have to be a separate legal framework for deciding custodial issues between unmarried parents who separate.

Property and debt should not be shared between unmarried partners, unless they were acquired jointly.

Employee health benefits should be extended to an unmarried partner only at the discretion of the employer. They shouldn't be extended to unmarried partners of government employees.

This is by no means exhaustive--just off the top of my head--but I definitely think there's a place for registering your status of coupledom with the government in order to obtain certain guarantees that come with certain responsibilities to each other. How else is the government to know whether you, as a couple, want to take them on? The government should not be forcing marriage on people.

*(...maybe. It brings up some potentially hairy questions around claims of parentage when there is uncertainty about who the father is, etc.)

[Rasmus]

How is this fair?

Who prevented the first couple form marrying?

I really don't see the problem: If you want all that a marriage is: Get married. If you don't want it, stay unmarried - but then don't whine about not getting all the benefits of those that choose to marry.

If you are not allows to marry for one reason or another you might have a reason to complain, but then arguing that you should be treated as if you were married is not the only solution. You could simply ask for the right to get married instead.

Why did one of the officers not care what would happen to his partner and their children in case something would happen to him?

I really don't get it: Either marriage is just "the signature", then there simply is no reason for people not to get it when they want to be treated as if they were married. Or there is more to marriage, in which case there's no reason to treat different things the same way.

[Darat]

In the original thread you posed a slightly different question "...Why shouldn't we go through the list and see which of the rights should be extended to all couples who are willing to register as a couple...". In this thread do you mean "committed long term unmarried couples who register as a couple"?

If it's the later then the answer is none, as far as I understand it your "register of couple-hood" is just marriage with a new name. If you just mean long-term couple with no registration they should be treated as two single people by the state since the state has no way of identifying whether they are a "committed long term unmarried couple" or not and there is an existing system that allows them to register their couple-hood with the state if they want the state to recognise their couple-hood.

(In the UK there is certainly some hypocrisy in this. In most of the UK the state will consider you a couple if you cohabit for things such as social security benefits but not for other state controlled benefits.)

[GStan]

Who prevented the first couple form marrying?

I really don't see the problem: If you want all that a marriage is: Get married. If you don't want it, stay unmarried - but then don't whine about not getting all the benefits of those that choose to marry.

If you are not allows to marry for one reason or another you might have a reason to complain, but then arguing that you should be treated as if you were married is not the only solution. You could simply ask for the right to get married instead.

Why did one of the officers not care what would happen to his partner and their children in case something would happen to him?

I really don't get it: Either marriage is just "the signature", then there simply is no reason for people not to get it when they want to be treated as if they were married. Or there is more to marriage, in which case there's no reason to treat different things the same way.

Did it occur to you that the first officer might be in a same-sex domestic partnership with adopted children, in which case, the law would be preventing them from marrying?

As such, I don't think "whining" would be the appropriate characterization of their response to the circumstances.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If it's the later then the answer is none, as far as I understand it your "register of couple-hood" is just marriage with a new name. If you just mean long-term couple with no registration they should be treated as two single people by the state since the state has no way of identifying whether they are a "committed long term unmarried couple" or not and there is an existing system that allows them to register their couple-hood with the state if they want the state to recognise their couple-hood.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. I don't think every couple-hood is capable of recognition by the state.

For example, I am aware of a case involving two elderly sisters neither of whom ever married and who have lived together in the home they inherited from their parents for their whole lives. The home is (or at least was before prices fell!) well in excess of the nil rate band for inheritance tax purposes. When the first sister dies, a large inheritance tax bill will be due. As far as I am aware there is no way for the two sisters to register their "couple-hood" to avoid that bill (which would not apply if the people involved were married as transfers to a spouse are ignored for IHT). Depending on the size of the tax bill, it may mean the house has to be sold.

[Rasmus]

Did it occur to you that the first officer might be in a same-sex domestic partnership with adopted children, in which case, the law would be preventing them from marrying?

Yes. Hence I said

If you are not allows to marry for one reason or another you might have a reason to complain, but then arguing that you should be treated as if you were married is not the only solution. You could simply ask for the right to get married instead.

It's a separate issue. These people aren't allowed to marry, and I see that as a problem. There is a simple solution to it, though ...

[GStan]

Yes. Hence I said



It's a separate issue. These people aren't allowed to marry, and I see that as a problem. There is a simple solution to it, though ...

