Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I had power of attorney for my father in law before he died. So yes, people other than spouses can have PoA.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Callysta of Reverence

You mean like in-laws, which you only have if you're married?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

You can, but the person's next of kin can fight for POA and will usually win. Also, if one isn't named ie a younger person who has yet to have those documents written up and is in an accident, their s/o cannot make health ecisions decision. A child or parent would, even if they didn't know what the person wanted. And there's a ton of stories of a gay/lesbian s/o being denied visitation at all.

s^ | Kay

Eh, if there is a even small chance that gay marriage would be voted against "by the people" I'm all for it becoming legal with the stroke of the court's pen. Why beat around the bush? I don't believe that it should go to the ballot box if it is something that really isn't a discussion. Being against gay marriage is objectively wrong.

And no "slippery slope" argument, please. That's only for issues that have grey areas.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

^ this exactly.

What business does government have in personal decisions and / or religious matters to begin with? Constitutionally, zero.

All I hear from one side is either an argument on religious grounds, or an argument about marriage tax breaks and rationale for promoting repopulation.

All I hear from the other side is incendiary remarks involving the word "homophobia", creating a right to government benefits and a disregard for other avenues that if taken, result in almost every benefit that is found in marriage.

I find both sides majorly retarded.



Ideally, you wouldn't have any tax breaks for being married. The rationale behind tax breaks for married couples is to create further incentive for procreation. Sounds good in theory, isn't working in practice though. Our population growth is stagnant if you don't count immigrants.

At the state levels, you create a basic outline and set defaults for a civil union contract. Any matter of family and marriage could be worked out by a contract between parties, and if no condition was explicitly set in the contract, the court would refer to defaults. (For example, a divorce is occurring, and no adultery was involved, both parents are equally capable, but there was no clause in the civil union contract regarding child custody, custody would be awarded based on a default - whatever that may be.). The defaults could be dropped for different clauses, like a prenuptial agreement overrides the default even splitting of assets.

Then all that is (maybe) required are simple support laws. Like one allowing civilly unioned people to see each other in hospitals.

This isn't about your hypothetical ideal. Cases aren't decided based on what legislation might later be written, especially if it's tangential. They're decided on the facts present.

Fact: marriage is superior to civil union for reasons everyone agrees on (and have already been mentioned in this thread).
Fact: gays can't marry in certain states.
Question: is it constitutional for laws that restrict certain couples (of a pair of consenting adults, the animal, child, and polygamy arguments are red herrings) from the full benefits of state-recognized marriage to exist?
Not relevant: we can change the laws to make civil unions be the functional equivalent to marriage. Not in the case files, not being argued before the court. Totally irrelevant.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh