MD House passes "Life Partner" Bill

[huntr1]

The Maryland House of Delegates gave final approval yesterday to a bill that would permit same-sex couples to register as "life partners" with the state health department, a designation that would grant them the same rights as married people to make medical decisions for each other.

What are your thoughts on this? I am in favor of it.

 

[vraiblonde]

At first glance, I'm in favor of it too. I think it's the word "marriage" that sends people over the edge so why not compromise? Gays get the benefit of legal partnership and the anti-gay folks don't have to worry about marriage getting bastardized - which is pretty funny if you think about it.

 

[crabcake]

I give MD a for working toward a solution to make everyone happy; unfortunately, that will NEVER happen.

Those likely to benefit include elderly couples who choose not to remarry because it could jeopardize pension and other benefits from a deceased spouse.

Sorry, but if you are moving from one period of your life with John/Jane Doe to join your life with someone else, you need to put that deceased spouse's benefits behind you as well. I know of too many double-dipping, money grubbing older folks in this country who will capitalize on this very aspect so they can double-dip. I say it's either an "all or none" deal.

"This bill, as amended, provides basic human rights to a segment of our community who has been denied these rights," said Elliott, a 72-year-old pharmacist and retired Navy lieutenant. "This bill does not infringe on the belief of any of us that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman."

I don't care what "your" beliefs are. You aren't the only person in this state. :shrug: It's not "equal" if it's not 'equal'. It gives gays "basic rights" while the rest of us hetero's apparently get some "special" rights.

As registered life partners, couples would be entitled to 11 distinct rights, such as visiting each other in hospitals and nursing homes, making major medical decisions in the absence of written instructions, consenting to an autopsy and arranging for a funeral.

Sure ... takes the responsibility (and liability) off the hospitals, homes, cities, etc.

I say, overall, it still falls short of treating EVERYONE equally. I'm not saying we should give gays "special rights"; but they are entitled (regardless of your PERSONAL/RELIGIOUS beliefs) to the same rights we all enjoy.

 

[Dymphna]

I think the idea is too narrow. What if I don't want my "next of kin" making medical decisions for me. For example, what if my brother is interested in medical experiments, what have you, and I'm against that and don't want him in control of me, should I be in a coma or something. But what if, I have no parents, spouse or children and by default, he's my next of kin? Shouldn't the law be broad enough for me to say that I want my friend, or cousin or someone else making those decisions.

I wouldn't necessarily want my friend or cousin designated my "life partner." I think if they change the wording of the law, it would help more people, while at the same time, appeasing the homophobes by not opening the door so wide for same sex marriage and the law would have more support, so that it'll actually get passed and true "life partners" can benefit.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by tatercake
I know of too many double-dipping, money grubbing older folks in this country who will capitalize on this very aspect so they can double-dip.

Are you crazy? Pensions and Social Security are monies that BELONG to the dead person. They paid into it all these years, now they're dead and can't get it back. Why shouldn't their widow get it, even if she DOES remarry? It's their money!

CMac, the obvious solution is to not give those rights to someone you don't trust. If you were lying in a coma right now, Huntr would have the right to decide what to do with you. You probably trust him to make that decision, right? Because you CHOSE him as your life partner.

 

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
CMac, the obvious solution is to not give those rights to someone you don't trust. If you were lying in a coma right now, Huntr would have the right to decide what to do with you. You probably trust him to make that decision, right? Because you CHOSE him as your life partner.

I know, what I'm saying is...give me he right to choose. I chose Huntr, but what if he's gone, my parents are gone, my children are underage and my siblings are psycho. I can leave a will with my wishes for after my death, but what if I'm still alive and in a coma or otherwise unable to make decisions for myself. The law gives that right to my siblings. What if I don't want them to have that right. Why can't they make the law so that I CAN chose who I want to make those decisions?

 

[crabcake]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Are you crazy? Pensions and Social Security are monies that BELONG to the dead person. They paid into it all these years, now they're dead and can't get it back. Why shouldn't their widow get it, even if she DOES remarry? It's their money!

I see your point here ... yea, they paid into it, but they are dead! I never understood why a company would keep paying the spouse when she never worked there ... her husband (or vice versa) did ... it was HIS money going into it and the company's ... why do they keep paying her? Isn't that what life insurance is for?