:blush:

[Freethinker]

Many of the reasons for the traditional benefits of marriage are based on a woman being in the position of raising children and being unable to fully support herself financially. This is not usually the case now, so I don't see much reason for any legal recognition of marriage other than financial. In the US, one could simply file some kind of "Notice of Consolidated Finances" with the IRS and local government indicating that two persons had established a joint household. This would facilitate joint ownership of property or investments, as well as joint tax liability. Such a partnership would have to be dissolved through a legal "divorce" to establish each individuals entitlement to a share of joint property.

Conferring any great benefit to partners of any kind creates the opportunity for fraudulent activity, and doesn't benefit society EXCEPT where special provisions are made for special treatment while one or both partners are adopting, bearing, nurturing or otherwise seeing to children that they are raising. A parental partnership and a financial partnership are the key non-personal components of marriage, and I see no reason for granting any other special rights to partners of any kind.

[tyr_13]

Well try this senario. Two police officers get caught in an ambush and killed. One was an older officer who'd been on the job for 15 years. He'd been in a domestic partnership for 12 years and they had 3 kids. The second had only been on the Force for 2 years, and had married his high school sweetheart the week after graduating from Police College. They had no kids at the time of his death.

Under the law in the US the first partner gets nothing. She isn't entitled to any help or payments to compensate for the loss of her partner she can't even file a wrongful death suit.

In contrast, the second officer's wife will receive a $100,000 payout because her husband was killed in the line of duty, would likely get any pension her husband had been entitled too, and would retain any health benefits the Department offered. She could also instigate a wrongful Death suit assuming there was someone to sue and get money from.

How is this fair?

I never said it was fair.

Predictable though. You obviously wanted to make some point like this from the start of the thread; next time do so. Don't play a silly game of trying to pull people in and then actually state your argument. The, 'I'm just asking questions' bull is annoying. [/derail]

It has already been said, but what prevented the other couple from being married? If the point you really want to make is that gay people should be able to be married, well duh.

Here is another similar issue, adoption. One father raises a child that is not his for twenty years, dies, but never adopted the child. What rights does that child not have that an adopted child would? Adoption and marriage are the same in that they make someone part of your family.

[chipmunk stew]

How is this fair?
The older officer and his partner, at any point in the 12 years they were together, could have made their partnership official with the state. As someone in a dangerous profession, with children, he was negligent not to do so.

Let's add a twist to your example. This time, both officers have accrued massive debts through lousy investments. The older officer's unmarried partner, while she won't get the payout and the pension, is insulated from the debts. The young wife, on the other hand, is shouldered with her husband's debts, which the payout and the pension don't adequately cover. How is this fair? (Hint: see above)

[shadron]

Well try this senario. Two police officers get caught in an ambush and killed. One was an older officer who'd been on the job for 15 years. He'd been in a domestic partnership for 12 years and they had 3 kids. The second had only been on the Force for 2 years, and had married his high school sweetheart the week after graduating from Police College. They had no kids at the time of his death.

Under the law in the US the first partner gets nothing. She isn't entitled to any help or payments to compensate for the loss of her partner she can't even file a wrongful death suit.

In contrast, the second officer's wife will receive a $100,000 payout because her husband was killed in the line of duty, would likely get any pension her husband had been entitled too, and would retain any health benefits the Department offered. She could also instigate a wrongful Death suit assuming there was someone to sue and get money from.

How is this fair?

First of all, the "law" you are referring to is state law, not federal law or "law in the U.S.". The federal courts would not have jurisdiction over such a case, unless there were ramificaions of interstate commerce, explicit federal law or such. Therefore there are fifty versions of the law that you are speaking of, and I know for a fact that they vary considerably from state to state - say, going over the border from California to Arizona, or Massachusetts to New Hampshire.

In Colorado and other states that have common law marriage, the partner need only demonstrate to a judge that a marriage was, in fact if not on paper, in effect. Such evidence as common children, common domicile, commingling of funds (at least to pay common bills), no explicit agreement to the contrary, and other proofs are used, and they have the effect, even in the case where one of the partners tries to deny that they were married (as in a divorce proceeding). In Colorado, you are legally married if you act like you are, whether you want that result or not.

I figure (as close as a non-legal practitioner who has observed such a case once can) that in Colorado the first partner would have no problem establishing bona fides as wife, with all the legal liabilities and rights attached to that state. I don' know, however, if a creditor could sue the wife for debts owed by the policeman under the assumption of CLM, without either partner's concurrence, if it is possible to prove common law marriage externally. Have to ask a lawyer about that.

