government-free marriage

[AxisMundi]

..... Welcome to permanent ignore.

That I can agree with.

 

[Elwar]

Not to go off topic but...

I think the government should get out of the marriage business.

Hospital visits? Really? Is that really what that piece of paper is all about?

 

[osan]

I don't even know why RPFers are even discussing "civil rights". We're the Natural Rights crowd.

Is there, however, a fundamental difference between the two, or are they two terms for the same thing? I have always taken it for granted that they were, though I never really cottoned to "civil rights" much, always preferring "natural rights" and to a lesser extent "human rights".

 

[Brett85]

Not to go off topic but...

I think the government should get out of the marriage business.

Hospital visits? Really? Is that really what that piece of paper is all about?

I do agree that it should be up to each privately run hospital to decide visitation rights. The government shouldn't mandate to hospitals what visiters they have to accept.

 

[AxisMundi]

I do agree that it should be up to each privately run hospital to decide visitation rights. The government shouldn't mandate to hospitals what visiters they have to accept.

Why should hospitals be able to ban spouses?

 

[AxisMundi]

Not to go off topic but...

I think the government should get out of the marriage business.

Hospital visits? Really? Is that really what that piece of paper is all about?

Firstly, as noted, one can opt out of a legally recognized marriage, i.e. government is not some inherent requirement in a marriage and one can have what is termed a "spiritual marriage" completely void of government, and certain privileges and protections as well.

Secondly, there are over a thousand rights and privileges bestowed onto a married couple, ranging from tax concerns to automatic joint custody. Visitation rights are but one small aspect of a legally recognized, and protected, marriage.

A partial list of the 400 state rights and over a 1,000 federal rights...

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans;
joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Et cetera

 

[Brett85]

Why should hospitals be able to ban spouses?

Is has to do with private property rights. It's the same type of issue as the Civil Rights Act that Rand got in trouble for criticizing. If we're talking about privately run and owned hospitals, the owners should have the right to decide who comes on their private property and who doesn't. Obviously they're bound by law to accept patients who have some emergency, and I have no problem with that. But I think that the owners should get to set visitation laws for their own hospital.

 

[Brett85]

Firstly, as noted, one can opt out of a legally recognized marriage, i.e. government is not some inherent requirement in a marriage and one can have what is termed a "spiritual marriage" completely void of government, and certain privileges and protections as well.

Secondly, there are over a thousand rights and privileges bestowed onto a married couple, ranging from tax concerns to automatic joint custody. Visitation rights are but one small aspect of a legally recognized, and protected, marriage.

A partial list of the 400 state rights and over a 1,000 federal rights...

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans;
joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Et cetera

That just illustrates what a mess the government is and why we need to simplify our marriage laws.

 

[AxisMundi]

Is has to do with private property rights. It's the same type of issue as the Civil Rights Act that Rand got in trouble for criticizing. If we're talking about privately run and owned hospitals, the owners should have the right to decide who comes on their private property and who doesn't. Obviously they're bound by law to accept patients who have some emergency, and I have no problem with that. But I think that the owners should get to set visitation laws for their own hospital.

So in effect, you are stating that hospitals should ahve some inherent right to deny next-of-kin to see their loved ones, possibly for the last time alive?

 

[AxisMundi]

That just illustrates what a mess the government is and why we need to simplify our marriage laws.

Which of those rights listed (to make debate easier) should be eliminated, in your opinion?

 

[MikeStanart]

I came into this thread thinking marriages were free now. I was sorely dissapointed. I won't be able to afford to pay for my 14th one.

 

[Brett85]

So in effect, you are stating that hospitals should ahve some inherent right to deny next-of-kin to see their loved ones, possibly for the last time alive?

Yes, and if they did that they would be protested and would go out of business the next day. The market place works.

 

[Brett85]

Which of those rights listed (to make debate easier) should be eliminated, in your opinion?

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
joint filing of tax returns;

I can think of those two right off the back, since I don't think we should have the IRS or these socialistic government programs. We could just give everybody who paid into SS a one time refund check and then just abolish the program.

