If same-sex marriage is legal, what about domestic partner benefits?

[Bill McBlueState]

Here in Massachusetts, there's an issue we have to address now that marriage equality has become a reality.

Many employers, mine included, offer domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples but not opposite-sex couples. (Benefits include participation in the health plan, for example.) The logic in the past was that opposite-sex partners could marry to obtain benefits, but that option was not available to same-sex partners.

Now that marriage is an option for same-sex partners, the current system is probably illegal because it discriminates based on gender.

So there appears to be two options: End domestic partner benefits, allowing only married couples to obtain benefits. Or, extend domestic partner benefits to all couples regardless of gender.

As a union guy, I'm interested in extending worker benefits wherever possible instead of withdrawing them. But I've discovered in my conversations that not all progressives think this is worth pursuing. What do you think?

[VelmaD]

1. why the focus on couples?

And wouldn't the best answer be to stop tying health care coverage to employment?

[Hepburn]

5. Because often...

in a couple one of the partners has benefits available through employment that could benefit the other person ~~ in particular, I am thinking of health insurance. If a couple is married, then the employed spouse can add the other spouse on the health insurance plan. They may have to pay a premium, but the coverage ~~ and usually better coverage because of a group plan ~~ is available. But...there are couples ~~ both straight and gay ~~ who cannot get married for various reasons and because of this, IMO, the health insurance should extend to the other partner in all circumstances.

Making sure that as many Americans as possible have clear avenues to health care is essential for the good of our nation. A healthy populus is obviously a better populus. No one should have to go without necessary medical/dental treatment and many people do...and some of these people are persons who would be covered if he/she were a spouse and not merely in the position of being a life partner. Not that there is a difference between these two situations in my mind, but the law upon which the policy of a lot of business is based does make a distinction.

Yes, I agree: Health coverage should be available to everyone and I do strongly support socialized medicine because of this belief. The health insurance companies are NOT the friends of anyone...so I say cut them out of the loop and get a nationalized health coverage plan.

[VelmaD]

10. I guess I didn't make my initial point well enough

As someone who is polyamorous...I get really tired of the focus on couples. What if I'm in a long term relationship with more than 2 people in it...if I'm the only one with a job with health care coverage why shouldn't all of my partners be able to get those domestic partner benefits?

It's a personal pet peeve. Our society is so hung up in the "norm" and liberals are willing to expand their definition of "normal" to include unmarried couples and married gay couples. But it's still always about couples.

[Hepburn]

13. The problem is that the health benefits are not...

...the only issue. Inheritance laws and related issues are the main reason that DP agreements and situations extend only to couples. At least that is the reasoning I would cite under Calif law applicable to DP agreements. Basically, a person in a DP relationship has pretty much the same rights as a married person, but is still a single person. If there is a "couple" consisting of one person with many partners and the one person has the benefit, for example, of a retirement or a pension, that is almost impossible to divde amongst several people. Survivors rights would be impossible to determine because it does not consist of only the right to receive retirement funds based on the employment of the deceased and the amount of sums received by the survivor can be based on the length of the relationship. And some times, there is a lump sum payment, etc. And...what if the employed spouse did not add a new DP partner on his surviors form? You can imagine the mess just pension survivors rights could cause.

It can get real complicated ... and such things as retirement benefits are not the only issues involved when someone passes away. Can you imagine in a DP agreement with more than two people involved what kind of fights which could break out over such things as funerals and burial of the deceased? This is bad enough at times when a decedent dies without a will and the children fight over things.

[VelmaD]

20. if we can handle all of those things...

when we're talking about multiple children or siblings or other family members as beneficiaries...then we can handle them when it's multiple partners. Just because something is difficult is not a sufficient reason not to tackle it.

[Hepburn]

23. The rules of intestate inheritance...

...are set by law in every state. And children and widows/widowers do not stand in the same relationship to each other. And...the widow/widower has a right in every jurisdiction of which I am aware to make a right to "take under the will" (assuming there is a will) or under the "code of intestate succession" (whether there is a will or not). I cannot even begin to tell you the mess this could create if there was more than one widow/widower and various children of different relationships claiming under these rules. It would be impossible to figure it out and, frankly, anything which was left by the decedent would be eaten up by lawyers fees, legal feees and probate costs. The rules/laws take into consideration the separate property of the decedent. And what may be separate property to one relationship, my be claimed as community property in another relationship. There simply is NO way to apply the rules when the character of the property cannot be determined. With a multiple partner relationship, the property accrued by the decedent would never be fish nor fowl ~~ that is, a determination of its charcter would be an impossibility. And...until character can be determined, no division of the assets could be made.

