Maybe the better answer is to give power of attorney to those that you trust, and to leave guvco out of it altogether.
You are arguing for more government involvement in your personal life and I am arguing against it, regardless of your sexual preference.

Not quite so cut and dried as all that.
Monogamy is also legislated.
Siblings can't marry either.
Parent/child marriages are also against the law.

I am against the government involvement in marriage that restricts those things also, are you? Or are you focused solely on homosexual marriage?

Well I think the state has legitimate state interests in close relations marrying, but other than that, I tend to believe that the government should allow consenting adults to make decisions about their marital associations.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

You are confusing "same restrictions" with "same rights".

A law that prevents people from marrying outside their own race is (by your logic) equal rights, correct?

Except SCOTUS rejected this thinking, recognizing that "equal restriction" IS NOT the same thing as "equal rights".

I have repeatedly asked you in reply to your above claim if it is an "equal right" to outlaw the star of david and the yarmulke.
After all, by your logic both the Christian and the Jew are then equally restricted from wearing Jewish symbols, are they not...


I beg to differ.
Don't judge things based on whether YOUR opinion has changed or not...

The opinion polls on gay marriage over the years have continually improved for gay equality.
Slowly but surely, the opinions are changing.

While it is true that the anti-gay marriage side has more points on the board, the pro-gay marriage side is steadily increasing their score on the score-board.
Given more time on the clock, "who's winning" is going to change..


Marital traditions have ALWAYS changed over time.
The previous trend used to be saying "No" to interracial marriage.

While the MODERN definition is INCLUSIVE for interracial marriage, the mid 1960's definition was not.
The definition of "marriage" and what is acceptable DOES CHANGE over time.

Today's standards which today's people insist need to be stagnant are going to change again.
In fact, they already are...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

And how much $$$ needs to be given to a lawyer to draft up that power of attorney?



No.
That's what you fail to understand.
If you have a spouse and family fighting over medical powers, that isn't "personal life".
I'm talking about the government resolving a legal dispute.

Do you think a legal court dispute between family and spouse as to medical decisions is "personal life"?

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I don't "tend to believe it".
Consenting adults can do what they want (as long as it doesn't infringe upon another person), guvco needs to butt out.

I drafted mine with $40 software.
Living will, final will, power of attorney among other things

Make your wishes known and put them in writing.
In other words, remove the legal dispute before it happens.
Do you want me to spend $40 on the software for you and send the disk?

Damn. You keep arguing as if you need the government to do this for you rather than telling them to get the heck out of your personal life and letting you decide these things on your own.

Well I don't see where you objected to my proviso... Excluding specifically close relations is a legitimate state interest.

So I don't see where we actually disagree.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

We have more agreement on this than disagreement.
I'm more adamant. I don't "tend".

Tend is merely a figure of speech. lol

I think that all consenting non-closely related adults should be able to enter into whatever relationship they find appropriate and the government should support that relationship with basic legal rights of entity creation.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942