Privatize Marriage?

[Feltan]

Lochinvar and Jeff,

Other legal instruments do exist, and do in fact work -- despite what may be gleened from anicdotal testimonies.

However, as I stated above, I am a supporter of Civil Unions simply because people should not have to seek other legal instruments to protect their rights in in a close relationship.

My point was, and perhaps I didn't make it well, that current legal instruments and even Civil Unions do not seem to be sufficient to those who claim property rights and inheritance as a primary reason for marriage.

Lochinvar, you may think my last point is irrelevant in a legal sense. Perhaps you are right. But I wasn't talking legal issues at that point, I was talking motivation. If property rights and inheritance issues could be solved short of marriage, would the proponents of gay marriage be content? I think not. As I stated, I suspect things run deeper than mere legal issues.

Regards,
Feltan

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Feltan

I suspect, deep down, it has more to do with enforcing social acceptance of a relationship by passing laws, or redefining terms, to equate heterosexual and homosexual practices as legally and morally identical.

It's a step-by-step process. First, get it legal. Social acceptance will become the norm within a generation. You will always have crackpots yearning for "a better time" of the past (of which we're all guilty at one time or another). Incrementalism works and is well known by both sides of the argument.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Feltan

{snip}
While this is oft cited, it is not a compelling argument. Many legal instruments exist to allow the will of anyone (gay or straight) to be carried out. Living wills, conventional wills, general and limited powers-of-attorney, etc. {snip}

Many rights are exclusive to married couples and cannot be duplicated by contract. E.g. spousal election against a will; owning property by the entireties (with all the protections that go along with it); insurable interest for life insurance; pension benefits; etc.

Others can be duplicated or simulated, with varying degrees of expense, difficulty and certainty.

--Philistine

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Many rights are exclusive to married couples and cannot be duplicated by contract. E.g. spousal election against a will; owning property by the entireties (with all the protections that go along with it); insurable interest for life insurance; pension benefits; etc.

Others can be duplicated or simulated, with varying degrees of expense, difficulty and certainty.

--Philistine

Philistine,

Indeed. As I say again, that is why I would support civil union as the compromise position.

Regards,
Feltan

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

How about this...

How about we call all unions "civil unions", and those who want to have their union recognized/sanctioned by a religious ceremony can have a marriage performed? Instead of speaking of being "married", we'd just say "united" or "conjoined" or some such.

this was addressed in the first post---- this is the conclusion that has been arrived at multiple times here and elsewhere. the counterargument comparing marriage to a brand name, and discussing that changing marriage changes the brand name, and that we need to discuss how it would affect the brand name before we decide if we want to change it......

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by Feltan

I suspect, deep down, it has more to do with enforcing social acceptance of a relationship by passing laws, or redefining terms, to equate heterosexual and homosexual practices as legally and morally identical.

Why shouldn't gay people be socially accepted? Wouldn't you want to be socially accepted by the society you live in? I don't understand what issue you have with that.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

Why shouldn't gay people be socially accepted? Wouldn't you want to be socially accepted by the society you live in? I don't understand what issue you have with that.

I certainly would, and I fully understand why gay couples would too.

However, at least in the U.S., my sense is that society is not ready to fully embrace such a move. It would be forced, and that type of action would delay acceptance that may come over time.

Regards,
Feltan

[JasminaJ]

In Southern California-bear with me this is related-legislation was passed against smoking in public. We voted, it passed. It was forced and people saw that it was called for-protecting people's health from second hand smoke.
Other states- I'm in an elevator, a couple with a newborn baby and 4 adults smoking, flicking ashes on the baby. I chose to return to California. We aren't perfect, Arnold is a pain, but we are trying. I say force the issue a bit.
The country is run by fundamentalists, I highly doubt anything like this will happen. But it is harmful to deny a full 10% of the population their right to live and prosper. Out of fear? Sanctity of marriage! Ever been to Las Vegas?
Get over the homophobia and mind your own business about other's sex lives.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Feltan

I suspect, deep down, it has more to do with enforcing social acceptance of a relationship by passing laws, or redefining terms, to equate heterosexual and homosexual practices as legally and morally identical.

Regards,
Feltan

Bold emphasis mine.

People often do not like being forced, they rarely like forced to do stuff against their convictions, and they dislike it expecially when the enforcing is intended to change their thoughts and beliefs.

Considering that those voters opposing gay marriage often have at least one viable candidate in their congressional elections to chose from, I see this as an uphill battle for the proponents of gay marriage. Earlier, the SCOTUS has been an alternative way to go for those opposed to conservative politicians in USA, but that avenue seems to be a difficult road at the present.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Feltan

Lochinvar and Jeff,

Other legal instruments do exist, and do in fact work -- despite what may be gleened from anicdotal testimonies.

However, as I stated above, I am a supporter of Civil Unions simply because people should not have to seek other legal instruments to protect their rights in in a close relationship.

My point was, and perhaps I didn't make it well, that current legal instruments and even Civil Unions do not seem to be sufficient to those who claim property rights and inheritance as a primary reason for marriage.

Lochinvar, you may think my last point is irrelevant in a legal sense. Perhaps you are right. But I wasn't talking legal issues at that point, I was talking motivation. If property rights and inheritance issues could be solved short of marriage, would the proponents of gay marriage be content? I think not. As I stated, I suspect things run deeper than mere legal issues.

I think we're on the same page regarding fundamental equity - fairness under the law. I think we differ on the effectiveness of current law in protecting rights for gays that are taken for granted by straights. Turning your phrase about, "current legal instruments and even Civil Unions do not seem to be sufficient" to protect many rights, including but not restricted to property and inheritance rights. It's not anecdotal in the least - that's current reality.

The example I gave is an anecdote, but one relating a specialists professional knowledge. Today, a gay partner in a hospital can only act on their partner's behalf if the appropriate documents (medical proxy, power of attorney) have been signed, things that come automatically for straights. Those documents, and wills, can be challenged and overthrown in court proceedings. It is by no means protected.

I agree with you that wide use and acceptance of civil unions would be an acceptable way forward, with the idea that the same is uniformly government-provided to both straight and gay, and "marriage" be a religious construct separated from government. Unless I misunderstand you, I think we substantially agree that civil unions are appropriate.

I also agree that social behavior and acceptance cannot be legislated, but it's illusory to think that the legal status quo is neutral with respect to acceptance. A legal system that denies fundamental rights to one class of couples that is provided to another class of couples is definitely taking a side in the issue - and the government should not be doing this. Social acceptance will come in its own time, and is already far better than it was even a few years ago.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by jeff

...Unless I misunderstand you, I think we substantially agree that civil unions are appropriate...

Jeff,

No misunderstanding. If any confusion did exist it was my fault, and the result of writing down incomplete thoughts. This is what happens when you post in between changing diapers, running after the escaped pet, and trying to address the never-ending honey-do list without drawing nasty looks for spending too much time on the computer.

Regards,
Feltan

[jeff]

No problem, and no need to apologize - it's just my pedantic nature to enumerate the entire discussion. Cheers, Jeff