• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Jack Hays said:
SCOTUS has followed the surest, swiftest path to marriage equality.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS taking the case and making a single ruling that applies to every state in the union could be faster.

Jack Hays said:
It's over. No one wants to go down in history as the last holdout.
Click to expand...


Rhetoric from some of the GOP and some of the redder state governors/AGs seems to indicate otherwise. The tears of rage and absurdly hyperbolic language have continued with this latest ruling.
 
Deuce said:
SCOTUS taking the case and making a single ruling that applies to every state in the union could be faster.




Rhetoric from some of the GOP and some of the redder state governors/AGs seems to indicate otherwise. The tears of rage and absurdly hyperbolic language have continued with this latest ruling.
Click to expand...

Had SCOTUS taken the case for the Fall 2014 docket there would be no ruling before June 2015 and all cases would come to full stop until then. Now, marriages are going forward and state laws are being set aside.
 
Jack Hays said:
Had SCOTUS taken the case for the Fall 2014 docket there would be no ruling before June 2015 and all cases would come to full stop until then. Now, marriages are going forward and state laws are being set aside.
Click to expand...

There are still about 15 or so states under a Circuit Court that hasn't made a ruling on this issue yet, with at least two of those Courts being said to lean toward siding with the states' bans.
 
roguenuke said:
They are not needed for most people so long as marriage is available. Marriage is efficient for most couples, and quite inexpensive.

The government would still get to decide which contracts were recognized and who got precedent over legal family, the same as they do now in those states that do not recognize same sex marriages and there have been cases of same sex partners getting screwed over by the courts and legal kin of their loved one.
Click to expand...
My claim is that legal kinship can be provided through private contract without any significant expense, and a marriage license is not required. None of the above refutes that.
 
roguenuke said:
There are still about 15 or so states under a Circuit Court that hasn't made a ruling on this issue yet, with at least two of those Courts being said to lean toward siding with the states' bans.
Click to expand...

I doubt there is any new law in any remaining state ban that wasn't in the bans already overturned. The judges know that and they know the SCOTUS declined to hear the states' appeals. The message is clear and will be understood.
 
Lakryte said:
My claim is that legal kinship can be provided through private contract without any significant expense, and a marriage license is not required. None of the above refutes that.
Click to expand...

You can't prove that though. Theoretically it could be provided privately, but in reality, it wouldn't work that easy, nor would it be "inexpensive", plus it would have to include the government on some level, so it is almost guaranteed to not be nearly as "simple" as you are trying to make it out to be.
 
roguenuke said:
Legal kinship cannot be legitimately established without the government being involved in some way.
Click to expand...
It only needs to be involved with regards to enforcement. The government does not have to issue the contract itself. Period.

It is ridiculous to assume that it would be different if there were some form of legal kinship documents available that the government didn't offer. And so long as the government is involved, it is not likely to be cheap going through non-government sources, since legal kinship is pretty important for legal matters and affairs of a person.
Click to expand...
That what would be different? Writing a contract and signing it is free, especially when it is as simple as declaring someone to be the legal next of kin. It would take no more than a few lines of writing. You can even find free examples of this online to use. Your notion that it would be expensive is completely unfounded and makes no sense whatsoever. Your claims are entirely baseless.Why would it be more expensive? What would the costs be? Do you have any evidence of this? What?
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
It only needs to be involved with regards to enforcement. The government does not have to issue the contract itself. Period.


That what would be different? Writing a contract and signing it is free, especially when it is as simple as declaring someone to be the legal next of kin. It would take no more than a few lines. Your notion that it would be expensive is completely unfounded and makes no sense whatsoever. Your claims are entirely baseless.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of places where they would have to recognize the contract, or then it would be more expensive and/or less efficient than marriage currently is, therefore making it pointless to use this "private NOK" agreement rather than the government offered marriages. And should those marriages go away, be replaced by this private contract, there would be a lot of ticked off people for replacing their efficient, inexpensive marriages with something that really only gives the lawyers more money.

No, it is not that simple. There is language that has to be used when it comes to contracts, hence why the vast majority of people hire lawyers when it comes to writing contracts, to try to get their language legally "right". My "notion" is based on current legal documents that should be simple but aren't, and shouldn't cost huge fees, but still do. An In Loco Parentis should only take a few lines as well, yet mine required two full pages to name my brother as the person who would take care of my children legally should my husband and I both be called up to go out for military service.
 
roguenuke said:
You can't prove that though. Theoretically it could be provided privately, but in reality, it wouldn't work that easy, nor would it be "inexpensive", plus it would have to include the government on some level, so it is almost guaranteed to not be nearly as "simple" as you are trying to make it out to be.
Click to expand...
I already proved it. That was the purpose of the UK example. This is just basic contract writing. Are you claiming that only government bureaucrats have the capability to write a contract? Because that is absurd.

