Nick Niddle is still holding on though. He recently published on Alas an article entitled, “Why I still more-or-less support same-sex marriage”. His reasons are enumerated in a list, at first they are itemized independent items but then merge into a …

When a married and umarried person retire and claim a pension the amount they get is the same amount (per year) for the same contribution. No problem there. But a married person’s pension passes to their spouse on death, and a single person’s doesn’t. So a married person’s pension is worth more than a single person’s - even though their pensions cost the same. If the law was changed so that this subsidy was removed, single people would be entitled to more money in retirement and married people would have to take a lower pension if they wanted it passed to their spouse.

Pensions is a very arcane subject, and that’s the short version. This cross-subsidy isn’t really well-publicised, but does exist.

(There’s is a further discriminatory effect between married couples pensions where SSM is legal. A married lesbian’s pension would be worth more that that of woman who married a man [women live longer, therefore there's a greater return because of surviorship], and a married gay man’s pension would be worth less than that of a man who married a woman [for the opposite reason].)

My husband’s employer as well as mine have 401k type retirement plans. In both cases the employer doesn’t contribute at all. I don’t feel like anyone else is subsidizing these accounts other than myself and my husband, because it is our salaries that we are investing. I don’t see why I shouldn’t have the right to be the beneficiary of his 401k should he die, and he for mine upon my own death.

Since he and I both work and pay SS ( I rountinely pay more taxes than he does, and we always pay at the end of the year). I actually won’t draw his SS but my own upon my retirement. This is of course assuming that Social Security is still solvent and operational when I become of age to draw benefits.

What policies would you like to see in place? Domestic partnership for unmarried couples that confer similar benefits as marriage? Or would you do away with survivorship in SS and pensions, etc?

I don’t really see myself as an total abolitionist. I think some aspects of marriage should be kept and others should be done away with.

I’ve said I think giving children priority in the distribution of property on divorce is a good thing. Rights like allowing spouses to see medical records and have a say in medical care harms no-one (but I do think unmarried people should have alternate mechanisms which allow them to do a similar thing). I’ve also no problem with spouses getting inheritance rights which can’t be annulled by a will and alimony. All of that’s great - it hurts no-one, is all consentual and if people want it, they should be allowed it.

My problem is with benefits that are discriminatory against the unmarried: inheritance tax exemptions, spousal pension entitlements, social security survivors’ benefits, rights to a spouse’s healthcare plan. This all functions to financially advantage the married and disadvantage the unmarried - because the unmarried subsidise it. All these aspects of marriage should be gotten rid of. I’m not sure removing these rights would create a vaccuum.

What system would you suggest in lieu of marriage as it exists? I’m just curious as to what would fill the vaccuum if marriage were to be abolished.

I should have used “unmarried father’s” rather than “husband’s”. I ‘m just trying to flag that marriage gives children rights to their parent property that they don’t have it their parents are unmarried. I’m sure we all agree on this, but it’s something that tends to get lost in “lets abolish marriage” discussions.

I’m not sure I agree with Stanford Law 1L all the way though. Many of the rights listed are funded by single people (pension survivors’ benefits, rights to a spouse’s healthcare plan, inheritance rights). I object to these rights because they advantage the married and disadvantage the unmarried. Yes, abolishing them would leave some women worse off; but I don’t think that’s automatically a bad thing. It’s unfair that married women get benefits that are subsidsed by unmarried women - or unmarried men, for that matter. I think removing this subsidy would be just.

I understand your concerns about marriage, but I’d be concerned about the effects of abolishing it altogether. Although marriage as a social institution is very problematic in many ways, the *legal* benefits often disproporationately benefit women. Consider Social Security survivors’ benefits, automatic rights to participate in a spouse’s healthcare plan, “community property” rules in many states that make a spouse’s income joint property, inheritance rights (that can’t be entirely annulled by a will), the right to alimony - the list goes on and on. For obvious reasons, the burden of getting rid of these rights would fall disproportionately on women.

Abolishing legal marriage isn’t going to get rid of social marriage. Unless you have a very simple, low-cost proposal for replacing those rights or providing some comparable benefit, in a legal regime without legal marriage a woman in a marriage-like relationship may wind up with few legal rights against her partner. A rich woman will be able to hire a lawyer to draft ironclad legal documents, but a poor woman probably won’t even if she has the means to. Either way she may not have the bargaining power to make her partner *sign* the documents. So if her “husband” dies without a will, she’ll be stuck in court arguing with other claimants to his estate rather than being sole heir; she’ll have no default rights to Social Security benefits; and so forth and so on. You probably think all that stuff should be changed too, but “abolish marriage” isn’t nearly as simple as it sounds, and the effects could easily be anti-feminist in practice.

