Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy

Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here.


North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

Debating with the enemy


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 08-20-2012, 05:34 PM   #11
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 63
Posts: 10,401
Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
....I understand what you're saying, but you're stuck on marriage being the only vehicle to receive certain benefits or rights. And I'm saying, why?
You can call it a "banana" as far as I am concerned. I have used to the term "marriage" b/c that is the traditional way this type of contract has been identified.

In my original post on this particualar topic, I suggested that the term "marriage" be removed from the government's dictionary and be replaced by the term "civil union" to describe the particular contract that has evolved to shorthand the multiple property rights that are created when two people join into contract of mutual lifetime support.

As an example, no insurer would permit and most (if not all) State's prohibit taking out an insurance contract on someone you don't have an insurable interest on - i.e. a spouse, child or blood relative. This prevent's "gambling on someone's life. (I can't just take out a 400K life insurance policy on NC Skins and then hope he dies a horrible death to my benefit). Without a spousal relationship created by the "Marriage Contract", I simply could not take out a life insurance policy on my wife.

The "Marriage Contract", as it is currently known, creates a bundle of property rights and liabilities some of which are obvious, some not so much. You can use whatever term you want but to eliminate this form of contract would be incredibly disruptive to the estate planning, property transfers, tax liabilities, etc. etc.

It would be similar to saying "From now on, no one can incorporate."
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 5.09330 seconds with 11 queries