writing rengeek magpie mind

December 2014

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
writing rengeek magpie mind

gosh, I'm more tired than I thought.

 A lawyer for eight gay couples argued in court Tuesday that Connecticut's marriage laws illegally create a separate class of people based on sexual orientation.

Of course, the obvious solution is secular civil unions for everyone, and dealing with "marriage" strictly on a religious basis. But that sort of smacks of separation of church and state, or possibly of giving equal rights to those icky gay people, and we can't have that.

Comments

That's always seemed like the obvious solution to me, too, and so it has always mystified me a bit that it never seems to get seriously discussed by the people who would actually be in charge of such things. I only ever hear it in the context of conversations like this one where smart people say "Why don't we just do this?" and nobody answers.

Then, of course, I'm also reminded of South Park's take. In the episode, the Governor of Colorado, pressed to make a statement on the issue, suggests that gay couples be given all the same rights as heterosexual married couples, and that it simply be called something different. Instead of being "married" they would be "butt buddies."
Well, sure, that works, but what about the lesbians? *g*

(Actually, I think the real logistical problems come in when public attention turns to equal rights for the poly community. This is going to require detailed contracts. Because man, paying for health insurance on a group of five, say, when only one of them has a job that offers same.... and then what if your husbands disagree on whether to take you off life support?)
then what if your husbands disagree on whether to take you off life support?)

That would require for there to actually be a national -- and binding -- registry for living wills, which hosiptals (and families) would be required to not only access but abide by....

All it takes is a database and a willingness to treat adult, rational people like adults. We got one of those things, anyway....

And the ability to let go of our desire to control people....
A pipe dream, that. :/
More and more I'm thinking that the marriage/civil union divide is the only sane option. Didn't used to think that way, but I'm definitely coming around.

One option for poly, which the uninformed seem to be limiting entirely to polygamy and pointing shaking fingers at southern Utah as a warning, would be incorporation. I heard it in some other forum, so I have no idea how viable it might be, but the idea appeals somewhat. There's all kinds of existing statute for dealing with corporate entities, dissolving them, letting a partner leave without dissolving them, etc.

Anyway, whatever my moral objections, I think the Constitution is pretty clear on what everyone is owed, regardless of orientation.
Yeah.

And, I mean, we also have the Constitutionally protected right to be bigots in our private lives.

It's that line between opinion/religion and politics/business, and the fact that it's porous, that gets sticky.
I strive not to be a bigot, even in my private life, but yes, that's precisely where the divide is. Whatever I think is Good and Proper for me ought not ever be a prescription for the lives of everyone else. It's funny when you step back from this single issue how pervasive that attitude is. On the positive end, it's the basis for the gentle, insightful recommendation. On the other hand, it's the source of legislating lives and in-your-face proselytization (of any stripe, of course).
I've long thought the same way. The word "marriage" is loaded with religious connotations for many people, and replacing it with a different term (e.g. "civil union") would help semantically to separate the religious ceremony from the legal agreement. I might go farther and require all couples to have their marriage license witnessed at a government office and signed by government officials instead of a religious official. They can still hold whatever religious ceremony and sign whatever religious certificate that they want, but it shouldn't have legal standing.

(Heck, J and I had our "religous" ceremony four months before we actually signed the legal paperwork. We use our cermoney date as our personal anniversary, but as far as the government is concerned we only became legally marriage four months later.)
The problem is how marriage is defined by law (okay, the real problem is the number of bigoted assholes are running around..). Marriage is generally defined as a contract made in due form by law in which a man and woman blah blah blah. Not as a holy union, but a contract made in law.
That definition of marriage as legal contract has been around since the 14th century. However, wasn't it St. Paul who said that marriage was a sacrament and much more than a contract? (Yes it was: Eph. v, 23-32).
So if we are nation which separates church and state then why do we even entertain a sacramental verbage in a legal definition? Bad editing? Let the 'marriage' STET?
Civil unions should be aloud by anyone seeking a tax cut. Because, that in effect is all that piece of paper is good for in the large scheme of things. Filing jointly? Filing separately? Got paper? End of story. Why should any couple be allowed a civil union?
Maybe it's an 'image' thing. Hey! There's America the Beautful! ---psst, I heard they're allowing gay marriage thereby acknowledging the existence of homosexuality!--- Terrible Americans! Land of the Free? Well yeah, except for you blacks, jews, women and gays. When we're done with the gay/lesbian community are we going to pick on the transgendered? (Oh, I can't wait for that one--- You mean there are people born with both? Yes jackasses, like 1 in 2000 children born...)
There are bigger battles to fight in the world other than worrying about who is bunking with who.
Wanna ex-pat with me eBear?
-=Jeff=-


