posted
No, I'm not asking anyone to marry me. I am happily married to a person of a different sex than mine.
My proposal is a thought I had, but I don't know if its a good one or a bad one.
It has been mentioned here that all the advantages a same sex couple could hope to get from a legal marriage could also be recieved by a few legal agreements between the two parties. These would include wills, living wills, powers of attorney's, etc.
Now if I were a greedy lawyer, tired of chasing Ambulances, Cigarette Companies, and that arthritis medicine that causes heart attacks, I'd do something like this...
Partner with a few liberal religious leaders that do allow same sex weddings, and offer a Marriage Package. I would prepare all the forms that the cute couple would need to sign, and for an appropriate fee, sell them all of them, with paper work for name changes if requested, along with the minister or rabbi or whoever to do the wedding.
Offer a "Gay Wedding Within The Law, Within Reach" package.
I just have four questions.
1) To those who don't want same sex marriages, would you allow this type of arrangement or would you protest and pass or support laws that would make these agreements illegal? After all, this does support one of the arguments against Gay Marriage--It can be done anyway.
2)To those who support Gay Marriages, would you allow this type of arrangement or would you protest against it? After all, if this costs say, $2000, where a marriage license is $2.00, you now have a case for Separate But Not Equal.
3) To the legal eagles here, is this possible and if so how much? It would probably need different wording for each state, but not for each city and county.
4) For those of you who would consider getting married to a partner of the same sex, is this something you would be interested in for now or would you see it as an insult?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has been mentioned here that all the advantages a same sex couple could hope to get from a legal marriage could also be recieved by a few legal agreements between the two parties.
As far as I know, this isn't true.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: To those who don't want same sex marriages, would you allow this type of arrangement or would you protest and pass or support laws that would make these agreements illegal?
I'd have no problem with it. If it's legal for any two people out there to do that, then it's stupid for it not to be allowed just because the two people are lovers and are the same sex.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The two advantages that I don't think you can get with a legal contract are 1) The Marriage Tax Credit and 2)The simple idea that your commitiment to the person you love is recognized as equal to all others by the government you support.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Put simply, it's not equal. A major problem is that as property situations change, those agreements have to be updated. So it's not a one time shot.
A lot of the protection of marriage is as a default that protects people from having to keep all this up to date (although it's always better to do it explicitly rather than rely on the default).
Of the list dabbler posted in one of the threads (the one I categorized), less than half the benefits can be obtained through legal documents.
Further, a lot of the documents wouldn't be recognized state to state.
Until the laws are fixed, I think something like this would be useful. But it's no substitute.
posted
Another question that arises after the recent election, would this still be legal? (Assuming of course that no court strikes down the amendments.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still say make civil unions the legal equivalent to marriage. Let any two people get a civil union. Have the government leave "marriages" to houses of worship and Las Vegas.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're just starting privilege now in Evidence, but in general, spouses cannot testify about communications between each other. The exceptions are when the spouses are litigating against each other or when one spouse is prosecuted for intra-familial crimes (child/spouse abuse, etc.).
It is asserted by the person it would be used against - a wife cannot testify against the husband unless the husband waives the privilege. It applies to communication intended to be confidential made during the marriage, and extends after the marriage ends. This means there's no possibility of contempt for refusing to testify, as the order to testify would be invalid.
There is no way this can be duplicated by a document.
posted
It's doubtful the amendments would be interpreted to ban those types of contracts, wills, etc. None of them come close to aproximating marriage (witness what's left out). If they were interpreted that way, I'd bet on at least 7 justices striking it down.
posted
So, are the marriages done at the court house different than "civil unions" somehow? I'm just wondering if I'd even be considered married in those 11 states.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriages done at the courthouse are just marriages. Except in VT, there are no civil unions.
The only distinctions in marriages outside VT are between common law marriages (where people live together for X number of years and are married) and "normal" marriages. Courthouse marriages are the latter, just as church weddings are.
Let everybody do whatever they want and call it whatever they want as long as my taxes and insurance premiums don't go up.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to those pointed out aleady, there's another reason why the 'contract that tries to mimic marriage' doesn't cut the mustard...
If I get hurt and go the hospital, my wife goes and says "I'm his wife" and she gets let in gets to be a part of my medical decision-making (perhaps even making a decision for me if I am unconsious and can't make it myself.
This doesn't happen to 2 gay guys with a contract. If one goes to the hospital the other better have the contract in-hand if he wants to have any hope of getting throught the door. Then he has to hope that the hospital understands the contract and honors it and lets him in. Sure if they don't he could sue later or something but that doesn't help the fact that his loved one is on the other side of the door.
posted
Hmmm on the one hand it sounds liek a helpful stopgap...but might it not make legal gay marriage more difficult to achieve? For example the opponents saying "Well, now they have this package, so they don't need the actual marriage rights"?
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, I'm AR, and I'm addicted to homosexuality threads.
I'm with NFL, I think the problem is still definition of terms. Marriage means something very specific to most Judeo-Christians. I don't like the idea of someone changing the meaning of the word to something that, for me, it can't mean.
I still say let's call all the secular contracts for everyone unions. No singling out gays, it's just the paper from the county. Marriage would just be the thing you do down at the church. If your church lets you marry your same sex partner, that's your business, not mine.
I'm rather disappointed with the states that banned all civil unions. Ok, you don't approve of what they're doing. So what? As long as they're not running around claiming the Bible doesn't really say it's wrong, who cares? Paul says flat out in one of his letters (I can't remember which one) that non-Christians can't be held to the same standards as Christians. Worry about the immorality within the church.
Why shouldn't gays have access to each other's health benefits? Heck, why shouldn't roommates who provide for each other? I really think this is one of those subjects that ought to fall in the "MYOB" category.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