So, no...it is not something which can be tackled because what is at its very basis ~~ the characterization of property ~~ that issue could NEVER be solved.

I know this is complicated, but I have done enough of this in my practice of law when only two people are involved that I know what would happen with a multiple party relationship. Even with a will, there are challeges and a right to elect to go under the scheme in the probate code. We are talking an IMPOSSIBLE task that could never be resolved.

[VelmaD]

24. If the current rules are set by every state...

then they could write new rules to cover relationships with multiple partners.

I still don't see the argument that it's too complicated as sufficient justification to tell me that one of my partners should be legally declared more important or more real or more whatever than the others.

And I figure it would be easier if there's a will. I know from first hand experience with my own family that inheritence issues are fairly simple if there's a will and ridiculously complicated if there isn't.

And none of this really gets at my main point...which is still that as someone who isn't part of a traditional couple...I'm sick and tired of being forgotten or treated like I'm not normal.

[Hepburn]

26. It's not that it is too complicated...

...it is basically IMPOSSIBLE in regard to inheritance matters.

The issue on this is the characterization of property. When someone is not married, whatever he/she earns prior to the marriage is considered SEPARATE PROPERTY (SP) and it can be willed in ways different than property earned during the marriage which in Calif is called COMMUNITY PROEPRTY (CP).

When you have multiple relationship commencing at different times, people earn property and property rights at different times. What would be SP to one of the multiple relationships could be CP to another of these ~~ and like I said, different rules apply to SP and CP property. It therefore, at least under Calif law, would be IMPOSSIBLE to divide the property if a widow/widower elected to go under the code and not the terms of any will. And..you cannot take that election right away from one group of "partners" because of Constitutional reasons of making them a suspect class. A decedent can do things with SP that he/she cannot do with SP ~~ and that is WHY property HAS TO BE characterized when there is a will contest or an election to claim under the code or a person dies intestate (i.e., without a will). If there is no way to figure out the characterization, then there are no rules to use to divide the property. A will is NO guarantee on the division of property because of challenges and elections which can be made under the Probate Code.

It is not an issue of a difficult problem ~~ it is an issue of a problem which CANNOT be solved. And...it is NOT an issue of treating anyone as a second class citizen. It is an issue that the law cannot solve. The bottom line is that there is a difference between SP and CP property on how it is divided ~~ and a multiple partner relationship would cause problems whereby the issue of CP or SP character could not be solved.

[VelmaD]

27. we're going to have to agree to disagree...

Perhaps it cannot be solved under the current paradigm...but calling something impossible (in all caps) doesn't necessarily make it so.

Perhaps the notion of community property and seperate property needs to be re-examined in light of our current, more egalitarian society. The basis for the laws were initially written at a time when one partner in a marriage, the wife, was considered the property of the other partner...and we've managed to change that paradigm.

If relationships are contracts, I don't see why three or more people could not enter into a contract and work out what was seperate and what was communal property. Hell, partnerships of just two should do that as well. Everyone keeps telling me marriages are contracts...apparently most people don't put a lot of thought into the terms.

I know, I'm babbling now. Sorry. :)

[Hepburn]

29. It is not an issue about the ownership of people...

...it is an issue about the RIGHTS of people to take property on the death of a certain person. The probate code will always have to provide the terms of distribution of property because there are people who will die without a will. And...the code will always provide for will contests and elections ~~ because we all know that no matter what a will or an agreement says, at times there will be challenges.

There is no way around this. The bottom line again is that property cannot be characterized with multiple person relationship when the people are on supposedly equal standing because the property cannot be characterized by the law. If it cannot be characterized, it cannot be divided because different rules apply to different types of property. If the people in the contract that you referred to, later have a disagreement, then it is the rules of the law which apply because their agreement has gone by the wayside. It does not matter that at one time they had an agreement IF they do not agree at the time the property is to be distributed on who gets what. If the rules of law cannot be applied...then that truly is an impossible situation. I emphasized IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish between complicated or complex. The law deals all the time in very complicated and complex situations, but when something is impossible, there is no solution to the problem. That is why, as I see it, domestic relations partnerships have not been extended beyound couples. Inheritance laws are a huge stumbling block on this issue.