[winnietheblue]

For example, I am aware of a case involving two elderly sisters neither of whom ever married and who have lived together in the home they inherited from their parents for their whole lives. The home is (or at least was before prices fell!) well in excess of the nil rate band for inheritance tax purposes. When the first sister dies, a large inheritance tax bill will be due. As far as I am aware there is no way for the two sisters to register their "couple-hood" to avoid that bill (which would not apply if the people involved were married as transfers to a spouse are ignored for IHT). Depending on the size of the tax bill, it may mean the house has to be sold.

IMO, this is one of the biggest problems with gay marriage: it only solves one problem. Other types of families are still left out.

To go back to PhantomWolf's example, lets assume that the older cop was not living with a domestic partner. Instead, right after high school, he married his high school sweetheart, but she died after the birth of their third child. His brother-in-law moves in to help him raise the kids. The brother-in-law is dependent on the older cop's income for support (since he is there to raise the kids, either he doesn't work or he only works part-time). Is it fair that the brother-in-law wouldn't get the same benefits that a spouse would?

Many of the reasons for the traditional benefits of marriage are based on a woman being in the position of raising children and being unable to fully support herself financially. This is not usually the case now, so I don't see much reason for any legal recognition of marriage other than financial. In the US, one could simply file some kind of "Notice of Consolidated Finances" with the IRS and local government indicating that two persons had established a joint household. This would facilitate joint ownership of property or investments, as well as joint tax liability. Such a partnership would have to be dissolved through a legal "divorce" to establish each individuals entitlement to a share of joint property.

Conferring any great benefit to partners of any kind creates the opportunity for fraudulent activity, and doesn't benefit society EXCEPT where special provisions are made for special treatment while one or both partners are adopting, bearing, nurturing or otherwise seeing to children that they are raising. A parental partnership and a financial partnership are the key non-personal components of marriage, and I see no reason for granting any other special rights to partners of any kind.

By and large, I like this idea. The major problem I see is that most couples probably wouldn't create living wills (& similar legal documents) in addition to filling the proper forms to consolidate their finances.

I would prefer a series of civil unions (that preferably do not imply a romantic or sexual relationship). With the strongest being very similar to today's marriage and the weakest, just a temporary consolidation of finances. If there was is a way for people to have simultaneous civil unions, or civil unions that included more than two individuals, people could have legal protections for just about any type of family they want to create. The biggest practical problem with allowing multiple civil unions would probably be fraud, but I don't think that means it is a bad idea; it would mean that the laws regarding civil unions need to be carefully written.

[tyr_13]

Very good point winniethblue! Does anyone have more information about living wills and the like that might point us in a direction for this?

I can see big Mormon support for inter-tied civil unions.

[PhantomWolf]

Predictable though. You obviously wanted to make some point like this from the start of the thread; next time do so. Don't play a silly game of trying to pull people in and then actually state your argument. The, 'I'm just asking questions' bull is annoying. [/derail]

Not that I want to derail either because I think a lot of interesting comments are being made on tiopic, but I do think this is unfair. At the top I make it quite clear that this thread was ongoing from a different thread and, while it was altered slightly, the question was pretty much the same as asked in that other thread. Looking back at the discussion that had gone on previously in that thread you'd have known my position and argument without me needing to repost the entire discussion that had already been posted.

IMO, this is one of the biggest problems with gay marriage: it only solves one problem. Other types of families are still left out.

To go back to PhantomWolf's example, lets assume that the older cop was not living with a domestic partner. Instead, right after high school, he married his high school sweetheart, but she died after the birth of their third child. His brother-in-law moves in to help him raise the kids. The brother-in-law is dependent on the older cop's income for support (since he is there to raise the kids, either he doesn't work or he only works part-time). Is it fair that the brother-in-law wouldn't get the same benefits that a spouse would?



By and large, I like this idea. The major problem I see is that most couples probably wouldn't create living wills (& similar legal documents) in addition to filling the proper forms to consolidate their finances.

I would prefer a series of civil unions (that preferably do not imply a romantic or sexual relationship). With the strongest being very similar to today's marriage and the weakest, just a temporary consolidation of finances. If there was is a way for people to have simultaneous civil unions, or civil unions that included more than two individuals, people could have legal protections for just about any type of family they want to create. The biggest practical problem with allowing multiple civil unions would probably be fraud, but I don't think that means it is a bad idea; it would mean that the laws regarding civil unions need to be carefully written.

