Hacker News Reader

Comment by jivardo_nucci | Hacker News Reader

Yes, the civil and legal ramifications are important:

- my inheritance: my spouse can get my SS income when I die, my wife inherits my goods by default, etc. Now gays get the same treatment.

- taxes: are different for married and non-married folks. Now gays get the same treatment.

IOW "follow the money".

This ruling will change how much money the government pays to its citizens and how money is passed among its citizens (after marriage and death in particular). But nobody ever discussed the ramifications of this and the entire discussion was based around a bunch of bombast.

So we're not simply "changing the name".

View on HN

Also visitation rights in hospitals, for example on death bed. Co-parenting rights and many more.

"Now gays get the same treatment."

Actually now ANY TWO people can get the same treatment. Two straight males can get married. If I was single and I had a friend with good benefits, I'd make a case to get married... The savings on insurance and taxes we'd share. Now if millions did this, the cost of those benefits will go up drastically.

How is this any different to a male and female friend better married just for tax benefit? Its not widespread now, why would it become widespread when people of the same sex can do it?

I would say social taboos prevented it from happening between more often between platonic men and women more so in the past.

Feel free. And realise the massive financial risks you are taking by being legally tied to someone. Especially someone who does not have the same kind of emotional bond to you as a genuine spouse hopefully would.

Have you seen this on HN yet?: http://www.jefftk.com/p/how-to-get-a-massive-discount-on-col...

Get married to a platonic roommate with a prenup. Risky some what, but with prenups and no fault divorce the risk is greatly diminished.

The access to finding another human to join incomes and assets for tax planning purposes has doubled.

A prenup is insufficient unless you're also in a legal environment where a spouse can not financially make both of you jointly and severally liable for a debt, for example.

It doesn't help you if the other party doesn't get any of your stuff in a divorce if you're still saddled with debts they took on while you were married.

There may be places where this is possible, but I doubt it'd be worth it once you factor in the cost of sufficiently safeguarding yourself, unless there are massive amounts of money involved.

What stopped you from marrying a female friend back when you were single?

Nothing. Except I tended to hang out with and lived mostly other straight men. I'd probably have been able to convince one to do prenup and marry for strictly platonic income and tax planning reasons. See comment above or below related to prenups and no fault divorces.

I think our wires got crossed here. I'm arguing against the idea that we should change the name to civil unions and make it legal, as opposed to just legalizing equal "marriage".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com