- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,703
- Reaction score
- 11,539
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, I was not attempting to nor did I ever equate next of kin with spouse. You did not ask what document establishes "the full range of spousal benefits" one would get via a marriage license. You asked what document establishes "a legal next of kin relationship." And the correct answer to something that could possibly do that is a simple contract, such as those that exist in the UK. If anyone was conflating next of kin with a spouse, it was you.
Yes, in enforcement, like all private contracts. I have stated this numerous times already, and I really don't understand why you keep bringing that up as if it changes anything. There is nothing to figure out; it seems like you are trying to read between the lines to find something to argue against. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. That's all there is to it. Spousal privileges do not equal legal kinship.But not without the government still getting involved.
Very good, that is what you asked. Let me link you to your own post. Post #455 is where you said this:No, I asked "I'm asking what other documents establish a legal next of kin relationship with the same scope currently existing for a $35.00 marriage license that is recognized and enforceable in all 50 states?" and your response was "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice."
Would you like me (in the morning since I'm going to bed) link to the post where I asked the question exactly as shown above an where you said "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice"?
>>>>
Yes, in enforcement, like all private contracts. I have stated this numerous times already, and I really don't understand why you keep bringing that up as if it changes anything. There is nothing to figure out; it seems like you are trying to read between the lines to find something to argue against. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. That's all there is to it. Spousal privileges do not equal legal kinship.
Should every private contract require a court case before it is signed and valid? I you believe so, then business as we know it would come to a halt. If someone pays me to make them my next of kin, so what? That is my choice to make. No fraud is necessarily involved with that. You don't need preemptive court cases to protect against fraud, either.It is necessary to ensure that people are not trying to a) defraud the government or others that may give compensation of some sort for being a certain level of next of kin or to ensure b) that someone is not wrongfully trying to set themselves up as someone else's next of kin through fraud or by taking advantage of that person.
It is not that easy. You definitely do not understand how complicated and full of loopholes American law is.
Yes, just in enforcement. When the government provides coverage under the Family Leave Act, they are enforcing the next of kin contract by ensuring the next of kin is given the agreed to privileges (or as you say, restrictions in some cases).No. Not just in enforcement. The government sets up an hierarchy for next of kin. Being considered someone's legal next of kin grants certain legal benefits, such as being covered for under Family Leave Act and even being restricted when it comes to certain circumstances (such as when asked about during a job if anyone you are related to works there or in a certain area, actually know this to be true, since my mother in law and I could not work at the same place, but my sister and my mother in law could because legally, they are not kin, but I am legal kin to both of them).
Should every private contract require a court case before it is signed and valid? I you believe so, then business as we know it would come to a halt. If someone pays me to make them my next of kin, so what? That is my choice to make. No fraud is necessarily involved with that. You don't need preemptive court cases to protect against fraud, either.
Yes, just in enforcement. When the government provides coverage under the Family Leave Act, they are enforcing the next of kin contract by ensuring the next of kin is given the agreed to privileges (or as you say, restrictions in some cases).
You're not getting my point. I am talking about a better way of doing things, and used the UK as an example. Establishing the next of kin with a simple contract gives people the most free choice in selecting people they trust to look out for their best interest. U.S. law assumes closest relatives are best suited for this, but the reality is that this is not necessarily the case. There is nothing wrong with having laws that establish a default next of kin in the absence of a written contract stating otherwise, but establishing a next of kin that overrides the default can be as simple as a private contract.We are not talking about merely a private contract here. This is an agreement to be a certain level of next of kin.
Again, you really need to get some knowledge about how our next of kin laws work, and in general how our legal system works. It is very complicated, due mainly to avoid having people being taken advantage of. It simply isn't as simple as you would like it to be.
That's right. And who gets the privilege is defined by who the next of kin is, which can easily be established with a private contract if allowed by the government (as in the UK). Any law that references "next of kin" would look to the person established by the private contract as "next of kin."They are given that privilege. It isn't in the contract. It is merely a law.
In fact, tell us exactly what form of next of kin this document you wish to establish would make people? Where do they fit in? How should laws change to reflect this? Why?
You're not getting my point. I am talking about a better way of doing things, and used the UK as an example. Establishing the next of kin with a simple contract gives people the most free choice in selecting people they trust to look out for their best interest. U.S. law assumes closest relatives are best suited for this, but the reality is that this is not necessarily the case. There is nothing wrong with having laws that establish a default next of kin in the absence of a written contract stating otherwise, but establishing a next of kin that overrides the default can be as simple as a private contract.
For example, the government would ask this question: Does this individual have a next of kin contract? If yes, enforce that. If not, enforce the government-defined next of kin hierarchy.
That's right. And who gets the privilege is defined by who the next of kin is, which can easily be established with a private contract if allowed by the government (as in the UK). Any law that references "next of kin" would look to the person established by the private contract as "next of kin."
Ok, seriously, I hate to be that Godwin guy, but holy ****ing **** dude. Get yourself some help. This sort of language is straight out of every precursor to genocide in history.
After the "Loving" case, was there some consensus that now gay marriage was also unquestioned? I missed it. And before "Loving" marriage was only between a man and a woman. After "Loving", it was between... a man... and... a woman. Oh, no change. So that applies to gays how again?
Jeez, what happened? I'll tell you what happened. "Loving" did not change marriage at all. It just enforced the Constitution and amendments that forbid racial discrimination. You know what it said about gays? Nothing.
So, why don't we just make this gay marriage thing ironclad? Why isn't there even the slightest push for a Constitutional amendment? I would support it 100% if that was done. So, why not? Why beat around the bush with all these court cases and votes? I'd really like to hear an answer on that one.
My claim is that legal kinship can be provided through private contract without any significant expense, and a marriage license is not required. None of the above refutes that.
Just want to defend freedom and the Constitution from her kind.
Defend your freedom to suppress the freedom of others. Defend the freedom for the government to restrict the choices of the individual. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the constitution is about.
Where's the amendment? When is it coming?
We didnt need one for marriage as it stands now....why do we need one for SSM? Esp if they are the same institutions? One we are attempting to open up to end discrimination of gays.
Are you suggesting expanding the govt? Bigger govt? NO! It cant be!
I don't see any way that expands government. It restricts what it can do with marriage, by clearly spelling it out. That's just a glaring lack of understanding. We have amendments that increase government power, but this would not be one. We certainly need a few amendments to reel government back in.
An amendment, expanding the definition of marriage, would 'reel' the govt back in?
An amendment, expanding the definition of marriage, would 'reel' the govt back in?
Well, it was spelled out quite simply. Not that hard to understand, unless of course, you don't want to.
Well, it was spelled out quite simply. Not that hard to understand, unless of course, you don't want to.
LOL you should really read what you write. I even reposted it.
No, you mashed it up to say something I didn't say, so your misunderstanding would fit better. Don't play that game with me. If you can't figure out how some amendments increase government power, and other's restrict it, it's not my problem to educate you. Most libs don't look beyond what's in front of their faces anyway, so they don't care what the effect is down the road, as long as they get what they want right now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?