Best. Wedding. Proposal. Ever.

[andrewducker]

(Courtesy of matgb, whose own wedding proposal was a tad more haphazard.)

Comments

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

'most people want them linked to the person they are in a relationship with'

...maybe because that's the way it's set up?

I know they are available for others (how do you think I have my life set up, after all, if I believe in keeping the legal and personal aspect completely separate and avoid state sanctioning of romantic relationships?), but as I say, you only get it in a neat easy package if you get married, which privileges man+woman romantic relationship.

I've also seen, first hand, people with power of attourney get screwed over because they aren't the husband/wife. Same sex couples, polyamorous couples, de-facto couples, and friends, alike.

What's wrong with expanding the model? Making so that you could get a designated partner/s of any gender, any age, any relationship to you. Disconnect the legal from the personal. Then everyone would be free to have their committment ceremoies without them entailing the legal side of things. Joy and happiness abounds. I don't see why, legally, a man+woman who are willing to sign a piece of paper that the state approves are able to get a raft of benefits with two signatures that other man+woman combinations have to jump a variety of hoops for, via time, paperwork, etc.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

(In other words, I'm about expanding it, not limiting it, if we're going to have it at all)

[andrewducker]

which privileges man+woman romantic relationship.

Not in this country it doesn't.

[i-ate-my-crusts.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, I already qualified it once, don't make me do it again. :P

Yay for legal segregation of same sex couples. Excuse me if I don't cheer.

[andrewducker]

I wasn't in favour of the way it was done, to be sure. I was intensely glad it was done though.

And qualifying it to then go on and ignore that qualification seems a tad like a rhetorical trick...