I find this rather thought provoking and to be honest, my biggest issue with Gay Marriage, is that it doesn't really sovle the issues of today's family. I think that most people will admit that today's family is no longer a married Mum and Dad, and their kids. Today's families come in all different types and essentially excluding any of them pruely because they aren't what we consider a traditional family is in my view wrong. Simply adding a single new definition to what what is okay doesn't solve it either, and those saying, they should just get married really don't understand that. The whole issue is, why should an untradional family have to comply with what we say is traditional to get the same rights and protections as a tradional family? Why should they have to be pushed through the exact same cookiee cutter to get rights and protections they should be entitled to by just being a family, regardless of how unorthordox that family is? How is forcing people to become something they don't want to be just to get equal protection under the law not a form of discrimination?

[PhantomWolf]

First of all, the "law" you are referring to is state law, not federal law or "law in the U.S.". The federal courts would not have jurisdiction over such a case, unless there were ramificaions of interstate commerce, explicit federal law or such. Therefore there are fifty versions of the law that you are speaking of, and I know for a fact that they vary considerably from state to state - say, going over the border from California to Arizona, or Massachusetts to New Hampshire.

In Colorado and other states that have common law marriage, the partner need only demonstrate to a judge that a marriage was, in fact if not on paper, in effect. Such evidence as common children, common domicile, commingling of funds (at least to pay common bills), no explicit agreement to the contrary, and other proofs are used, and they have the effect, even in the case where one of the partners tries to deny that they were married (as in a divorce proceeding). In Colorado, you are legally married if you act like you are, whether you want that result or not.

I figure (as close as a non-legal practitioner who has observed such a case once can) that in Colorado the first partner would have no problem establishing bona fides as wife, with all the legal liabilities and rights attached to that state. I don' know, however, if a creditor could sue the wife for debts owed by the policeman under the assumption of CLM, without either partner's concurrence, if it is possible to prove common law marriage externally. Have to ask a lawyer about that.

This is interesting and I'd note that Califorina also has law that means that unmarried registered domestic partners are treated equally to married partners by the State. It seems that some of the US is progressive in trying to make sure that all families get equal treatment, but other parts are still stuck in the dark ages.

[tyr_13]

Not that I want to derail either because I think a lot of interesting comments are being made on tiopic, but I do think this is unfair. At the top I make it quite clear that this thread was ongoing from a different thread and, while it was altered slightly, the question was pretty much the same as asked in that other thread. Looking back at the discussion that had gone on previously in that thread you'd have known my position and argument without me needing to repost the entire discussion that had already been posted.


Wow, you're completely right. I totally neglected to go and look at the thread this one spawned from. Sorry.

[Meadmaker]

I find this rather thought provoking and to be honest, my biggest issue with Gay Marriage, is that it doesn't really sovle the issues of today's family. I think that most people will admit that today's family is no longer a married Mum and Dad, and their kids.

I think this is certainly true. We have all sorts of nontraditional families these days, and I don't have a problem with that. I think they should all be accomodated under the law.

My problem is that the different sorts of families also have different sorts of needs, and I don't see how to have one set of laws that makes sense for all of them.

The fact is that the families that consist of mum, dad, and the kids still exist, and are indeed still the most common sort of families, and I'm pretty sure that isn't going to stop any time soon. A majority of those families have circumstances that aren't shared with the majority of other sorts of families. In particular, one of the partners, almost always mum, has probably devoted a great deal of energy into domestic duties and child rearing, often at the expense of career advancement. If, in middle age, that partnership breaks up, it would be grossly unjust to simply declare that this partnership is now dissolved, split joint property down the middle, and tell them to each go on their merry way.

In contrast, if a double income no kids family breaks up in middle age, such a settlement might make sense.

Even in the case of a DINKS family, that might not make sense. We don't know what led people to live the way they did, and what decisions they might have made, under the assumption that they were part of a permanent union. When one partner says that when he said, "Til death do us part," he had his fingers crossed, the other partner may suffer genuine loss that wouldn't be reflected in an "even" settlement.

My biggest problem with various forms of inclusive marriage proposals, that would grant similar status to traditional families, a pair of elderly sisters living together, and every other form of two person partnership, is that they tend to follow, legally, the path of least commitment. They generally follow the model of the "Notice of Consolidated Finances" that must be entered jointly, but which can be dissolved by either partner at any time, for any reason, without penalty.

