Gay Marriage Cop Out
Daughter Amy and I exchanged this rant duet after taking a little quiz posted on ABC News' web site to figure out which candidate you would choose based on quotes on issues.
The only one I "agreed" with McCain on had to do with Gay Marriage.
Don't have time to look up the quotes just now, but thought I'd post the rants. First mine, then Amy's response.
Deb ...
Yeah. I decided that I don't really care if you call a gay couple "married" or if you just make sure that they enjoy all the same legal rights as married couples.
I though both candidates were chicken on this one.
Churches "marry" people -- bless relationships that 'come from God' and stuff like that. If you don't believe two men can be "married" in the eyes of God then don't go to a church that blesses gay guy unions. And make the sign of the cross to protect you from the evil spirits whenever you see a gay guy couple on the street. Tell your kids all those gay guys will be going to hell (the smart ones will figure out that's bull**** eventually). Do whatever you have to do to float your own boat, but don't assume you can sink someone else's.
Because we separate church and state in the U.S. of A., you can be legally married without going to a church. Judges and ship captains or other 'licensed' individuals can witness such a union.
But in this context, 'marriage' is just a neat little package of domestic-union legal rights and obligations that includes having a blood test to disclose presence of sexually transmitted diseases, joining of and continued joint ownership of economic assets and debt obligations, assuming power of attorney for health care decisions, and defining parental rights and obligations (should children be acquired during the marriage by birth or adoption). The 'benefit' of being legally married in this sense is that you don't have pay a lawyer and accountant to set all this up for you. It's pre-built and fairly simple to do.
I see no reason not to extend this legal package to any 2 people, man/man, man/woman or woman/woman right here, right now, for any purpose. Some financial worrywarts think it will create too many situations where businesses have to pay domestic partner benefits for this whole bunch of extra "marriages". But that's a whole other bunch of bull crap to be pondered some other time.
The current 'marriage' package is specifically designed for 2 people forming a domestic unit for the purposes of living together, being 'dependent' on each other (taking care of each other), buying stuff together, paying taxes together, etc. so it makes sense to limit it to 2 under this definition. And if these domestic relationships for 2 don't work out, there's plenty of legal precedent around adoption and divorce to provide tools for dealing with things when these unions dissolve.
But, frankly, I think that anyone should be able to form a legal union of any number of people for domestic alliance purposes and have neat little packages to help define legal rights and obligations that would apply in every state in the union. We'd just have to figure out what that would look like when it's more than 2 people.
Government shouldn't care if sex is or isn't happening among consenting adults. If there are dependent children involved, government should protect kids if sex is happening TO them or among their adult caregivers in ways that would cause them harm. (I assume it is illegal to have sex in front of your kids if you're a hetero-sexual married couple or show them hard core porn?)
Government should care about whether or not people are complying with any and all legal commitments made as a result of becoming a domestic unit. And that people are being granted all of the rights they are due as members of such a unit.
Government also should get involved in making sure that the little legal packages for domestic unions that are set up to reward and promote the concept of people committing to and taking care of each other make good sense for all involved, and that they have well defined 'rules' for dissolving unions when necessary. (Just like it does for business partnerships and contracts).
So I think that saying gay marriage should be legal or not legal is silly. And leaving legal definitions of domestic union, whether you call it marriage or not, for each state to define would be way to confusing and messy in our mobile society.
Amy...
It's a long rant! But, well said. That's pretty much how I feel too. I think it is ridiculous when people say things like, what next, dogs and alligators getting married?
Haha I don't know if people have said that exact thing, but you know what I mean...it's just a way to make gay people seem like even bigger outcasts..as if our government should view the union between two men the same as the union between a person and an animal or two animals. Uhg. I just hate stupid people who feel it necessary to meddle in other people's business for the simple reason that...it is just not "right."
There are a lot of things that are just not "right" And as you said, the government should have a way of controlling those things, treating them as crimes or breaches of contract if you will. But, two homosexual people getting married affects NO ONE! No one. No one.