Why wouldn't it work easily? What is so hard about it that only government can do? Why would it be expensive to establish next of kin? Do you have any evidence of this? What? Be specific. You are throwing out these baseless assertions as gospel.
 
roguenuke said:
There are plenty of places where they would have to recognize the contract, or then it would be more expensive and/or less efficient than marriage currently is, therefore making it pointless to use this "private NOK" agreement rather than the government offered marriages. And should those marriages go away, be replaced by this private contract, there would be a lot of ticked off people for replacing their efficient, inexpensive marriages with something that really only gives the lawyers more money.
Click to expand...
There you go again making no sense at all. I really don't think you understand this issue at all, with all due respect. Nobody is advocating that a next of kin contract replace marriage licenses. That doesn't even make sense. The argument, as I have stated several times quite specifically and you should know by now, is that legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. Such a contract does not require a lawyer to be paid a single cent.

No, it is not that simple. There is language that has to be used when it comes to contracts, hence why the vast majority of people hire lawyers when it comes to writing contracts, to try to get their language legally "right". My "notion" is based on current legal documents that should be simple but aren't, and shouldn't cost huge fees, but still do. An In Loco Parentis should only take a few lines as well, yet mine required two full pages to name my brother as the person who would take care of my children legally should my husband and I both be called up to go out for military service.
Click to expand...
Establishing a next of kin would require one or two lines of writing maximum. You can find free examples of such contracts online. Next of kin is a term that has a legal meaning in and of itself in the united states. Thus you do not need to explain what the term means. You just say. "For all purposes, X is the next of kin of Y." If you want something more complicated than that, then sure, hire a lawyer. But most people will not need one for something so simple. The law already exists that defines the benefits and responsibilities of a next of kin, the only question needing answering is who that is to be.
 
Lakryte said:
I already proved it. That was the purpose of the UK example. This is just basic contract writing. Are you claiming that only government bureaucrats have the capability to write a contract? Because that is absurd.

Why wouldn't it work easily? What is so hard about it that only government can do? Why would it be expensive to establish next of kin? Do you have any evidence of this? What? Be specific. You are throwing out these baseless assertions as gospel.
Click to expand...


So have you ever established (which since you are making the claim) that that UK "next of kin" assignment does all the things that Civil Marriage does in the United States?

United Kingdom

The term has no legal definition in the United Kingdom. An individual can nominate any other individual as their next-of-kin. There is no requirement for the nominated person to be a blood relative, although it is common. The nominated person must agree to the nomination, otherwise it is invalid. The status of next-of-kin confers no legal rights and has no special responsibilities, except as referred to below in the specific context of the Mental Health Act.

The status of next-of-kin does not in any way imply that they stand to inherit any of the individual's estate in the event of their death.

In the context of health care, patients are often asked to nominate a next-of-kin when registering with their general practitioner, or alternatively on admission to hospital. Hospitals will then notify the next-of-kin that the patient has been admitted or if there is any change in their condition. If the patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to state their next-of-kin, hospitals will usually list their nearest blood relative, though there are no specific rules. Doctors attempt to seek the views of the next-of-kin when considering decision making for unconscious patients or those who lack capacity. The next-of-kin has no power to make any decisions regarding medical care, only to advise, and can neither override the previously stated wishes of the patient nor prevent the medical team acting in what they consider to be the best interests of the patient.

Powers similar to next-of-kin as defined in other jurisdictions can be explicitly delegated to another person using lasting power of attorney,[3] under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005[4] (note that this Act does not relate specifically to mental health and is largely unrelated to the Mental Health Act). Next of kin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
So have you ever established (which since you are making the claim) that that UK "next of kin" assignment does all the things that Civil Marriage does in the United States?

United Kingdom

The term has no legal definition in the United Kingdom. An individual can nominate any other individual as their next-of-kin. There is no requirement for the nominated person to be a blood relative, although it is common. The nominated person must agree to the nomination, otherwise it is invalid. The status of next-of-kin confers no legal rights and has no special responsibilities, except as referred to below in the specific context of the Mental Health Act.

