"Bundle of Rights" argument

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't know if inheritance is a fundamental right. But to say that inheritance setups are okay, except for ones involving gay partners, is crazy in my book.

Who says that? If you have a will you can set up your inheritance any way you want to. What we are talking about is what happens when you don't have a will and intestacy statutes control.

If you are gay and want everything to go to your partner, so be it. I don't know of anywhere you can't do that. In fact, most places you can leave everything for the benefit of a pet. Ditto for leaving your partner in charge of medical decisions or giving them power over your person or property in the event of incapacity.

Why does it make more sense for intestacy laws to govern a gay person's estate after death than it does for that person's will to govern. Are we all talking about the same thing?

[MikeWaters]

some have made the point that all the things that are included in most civil unions can be obtained in an a la carte method, employing a lawyer, drawing up documents. There may be some exceptions.

What this general authority opposes is that they be bundled together by statute for non-traditional couples/groups. I certainly wouldn't restrict civil unions to gays. They would be available to straights also and potentially groups.

So what is fundamentally wrong with bundling? What is the bedrock principle of the gospel that says "bundling bad, a la carte ok"?

By the way it is very easy to answer questions when there is never a followup question.

[SeattleUte]

There is a principled dinstinction that can be made here--disaproval of public imprimitur on gay marriage through making laws sanctioning or protecting it vs. respecting the right of private individuals to make agreements allocating risk, providing for security and peace of mind, and protecting property interests. This is not a distinction I make but one I respect. If your personal code precludes putting gay and heterosexual marriage on equal footing, this is a distinction with a rational basis grounded in conservative and libertarian values and respect for property interests. Probably the Church won't make this distinction because it would have to concede too much. So it engages in pretzel logic.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

There is a principled dinstinction that can be mad here--disaproval of public imprimitur on gay marriage through making laws sanctioning or protecting it vs. respecting the right of private individuals to make agreements allocating risk, providing for security and peace of mind, and protecting property interests. This is not a distinction I make but one I respect. If your personal code precludes putting gay and heterosexual marriage on equal footing, this is a distinction with a rational basis grounded in conservative and libertarian values and respect for property interests. Probably the Church won't make this distinction because it would have to concede too much. So it engages in pretzel logic.

I think you have captured it exactly.