Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever

["licorice gumdrop" <licorice.gumdrop@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Roza <alliumphobia@hotmail.com> wrote:


>  however, currently, there are 1100 federal laws giving benefits to married
> couples.  i'm not sure that most people would be able to remember all those
> benefits, as well as local benefits.  ....


this is a popular statement based on the GAO analysis done for the "defense"
of marriage act.  there are indeed in excess of 1100 federal laws in which
marital status is a determining factor, but they extend into special
carveouts, implicating regulations pertaining to, *inter alia*, surface
mining control and reclamation, the US-Chile free trade agreement, the
establishment of cooperative banks, agricultural credits under the various
regional ag authorities, judge training programs, and the chemical weapons
convention.  the federal government, for example, extends health benefits to
spouses in the mining industry that it does not provide in other
industries.  i believe many of these special dispensations to be
unnecessary, at the very least.

as far as repealing these benefits goes, i think the level of difficulty is
often overstated.  between their initial 1997 analysis and the GAO's 2004
analysis, 30 statutory provisions were repealed or amended to remove
reference to marital status - and this without a push to redefine
"marriage."

(the pdf of the GAO report is available at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgao.gov%2Fnew.items%2Fd04353r.pdf&ei=VUAsSfirK4fcesXOuLQE&usg=AFQjCNF3MthnWYN-Iz5c6q0ZCyStBr663g&sig2=Lu4-1-uBZsAdMn4n2dynTg
)

- j