Same sex marriage compromise

I support SSM at the state level. I also support the states' rights and the voters' rights to define marriage either way (for or against SSM). I'm fine with a civil union compromise that applies nationally.

CanadaJohn said:

I'm not aware of any particular wording in your constitution as it relates to marriage so I presume it's a states' rights issue but I could be wrong. However, I've been saying for years, and repeatedly here, there would be no controversy, gay people would be no more interested in a marriage certificate than straight people, if the government didn't use marriage as a tool of social engineering and a qualifier for certain government benefits and goodies.

Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to marriage at the federal level. However, the constitution does require equal protection under the law, which I think is the argument being made by the SSM attorneys.

As I understand but have not verified the history, some states began issuing marriage licenses in the 1800s as a way to regulate interracial marriages. Before then marriage certificates were issued by churches and synagogs just like baptismal and bar mitzvah certificates and possibly still remained an option. I once saw my great grand parents' marriage certificate from the 1880s and noticed there were no government markings or references. Then the states realized marriage license fees could be an important revenue source and began allowing ministers to authenticate the state issued marriage licenses. Nevertheless, its not an original government activity.

Funny to me is I asked this same question on a different board a few years ago and all the pro-gay marriage people were okay with the compromise and all the traditional marriage people were not willing to compromise. It seems like public momentum in support for or opposition to people's preferences could be playing a role in the responses. Of course, different people so there's no way to know for sure but its interesting.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I am arguing against the concept of government getting to decide whether our relationships are legitimate.

Click to expand...

Ok, I thought your point had changed over the last couple posts.

The government doesn't decide that our relationships are legitimate. We do when we enter into a marriage contract.

Is there a bar to single people assigning rights and responsibilities to whom they want? I have power to exercise the advance directives of my parents. My gay uncle and his partner took steps to insure that each could attend the other in the hospital without interference. Later my mom had some sort of standing, after my uncle had passed, to make decisions for his partner when he was passing. All took lawyers and signatures, where if they had been permitted to marry, it would have been settled on that date.

Cephus said:

That's a dumb idea. If you think for one second that the people who hate gay marriage would ever accept losing all of the benefits heterosexuals get by being married, you're out of your mind. You'd have rioting in the streets. It won't happen.

Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't be surprised if faith-based groups started ballot initiatives to get the state out of the marriage business if the Supreme Court lifts the ban on same sex marriage.

Gina said:

Ok, I thought your point had changed over the last couple posts.

The government doesn't decide that our relationships are legitimate. We do when we enter into a marriage contract.

Click to expand...

Unless the government disapproves, like if your partner is the same sex, or if you are in a polyamorous relationship with more than one partner. Then the government says, "No, your relationship is not legitimate, and you don't have the right to designate your own rights without monstrous cost and time, and even then, we might still deny you."

And back in the day, they did the same thing to interracial couples.

Having marriage as a legal institution which controls your ability to assign certain rights guarantees that there will be unfair discrimination. It also invalidates the individual's rights because they can only use them in certain circumstances.

Is there a bar to single people assigning rights and responsibilities to whom they want? I have power to exercise the advance directives of my parents. My gay uncle and his partner took steps to insure that each could attend the other in the hospital without interference. Later my mom had some sort of standing, after my uncle had passed, to make decisions for his partner when we was passing. All took lawyers and signatures, where if they had been permitted to marry, it would have been settled on that date.

Click to expand...

Sometimes. And the government conveniently forces people in relationships they disapprove of to be labeled "single." This is a huge problem for couples raising children.

Also, it's much harder to assign your medical rights to non-family.

Of just as much concern to me is that marriage is actually the main bar to assigning one's rights.

To take a small example, if you are married, you cannot redirect your 401k account to someone other than your spouse without your spouse's approval. Why does your spouse pull rank on who gets your money?

Apart from the institution just being flat-out bigoted, one of the reasons I will never marry is because it threatens my intellectual property rights, as a writer.