There are a lot of folks out there who their SOLE reason for not getting married is b/c they lose out on their dead spouse's benefits ... But the concept of uniting with someone is you work together, you build together, you create together. I'd feel like a smacked ass if I took my dead husband's pension and used it to defray my new husband's golf habit or other extracurricular activity or buy a motor home to tour the country with, etc. I don't know ... maybe it should go to the kids or something. Just seems really "uncut" to me.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by cmcdanal
Why can't they make the law so that I CAN chose who I want to make those decisions?

You can. It's called a living will and you can give those decision-making rights to anyone you choose.

 

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
You can. It's called a living will and you can give those decision-making rights to anyone you choose.

Can a living will include all that and be legally binding? If so, isn't the "life partner" law redundant?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by tatercake
she never worked there ... her husband (or vice versa) did ... it was HIS money going into it and the company's ... why do they keep paying her?

There are some who would contend that, if it hadn't been for the "woman behind the scenes", the husband wouldn't have been able to work, either. My ex is a good example of this. If I hadn't put my career on hold to take care of the kids and keep the house running, he wouldn't have been able to travel for his job as extensively as he did.

What if the spouse had a hefty bank account when he died? Should the spouse get that? I mean, it wasn't HER money, right? SHE didn't work for it, he did.

See what I'm saying?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by cmcdanal
Can a living will include all that and be legally binding? If so, isn't the "life partner" law redundant?

I think what gays are looking for is legitimacy in the eyes of society, not just hospital decision rights. Married people enjoy other benefits than just the technical stuff. People see you differently as a couple when you're married vs. when you're just shacking up. I think that's what they're after.

 

[crabcake]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
There are some who would contend that, if it hadn't been for the "woman behind the scenes", the husband wouldn't have been able to work, either. My ex is a good example of this. If I hadn't put my career on hold to take care of the kids and keep the house running, he wouldn't have been able to travel for his job as extensively as he did.

What if the spouse had a hefty bank account when he died? Should the spouse get that? I mean, it wasn't HER money, right? SHE didn't work for it, he did.

See what I'm saying?

A bank account (assuming it was joint) is "joint ownership" so yes, she should have rights to that ... but when the company hires John Doe, they don't also offer his wife a position. They simply cut him a deal on health insurance for her.

 

[crabcake]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I think what gays are looking for is legitimacy in the eyes of society, not just hospital decision rights. Married people enjoy other benefits than just the technical stuff. People see you differently as a couple when you're married vs. when you're just shacking up. I think that's what they're after.

agreed ... and I don't think this bill offers that to them. but it's better than just saying "NO ... God says you can't!"

 

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I think what gays are looking for is legitimacy in the eyes of society, not just hospital decision rights. Married people enjoy other benefits than just the technical stuff. People see you differently as a couple when you're married vs. when you're just shacking up. I think that's what they're after.

I know that's what they want, but what does this bill accomplish? It gives medical decision-making rights, rights to make funeral arrangements, rights to say if there's an autopsy or not, the right to visit in a hosp or nursing home and 7 other things not mentioned in the article. I don't think it gives rights to pensions, social security, or inheritance. It doesn't give rights to file income taxes together or rights to alimony/palimony in case of divorce. It doesn't give the right to be on each other's health insurance.

So my question is...does this law give any rights that couldn't be covered in a will and/or living will? If not, than the bill is worthless and redundant. It basically allows some people, who claim to be a couple to go the the health department and create a living will for free or maybe a nominal charge. But others who aren't a couple, but want someone besides the government determined "next of kin" in charge of certain decisions, have to go to a lawyer and pay to have a living will drawn up.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
At first glance, I'm in favor of it too. I think it's the word "marriage" that sends people over the edge so why not compromise? Gays get the benefit of legal partnership and the anti-gay folks don't have to worry about marriage getting bastardized - which is pretty funny if you think about it.

Good idea. I like the idea of "life partner" as long as it has all the legal protections AND legal responsibilities of marriage. My understanding of civil unions is that the legal stuff is more limited than for marriages. Is that correct?