Nah, if I ex-pat it will be for health care. :-P Which is a possibility. You know that it would be cheaper to pay Canada a landing stake than pay for health insurance in the US for a year, as a self-employed person?

I am a stubborn Bear; I believe in staying and kicking at the wall. kickity kick kick.

You know, the tax cut thing actually doesn't work anymore?
There are already cases where suit is being brought against couples considered to be committing 'marriage fraud' -- aka, two good friends of opposite gender getting legally married without any intent to sleep with one another so as to get health/other benefits.

The idea makes my head hurt.
Eyeaup. While in the Navy I witnessed many such marriages so that a sailor (male or female) could receive more pay (housing etc etc).
Justice says to burn them.
Mercy says...hell I don't blame them (depending on the need and circumstances behind the benefits, else: see Justice).
-=Jeff=-
I dunno. Don;t you think it's a little... picky... to reserve partnership benefits just for people who are fucking?
Especially since fucking is supposed to be evil bad stuff in the first place?

(Silly Christians.)
Well, that's it. Marriage is a social contract meant, among other things, to provide a stable economic partnership and secure situation in which to raise children, and also to simplify inheritance.

What's sex got to do with it? Or even, frankly, love?
In today's WIFM (What's In it For Me?) society...err no.
Problem with the above example is that it's tax payers money which is supposed to be going to support military families because one (or more) of the people married are serving the country. The issue I have with it is that it was done solely out of greed, or greed for benefits when there were reasonable alternatives that were morally and ethically correct.
Millions of dollars that could have went elsewhere each year.
-=Jeff=-
I dunno. Does the non-military partner contribute to the wellbeing of the military one in the ways that you would expect a spouse to? Keeping a stable home, for example? Feeding the cat? Sending toilet paper and Victoria's secret catalogues to the overseas post?

*g*
Nope. The examples I was referring to they were not co-domicile. Military member arranges marriage with civilian. Military member gets a government funded frat-pad. Civilian gets free medical/dental and a few hundred bucks kicked over from the military member, sometimes not even that.
Then there are the green card marriage scams *whew* ...don't want to go there.
But really OT from original post. Sorry.
Ah, see, that's cheating.

I just think we oughta take sex out of this whole economic partnership thing entirely.

Life is hard.

Let's team up.
That's what I was going to say - marriage already *is* a civil contract. Even our Puritan forebears (and I've actually got some of those) treated marriage as a civil contract.

I could talk about this at length, but I'm supposed to be working on my dissertation, which is not on this topic.
this is obviously the right and proper solution to the problem, and as such will never be adopted.
If we allow marriage to be anything other than the union of one man and one woman, gay people might come into my house and make my dog marry my bookshelf! Or unmarry me and Jenny! Before we're even married!


I'm having a warren_ellis moment. "He left me. For the dog. That little bitch. With her fur and her pretty nails. Didn't I wear the suit for him?"

...

0.o
Of course, the obvious solution is secular civil unions for everyone, and dealing with "marriage" strictly on a religious basis.

Logic is of the devil.
But that sort of smacks of separation of church and state, or possibly of giving equal rights to those icky gay people, and we can't have that.

Or you know, those French. Because the French are evil and secular and have nothing better to do than sneer at Godly Americans.