The new partnership (homosexual or otherwise)

[Omni Rex Draconis]

I couple of recent threads have me thinking. I know this forum leans too far left for a good debate, but perhaps some liberals would be willing to play the advocatus diaboli.

One of the discussions involved what being married orginally meant, but it far easier to see what is actually does mean in today's legal and social terms:

- custody and support rights for children, adoption
- community property rights, mutual responsibility for debts
- right to claim a partner's body after death
- make medical/legal decisions when one partner is incapicitated
- joint tax returns
- immigration expediency for foreign partners
- business discounts (health/golf/car insurance/etc)

(Not a comprehensive list, obviously)

Now that gender is slowly becoming rendered moot in deciding who can be married, are we saying that any two people can decide to form a partnership? After all, no one can prove that you are having sex.

The obligations seem to be minimal (ie. debt), as long as you trust the person enough with the other rights (medical/legal decisions especially). The partners gain a number of other advantages, although the business discounts may fade if this idea takes off in popularity.

The obvious limitation is that you can only be married to one person. Is that right? You can always divorce your partner of convenience once you find someone who is willing to go further (children, lifelong commitment).

Yes? No? Maybe?

Personally, I am too damn asocial to enjoy these benefits, but at least I would no longer have cause to complain about the numerous advantages given to those who do weigh in with another trusted soul.

[notyoueither]

You can always divorce your partner of convenience once you find someone who is willing to go further (children, lifelong commitment).

I doubt you've ever been through a divorce and the resulting property settlement.

Other than that, you're making good progress.

[chequita guevara]

Some people will abuse any system. That doesn't mean we should abandon it. Arsonists start fires, so we should abandon fire proection? Con men defraud people, so we should abandon money? So some people who aren't interested in "real" marriage will abuse same-sex marriage. Heterosexual people abuse it right now. My best friend got married for finicial aid for school, and I almost proposed to a friend who was about to lose her student visa (she mentioned somone else had and she had turned him down).

[Impaler[WrG]]

I think goverment should stop "Marrying" anyone, rather the give out "Civil Unions/Partnerships" and the word "Marrage" would have no leagal standing, it would only be a ceremony performed at a church which the law simply dosn't care about. This is esentialy what we have now but just removes the name colishion and hense makes it a bit clearer for ignorant bible thumpers ware the line between church and state is.

[Theben]

Of course then someone could get married but not be legally "partners"...

[snoopy369]

Well, you could always keep it the same way it is now, in that anyone married in a church, assuming that minister has registered with the state appropriately (or his church has done so), is considered "partnered" - but simply say they're two proceses happinging concurrently. That would certainly be required to get any law of that nature passed in this country.

However, I'd agree with it (being the conservative psycho that I am ) ... honestly I'm sort of put out that my girlfriend, who I've been dating for over 6 years now and living with for 4, doesn't qualify at my current employer as a "domestic partner" even though she would if she were male - meets all the qualificiations of sharing money, living together, time period, etc. ... which for my company requires no fancy ceremony; but we would have to get legally married (which in theory we could do in court, but that has obvious meanings to others i.e. parents, above and beyond our status as life partners) to get those benefits.

I've considered (only when really tired like now ) filing sexual preference discrimination suit but I doubt it would hold up as heterosexual is not a protected class

Anywho, I think that creating a legal definition that has no meaning to the religious slash culturally minded folks but simply allows any two people the legal rights that now correspond to "marriage" would be fine. It might even be something that could sneak by the religious right (of which I am NOT a part, regardless of my other political leanings ) in a decade or so. Far too late to help me of course (we'll probably be married per current laws in a few years ) but still

[Omni Rex Draconis]

che:
My best friend got married

Yes, that is the other thread that got me thinking.

Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the other side of the dabate to show up. Where are the religious objections, the social conservatives, the homophobes?

Has anyone ever tried to measure the political climate around here?

I quick dig found me this political test.

My results were as I expected:

Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

I am a strong social lefty, but my fiscal policies take a hard right.

Which is probably why I don't post here much. I know bupkus about economics, and I would rather debate than talk at length with someone who agrees with me on the social issues.

Hell, I invite the Jehovah Witness boys in for a chat!

[Wittlich]

Well, all of the domestic partnership/marriage perks apart....I have just ended (about a month ago), a 15-yr relationship that I had with my partner. I found out that he was having an affair with another man for the past 4 months.

Even though we are not "married" in the biblical sense, I myself considered it as a "real" marriage" - obviously, he did not. Because he decided to have (and continue to pursue) this affair, I had to end our 15 yr relationship. I am a firm believer of "until death do us part" - of course, that was not in our domestic partnership, but my partner agreed to this prior to registering with the State of California.

I say it is his loss.

[Theben]

... That sucks, dude. His loss for sure.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
I think goverment should stop "Marrying" anyone, rather the give out "Civil Unions/Partnerships" and the word "Marriage" would have no leagal standing, it would only be a ceremony performed at a church which the law simply dosn't care about. This is esentialy what we have now but just removes the name colishion and hense makes it a bit clearer for ignorant bible thumpers ware the line between church and state is.

My position on the matter exactly. If the government insists on providing benefits to stable familial units* to promote societal stability (which is what a government ought to be doing and as such is the only valid reason to be involved in the matter), then they need to do so for all stable familial units*.



*Meaning "married" or "civil unioned" couples of two consenting adults. Polygamy and the rarer polyandry are another issue that needs to be addressed seperately.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Wittlich
Well, all of the domestic partnership/marriage perks apart....I have just ended (about a month ago), a 15-yr relationship that I had with my partner. I found out that he was having an affair with another man for the past 4 months.

Even though we are not "married" in the biblical sense, I myself considered it as a "real" marriage" - obviously, he did not. Because he decided to have (and continue to pursue) this affair, I had to end our 15 yr relationship. I am a firm believer of "until death do us part" - of course, that was not in our domestic partnership, but my partner agreed to this prior to registering with the State of California.

I say it is his loss.

Five words:

Bag. Of. Flaming. Dog. Poo.

[Wittlich]

My thoughts exactly DRoseDARs.

[chequita guevara]

Move to Ft. Lauderdale. It's not as gay as SF, but it's up there (3rd gayest metro in the country). The sunshine and warm waters will make you forget that loser in no time.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So some people who aren't interested in "real" marriage will abuse same-sex marriage. Heterosexual people abuse it right now.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Theben
Of course then someone could get married but not be legally "partners"...

The Britney Spears & Liza Minnelli approach...