Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

Good post mellow. You've touched upon key arguements inherent to the "gay rights/marriage" vs "civil union" struggle.

What about property rights? For example, in California and other community property states, married couples have equal rights to all property gained during the marriage. Would there be similar rights under your system?

In either case, what happens when people who register decide to end it? Would a system of "ending it" at will be good for children? For non-working spouses?


I have no objection to multiple partner relationships, but who pays for the child? How is it enforced? Is it really healthy for "parents" to be able to come and go with complete freedom?


Actually, if the government is even involved that minimally it gives rise to inequality. It would seem that there should be, in your system, only a single kind of registry. Else government will be involved in what inevitably is a discriminatory system.
Or does the next sentence of yours deal with this (i.e., when you say "register marriage" are you just saying they can register the exact same form?


I don't think this is true. Can you explain how armed forces members, widows and widowers would benefit?


What you propose is of course a much more drastic revamping of our laws than merely granting gays the right to marriage, which I gather you understand. But if the religious element has a problem with gay marriage, you are feeding them raw meet with taking away really every aspect of favoring stable relationships.

Now don't get me wrong, there is much about what you wrote that I support. I am, if it needs restating, not a fan of marriage at all. But I have practiced law in this area for too many years to have as much faith in people to self regulate when it comes to such matters as children, property and stability.

I could forsee this battle lasting many decades and am not at all clear who would wage it. Thank you, but while you battle it out give me my rights, please.

Let me see if I can simplify things.

What I am suggesting does not change, in any way, the responsibilities of parent to child. It does not do away with marriage or divorce.

In a nutshell, either
a) all legal and financial benefits granted by law upon marriage are discriminatory by nature and should be stopped entirely, or
b) all legal and financial benefits granted by law upon marriage should, instead, be granted by registry.

REGISTRY allows any adult to assign to any other adult, those legal and financial rights and responsibilities which, in the current system, are assigned to a married couple simply by virtue of marriage.

(I won't even begin to list those rights/benefits; someone did a partial list once but I can't find it now.)

Marriage does not need to change, but the government should no longer reward it. The reward, incentive, whatever, should be assigned to the registry, to the legal relationship - which may be marital, kinship, or something else. (In my case, I have two lifelong friends who would be better choices, perhaps, than family members.)

A procedure similar to disinheritance or divorce would be available to end the registration.

As I understand it, rights and responsibilities to children are not assigned by marriage, but by birth and/or adoption. I can't see why that would be affected.

It distances the church from the state, and it makes the benefits currently and unfairly restricted to marriage, available to all.

I thought of this in terms of solidarity, really. The way marriage is handle is, indeed, discriminatory - but it is discriminatory to more people than I thought. In fact, as a single woman nearing 50, I need to designate someone to act, shall we say, in lieu of spouse in the event of my death, disability, or other emergency. I shouldn't have to do that right-by-right, item-by-item, any more than gay people should.

This is, as someone pointed out, very similar to the civil unions we've talked about before. But I think we've narrowed the definition of the problem recently. The problem isn't civil unions versus marriage. The problem is that the government rewards marriage - and that is discriminatory.

(Just a note - employment benefits and insurance are moving forward much faster than the whole marriage issue. Registry wouldn't affect them directly, but I think it would be a pretty big prod.)

Phil, as a lawyer you will see all kinds of items that would never occur to me, but I think you understand the point I'm trying to make.

Okay. I'm sorry for my flight of imagination; it was very late, it's been an exciting week, and clarity is not my strong point under those conditions.

But thinking about civil rights, gay rights, discrimination, and exactly what is at stake here, the logic did start to unravel.

1) If the issue is marriage for the sake of marriage, there are religious leaders who will perform gay marriages - not enough, but times are changing.
2) If the issue is recognition of marriage by the government, this appears to be an issue because government rewards marriage with certain benefits.
3) It is unfair for the government to reward relationships when participation in those relationships is dependent primarily upon a religious issue.
4) It is unfair for the government to give preference, in basic issues of kinship, inheritance, and family on the basis of religious definitions rather than on the basis of the rights of individuals.

And that, I think, is more than enough from me.

Well i finally saw "Milk". I had been resisting because I knew it would bring up painful memories. It did.

Not so much about Harvey Milk himself, although tht was sad. But remembering what it was like back in the 1970's being gay was very hard. It was a terrifying time and the battle over Proposition 6 which would have banned gay teachers and those who supported them was very much like the marriage ban this time.

If you haven't seen the move please do.

Los Angeles Times

A GRACEFUL SOLUTION: GET GOVERNMENTS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNTON BUSINESS
.
The real issue is to determine what the law should be. A first step is to question the
roles of the Federal, State and Local governments in marriage/civil unions. My contention is that when one strips away the emotional and the irrelevant issues and holds to principles of the separation of church and state and fairness, then there is no benefit to society for government involvement in marriage or civil unions at all. Presently, all unmarried people in general are denied the special government privileges of marriage, not just gays and lesbians.

Once government and its subsidies for marriage are withdrawn or made available to single people, then churches, organizations and individuals can deal with couples coming together, living together, raising families and doing what people have done forever. Couples are free to determine their relationships and characterize it with any words they choose.

In this way, there is no Prop 8, no marriage laws; no “Healthy Marriage Initiative”; no government marriage licenses; no civil unions; no exclusive Federal subsidies or financial incentives to married people.