That leaves people, mostly women, extremely vulnerable.

I wouldn't force the extremely restrictive view of traditional marriage on anyone who didn't want it, but there is still a place for it in our society. I don't see how treating all couples exactly the same can meet the needs of the very different families that exist today.

[G-K-4]

...I don't see much reason for any legal recognition of marriage other than financial.

[snip]

I see no reason for granting any other special rights to partners of any kind.

You're forgetting hospital visitation, medical decisions, and jail visitation. These have more to do with kinship than with property.

I certainly wouldn't want a patchwork of hospital policies with varying determinations about who counts as my family. I'd rather have a standard.

[luchog]

In Colorado and other states that have common law marriage, the partner need only demonstrate to a judge that a marriage was, in fact if not on paper, in effect. Such evidence as common children, common domicile, commingling of funds (at least to pay common bills), no explicit agreement to the contrary, and other proofs are used, and they have the effect, even in the case where one of the partners tries to deny that they were married (as in a divorce proceeding). In Colorado, you are legally married if you act like you are, whether you want that result or not.
Unfortunately, the Federal government doesn't recognize common-law marriage, and it is not subject to "Full Faith and Credit". By simply moving a state away, to one that does not recognize common-law marriage; the person would no longer be eligible for spousal benefits, nor responsible for spousal debts.

Another example, when I met my wife, she was still married. Her now ex-husband had left her previously for a substantial period, and left her permanently a few months after. She was unable to obtain a full divorce for several years afterwards, due to his disappearance, the vagaries of state and interstate law (he had moved halfway across the country soon after leaving), and a considerable amount of malfeasance on his part stalling the granting of the divorce (which he did solely to escape responsibility for the numerous debts he incurred after he had left her, which she was legally responsible for by the sole fact that they were still married). Had she been able to afford better lawyers, she might have manage to resolve it sooner; but it still would have taken the better part of a year, at the very least. As it was, she was still saddled with a large portion of his debt per state law; and her credit destroyed because of it.

Even with the divorce, there have been numerous obstacles. First, she is disabled, and receiving disability assistance. Upon marriage, she would no longer be eligible for disability assistance; and I was not in a financial position to support her. Furthermore, I would have been responsible for her debts, and my credit destroyed, effectively preventing us from managing to obtain decent housing and other necessities. It very nearly prevented me from obtaining a phone line while I lived with her, simply due to the fact that we shared an address; and I had to pay a substantial deposit in order to do so. (Her ex had deliberately run up huge long-distance telephone bills prior to leaving her, talking to and making arrangements with the woman he moved cross-country to be involved with; and leaving her responsible for the debt.)

[ponderingturtle]

Well try this senario. Two police officers get caught in an ambush and killed. One was an older officer who'd been on the job for 15 years. He'd been in a domestic partnership for 12 years and they had 3 kids. The second had only been on the Force for 2 years, and had married his high school sweetheart the week after graduating from Police College. They had no kids at the time of his death.

Under the law in the US the first partner gets nothing. She isn't entitled to any help or payments to compensate for the loss of her partner she can't even file a wrongful death suit.

In contrast, the second officer's wife will receive a $100,000 payout because her husband was killed in the line of duty, would likely get any pension her husband had been entitled too, and would retain any health benefits the Department offered. She could also instigate a wrongful Death suit assuming there was someone to sue and get money from.

How is this fair?

I think it is fair. The first couple decided to have their situation with out the protections and such of marriage.

What I see marriage as being a lot about is the legal recognition of primacy in your life. It moves the people making the decisions and being closest to you from your family(parents, siblings and the like) to your spouse.

Why didn't the first guy in your example marry?

[ponderingturtle]

To go back to PhantomWolf's example, lets assume that the older cop was not living with a domestic partner. Instead, right after high school, he married his high school sweetheart, but she died after the birth of their third child. His brother-in-law moves in to help him raise the kids. The brother-in-law is dependent on the older cop's income for support (since he is there to raise the kids, either he doesn't work or he only works part-time). Is it fair that the brother-in-law wouldn't get the same benefits that a spouse would?

This seems more an issue of the rights of his children than the rights of his brother in law. His children deserve a high level of support, I am not sure that his brother in law deserves personal death benefits.

Say it includes a pension for the rest of his life, this is based on the idea that the partner has a life long commitment to his wife, but did the guy have a life long comitment to his brother in law?

That does not seem too likely.