[extropy-chat] Gay marriage in Spain, a world of change

[Harvey Newstrom]

>> On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>> Quite a number of these things can be contracted, Harvey. You are 
>>> being
>>> disengenuous in claiming otherwise.
>>
>> Please point them out, Mike.  Many gay couples would seriously be
>> interested.  I know of no way that a gay couple can contract for any
>> of these items between themselves.  Even if they did, the contracts 
>> are
>> not enforceable.  Third parties can and do deny these benefits on the

OK, Mike.  You are totally right.  Quite a number of these items can be 
contracted via a business partnership (like an S-corp).  I totally 
forgot about that possibility, even though I am currently in an S-corp. 
  This certainly does create a legal partnership between the members 
that given them rights or privileges in relationship to each other.

I do object to some of the items that you claim can be solved, because 
I don't think they are solved by your suggestions.  I list these below 
for discussion purposes, but want to stress that these do not refute 
your overall claim.  I agree with your main premise, and found the 
majority of your suggestions very well thought out.

On Jul 21, 2005, at 8:55 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>> --- Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
>>>> And Medicare.
>>>> And joint tax returns.
>
> Not if you organize your family finances as a limited partnership.

How does this get gay partners Medicare or allow them to file joint tax 
returns?  The government won't pay gay partners no matter how your 
family finances are structured.  The government won't accept joint tax 
returns from gay partners.  How does a limited partnership help?

>>>> And not being taxed on benefits employers might give to a partner
>>>> (such
>>>> that gay workers pay more taxes than a non-gay worker in the same
>>>> job at the same pay with the same benefits).
>
> No differently than unmarried het partners or single people.

Unmarried het partners choose this.  Or they can choose to enter into a 
marriage contract to get these benefits if they want.  Gay partners can 
never do this.  That's the difference.

>>>> And adoption of their partner's children.
>
> This happens all the time. The parent needs this specifically written
> into their will, with penalties for parents and siblings who interfere.

State law outlaws gay adoption.  It doesn't matter what the will says, 
it would be illegal for it to be followed.  The will is nullified by 
the state.  The will won't help.

>>>> And coverage on partner's medical insurance.
>
> Again, organize your professional activities as a partnership that is
> the contractor of your services.

I'm talking about an employee getting health insurance getting their 
partner covered.  Companies cannot be made to do this no matter how the 
gay partners arrange their own business partnership.

>>>> And buying life insurance for a partner (since most insurance
>>>> companies claim there is no insurable interest in the partner).
>>>> And buying joint insurance for medical, homes, autos, etc. (since
>>>> most insurance companies claim there is no insurable interest in
>>>> the partner's property).
>
> Partnership contracts, and get a group insurance policy for your firm.

OK, I know this works.  I forgot about business partners, which can 
cover a lot of these by adding a legal relationship between the two 
partners.

>>>> And citizenship for their partner.
>
> While not automatic, making a foreigner lover your business partner
> gives them a leg up in the immigration process.

OK, this is a good attempt at a work around.

>>>> And making medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.
>
> Living wills take care of this.

OK, I concede this too.

>>>> And making funeral arrangements for a deceased partner.
>
> Living will, again, takes care of this.

I think Living will is the wrong legal document, but the executor of 
the regular (not living) will should be able to do this.

>>>> And seeking wrongful death compensation for a killed partner.
>
> If your partner is a business partner, you certainly can seek wrongful
> death compensation.

Again, good.

>>>> And inheriting their partner's property without a will.
>
> A will is a contract. A contract must exist for it to have force. Not
> contracting is the same as not marrying.

Alright, good logical argument.  Not being bothered to write a will is 
a poor excuse for complaining about inheritance going awry.

>>>> And not paying hefty gift taxes when inheriting their partner's
>>>> property with a will.
>>>> And giving their partner equal ownership in joint property.
>
> Business partnership contract, again.

Right, again.

>>>> And taking leave for a sick or deceased partner.
>
> FMLA doesn't allow for this sort of discrimination in most states
> already.

A quick google seems to show that FMLA cannot be used by gay partners 
because they are not legally related to each other.

>>>> And renting cars together at the same price heterosexual married
>>>> couples can rent the same car.
>
> Last time I checked, car rental companies were not state agencies.
> Also, last time I checked, "gay" wasn't in the 14th amendment. At least
> here in the US, you are going to need a constitutional amendment to get
> what you are after.

Right.  This is a different class of issue than the other ones, and 
shouldn't be in this list.

>>>> And having partners not forced to testify against one in a court
>>>> of law (spousal privilege).
>
> A privilege isn't a right. If you are an atheist and tell a priest you
> don't know and aren't a member of his parish that you killed someone,
> you are not protected, just as if you tell a pshrink who is not your
> mental health provider.

I don't see your point.  The gay partners cannot tell each other their 
secrets with privilege protection as they could do with their lawyer, 
doctor, priest, etc., or as married partners can.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful responses.  I still disagree with your 
point that prohibiting gay marriage is not discrimination, but on the 
above matter I concede you are right to reject at least half the list 
of "unobtainable" benefits that I posted.

--
Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP