Not quite yet, what they've said is that you can't ban it. Jumping to the conclusion that this will mean the legalisation of gay marriage there is a bit hasty yet.
What's the distinction, you may ask? Well, right now there's a fight to see which states will recognize gay marriages or even civil unions of other states that do legalise it. What this has said is that they have to at least recognize it. The hope is that they further that into legalising it themselves, but I'm too bitter and cynical to really believe it yet.
I actually think that this is hedign int otally the wrong direction. NO I'm not anti gay, that's not my point.
Marriage (in most countries) gives certain legal rights, links 2 (or maybe more) people in the eyes of the law. I think that this is actually wrong and outmoded. I am horrified that I could be held somehow responsible (say) for debts that Sean runs up (and vice versa).
In that, I'd be all for retaining a purely religious form of marriage (with atheist equivalent, if required, but that would surely just be a party!) and abolishing all the legal implications (including, but not limited to, inheritance, tax and pensions)
If you want to make that kind of legal deal you could do it just as you'd make any kind of legally binding agreement with anyone else. Explicitly. No confusion, no assumptions. This would then be totally non-discriminatory.
Of course I can't see why that would usept anyone, but I'm sure it can be pointed out to me. I'd appreciate any logical objections...
There are other legal problems you aren't recognizing.
Without a civil union or a marriage license, if your spouse/etc. goes into the hospital, they can't tell you anything about their condition or be involved in important decisions (whether or not to begin surgery, be put on life support, etc.) Unless you're a family member, or have power of attorney, you are treated like Joe Schmoe off the street.
Also, how would you feel having no access to your kids should something happen to your spouse? Custody in same sex couple cases is hardly ever pleasant. They're unfortunately not treated like a parent, but more like an adult who lived in the house with them.
For the record, many states here have laws that protect spouses from inheriting debt or being able to seize property in divorces. I'm not exactly certain how they work, but my ex is a lawyer, as is his father, and his parents have very carefully divided their holdings in this way.
What I was saying (forgive me if I was unclear) is that EVERYBODY explicitly makes 'contracts' for all of these things (and that you can designate different individuals for different parts of the package).
To further clarify - all legal rights that marriage currently gives should be listed and any individual may desginate any other individual (or group thereof) as the recipient of each right/benefit. [Of course you'd be able to change any of it at any time].
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-11-18 11:31 pm
no subject
What's the distinction, you may ask? Well, right now there's a fight to see which states will recognize gay marriages or even civil unions of other states that do legalise it. What this has said is that they have to at least recognize it. The hope is that they further that into legalising it themselves, but I'm too bitter and cynical to really believe it yet.
no subject
Marriage (in most countries) gives certain legal rights, links 2 (or maybe more) people in the eyes of the law. I think that this is actually wrong and outmoded. I am horrified that I could be held somehow responsible (say) for debts that Sean runs up (and vice versa).
In that, I'd be all for retaining a purely religious form of marriage (with atheist equivalent, if required, but that would surely just be a party!) and abolishing all the legal implications (including, but not limited to, inheritance, tax and pensions)
If you want to make that kind of legal deal you could do it just as you'd make any kind of legally binding agreement with anyone else. Explicitly. No confusion, no assumptions. This would then be totally non-discriminatory.
Of course I can't see why that would usept anyone, but I'm sure it can be pointed out to me. I'd appreciate any logical objections...
no subject
Without a civil union or a marriage license, if your spouse/etc. goes into the hospital, they can't tell you anything about their condition or be involved in important decisions (whether or not to begin surgery, be put on life support, etc.) Unless you're a family member, or have power of attorney, you are treated like Joe Schmoe off the street.
Also, how would you feel having no access to your kids should something happen to your spouse? Custody in same sex couple cases is hardly ever pleasant. They're unfortunately not treated like a parent, but more like an adult who lived in the house with them.
For the record, many states here have laws that protect spouses from inheriting debt or being able to seize property in divorces. I'm not exactly certain how they work, but my ex is a lawyer, as is his father, and his parents have very carefully divided their holdings in this way.
no subject
no subject