Question re: partners and spousal benefits

[National Dialogue Moderator <moderator>]

The first question is fun to speculate about because at the very least, it
pits "values" against feasibility. With respect to the former, the
definition of family has expanded to include relationships undreamed of
even 30 years ago -- homosexual unions, deliberately choosing to become a
single parent, test tube babies, surrogate parenting, step families
coalitions. Every member of every type of family wishes to be, and
deserves to be, accorded the rights and benefits emanating from the state.
Consequently, I have no moral or political objection to providing Social
Security benefits across the full range of family  units.

However, as a practical matter, how does one persuade, how would one
persuade the Social Security Administration that certain of the
just-mentioned family  units exist for other than simple economic gain via
the Social Security system? I do not ignore the assumption that a primary
component of a so-called "traditional family" is also economic in nature. I
do not discount the possibility that some marriages may have occurred for
benefits conferred by the state (just as some marriages have not  occurred
for the same reasons).

Stated a bit more sharply, without government intrusion into the bedroom
how could it ensure that the driving motivation , behind an unmarried
partnership is for reasons other than benefiting from social security?

Secondly, is it possible to reasonably estimate the number of such
partnerships and their projected growth or shrinkage with reference to the
financial impact on Social Security?


John Banks-Brooks