Originally Posted by mcbear
That is a good question. Without a CIVIL UNION, and legal status under it, a couple does not have rights to insurance, wills, Social Security, all of the other benefits that current married couples have.
An example. I have two gay friends who have been together for 40 years. One is a noted Psychiatrist and her partner has stayed at home and raised their four adopted children. When the Psychiatrist was taken to the hospital from a bad car wreck, the doctors could not even talk to her partner about her condition because they were not "married". Only a call from me at 3am to the Director of the hospital at his home got the problem solved.
Think of all the things you can do as a married person with your jobs health insurance, benefits, 401K, life insurance, etc. Now, if something happened to you and your wife had to go to court for each and every instance that she had to address an issue that should have been obvious and normal, you would be kicking and screaming that those issues should be taken care of.
That is all they are asking. You call it "me too". But that is a real big Fn "ME TOO".
Thanks Mac - this is what I was hoping to get to. I don't consider that "me too" at all.
Now then, of all the circumstances you cited, the only one that I've not heard addressed is the one regarding dissemination of patient details to a significant other.
I believe that at almost any company, one can name any beneficiary they wish for 401k, life insurance, etc. I'm not as certain about health insurance, but it seems like this could be accommodated by a company if they so desired - after all, most companies anymore are effectively self-insured. I wonder if anyone can cite an employer who offers these benefits to same-sex couples on their own, in absence of a federal mandate to do so. It could be argued though, that the additional costs of insuring the significant other of a homosexual (especially one who does not work) would be borne in part by people who are fundamentally opposed to the practice; hence the perception of one's own rights being intruded on for the sake of those of another.
Personal life insurance and questions about wills are pretty easily addressed with the establishment of a trust - anyone beyond the age of 45 with a significant other and without
a trust established for their estate is either lazy, underinformed, or terminally stupid (as a trip through probate will plainly illuminate). This is just common sense stuff, and doesn't matter if you're gay or not.
Someone else may be able to provide details that contradict or reinforce what I've taken to understand about these factors (and yours).