Because DoMA wasn't bad enough...

[goteam]

"WASHINGTON, July 30 - President Bush said today that federal government lawyers are working on legislation that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman."

So much for states' rights, let alone recognizing other countries' laws.... though really, people who really want to reap government benefits for their relationships should just

Comments

[amoken]

Ya know, I don't care what anyone defines it as, what anyone thinks of it, so long as IT'S NOT LEGISLATED. I mean, what the hell does marriage have to do with law? We've tied it in with tax reduction, dependents, and property laws. Other than tax stuff, everything else can be done with legal papers that have absolutely nothing to do with this supremely limited union. If a man and a woman want to get married, FINE! Go to a church, a temple, a synagogue, a tree, a group of friends, a ball game, or something. I don't understand why there is ANY legislation involving marriage. That totally pisses me off. Maybe they should legislate friendships and roommates.

Even a registry of mates would be useless to the govt, except perhaps for tracing STDs...in which case I'm not convinced it's the government's job. I just don't understand. Grrrrrr....

[goteam]

I think just not legislating marriage would be by far the easiest solution to the whole same-sex marriage/civil unions/family values mess. Sure, I can understand why the government's involved, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. Not by a long shot, and especially not when there's ways of doing all the tax and property and dependency and inheritance stuff without getting the archaic, arbitrary, discriminatory, and pseudo-religious institution involved (as you already pointed out). Am I preaching to the choir yet?

[boojum]

Is there a good way of designating someone(s) else to be a legal relative without having it easily overturned by biological relatives? I think something like that needs to exist, somehow. Last I'd heard, power of medical attorney and whatever the "we are the parents of this child" legal documentation is were routinely overturned by parents when people weren't legally married

[goteam]

What with the prevalence of divorce and remarriage in U.S. society, I think parentage, at least, is a little more well-defined than "married to the biological parent of this child". However, the one book I've read on legal advice for unmarried couples warns very strongly against lying on birth certificates, to the point where I wonder how common it is for women to name their husband (or cohabiting partner) on birth certificates, irregardless of the kid's actual paternity... ick. It's also way possible (although inconvenient, and especially for same-sex couples) for unmarried partners to adopt each other's children. Speaking of adoption, however, it kinda creeps me out that it'd be easier for same-sex couples to adopt a legal parent-child relationship than even an "I can't believe it's not marriage" domestic partnership or whatever

Devil's advocate

[coldtortuga]

I rather like this thread of discussion, so I'll try to stir the pot a little more. Please forgive me for my minor disrespects, which are only intended as goads to the intellect and not the heart

[goteam]

If a purely civil and secular equivalent to marriage were available to anyone who wanted to sign up, I'd propose it to Peter tomorrow. I want the legal and financial benefits but not the social expectations, which give me the willies (and let's not get started on the religious stuff, shall we?) I want the law to govern inheritance, taxes, dependents, and all that crap, and leave the morality to the individuals involved (if only it could be that simple!) Relationships are not one-size-fits-all, and least of all in the social-moral sphere. I don't need people thinking they understand my relationship to my partner because it's called "marriage". If anything, I'd rather not have anything to do with the word

[coldtortuga]

If a purely civil and secular equivalent to marriage were available...

Jen and I had a short ceremony conducted by our high-school biology teacher (who is sorta a father-figure for Jen) followed by a big party. I'll admit, Jen had a hard time finding a place to hold this ceremony, but she did find one. At this point we were not yet legally married. (If we had been married, our health insurance via parents would have evaporated, and our health insurance via grad-school didn't kick in for another month). So we went on honeymoon, not legally married, but certainly acting married and hence treated as such by everybody. A few days before leaving for grad school, we went to the courthouse and filled out some paperwork. In a little pavilion near the courthouse, Jen's younger brother conducted a stand-up improv-comedy version of the usual ceremony (I would relate the vows we swore, except I was laughing too hard at the time to remember) and signed his name at the bottom -- done

[goteam]

If a purely civil and secular equivalent to marriage were available to anyone who wanted to sign up...If in a few years I could go to Alaska and perform the same rituals with a girl and have it legally recognized, I might take you up on that offer. Maybe by that time I'll have more patience for dealing with all the social assumptions about what it means to be married, but for now I think staying unmarried does more to promote respect for all relationships, rather than just the legally or religiously legitimized (also, the idea of being called anyone's wife makes me cringe, but that's more of a personal qualm than anything else). Likewise, maybe in a few years I'll have regained enough respect for our government to feel comfortable telling them anything about my private life, but I'm not feeling too optimistic about that prospect these days either