| Military members' adult children receive no benefits. Consequently, a US military member who used this method may have secured certain visitation and inheritance rights, but would not have qualified their spouse for access to the base, base hospital, insurance, and many other things. Hell, no one using this method would be able to cover their adult partner (over age 26, now, variously 18 or 21 in the past) under company health insurance. They wouldn't have qualified for any tax benefits of marriage (or penalties, for that matter). Combining property in joint accounts or joint ownership was slightly easier, but still not as straightforward as it is for married couples. > At no point does it indicate that the adoption tactic ever failed The adoption technique did not fail in that it achieved what it intended to achieve (primarily the basic legal rights and access of family members). But it did not achieve a marriage substitute, as it did not give them access to everything that marriage entailed. > ; in fact, the article seems to be at pains to show that adoption routinely and reliably secured most or all of the rights that marriage would have, and swapping adoption for marriage now is little more than a change of paperwork. It secured some of the rights, it did not secure all or anywhere near most of them. |