The government not recognizing any marriages is exactly what I want, so no real compromise for me there.

iliveonramen said:

State sponsered marriage is convient. It basically acts as a large stack of legal documents for one person. The reality is a lot of people decide to spend their life with one person and share resources. I'd be fine with what S&M mentioned...some way to virtually label someone as having all the rights afforded to spouses now but not sure how that is anything other than calling marriage something else.

Click to expand...

Couldn't same fee civil union licenses accomplish this?

I'm of the opinion this really is about advancing a change culture and efforts to destigmatize homosexuality socially.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

It shouldn't be expensive, and there's no reason it has to be time consuming.

You can have a pre-drawn standard set of rights for X situation, or you can personalize it if you want to take more time.

That's how marriage works. So why can't it work that way for people not in a relationship?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of benefits....some most people don't even consider on a day to day basis. Beyond writing them up you would also have to maintain those documents.

There's also the fact...most people decide to couple up for the long term and create some sort of "lifelong" partnership. To raise children, to not be lonely for a lot of different reasons.

I disagree with CanadaJohn on this. I believe the state has recognized and passed laws to make something that has always been done at some level easier.

Smeagol said:

Couldn't same fee civil union licenses accomplish this?

I'm of the opinion this really is about advancing a change culture and efforts to destigmatize homosexuality socially.

Click to expand...

Sure...I agree with you as well. There's the obvious benefits of a civil union or marriage for two individuals that want to partner up for the long term...but there is the whole issue regarding one group not afforded the same thing as another. That's entirely the problem. It's like African Americans going into a diner that they weren't allowed. There may be other diners, they could get food somewhere else if they wanted, it may even be a crappy diner....but the fact they weren't allowed in the diner based on skin color was the issue.

Smeagol said:

I personally wouldn't be surprised if faith-based groups started ballot initiatives to get the state out of the marriage business is the Supreme Court lifts the ban on same sex marriage.

Click to expand...

Never, ever, ever, ever going to happen, nobody is going to vote to give up the benefits they get from being married.

Henrin said:

The government not recognizing any marriages is exactly what I want, so no real compromise for me there.

Click to expand...

Just an entirely stupid, unrealistic idea.

iliveonramen said:

There are a lot of benefits....some most people don't even consider on a day to day basis. Beyond writing them up you would also have to maintain those documents.

There's also the fact...most people decide to couple up for the long term and create some sort of "lifelong" partnership. To raise children, to not be lonely for a lot of different reasons.

I disagree with CanadaJohn on this. I believe the state has recognized and passed laws to make something that has always been done at some level easier.

Click to expand...

So have 3 choices.

1. A whole enchilada document much like a marriage license.

2. A bunch of pre-made smaller documents for individual issues.

3. Write your own.

The state did not always recognize marriage as an institution. The reason they started to was in order to discriminate against people. And they're still doing it now.

Lots of people partner for life and raise children without a marriage license. If I ever partner for life, that is how I will be doing it.

Cephus said:

Just an entirely stupid, unrealistic idea.

Click to expand...

Please go on. I personally see nothing unrealistic about my idea.

Henrin said:

Please go on. I personally see nothing unrealistic about my idea.

Click to expand...

The unrealistic rarely do.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Unless the government disapproves, like if your partner is the same sex, or if you are in a polyamorous relationship with more than one partner. Then the government says, "No, your relationship is not legitimate, and you don't have the right to designate your own rights without monstrous cost and time, and even then, we might still deny you."

And back in the day, they did the same thing to interracial couples.

Having marriage as a legal institution which controls your ability to assign certain rights guarantees that there will be unfair discrimination. It also invalidates the individual's rights because they can only use them in certain circumstances.



Sometimes, but actually of more concern to me is that marriage is actually the main bar to assigning one's rights.

To take a small example, if you are married, you cannot redirect your 401k account to someone other than your spouse without your spouse's approval. Why does your spouse pull rank on who gets your money?

Apart from the institution just being flat-out bigoted, one of the reasons I will never marry is because it threatens my intellectual property rights, as a writer.

Click to expand...

Which is why SSM is in court. It's not legitimate to bar same sex and earlier, interracial couples from marriage. I have a problem with polygamous relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

So if you don't want monstrous cost of time, and money, then why deny the ability for a couple to enter into an easy to obtain (excepting SS couples for now) contract? What purpose is there in that?

You cannot redirect your 401k to someone else without spousal approval because that comes under the umbrella of marital assets. It assumes that both are contributing to that account over the course of the relationship, which is not a poor assumption. One may be earning the greater pay, but the other is providing support in the relationship that contributes. It goes both ways, men and women. Either can be the top earner. Maybe you haven't seen someone get ripped off during a divorce. Or put a spouse through school, only to be dumped at some later point. (Not me, I assure you.) I have seen it and the earning power of that spouse was greatly enhanced by the one who helped buy and enable their education. They "earned" a portion of that 401k and it shouldn't be allowed to be taken from them without consent.

I can see why you wouldn't want to get married. I don't see a work around for your IP rights. I just don't understand why you want to do away with marriage. Don't enter into one and your problem is solved. Your IP rights and your 401k is protected. I'm not sure what piece of paper you are looking for that isn't already available, as a single person.

Cephus said:

The unrealistic rarely do.

Click to expand...

I know I didn't over much to work with, but you could say more than you are.

Gina said:

Which is why SSM is in court. It's not legitimate to bar same sex and interracial couples from marriage. I have a problem with polygamous relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

Click to expand...

Why not? Keeping in mind, polyamory and polygamy are different.

But then again, who says you have a right to tell them they can't have their rights because you have a problem with it? This is the point. You're simply setting a different bar for the same discrimination.

So if you don't want monstrous cost of time, and money, then why deny the ability for a couple to enter into an easy to obtain (excepting SS couples for now) contract? What purpose is there in that?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't deny them that ability. I would simply separate it from their relationship status.

You cannot redirect your 401k to someone else without spousal approval because that comes under the umbrella of marital assets. It assumes that both are contributing to that account over the course of the relationship, which is not a poor assumption. One may be earning the greater pay, but the other is providing support in the relationship that contributes. It goes both ways, men and women. Either can be the top earner. Maybe you haven't seen someone get ripped off during a divorce. Or put a spouse through school, only to be dumped at some later point. (Not me, I assure you.) I have seen it and the earning power of that spouse was greatly enhanced by the one who helped buy their education. They "earned" a portion of that 401k and it shouldn't be allowed to be taken from them without consent.

Click to expand...

My point is that people should get a choice whether or not they want to do that. To make it part and parcel with the only way to easily get a non-family medical proxy, or childcare rights, is bribery.

Having right A should not be contingent on whether you give up right B.

I can see why you wouldn't want to get married. I don't see a work around for your IP rights. I just don't understand why you want to do away with marriage. Don't enter into one and your problem is solved. Your IP rights and your 401k is protected.

Click to expand...

If you want the same set of legal rights that a current marriage can give you, you can have that.

I'm not proposing preventing anyone from doing that.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

So have 3 choices.

1. A whole enchilada document much like a marriage license.

2. A bunch of pre-made smaller documents for individual issues.

3. Write your own.

The state did not always recognize marriage as an institution. The reason they started to was in order to discriminate against people. And they're still doing it now.

Lots of people partner for life and raise children without a marriage license. If I ever partner for life, that is how I will be doing it.

Click to expand...

Sure that works. It's not like reflexively opposed to an alternative method or married to the idea of marriage (heyo!) I just think that it's the same thing under a different name.

People partner for life and raise children without a marriage license sure. They also very much depend the state giving benefits and reconizing that union though. Marriage/Civil Union...whatever...it's the government recognizing the fact that people tend to pair up and share their lives together.

I think that typically what your advocating already exists it's just not calling it marriage just something else.

Ultimately I don't care as long as the state does recognize and provide protections for individuals that decide to spend their lives together.

iliveonramen said:

Sure that works. It's not like reflexively opposed to an alternative method or married to the idea of marriage (heyo!) I just think that it's the same thing under a different name.

People partner for life and raise children without a marriage license sure. They also very much depend the state giving benefits and reconizing that union though. Marriage/Civil Union...whatever...it's the government recognizing the fact that people tend to pair up and share their lives together.

I think that typically what your advocating already exists it's just not calling it marriage just something else.

Ultimately I don't care as long as the state does recognize and provide protections for individuals that decide to spend their lives together.

Click to expand...

It doesn't exist for people who want to give those rights to non-romantic partners, ESPECIALLY if they are also not family members. I don't see why that should be the case.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

It doesn't exist for people who want to give those rights to non-romantic partners, ESPECIALLY if they are also not family members. I don't see why that should be the case.

Click to expand...

Are you sure? I just checked the Sacremento criteria for a wedding license.

To apply for a marriage license, the couple must meet the following general requirements:

•The parties must be unmarried. You may not be already married to each other or other individuals.

•If either party has been married before, you must know the specific date the last marriage ended, and how it ended (Death, Dissolution, Divorce or Nullity). If the last marriage ended by dissolution or nullity, you must present a copy of the final judgment.

•The parties must appear together in-person when the license issued. Note: There are specific procedures for inmate marriages; please call our office at (916) 874-6131 for more information.

•Each party must present valid, government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, passport, or military I.D.

•The appropriate fees must be paid.

•Please note: There are specific requirements related to the type of license selected. Refer to “Types of Licenses” for details.

Technically I could fly to whever you live now and probably marry you without any sort of romantic relationship. When SSM is allowed I could technically marry my best friend even though we don't have a non-romantic relationship.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

It doesn't exist for people who want to give those rights to non-romantic partners, ESPECIALLY if they are also not family members. I don't see why that should be the case.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does. You can assign power of attorney, or medical proxy to someone other than your spouse, and can choose that assignment to supersede your spouse. You can use a prenup to modify your marital duties and rights to one another as much as you want.

iliveonramen said:

Are you sure? I just checked the Sacremento criteria for a wedding license.

To apply for a marriage license, the couple must meet the following general requirements:

•The parties must be unmarried. You may not be already married to each other or other individuals.

•If either party has been married before, you must know the specific date the last marriage ended, and how it ended (Death, Dissolution, Divorce or Nullity). If the last marriage ended by dissolution or nullity, you must present a copy of the final judgment.

•The parties must appear together in-person when the license issued. Note: There are specific procedures for inmate marriages; please call our office at (916) 874-6131 for more information.

•Each party must present valid, government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, passport, or military I.D.

•The appropriate fees must be paid.

•Please note: There are specific requirements related to the type of license selected. Refer to “Types of Licenses” for details.

Technically I could fly to whever you live now and probably marry you without any sort of romantic relationship. When SSM is allowed I could technically marry my best friend even though we don't have a non-romantic relationship.

Click to expand...

But it's still a deal where you don't get freedom about which rights go where, and you are required to give up certain rights in order to get others, for no readily apparent reason.

And I am also just opposed to the general idea of government being able to issue romantic relationship officiators. You can argue a romantic relationship isn't strictly required, but there's no denying that's what it exists for.

Paschendale said:

Actually, it does. You can assign power of attorney, or medical proxy to someone other than your spouse, and can choose that assignment to supersede your spouse. You can use a prenup to modify your marital duties and rights to one another as much as you want.

Click to expand...

But it's unnecessarily complicated and expensive to do so in a lot of cases, and there's no reason it should be.

Gina said:

Lack of a marriage contract complicates everything if the relationship dissolves. Disposition of assets accumulated during the relationship becomes a very sticky wicket.

Click to expand...

That is not really the states concern. For example, there is no real need for the state to worry about changing the deed until such point the owners request it. At such point they handle it like any other deed transfer. Until such point its up to the people to decide and the state to wait. If however, they can't do such a thing then the state simply considers the property owned by both. It doesn't really make any sort of difference for the state in any real way.

Custody issues are made more difficult. I know women and men both who's spouses attempted to abscond with everything. Without a marriage certificate, they would have spent much more time in court establishing their rightful claim. The government is pulled into these messes, and so it behooves the government to provide a shortcut through the mire.

Click to expand...

How? The claims would be the same and the conditions in front of them would be the same. What exactly makes it easier in this case?

Although it is often brought up in debates, there is no way that government will get out of the marriage business. Heteros will never give up the ability to be legally married.