And...I don't think you are babbling...I am enjoying the discussion...so maybe I babbling, too??? :hi:

BTW: If I you respond to this and I do not get back to you, it is because I have to get ready and leave for the gym. I would prefer to not go...but I promised two friends I would AND they talked me into being the one who is driving today!

[VelmaD]

31. I should follow your example...

and get my butt to the gym today too.

The only follow up question I can think to ask is this. You talk about not being able to characterize property when everyone involved has equal standing. So how does it work on the death of my parents when it's a decision between me or my brother getting something in the inheritence? Don't we have equal standing in terms of being their heirs?

Oh...and one more thing...I'm concerned about the idea that a legal agreement can just be tossed by the wayside if someone involved just chnages their mind.

[Hepburn]

34. The gym...

...is not going to be fun today. I have slacked off for about a month now and I know what I am going to feel like! But...I need to get back in the grove.

Siblings stand in a different position than a spouse of a decedent. Siblings and widows/widowers are not on an equal footing. Mutliple spouses which exist at the same time ~~ that would be the problem with mutliple party domestic partnerships. SP and CP issues come in where marital law is concerned, not with a division between siblings.

A parent can, and often does, leave a different scheme of division between siblings. I have seen this multiple times. A parent can leave everything to one child and nothing to another ~~ this usually causes will and trust challeges, tho. Siblings, as well as any heirs of a decedent, can make any agreements they wish on the division of assets ~~ even if contrary to the terms of a will. Nothing stops anyone from making an agreement and, in fact, if there is any legal dispute, the law encourages people to try and reach agreements. Frankly, speaking as a lawyer, this is a smart thing to do ~~ but some times, people cannot agree on the time of day and that is why there are courts, judges, attorneys and trials.

As to any agreement between you and anyone else, people can and do try to get out of things at times after making an agreement. There is really NOTHING which can be done to absolutely guarantee that anyone will perform on an agreement in the future. People ignore legal obligations all the time. Someone who is damaged by this can always sue to enforce rights under a contract ~~ that is about all that is left to someone who has been damaged by non-performance on an agreement. I certainly hope you and your brother would never have to go to court about a disagreement over the division of what your parents left you. That is a very unhappy place to be emotionally and financially, it is the pits as well. Way too many estates get eaten up by legal fees simply because people fight over what they want to get.

Best of luck...and I hope all works out well for you and your brother.

[VelmaD]

35. oh my brother and I have no problem

I come from a remarkably sane family. My parents both have wills. The terms have always been openly discussed with my brother and I. There's not really that much of an estate to leave...for us it's not about money, it's mostly about dividing up stuff with sentimental value and he and I and my parents have worked all that out. I get the piano. He gets the golf clubs. :)

[Hepburn]

37. That is wonderful...

...because there is nothing uglier than when relatives go after each other for the property of a decedent! Congratulations in coming from a sane family. I wish I could say the same for mine!

[VelmaD]

38. That just always seems to bizarre...

and unseemly to me...to fight over the possessions of a dead person. Ick. It seems like it makes it all about the money and not the person who died. :( Sometimes I think when families start fighting like that...the probate judge should have the option of just selling everything off and giving the money to charity.

[Hepburn]

40. There usually is...

...very little money or assets left after a will or trust contest. Appraisers, experts, attorneys and court fees make it disappear VERY quickly. It really is very sad. What is sad in some cases, is that someone has taken great advantage of an elderly or ill decedent and has gotten something he/she is not entitled to. The choices there are bad and worse: Let the wrong-doer take the assets he/she bilked out of the decedent....or fight to right the wrong and some times end up owing money for the fight that one has put on. You should see the ones that involve conservatorships of elderly and/or disabled persons. So often there is someone who has taken advantage of the situation for his/her own benefit. Those really suck.

[Paulie]

32. The property issue seems easy to me

Just incorporate or make a partnership, and make everyone shareholders. Put everything in the corporation's name. Setup a trust for the minor children for their shares, then decide how to do the trustees.

But it's all the things other than property, like the ability to make medical decisions for non related children. That's the part that makes me sick with worry thinking about for my friends. Hospitals don't have the time or the skills to read a medical power of attorney while someone is in an emergency situation.

[VelmaD]

33. If hospitals don't have the skills...

to read a medical power of attorney during an emergency...then the paperwork needs to be GREATLY simplified. It shouldn't be difficult or complicated to write or read a document that says "this is who makes the decisions about my life if I can't".

