|
"You would need to come up with a contractual partnership that is recognized by others the way marriage is."
Only if one has an interest in promoting the current, one-size-fits-all, version.
Idiosyncratic contracts, while not perfect, can go a long way to duplicating the important, core, benefits of 'marriage'.
#
"Insurance coverage is not offered to partners of a contract, only to spouses and family."
But this has roots in the current interpretation of marriage. Change the interpretation and those who stand to make a buck will change business practices to keep up.
#
"Hospitals only allow spouses to be involved in decision making and visiting patients. Partners of a contract are not allowed."
Again: this has roots in the current interpretation of marriage. Change the interpretation and those who stand to make a buck will change business practices to keep up.
#
"The IRS has a special filing status for spouses, but not for partners of a contract."
Never did see why married folks should have a special status.
If progressive income tax is the means, then make it so Joe (single or not) pays his share based on his income alone.
A special status is nuthin' more than the gov pickin' favorites.
#
"You would need to come up with a contractual partnership that is recognized by others the way marriage is."
Not really. What you need is the recognition of clear intent on the part of the contracted.
For example: a formal last will and testament binds any one involved (even those not contracted or formally recognized in the will) simply because the will is the codification of a clear intent.
Not seein' why an idiosyncratic contract between two (or more folks) wherein they give one another (with clear intent) these rights and these responsibilities (duplicating 'marriage') would be any more (or less) disputable than a state-regulated union
|