[extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural!

[Robert Bradbury]

On 10/31/06, Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Anne, naturally you have the right to keep the word marriage.


Hmmm.... Humpty dumpty comes to mind....

It's important to know why it is homosexuals want full marriage rights and
> will not be satisfied with mere civil unions: homosexuals want the right of
> making
> serious medical decisions (as Terry Schiavo's husband had in her case);


I think you can get this with a simple contract (power of medical decisions,
power of attorney, etc.).

they want full interitance rights; etc.


This too can be specified by a last will & testament.  What I think *isn't*
covered is pension or surivorship rights since these depend on how the plan
actually defines them.  This would get sticky because even if a state allows
same sex marriages (as MA does) federal entities may not have to recognize
them.  I suspect a pension plan might be free to provide benefits "for legal
marriages or social unions involving to individuals of the opposite sex as
specified by their having different sex chromosome combinations".  Of course
that would probably run afoul of various antidiscrimination laws in which
case pensions would be free to specify benefits for only one single
individual and no other family members (or uploads or molecular copies of
said individual).

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061101/af062aa9/attachment.html>