Keep in mind that if your replacement regime is at all complicated, poor people may wind up not taking advantage of it *at all* because of the costs of hiring lawyers and the difficulty of getting the partners to agree on a system of rules, and that will be likely to leave poor women in the lurch in terms of legal rights.

Yup. Even though women tend to get the house along with custody, they become single income earners supporting themselves and dependent children. In this society, women earn less than men. Add to that the fact that alimony payments are never a guarantee and most divorced women with children find themselves financially poorer afterwards and with lower prospects of earning incomes comparable to those of most divorced men.

Oh, just to clarify, I’m not against gay marriage. I’m all for it because everyone who wants to marry should be able to in a democratic society. It’s an economic partnership and gays shouldn’t be denied those economic benefits just because they’re gay.

State laws vary greatly, but I’m not aware of any state where “But it’s in MY name!” is a trump card. Some states assume that both spouses have an interest in the family home (when my ex-husband bought a house, I had to show up at the closing and sign papers disclaiming any right to it); some treat the home as community property, with exceptions, as Mendy notes.

I understand your point about unmarried vs. married, but presumably when you talk about “the husband’s home” you’re talking about a married couple, since an unmarried man is not a husband.

A married couple may have a house that is owned by one or the other that is exempt from asset relocation in a divorce. In my state, if the house was part of an inheritance or was owned by one spouse only or the other prior to the divorce, then it isn’t included in the divorce preceedings. Of course, the catch here is that any equity accrued in the house is community property. *shrug*

My personal feeling is that marriage needs to be revamped, but that it isn’t going away any time soon. I am a proponent of SSM and of alternative lifestyles.

I am fascinated by the idea that the family home, shared by the partners and their children during marriage, is “the husband’s home” alone.

That’s not what I was suggesting. The home is the husband’s if the only name on the title deed is his. A court has the power to reallocate assets if a couple divorce, but not if an unmarried couple seperate (such as this one, which is by definition “the husband’s home”). That’s my point: a court can redistribute assets members a married couple own independently on divorce, if you’re not married they can’t do this.

My understanding is that child support, when imposed by a court, is independent of marital status, and that it can be enforced by any means up to and including seizure of assets.

You’re absolutely right. Children have the right to be supported by their parents (married or unmarried). However - on top of this - children of married parents have the primary claim on the assets of the marriage on divorce. So if an unmarried couple split up the child is entitled to support. If a married couple split up the child is entitled to support *and* has the primary claim on the assets of the marriage.

A court can claim assets and use them to pay unpaid child support debts, but that’s slightly different from what happens in divorce.

I have an excellent suggestion as to where they can put that penis.

However, most of the time you are talking about a divorce settlement where one spouse gets the house, often along with custody, in order (at least in theory) to provide stability for the children, such as it is.

However, I’m a mom, and I didn’t get a penny from the house and I didn’t get custody either. And in general, women tend to come out poorer from a divorce than men. In fact, because of our blatantly corrupt family courts, I wouldn’t dare purchase real property till my daughter is 21. Otherwise, it would be vulnerable to being seized for his bad debts (long story).

That’s why the banking industry opposes SSM. Two penises, equity conflict. Where should they put it every month? No penises, similar problem.

LOL

Marriage in society today always has a governmental context and sometimes has a religious context. I agree there should be equal protection on the governmental side. Of course, a lot of this is beating a dead horse. Clearly across much of the country SSM is not going to be accepted despite all the sound logic you can muster.

The religious side shouldn’t care just as long as the proponents of any given religion aren’t required to recognize the marriage in the context of said religion. At any rate, that is a battle to be fought in religious forums, not governmental ones.

Equity vests principally in the penis. No penis, no equity.

That’s why the banking industry opposes SSM. Two penises, equity conflict. Where should they put it every month? No penises, similar problem.

It’s hard enough to get out of a controlling or abusive relationship as it is, but it becomes doubly so when you’d be leaving behind all your assets and possessions. Were the couple married, contributions to the household that aren’t strictly moneta…

The economic component of marriage (survivorship, taxation, health insurance) is funded though a subsidy from the unmarried.

I’m not sure how you think the unmarried subsidize survivorship, but note that taxation does not fall uniformly on the married.

To quote Len Cella…. “Wrooooooong!”

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that child support, when imposed by a court, is independent of marital status, and that it can be enforced by any means up to and including seizure of assets.