Darren New wrote:
> There's a whole raft of stuff that goes on. You have a bank account 
> shared between two married people. One of them dies. What happens to the 
> bank account?

Marriage has nothing to do with that.  Virtually all joint bank accounts 
are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one owner dies the 
remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.

In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share 
passes to their estate, and the remaining funds are, of course, held by 
the surviving owners.

>  You have a married couple. They have a kid. Kid's mother 
> dies. Dad remarries. Kid's dad dies. Who has custody of the kid?

If you'd like my honest opinion, I would say the stepmother.  However, 
there is room for consideration of other relatives if they were 
particularly close.

> Husband 
> spends whole life providing for wife. Wife has no career outside the 
> house. Husband dies. Who gets husband's social security payments? Who 
> inherits the husband's money if the husband made no will?

If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part.  It's 
not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.

As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple, 
easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.

>  Say you get 
> religiously married, but before you tell the insurance company, you get 
> in a car accident. Is your wife covered?

Say you're about to get religiously married, but the week before you get 
in a car accident.  Is your fiancee covered?

> All of these things *could* be contractually determined. However, you 
> still need defaults for when they haven't been and the event occurs, 
> just like you have laws saying whether or not the store is required to 
> refund your money for stuff you bought broken when the store hasn't 
> expressed a warranty policy.

I agree, you still need defaults.  That's why I think designating a next 
of kin or heir should be a simple, easy legal process.

> What's the reason you are thinking for not having the government collect 
> a set of rights and privileges together and saying "this goes to people 
> who say they're married"?

The fact that "marriage" is a loaded word, with a lot of history, 
assumptions and ideas that go with it.  Assumptions and ideas that make 
people get itchy for a fight, like is happening now with laws & 
amendments covering gay marriage.

>>> When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to 
>>> visit?
>>
>> I'm sorry, is that a legal matter or an administrative matter?  I 
>> don't think we need laws saying who can and can't visit people in the 
>> hospital.
> 
> OK. When you're hurt in an accident and unable to make decisions for 
> yourself. Who says who is allowed to make the medical decisions about 
> whether you get a blood transfusion, an operation, etc? Who gets to 
> decide if you donate organs? Who is allowed to give consent for medical 
> treatment?

AFAIK, most states have "implied consent" laws.  If you're hurt so badly 
that you are unable to communicate whether or not you wish to be 
treated, you are assumed to consent to the treatment.

Organ donatorship is usually specified on drivers' licenses as a 
convenience, though I believe family is consulted as a courtesy (which 
I'm personally against; if I want to donate my organs, I don't want my 
family taking that away from me after I've kicked the bucket).

> Say you wrote up a contract with your boyfriend. Does the doctor have to 
> honor that contract? He's not a party to it, remember.

What kind of contract?  What would you be specifying in it?

You can't just put anything you want in a contract and expect it to be 
binding.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message