The only one I "agreed" with McCain on had to do with Gay Marriage.
Don't have time to look up the quotes just now, but thought I'd post the rants. First mine, then Amy's response.
Deb ...
Yeah. I decided that I don't really care if you call a gay couple "married" or if you just make sure that they enjoy all the same legal rights as married couples.
I though both candidates were chicken on this one.
Churches "marry" people -- bless relationships that 'come from God' and stuff like that. If you don't believe two men can be "married" in the eyes of God then don't go to a church that blesses gay guy unions. And make the sign of the cross to protect you from the evil spirits whenever you see a gay guy couple on the street. Tell your kids all those gay guys will be going to hell (the smart ones will figure out that's bull**** eventually). Do whatever you have to do to float your own boat, but don't assume you can sink someone else's.
Because we separate church and state in the U.S. of A., you can be legally married without going to a church. Judges and ship captains or other 'licensed' individuals can witness such a union.
But in this context, 'marriage' is just a neat little package of domestic-union legal rights and obligations that includes having a blood test to disclose presence of sexually transmitted diseases, joining of and continued joint ownership of economic assets and debt obligations, assuming power of attorney for health care decisions, and defining parental rights and obligations (should children be acquired during the marriage by birth or adoption). The 'benefit' of being legally married in this sense is that you don't have pay a lawyer and accountant to set all this up for you. It's pre-built and fairly simple to do.
I see no reason not to extend this legal package to any 2 people, man/man, man/woman or woman/woman right here, right now, for any purpose. Some financial worrywarts think it will create too many situations where businesses have to pay domestic partner benefits for this whole bunch of extra "marriages". But that's a whole other bunch of bull crap to be pondered some other time.
The current 'marriage' package is specifically designed for 2 people forming a domestic unit for the purposes of living together, being 'dependent' on each other (taking care of each other), buying stuff together, paying taxes together, etc. so it makes sense to limit it to 2 under this definition. And if these domestic relationships for 2 don't work out, there's plenty of legal precedent around adoption and divorce to provide tools for dealing with things when these unions dissolve.
But, frankly, I think that anyone should be able to form a legal union of any number of people for domestic alliance purposes and have neat little packages to help define legal rights and obligations that would apply in every state in the union. We'd just have to figure out what that would look like when it's more than 2 people.
Government shouldn't care if sex is or isn't happening among consenting adults. If there are dependent children involved, government should protect kids if sex is happening TO them or among their adult caregivers in ways that would cause them harm. (I assume it is illegal to have sex in front of your kids if you're a hetero-sexual married couple or show them hard core porn?)
Government should care about whether or not people are complying with any and all legal commitments made as a result of becoming a domestic unit. And that people are being granted all of the rights they are due as members of such a unit.
Government also should get involved in making sure that the little legal packages for domestic unions that are set up to reward and promote the concept of people committing to and taking care of each other make good sense for all involved, and that they have well defined 'rules' for dissolving unions when necessary. (Just like it does for business partnerships and contracts).
So I think that saying gay marriage should be legal or not legal is silly. And leaving legal definitions of domestic union, whether you call it marriage or not, for each state to define would be way to confusing and messy in our mobile society.
Amy...
It's a long rant! But, well said. That's pretty much how I feel too. I think it is ridiculous when people say things like, what next, dogs and alligators getting married?
Haha I don't know if people have said that exact thing, but you know what I mean...it's just a way to make gay people seem like even bigger outcasts..as if our government should view the union between two men the same as the union between a person and an animal or two animals. Uhg. I just hate stupid people who feel it necessary to meddle in other people's business for the simple reason that...it is just not "right."
There are a lot of things that are just not "right" And as you said, the government should have a way of controlling those things, treating them as crimes or breaches of contract if you will. But, two homosexual people getting married affects NO ONE! No one. No one.
posted by DA Parker at 6:35 AM
0 comments