[Paulie]

46. I ment skills to authenticate the documentation

especially during a crisis. If you have your partner bleeding out on a table, and they want to know the resuscitation options for the patient, busting out paperwork is a problem. Because of the situation the medical personnel will probably side with what causes them the least liability.

[Hepburn]

36. I am still mulling over the corporation on...

...issues of couple DP relationships. I am not sure how in the world it would work for mutliple party relationships. I am thinking along the lines of reducing the value of the stock that a prior owner would have if future shares are issued. For example: The relationships starts out with 3 people and at a later date, there is an agreement to add a 4th person ~~ does that later added person obtain stock that is of the same value as the original shares?

There are a ton of issues going through my mind...and I cannot even begin to list them all. I can readily see the application to a corporation with only two people that is basically a substitute for a marriage of a DP contract. And I can see also that a coporation cannot exempt itself from the application of the probate code. So I am not sure if the corporation would circumvent the problems of inheritance issues.

Man, my mind is going 100/mph...I am gonna NEED the gym BIG TIME! :hi:

[Paulie]

42. Well, you can just keep the number of shares

Say you add a third, they would "buy" some shares from the existing people, the cash can either be loaned or paid outright. The share purchase could either be reinvested into the group, or kept as non communal property. The shares, and the estate of the shareholder, could have a trust as a beneficiary, this would help with the probate side, wouldn't it?

It's an interesting idea. But with property it seems solvable.

[Hepburn]

43. From what you have said...

...I do see some possibilities that could solve some of the problems. Good thinking on this idea of incorporating. I think you and others who have come up with this may be on to something. And, I am sitting here doing a bit of research on the side on issues that would be encountered in forming corporations instead of relying on domestic relations laws and principles to take care of different inter-personal relationships and rights. IMO, it would be difficult to discriminate against certain groups or people with the application of corporate principles.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. two questions, two answers

>> why the focus on couples?

Expanding the coverage to larger groups is certainly consistent with my interest in giving benefits to as many people as possible.

>> wouldn't the best answer be to stop tying health care coverage to employment?

Yes!

I posted those particular options because that's what the context of the debate has been so far. But if we can secure benefits for all domestic partnerships, it's a logical next step to expand that to any kind of domestic arrangement.

Your second idea is the best, but we don't really have the power to enact single-payer national health care at the bargaining table. Management would be more than happy to stop tying health coverage to employment, but then we'd all be out in the cold.

[ComerPerro]

8. obviously, that would be best. But, gotta go one step at a time

[LeftyMom]

2. I think domestic partnership should be open to all couples who desire it

Some states (California is one of them) allow it for hetero seniors to that they can have some of the advantages of marriage w/o screwing up benefits eligibility or inheritance. I absolutely believe gay couples have the right to get married, but I also feel that having a less-than-marriage option to create stability for cohabitiating couples is a good and practical idea that addresses a societal need.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. Yeah, NJ allows that, too.

Any two people can become domestic partners.

[Hepburn]

12. Yep,

...California does offer this benefit to same or opposite sex couples. Matter of fact, some employers extend health care benefits to significant others whether this a DP agreement or not regardless whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex. IMO, this should be available to all who qualify on the general grounds and whether it is a same sex or an opposite sex couple, that should not be determinative.

[Hepburn]

4. Whatever is available to a hetero couple...

...needs to be available to a homosexual couple. People are people. And such things which a Domestic Partner Agreement protects are essential human rights.

Frankly, I think it is totally immoral to allow those who are gay or bi to have lessor rights than those who are straight. I truly believe that sexual orientation is a matter of birth and not choice. I did not choose to be straight anymore than someone who is gay chose to be gay. I just AM straight like a gay person just happens to be gay. That is no different to me than any other "personal" characteristic such as race, etc.

So...where in the hell does ANY government get off denying basic rights to any segment of society? I just do NOT understand why some feel that gays should be punished in some manner because of sexual orientation.

I sure as hell wish people would get over this totally stupid hang-up.

[ComerPerro]

7. Your post really had nothing to do with the OP

[Hepburn]

9. Well, maybe...

...you did not understand it then? :shrug:

Either all get the same treatment ... no one segment should get better rights than any other segment of society.

[ComerPerro]

11. But you start laying into arguments why homosexual couples

deserve all the same rights as heterosexual couples.

