Marriage Vs Marriage.. A question

[Irving]

Does a general durable power of attorney work both ways? What if the power of attorney gets sick? Don't you have to give up some sort of rights when you sign over power of attorney, or have to be handicapped in some way? Generally poa is asigned when someone is unable to handle their own aFfairs. How then, ey ble to handle the affairs of others if they can't handle their own? Want to see a serious divorce disaster? Get two people going through a bitter "divorce" who hold each other's power of attorney. Finally, does holding someone's power of attorney mean you are entitled to their social security after they die like a marriage?

Do we have an answer to this question? Can you have power of attorney over someone, if someone else has power of attorney over you?

[clublights]

Well I have to say :
other then a couple little spats where stuff got a bit outta control I'm pleasantly surprised we all behaved so well .

I feel 90% of the posts got off my original topic but they were highly informative.

Everyones answers and debates ( yes even tristans) gave me a bit more insight then before we started tho Cstone's post of the following helped the most on my original topic ( in my opinion)

If you define "traditional marriage" as one adult man married to one adult woman, then redefining marriage to one adult person to another adult person, then the harm would be dependent on whether you believe the former definition was of more value than the later definition.

This I believe is a value judgment. Some see no real difference, and for them there is no harm. Others see the redefining of terms as being of great difference and depending on where you stand on the redefinition, you may see the change as harm or improvement.

Marriage is a legal institution. For some, it is also a religious rite or ritual or covenant between man, woman, and God.

As for the issue of what a church may or may not choose to sanction, I will rely on the First Amendment and agree with the statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and note that this restriction has also been extended to state and local governments. As for the point of tax exemption, I will stand by Chief Justice John Marshall in Providence Bank v Billings when he stated "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Using both of the above statements, I believe that no establishment of religion should be taxed by federal, state, or local government. IMO, this makes good Constitutional sense to me. YMMV

While I believe there are many people of faith in the United States, IMO the USA is not a Godly nation. Just my opinion.

Be safe.

I feel SAFriday summed it all up the best with this :

Not a derailment at all, its the original question of the thread. Ironically, short of taxes, I think we've pretty much established through pages of posts that short of tax breaks the difference is PURELY based on religious beliefs originating over 2000 years ago and rife with contradiction.

I HONESTLY thank EVERYONE for the answers they gave, and I thank the mod's wholeheartedly for allowing our debate to go on.

This thread is part of what AMERICA is all about. Discourse with opposing views that open both sides eyes.. even if just a little bit.

If the Mods wish to lock the thread at this point I will understand. if you all choose to let it go on I get that too but I've gotten all I think I can from it at this point.


Again...


THANK YOU ALL!!!!

[Aloha_Shooter]

Do we have an answer to this question? Can you have power of attorney over someone, if someone else has power of attorney over you?

Sorry, I haven't been monitoring this question. Yes, you can have power of attorney for each other. If you questions someone's competency, even for a brief period, you revoke that power of attorney. I would expect revoking powers of attorney would be one of the very first things people would do when contemplating a split -- if they don't, the consequences are much the same as you could expect for a bitter divorce (think "War of the Roses").

You lose no rights when you issue a POA although you have given someone else the power to act as you. My mother holds a durable general POA and has for years. I did this in the event I was incapacitated while on active duty -- it allows her pay my bills using my funds, sign contracts (e.g., to rent or sell my home), etc.

If the issue is a hospital not observing the POA for visitation or other reasons then the reform is to fix the hospital's policies, NOT further diminish the concept of marriage. I have to wonder why the media and Left are so deadset on pushing homosexual marriage when they are just as opposed to polygamy. At least polygamy has deep historic and cultural roots to draw on for its legitimacy -- and it can be further extended into broader concepts of "family" like Heinlein's "line marriages". Side issues like this are why I firmly believe the push for homosexual marriage is less about "love" and the reasons given by homosexual activists and more about destroying any traditional structures or organizations within European or American society. If for nothing else, I want to hold the line until they come up with more rational arguments and consistency in their reasoning.

A durable general POA does NOT give you rights to someone else's Social Security after they die. This aspect of SS is a holdover from another era anyway and I think is a red herring since the SS system is an underfunded Ponzi scheme anyway -- the very last thing it needs is to get even MORE freeloaders dumped into its system.

[Ronin13]

If the issue is a hospital not observing the POA for visitation or other reasons then the reform is to fix the hospital's policies, NOT further diminish the concept of marriage. I have to wonder why the media and Left are so deadset on pushing homosexual marriage when they are just as opposed to polygamy. At least polygamy has deep historic and cultural roots to draw on for its legitimacy -- and it can be further extended into broader concepts of "family" like Heinlein's "line marriages". Side issues like this are why I firmly believe the push for homosexual marriage is less about "love" and the reasons given by homosexual activists and more about destroying any traditional structures or organizations within European or American society. If for nothing else, I want to hold the line until they come up with more rational arguments and consistency in their reasoning.

So to see if I understand you correctly, you are against gay marriage because it's "about destroying any traditional structures or organization within society?" So if two people want their union (IE: Relationship) legally recognized for the various benefits that comes with a legal marriage it's all part of some scheme to destroy these traditional values you hold so dear? So does divorce play into your beliefs? Speaking of tradition, many cultures recognize that you can have multiple wives (like in Islam), but what if a woman wants to adopt the same tradition only reversed and have multiple husbands? It's not traditional, so we shouldn't adapt to the changing social environment we live in, right?

What's a more rational argument than enjoying the same rights and benefits, as well as the legitimacy and recognition, that "traditional" couples enjoy?