"Gay" marriage is not a "social issue"

[chimpy the poopthrower]

It has nothing to do with "sanctioning" any sort of behavior and everything to do with economics. I would argue that the most important issues that fall under the civil unions/"gay" marriage heading have to do with things like inheritance, pensions, health insurance benefits, and some other legal matters having to do with finances. There is no logical reason that the nature of two people's sexual relationship should enter into such things. For that matter, I see no reason to prevent relatives or even devoted platonic friends from entering into such arrangement. Don't let right-wingers set this up as a "social issue." It has nothing to do with social mores and everything to do with financial arrangements. Why should one segment of the population be denied benefits while another segment receives them? That's the crux of the matter.

[bryant69]

1. OK

But if what you say is correct and it's all about the Benjamins, well, than what is the argument against Civil Unions? I mean assuming they were implemented to provide all of those economic benefits to homosexual couples?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[chimpy the poopthrower]

2. I'm not sure I follow what you're asking... (nt)

[bryant69]

5. Well

There seem to be four basic "Solutions" to the current impasse over gay marriage.

1. Back to the 1850s (obviously unworkable, and cruel besides)
2. The Status Quo
3. Civil Unions--these would provide the economic benefits of Marriage.
4. Marriage exactly the same for homosexuals as for heteros.

Civil Unions are being suggested by some on the left and on the right as a compromise solution that addresses the issues you raise; but others see it as a half measure, some sort of seperate but equal measure and feel that Gays should have full marriage.'

If I read you right, and the whole argument is economic, than Civil Unions would work, no?

Bryant

[chimpy the poopthrower]

7. Well, in theory...

But we know from experience that "separate but equal" simply doesn't work. Why can't we have a single entity that includes "traditional" marriages but doesn't try to define marriage? I personally don't think it matters much what we call it. Let's not call it marriage if that offends people. But if we have separate entities for heterosexual commitments than we do for homosexual or platonic commitments, I think it's going to be exploited. Why not just think of civil unions as a legal and financial partnership?

[republicansareevil]

3. From another thread that got locked...

Some interesting and relevant articles:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127 /
http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos071003.asp

Note the first is by Michael Kinsley, and the second is a response in a right-wing publication.

I don't like a lot of the implications in the second piece (by John O'Sullivan), but one part caught my eye: Civil unions "might nonetheless be expanded into a very useful social institution by one simple legislative reform: Remove all reference to sex from civil partnerships and allow any household, however constituted, to establish a civil partnership that would allow its members to share pension rights, inherit tenancies, enjoy certain tax benefits, and so on.

Thus, a household might consist of a "cohabiting" couple either gay or straight, but also of two crusty old bachelors living under the same roof for convenience, or of a widowed mother and single son... Not all households would wish to form such a partnership, but there would be no requirement on those that did to claim they were sleeping together... And since the government would not be concerned with any household's sleeping arrangements, none of the usual fears relating to sex and social approval would arise. Such legislation as was required might therefore go through without passionate opposition."

And some quotes from the more left-leaning Kinsley: "Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?...

Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children, there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter. Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what lawyers call a "bright line," which saves the trouble of trying to measure a lot of amorphous factors."

I think in these two pieces is a very practical idea. I see no reason to make a distinction between "household partnerships" and "civil marriages" as O'Sullivan does. Let churches and other institutions handle marriages. Do away with civil marriages and replace it with a legal "bright line" structure that unifies two people in certain ways. Call it a "next-of kin partnership," a "civil partnership," a "household partnership" or whatever. Let any two people devoted enough to each other to want to enter into this arrangement do so. The devotion could stem from romantic love, blood ties, even a deep friendship. Two people in such an arrangement would be able to share benefits such as health insurance and pensions that are usually limited to spouses. They would share inheritance rights. Other rights and responsibilities could be worked out. In fact, some of these could be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. One thing this will accomplish is to take some of the financial burden off single people to finance other people's spouses.

[Silverhair]

4. I think you could call it the: "Lawyers Full Employment Act" n/t

[chimpy the poopthrower]

8. Why is that? (nt)

[Laughing Mirror]

6. Gay Marriage really means Gay Marriage License

That's what I want. The same marriage license straights have. The same rights the marriage license gives them. Nothing more, nothing less. No more complicated than that, really.