You are preaching to the choir, no one (yet) has said the opposite in this thread.

And nowhere did the OP suggest that homosexuals weren't deserving of the same rights as heterosexual couples

[Hepburn]

16. Where...

...did I say it did?

:shrug:

All I said...and I will say it again: Benfits to couples should be offered without any determing factors based on the sex of the couple. The requirements to qualify should be the same regardless of the sex of the people involved.

PERIOD.

There are opposite sex couple who for various reasons cannot get married. They should have the same options available. However, what I have seen in my experience as a lawyer and over the years is that business in industry in general discriminates against same sex couples...and I do not like it. If I am preaching to the choir, so be it...but as far as I am concerned, until discrimination of this nature is overcome, I will continue to preach whenever I can.

Although I am straight, I have represented many gay or bi people in domestic relations matters and I have seen way too much on the issue of how some are treated as second class citizens. Employment benefits is one of the areas where non-married couples encounter problems that they should not.

Sorry if you do not like what I have to say...I did not mean to offend you.

[ComerPerro]

18. Then perhaps it was just how your original post was phrased

the focus seemed to be on homosexual couples, as though you were defending their rights from some unseen attacker in this thread.

I read it as an attempt to grab moral high ground before anyone else could (something DUers, God love em, do ALL the time).


But apparently I read you wrong, and I apologize.


Now to your point (which, apparently, has everything to do with the OP):

Are you saying that domestic partnerships should be offered to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples?

Or are you saying that if homosexual marriage becomes legal, domestic partnerships would no longer be needed?


Sounds like you are suggesting the former.

My question is, in what situations would a domestic partnership be a better option than marriage? And what distinctinos would there be between partnerships and marriage?

Moreover, if a couple is going to go out and set up a domestic partnership, why not just get married?

[Hepburn]

21. No offense taken...

...and I did not mean to jump on anything or hog the spotlight on some issue. I just feel very strongly about issues of discrimination and issues on domestic relations. :hi:

As to your questions:

1. All couples should have the right to marry if they wish to marry. PERIOD.

2. All couples should have the right to have a domestic partnership agreement and have it recognized if they would prefer this to being married or need this instead of being married. PERIOD.

3. Some people would lose benefits due to a marriage ~~ such things as social security and pension benefits derived from being the widow/widower of a deceased employee/wage earner. Therefore, even if all 50 states and the US territories passed laws which recognized and sanctioned gay marriage, I do believe that all couples should also have the choice of a marriage or a legally recognized partnership available to fit personal choices, feelings, legal reasons, finacial reasons, etc., that is best for the facts under which they operate.

4. Legally speaking, the major difference I see with marriage and domestic partnerships is that a person who has benefits from a prior relationship/marriage is not forced by law to give up those benefits in order to gain benefits as to their current living arrangments and, further, to protect rights found in the current relationship. Such things as military, social security, and other governmental programs base entitlements on being the widow/widower of a person from whom these right flow. However, that past entitlement often has nothing to do with current needs such as medical/health insurance or the rights to make a determinations for your "partner" if unfortunately certain things arise ~~ such a termination of life support, etc. It is like certain people who earned things in the past would be forced on a marriage to give up these rights to gain things in the present. IMO, people should not have to be forced to make decisions like this.

5. The basic distinction between a marriage and a domestic partner agreement, at least in Calif, is that under the former you are no longer a "single person" whereas under the latter, you remain "single." And...that is why past benefits remain and current benefits can be had.

So, I can see a reason for both of these types of legal relationships and I thoroughly believe that these benefits should be extended to ALL couples. Life is hard enough as it is and to make people choose between life protections past and present IMO is a bad thing.

Just my opinion....:hi:

[ComerPerro]

22. But what stops the penalties of marrige from being applied to partnerships

if domestic partnerships become availible for all and offer advantages over marriage, what stops the marriage-crazy Republicans from applying all of these things to Domestic Partnerships?

It might become irrelevant.


BTW, I saw an interesting post the other day, suggesting that if gay couples really wanted to make a statement, they should consider incorporating. The poster suggested that, in some cases, they would have even more rights and protections than a married couple. If that's true, it would really piss off the fundies...

[Hepburn]

25. There is no way...

...to stop penalties of any nature ~~ whether toward couples or driving too fast on the freeway or whatever ~~ except to have legislators who will not do such things. Other than that or a challenge to a law in the courts because the law is clearly unConstitutional in some manner, there is not much in the area of protection to the general public.

