OptionalTennessee House passes bill allowing private citizens to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages
This is all so stupid. It’s the religious term “marriage” that they all fight for. Give it to them.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Problem solved.
astronaut_slothThis has been my position since around the time when same sex marriage was being fought in the courts. Interestingly, a family member who is super conservative and religious came up with this same idea back then, and I was on board. (Her reasoning was that she wasn’t against gay people having the same rights but that marriage is a “holy” bond between a man and a woman 🙄)
I’ve found that it’s a way to get conservatives/religious folks onboard with same-sex marriage if their issue is the word “marriage” and ensuring its sanctity (cue eye-roll). It simultaneously outs the bigots because they can’t hide behind religious BS, and they show their hand. Back in the '00s and early '10s, I would use it as a litmus test of which Republicans in my life I would continue to associate with.
Noxya family member who is super conservative and religious came up with this same idea back then, and I was on board
Maybe that’s a sign that this is not something that you should be on board with.
As a gay man, I find people like you to be MORE frustrating than the ultra conservative bigots. The bigots I expect to be bigoted. Folks who side with bigoted positions who might otherwise be decent, however, I have to really think hard about what’s wrong with them that they allow themselves to be swayed to bigoted positions.
@Noxy. Question. Would you rather be “married”, with no rights or privileges, to your spouse or be in a “union” with your spouse with rights and privileges?
I hate to say it but religious people claim the word marriage. You can fight all you want but it won’t change the outcome.
I reject your premise. I have already been married for twelve years. Both of your options take that away from me in one form or another.
I don’t give a millionth of a shit what bigots hiding behind religion think or say. They are my oppressors. I give their opinions zero regard or respect. They are fundamentally bad and I will never concede.
Separate but equal is not the solution you think it is.
It does not have to be separate. No legally recognize marriage for anyone. You want marriage, go to a priest. No reason for gov to stick their nose in.
FWIW, I support abolition of marriage. It’s weird that relationships are enshrined in law anyway, as many people do not fit into those right definitions. Whether it is because they do not wish to have a marriage/romantic relationships or otherwise have them be legally bound, or because they are poly and have more partners, and asking people to choose isn’t great
In my head I guess marriage just feels archaic. Sure, it still got a similar purpose to how it was historically, but I question whether it’s actually a good thing to keep
How would you protect the rights that go with marriage if you abolish marriage? Those include the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, right to attend spouse’s funeral, right to name spouse for inheritance purposes with legal weight, right to live in the housing you shared with your spouse after your spouse dies, right for your spouse to make medical decisions should you be unable to make those decisions, and others that I may be overlooking.
You can do paperwork for these things. Marriage is convenient though. We need laws that just say “yeah I trust my friend/relative to decide for me” like a non marriage
You can do paperwork for these things
Please explain to me how exactly could I “do paperwork” to restore, for example the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege that would both be taken away from me if my marriage was dissolved.
Please explain to me how exactly could I “do paperwork”
You enter into a contractual union that is recognized by the federal government.
!That’s not how contracts work!<
Which part? The entities entering into a contract or the judicial branch honoring contracts?
The part where a contract between two parties (spouses) has any power over anyone else who didn’t sign the contract, like hospitals for visitation for example.
My hospital didn’t sign my medical power of attorney. Yours did?
Paperwork didn’t help the partners of AIDS victims who were kept out of the hospital and heard of their partner’s passing via the obituaries and then kicked out of their house.
Even today, there are families who would separate sane sex partners and do the same awful things. Marriage guarantees rights, paperwork does nothing to stop the horrible people in our lives that would lash out at the first chance.
If there “unions” and not “marriages” it wouldn’t have been issue.
Your recognized “union” provides all of rights and goes to any level of detail you wish. For example, imagine a union, will, POA, all wrapped up into one.
The laws for POA would have to change to allow for such a union. There would have to be some kind of protection for wills as well, because there are going to be fights from people against the LGBTQ community.
If all marriages were dissolved and became unions, that might work. Otherwise, it would be a separate but equal thing.
I think you made my point better than me.
Give it to them.
Excuse me? Absolutely fucking not. You don’t get to concede my marriage, and to be frank, fuck you for even suggesting it.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Marriage is not a “contract”. A contract binds two parties to an agreement. Marriage binds many third parties to be obligated to recognize it for things like hospital visitation, privilege to not be forced to testify against one’s own spouse, “married filing jointly”, and hundreds more examples.
This argument you’re making right now is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I was having with people vocally and financially supporting band on same-sex marriage in the 2000s. I thought this braindead bigoted bullshit died in the 2010s, but here you are
I think you missed the main term in my response. Union. A union is a recognized formation of parts that work together for a common interest or purpose.
A “union” could be designated to have all rights and privileges that you lay out as only reserved for marriage. But a union could also go further. It could go into any level of granularity that the people of the union specify that might be ambiguous with typical “marriage rights”. If marriage defines everything then what’s the point of a prenup? Also, ALL of your examples can be superseded by other legal agreements, contracts, wills, etc. For example, a signed power of attorney takes priority of hospital decisions.
I’m making quite the opposite point on same-sex marriage.
That’s a lot of “could” and “would” doing a lot of work while ultimately still in support of fascist bigoted bullshit.
All hypothetical shit when the actual, currently working concept of marriage already exists
Now you lost me. Are you saying the current system of marriage works and at the same time insisting I’m the one against same sex marriage?
No, I’m trying to get your family recognized nationwide by using a different term to remove the barrier to rights and privileges. I’m separating church and state. I’m suggesting the freedom to get “married” by whatever religion accepts people for who they are. I’m saying the government should recognize when two people decide to contribute to society as one.
You can do both is my point. Get a certificate of union from the government (establish rights) and then go get married by whomever you want. Again problem solved.