Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
....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."