The status of next-of-kin does not in any way imply that they stand to inherit any of the individual's estate in the event of their death.

In the context of health care, patients are often asked to nominate a next-of-kin when registering with their general practitioner, or alternatively on admission to hospital. Hospitals will then notify the next-of-kin that the patient has been admitted or if there is any change in their condition. If the patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to state their next-of-kin, hospitals will usually list their nearest blood relative, though there are no specific rules. Doctors attempt to seek the views of the next-of-kin when considering decision making for unconscious patients or those who lack capacity. The next-of-kin has no power to make any decisions regarding medical care, only to advise, and can neither override the previously stated wishes of the patient nor prevent the medical team acting in what they consider to be the best interests of the patient.

Powers similar to next-of-kin as defined in other jurisdictions can be explicitly delegated to another person using lasting power of attorney,[3] under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005[4] (note that this Act does not relate specifically to mental health and is largely unrelated to the Mental Health Act). Next of kin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​



>>>>
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about a next of kin contract replacing marriage, so no I have not established such nor do I need to. Again you address a strawman argument. Let me reiterate yet again the simple point I am making.

Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document.

The claim is not that hard to understand.
 
Lakryte said:
I already proved it. That was the purpose of the UK example. This is just basic contract writing. Are you claiming that only government bureaucrats have the capability to write a contract? Because that is absurd.

Why wouldn't it work easily? What is so hard about it that only government can do? Why would it be expensive to establish next of kin? Do you have any evidence of this? What? Be specific. You are throwing out these baseless assertions as gospel.
Click to expand...

The UK are not us, nor did they do away with marriage. They simply have an additional way for people to become next of kin, but in reality I doubt it honestly covers everything. Our lawyers/courts though seem to be more complicated than the UKs.

As I've said, it would be expensive, because you would have to get a lawyer to write up any such contract to ensure it is done right, otherwise it leaves it open to legal loopholes, here in the US. That is why everything from SSNs to addresses to full names and exactly what my brother can take care of from what dates to what dates and for what reasons, plus more was written into my In loco parentis, despite knowing that it wasn't likely that he would need it. Legal contracts take money to be done right.

In the case of marriage, the reason that it works so well, so efficiently, and is so inexpensive is because they write basically one giant contract (via laws that recognize/address spouses and their rights, benefits, privileges, responsibilities, etc.) that each couple agrees to upon getting married. These stipulations do not have to be written into each specific marriage license because they are written into laws to cover spouses. Then people can use other legal paperwork, if they choose, to strengthen their own marriages for their specific needs, if they need something else (such as someone else to handle their affairs besides their spouse for whatever reason).

Name a single legal kinship that established in the US via private contract which is free. How much does it cost to fill out the paperwork for an adoption? There is actually adoption paperwork available for adopting adults and married minors, but even that costs money to file, including court costs.
 
Lakryte said:
I'm not talking about a next of kin contract replacing marriage, so no I have not established such nor do I need to. Again you address a strawman argument. Let me reiterate yet again the simple point I am making.

Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document.

The claim is not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

It can't be done though without some sort of government involvement, such as a court case that accepts those people as legally recognized kin. Even when adopting an adult, a person has to go through the courts.
 
Lakryte said:
There you go again making no sense at all. I really don't think you understand this issue at all, with all due respect. Nobody is advocating that a next of kin contract replace marriage licenses. That doesn't even make sense. The argument, as I have stated several times quite specifically and you should know by now, is that legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. Such a contract does not require a lawyer to be paid a single cent.


Establishing a next of kin would require one or two lines of writing maximum. You can find free examples of such contracts online. Next of kin is a term that has a legal meaning in and of itself in the united states. Thus you do not need to explain what the term means. You just say. "For all purposes, X is the next of kin of Y." If you want something more complicated than that, then sure, hire a lawyer. But most people will not need one for something so simple. The law already exists that defines the benefits and responsibilities of a next of kin, the only question needing answering is who that is to be.
Click to expand...

No, it is not that easy. You must include socials and/or other info that specifically identifies exactly who each person is, and specifics for where that person falls when it comes to the hierarchy of next of kin. Are they each the other's closest next of kin or simply related? Are they above or below siblings, parents, cousins, spouses, who?
 
Lakryte said:
I'm not talking about a next of kin contract replacing marriage, so no I have not established such nor do I need to. Again you address a strawman argument. Let me reiterate yet again the simple point I am making.

Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document.

The claim is not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...


