Chambers wrote:
> 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.

Unless, you know, it was only opened by one person. Then where does it go?

> In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share 
> passes to their estate,

And who gets the estate if there isn't a will?

>>  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. 

Why? If the government has no recognition of marriage, why would the 
government let the stepmother have custody of the child?

>> 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.

That doesn't answer the question. You're trying to deny that the question 
won't come up.

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

We have that. We call it "marriage". See? :-)

> 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.

That's not a default.  A default means "what if I don't do that?"

If you're religiously married, and your spouse doesn't have a will, and you 
die, do you get any of his money, or does it all go to the children immediately?

> 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.

That fight has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with gay. 
You're falling for the propaganda.

You know, the interracial marriage fight wasn't about "preserving 
traditional marriage" either.

> 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.

Unless, you know, the wife is there.

> 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?

That the boyfriend gets to make the medical decisions.

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

Well, yes, exactly. That's why we have laws saying things like "after 
marriage, the spouse can make medical decisions in an emergency, and the 
spouse gets to visit the victim in the hospital, and so on."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message