 

[AxisMundi]

Yes, and if they did that they would be protested and would go out of business the next day. The market place works.

And an area looses a valuable asset, said hospital.

Would it not be much better to require hospitals, many of which utilize public funds to stay afloat, to observe certain rules, such as visitation rights, rather than rely on free market ideals?

The free market might work to get rid of some silly ideas (my pet rock died, so I had buried it, BTW), but as far as essential services, such as hospitals, police, and fire, the free market will only see outrageous prices and lack of service.

When Big Corp has us by the short and curlies, they pull really hard. Profit is, after all, one of the three components of Price in microeconomic theory. And to maintain the 3-4% profit margin companies must have to remain viable, prices will skyrocket for such essential public services.

 

[AxisMundi]

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
joint filing of tax returns;

I can think of those two right off the back, since I don't think we should have the IRS or these socialistic government programs. We could just give everybody who paid into SS a one time refund check and then just abolish the program.

Leaving seniors, and those who will be seniors, out in the cold.

 

[Brett85]

And an area looses a valuable asset, said hospital.

Would it not be much better to require hospitals, many of which utilize public funds to stay afloat, to observe certain rules, such as visitation rights, rather than rely on free market ideals?

The free market might work to get rid of some silly ideas (my pet rock died, so I had buried it, BTW), but as far as essential services, such as hospitals, police, and fire, the free market will only see outrageous prices and lack of service.

When Big Corp has us by the short and curlies, they pull really hard. Profit is, after all, one of the three components of Price in microeconomic theory. And to maintain the 3-4% profit margin companies must have to remain viable, prices will skyrocket for such essential public services.

I don't think that any hospital would realistically refuse visitation rights to a spouse. My point is simply that these laws essentially mandate that only certain people are allowed to see the patients and others aren't. It would be better to allow each individual hospital to decide whether visitation rights should extend to gay couples, friends of the patient, distant relatives, etc.

 

[Brett85]

Leaving seniors, and those who will be seniors, out in the cold.

No, because I said that I would give them a refund check for the amount of money that they paid into the system. They wouldn't be cheated out of any money. Medicare is a more complex government program and couldn't be ended right away. With that program I would probably just phase it out over time for younger people like myself.

 

[HazyHusky420]

Here's what I ask gay people who take the statist position on discrimination:

Would you want to let straight people into gay clubs?

What about gay dating sites?

Should every gay club be infested with fruit flies and fag hags?

What if I own a gay bar and I don't want to let any stereotypical Lady Gaga/Madonna loving gays in and only allow non-conformists?

These questions are hardly ever asked in the gay community...

 

[jmdrake]

Hospitals that accept g'ment subsidies and programs, such as Medicaid/Care, are bound by law to adhere to federal guidelines.

Also, say a gay couple with a committed relationship of 15 years is traveling and get smacked by a drunk driver, resulting in a horrible car crash. One comes out unscathed, the other sits at death's door. Do you REALLY think it would be proper for a hospital to be permitted to refuse visitation rights?

I want to see an actual link to a real story where someone gay or otherwise with a durable power of attorney was denied visitation rights by any hospital. I do not believe such a story exists. I've never seen such a story. I've talked to law professors who support gay marriage and they don't have any such story. I believe this to be a lie and straw man and a scare tactic made up by the gay marriage movement.

 

[jmdrake]

Here's what I ask gay people who take the statist position on discrimination:

Would you want to let straight people into gay clubs?

What about gay dating sites?

Should every gay club be infested with fruit flies and fag hags?

What if I own a gay bar and I don't want to let any stereotypical Lady Gaga/Madonna loving gays in and only allow non-conformists?

These questions are hardly ever asked in the gay community...

LOL. I can just imagine a gay bouncer at a gay bar saying to someone "You look too straight so I'm not going to let you in." I'm pretty sure most gay bars assume that anyone coming in the door is by definition gay or bi or "bi-curious" or whatever and as long as they meet the dress code they get it. I could be wrong though. And I won't be testing that theory out.