Then I'm confused. If the intend is not to replace Civil Marriage Licenses with non-governmental next-of-kin forms but then not having that form replace marriage, then what is the use?

Remember "next of kin" <> Spouse, and since you said you aren't looking to replace marriage - then there would still be spouses as a separate legal entity.

While a spouse is next of kin, that does not mean that next of kin can function as a spouse. I gave some specific examples before concerning Estate Tax and Home Sale Property Exemption where ONLY a Spouse (not a next of kin) qualified under the law. There are many, many more. For example when I was in the military during the period I was unmarried - my parents were my next of kin. I could draw up documents and designate a non-releative as "next of kin". However those people would not have been eligible for Spousal privileges such as relocation to a new duty station, medical/health care treatment, command sponsorship for foreign travel. Another is Social Security Survivor payments. A Spouse is eligible to receive either their own SS rate or the rate of a deceased spouse, which ever is greater as long as they have been married a required number of contributory quarters. A "next of kin" is not eligible for that.



>>>>
 
roguenuke said:
The UK are not us, nor did they do away with marriage. They simply have an additional way for people to become next of kin, but in reality I doubt it honestly covers everything. Our lawyers/courts though seem to be more complicated than the UKs.

As I've said, it would be expensive, because you would have to get a lawyer to write up any such contract to ensure it is done right, otherwise it leaves it open to legal loopholes, here in the US. That is why everything from SSNs to addresses to full names and exactly what my brother can take care of from what dates to what dates and for what reasons, plus more was written into my In loco parentis, despite knowing that it wasn't likely that he would need it. Legal contracts take money to be done right.

In the case of marriage, the reason that it works so well, so efficiently, and is so inexpensive is because they write basically one giant contract (via laws that recognize/address spouses and their rights, benefits, privileges, responsibilities, etc.) that each couple agrees to upon getting married. These stipulations do not have to be written into each specific marriage license because they are written into laws to cover spouses. Then people can use other legal paperwork, if they choose, to strengthen their own marriages for their specific needs, if they need something else (such as someone else to handle their affairs besides their spouse for whatever reason).

Name a single legal kinship that established in the US via private contract which is free. How much does it cost to fill out the paperwork for an adoption? There is actually adoption paperwork available for adopting adults and married minors, but even that costs money to file, including court costs.
Click to expand...
This is my claim: Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. When did I claim the UK did away with marriage? Honestly, are you purposefully ignoring my actual argument? Or do you really not comprehend it? Establishing next of kin via a simple contract does not need to be expensive or difficult.
 
roguenuke said:
It can't be done though without some sort of government involvement, such as a court case that accepts those people as legally recognized kin. Even when adopting an adult, a person has to go through the courts.
Click to expand...
No court case is necessary. If government requires an unnecessary court case to declare someone as next of kin, that is an inefficiency caused entirely by government, not private contract.

No, it is not that easy. You must include socials and/or other info that specifically identifies exactly who each person is, and specifics for where that person falls when it comes to the hierarchy of next of kin. Are they each the other's closest next of kin or simply related? Are they above or below siblings, parents, cousins, spouses, who?
Click to expand...
It is that easy. Including that information is not hard at all. Just include it. Within the context of U.S. law, you simply state where the person falls in the hierarchy. Normally you would only declare someone to be the actual next of kin, meaning the top of the hierarchy. The fact that there is already a default hierarchy followed in the absence of a specified contract just makes it even easier.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Then I'm confused. If the intend is not to replace Civil Marriage Licenses with non-governmental next-of-kin forms but then not having that form replace marriage, then what is the use?

Remember "next of kin" <> Spouse, and since you said you aren't looking to replace marriage - then there would still be spouses as a separate legal entity.

While a spouse is next of kin, that does not mean that next of kin can function as a spouse. I gave some specific examples before concerning Estate Tax and Home Sale Property Exemption where ONLY a Spouse (not a next of kin) qualified under the law. There are many, many more. For example when I was in the military during the period I was unmarried - my parents were my next of kin. I could draw up documents and designate a non-releative as "next of kin". However those people would not have been eligible for Spousal privileges such as relocation to a new duty station, medical/health care treatment, command sponsorship for foreign travel. Another is Social Security Survivor payments. A Spouse is eligible to receive either their own SS rate or the rate of a deceased spouse, which ever is greater as long as they have been married a required number of contributory quarters. A "next of kin" is not eligible for that.