The conservatives should welcome the reduction of government and getting government out of our intimate personal lives; the Christian Right should welcome that the church now has authority over the marriage of its members and rather than the government; the 100 million single people should applaud at no longer having to pay for benefits exclusively going to married people; gays will have finally have achieved true equality; the liberals and progressives should welcome the justice of the situation; and libertarians will rejoice at a small move in the direction of “live and let live.” Everyone should be satisfied except those who relish the fight itself.

The problem is framing the issue. Proposition 8 was not about gay marriage, it was about government’s definition of marriage. Government’s role in marriage is actually very limited and very different than our idealized concept of marriage. In our idealized concept of marriage we imagine two people in love, committed to each other, living together, having a family, living happily ever after. A government marriage license/certificate has nothing to do with these images. The government has no tests, no requirements for affirmation of love. The couple need only be of age and different sex (in most states). Nothing else. Its complete universality makes it a hollow document. Its only value is as a voucher to get exclusive government benefits. Benefits subsidized by single people.

Current Government Roles
Local Government: Issues marriage licenses; conducts civil ceremonies; registers the marriage; authorizes people to conduct marriage ceremonies.

State Government: Determines the regulations surrounding marriage

Federal Government: Pays benefits and subsidies to married people; establishes social programs such as the “Healthy Marriage Initiative” granting visas to spouses of citizens. etc. The main benefits are military housing allowances; joint tax filing; Social Security payments to spouses; and spousal exemption from inheritance tax. These financial benefits can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars over a couple’s lifetime.

Proposed Reasons for Government Involvement and Counter Arguments

1. Prevent incest
• Government denial of marriage licenses is not going to stop incest.
2. Prevent spread of disease
• People are going to have sex, with or without government’s approval
3. Promote loving committed relationships
• It is unimaginable that any government is going to influence people to be loving.
• There is no way the government can have a “love and commitment” test as a condition of issuing a marriage license. In fact there is no marriage license requirement for a couple to say they intend to like each other. A marriage license is only a voucher to get more benefits than single people.
4. Promote a healthy family environment for children
• I submit that it is wishful thinking to believe that any government is going influence the family environment or reform deadbeat fathers.
5. Encourage people to have children
• Women are going to get pregnant without help from the government
6. Prevent gayness from spreading
• The government is not going to influence sexual preference
7. Protect women
• Mothers and expecting mothers may need special help, but not married women in general.
8. Prevent Polygamy
• The government is not going to prevent folks from having multiple partners.
9. Prevent underage people from having sex
• A adult having sex with an underage person is illegal.
10. Provide a way for couples to feel married who do not want to get married in a church.
• There can be organizations dedicated to serving this desire, but it should not be the concern of government.
11. Right not to testify against a spouse
• Each citizen, married or not, should have the right to designate one person that is exempt from having to testify about that citizen.
12. Spousal hospital visitation rights
• Each citizen, married or not, should have the right to designate one person who has visitation rights in the event the citizen is not able to communicate.
13. Regulating the combining of a couple’s finances
• Can be accomplished by contract under existing civil law. The document can be called anything: A “Nuptial Agreement” if the couple desires.
14. Establishing state laws regarding community property
• The community property issue would be determined by contract.
15. Prevent sin
• Separation of church and state. Sin definition and prevention is not an appropriate function of government.
16. Married people need more financial help than single people.
• There are plenty of rich married people and poor single people.
17. It is unfair for the government not to allow gays to marry.
• This would not be an issue if the government withdrew from the marriage business.
• The argument about fairness is weak. It makes it appear that gays want on the government gravy train now, but do not want single people on that same gravy train. Single people are paying for these financial benefits through higher taxes. Hardly fair.

Welcome to Reader Rant, ChristianMiller. Thank you for an excellent first post. You will get no argument from me. I agree 100% that the govt ought to get out of the marriage business and that the word "marriage" should be relegated to various religious orgs.

Nicely stated, as are your 17 points about getting govt out of the "marriage" business.

Well said ChristianMiller! And welcome to RR.This is perhaps the best breakdown of the entire situation that I have heard yet.

In an ideal world, ChristianMiller (and I second Sky's welcome) what you say would be great. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world and it is such a distant future that I cannot agree to base public policy upon it.

I was a divorce lawyer for many years. I saw the consequences of "relationships." People are vicious, thoughtless and selfish. Despite gains by women, they are not on an equal footing with men when it comes to negotiating marital contracts. That might offend some, but I saw thousands of examples of the disparity.

So, I am suggesting some governmental policy respecting couples is warranted, even if a temporary measure. For the ideal world you depict to arrive, schools would need to spend a great deal more time teaching basic legal and monetary principles so that everyone could be said to have an equal footing.

Then there is the matter of children. Again, my experience is that parents tend to be very bad with respect to their children when they fight or break up. Like it or not, the now intricate legal system that exists does provide some protection for children and either party who is psychologically unable to completely fend for themselves.

It would be great if everyone was well informed, thoughtful, careful and responsible in relationships. I don't know of such a world and until it exists, some laws are needed to regulate relationships.

That doesn't have to be called "marriage", frankly, the civil union route seems better, but also a very long way off.

ChristianMiller, you are new so I suspect you do not know what others and I have written on this topic, but you may wish to do a search here and take a look.

It is not an easy one to resolve, and I applaud your joining in as you have.

But as a gay man, first treat me equally, then we can talk about a revolution.