Oooooooh, I have never thought about a corporation ~~ what a totally interesting idea! I am going to put that on the back burner and when I have time, I am going to sit down and look at the corporations code in Calif. Boy, would that be a concept. I know with Nevada corps, they are easy and relatively cheap to form and you do not have to live in Nevada to form a corp there ~~ just need a Nevada Agent for Service of Process. And...corps limit general liability.... This is gonna be fun to look at! Thanks for an intriguing idea! This has really caught my attention.

:hi:

[Vulture]

28. This works out pretty well

The use of limited liability structures rather than traditional arrangements has been slowly but surely becoming more popular because it is easier to cut it the way you want it from whole cloth using incorporation than to tack a bunch of legal instruments on top of the current marriage structure. Rather than getting married in a legal sense, you form an LLC. The technical side of this has been discussed pretty thoroughly in other forums.

While I believe the idea started in the homosexual community, it is starting to find traction for otherwise mainstream heterosexual couples that would traditionally have simply gotten married. They have the full wedding and everything, but there is no marriage license/contract involved. It is an interesting end run around the pretty badly broken legal construct that marriage has turned into, and it allows flexibility and customization options that simply would not be there otherwise.

[Hepburn]

30. This is excellent...

...I wish I had seen those discussions! You really have me interested in looking into this and doing some research on these issues. Thank you for posting on this. I have never heard about this before...but it does seem to make a lot of sense!

:hi:

[ComerPerro]

39. careful now.

Its not my idea. Wish I could take credit for it, but I can't.

LOL

[elocs]

14. That is what will be on the ballot here in Wisconsin next month.

Here is the text: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Notice what the entire text says: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage" which could mean any civil union between "unmarried individuals" which means voting "yes" for this referendum is not only about gay marriage, but also about civil unions. This includes any man and woman living together as domestic parters, young or old. This includes elderly male/female couples who live together, but do not marry in order to prevent many of the financial problems which marriage would cause them. So this referendum is being sold on the first sentence and most people who support it are not aware of what the second sentence would do.

[moose65]

19. many of the amendments have been worded that way

And to me, that "substantially similar" is WAY too vague to be in an amendment. Amendments should be short and sweet, and to the point. The "substantially similar" part is a recipe for lawsuits, and the courts will have to decide what it means. So the fundies will get their judicial activism either way! LOL

[Not Me]

15. My former company provided "two-person" coverage

It was very popular...could be used for single parent and child, two adults, an employee and aged, dependent parent.

[Nikki Stone 1]

44. This is the sanest idea I've seen yet

So often, you'd like to be able to provide insurance for a family member (like an unemployed mom who gets breast cancer but is not old enough to be on Medicare.)

[skids]

17. Other: There should be no such thing as "legal marriage"

Just thought I'd throw a monkey wrench into this conversation: Other than contractual agreements similar to what we now call a pre-nuptual, there should be no state recognition of anything called marriage. Beyond a signed legal contract that however many parties of whatever gender decide to sign onto to indicate living arrangements and expectations,
marriage should not exist in law at all. If someone cannot deal with the absence of something that is in the current legal code, they should write it into the "pre-nup" not expect those laws to be maintained by the state.

As far as "benefits" there should be only individual health care for everyone. Healthcare policies should belong to the person served. They should not hinge on who they are married to, or whose home they make. They should not hinge on who they work for or whether or not they work. Anything less than full assurance of individual coverage varying only by upgrades/downgrades due to funding source fluxuations, but always providing a minimum safety net, leads to the situation where health care is a sort of shackle that prevents social mobility.

A person should be able to designate any person they deem fit as someone who can visit them in the emergency room, or an emergency guardian for their children.

[Nikia]

41. So people who cannot afford lawyers should not have marital protections?

That is one of the arguements for gay marriage. Some couples that wanted many of the rights of marriage have accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get those rights. Why should someone who cannot afford such fees be legally unable to be considered "family".

[Nikki Stone 1]

45. Why should health insurance coverage be limited to SEXUAL partners?

Or the product of their union?

Suppose I have a platonic friend who becomes ill and moves in with me. He or she can't work, loses insurance benefits and here I have perfectly good insurance at my job that I can't extend to my friend.

Or how about an adult child comes home ill? Or an elderly parent who's not elderly enough for government insurance? Etc....