>>>>
Click to expand...
The problem is that nearly everyone who has responded to me has completely ignored the original claim I was responding to myself in the first place. To paraphrase, the claim was "without a marriage license, establishing legal kinship would be impossible." I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the claim. Without a marriage license, a person may establish their next of kin with a very simple contract, at virtually no cost to boot. I pointed out this is done in the UK to prove obviously it was not impossible. Thus, the claim I responded to was proven wrong. That's it.
 
Jack Hays said:
I doubt there is any new law in any remaining state ban that wasn't in the bans already overturned. The judges know that and they know the SCOTUS declined to hear the states' appeals. The message is clear and will be understood.
Click to expand...

You may be right. In light of the overturn of Alaska's ban, which was another constitutional amendment voted by the people. Looks like a rout. This should be interesting.
 
Lakryte said:
The problem is that nearly everyone who has responded to me has completely ignored the original claim I was responding to myself in the first place. To paraphrase, the claim was "without a marriage license, establishing legal kinship would be impossible." I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the claim. Without a marriage license, a person may establish their next of kin with a very simple contract, at virtually no cost to boot. I pointed out this is done in the UK to prove obviously it was not impossible. Thus, the claim I responded to was proven wrong. That's it.
Click to expand...


Because you have attempted to equate next of kin with spouse. I previously said "I'm asking what other documents establish a legal next of kin relationship with the same scope currently existing for a $35.00 marriage license that is recognized and enforceable in all 50 states?" and your response was "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice." You were attempting to equal next of kin with spouse.

Now you've said "I'm not talking about a next of kin contract replacing marriage,..." which means that next of kin and Spouse would continue to mean different things under the law. I have provided at least 4 examples of where "next of kin" and "spouse" function differently under the law (Estate Tax, Home Sale, Military Recognition, and Social Security) and there are many more.

So while a spouse is a next of kin, a next of kin need not be a spouse. So saying I can draw up a one line sheet of paper, sign it and have it notarized, yet that piece of paper does not create a spousal relationship means - well - not a whole lot in terms of the basis of the discussion. Which are the rights, responsibilities and privileges of Civil Marriage. A "next of kin" designation gives someone the "power" to make decisions in the even you are incapacitated (maybe medical decisions, funeral arrangments, etc.) but it does transfer the responsibilities that a spousal arrangement recognizes.


>>>>
 
Lakryte said:
This is my claim: Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. When did I claim the UK did away with marriage? Honestly, are you purposefully ignoring my actual argument? Or do you really not comprehend it? Establishing next of kin via a simple contract does not need to be expensive or difficult.
Click to expand...

But not without the government still getting involved.

We already do have some that do this, but not for spouses because that is a specific kinship that comes with much more compensation and recognition from the government than most other kinships.

I'm trying to figure out your argument. I began with the argument that marriage is most easily done via the government, not other forms of kinship, although it can easily be argued that it is likely more efficient to even do those through the government directly too, since they will have to be involved.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Because you have attempted to equate next of kin with spouse. I previously said "I'm asking what other documents establish a legal next of kin relationship with the same scope currently existing for a $35.00 marriage license that is recognized and enforceable in all 50 states?" and your response was "A simple contract establishing next of kin would suffice." You were attempting to equal next of kin with spouse.
Click to expand...
No, I was not attempting to nor did I ever equate next of kin with spouse.
quote:

"What other document establishes legal kinship for the myriad of laws that exist and do so for the $35.00 of a Civil Marriage license?"

You did not ask what document establishes "the full range of spousal benefits" one would get via a marriage license. You asked what document establishes "a legal next of kin relationship" or "legal kinship." And the correct answer is a simple contract, such as those that exist in the UK. If anyone was conflating next of kin with a spouse, it was you.
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
No court case is necessary. If government requires an unnecessary court case to declare someone as next of kin, that is an inefficiency caused entirely by government, not private contract.

It is that easy. Including that information is not hard at all. Just include it. Within the context of U.S. law, you simply state where the person falls in the hierarchy. Normally you would only declare someone to be the actual next of kin, meaning the top of the hierarchy. The fact that there is already a default hierarchy followed in the absence of a specified contract just makes it even easier.
Click to expand...

It is necessary to ensure that people are not trying to a) defraud the government or others that may give compensation of some sort for being a certain level of next of kin or to ensure b) that someone is not wrongfully trying to set themselves up as someone else's next of kin through fraud or by taking advantage of that person.

It is not that easy. You definitely do not understand how complicated and full of loopholes American law is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom