Gay Marriage

I've seen a few people now posit that the unintended consequence of a lot of the anti-gay marriage legislation will have the serious side effect of damaging the concept of marriage.

Speaking to gay friends it seems to come down to two things. There is, in my opinion, a slightly irrational desire to have the same thing as straight people have in name. Then there is the very rational desire to have the same protections under law as a straight couple especially rights to look after children, visit sick partners, get benefits etc...

The odd thing is how many anti-gay marriage advocates don't object to gays living together and raising families as much as they object to gays being "married", because that has religious connotations to them. It seems like a simple separation of Church & State manner then to convert everyone over to "civil union" status and let each church decide for itself whether to recognize gay marriages.

That's my thought too, Brock.

Brock: Precisely.

I've always thought that the solution to this issue was straightforward: government gets out of the business of regulating marriage altogether. Instead, they regulate civil partnerships that relate to the legal and financial issues, almost as a contractual level. Marriage is then treated as a religious institution - if a church wishes to perform gay marriages, so be it. Keep the legal issues under secular government, and leave the moral issues to religious organizations.

I'm just satisfied that the phrase, "... Adam and Steve..." has fallen out of the vernacular of this argument, for obvious reasons.

Personally, and even as a conservative Christian, I could care less who gets "married". From a believers stand point, I was taught that God blesses the union of a man and a woman. If two men, or two women, want to have a ceremony, and call themselves married, let 'em. It carries no more weight than if they shave their hair off, paint their head blue and declare, "I am NOW a Bic pen!!". IMHO anyway.

You'd get my vote, Brock. Well said.

I believe it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. By having a legal contract sanctioned by the government, there are tax and health care benefits. Such a legal definition opens a whole body of legal precidence. For example, if you have a same sex roommate and you live together long enough, does that constitute a common law marriage? What about government pension benefits? Follow the money.

Dong,

No doubt that's the motivation behind the gay marriage movement. The issue can still be resolved in the manner Brock described.

It can only be resolved among men of sense and good will, Leland. In California it is legally impermissible to distinguish in any way whatsoever between a "registered domestic partnership," which is what you can get if gay, and a "marriage."

That did not stop the recent passionate fight over Prop 8. It was entirely and solely about the word "marriage," since everyone agrees every legal aspect of the married state is already available to gay pairings in California.

(speaking without researching first)

Isn't one of the benefits of "marriage" that other states will recognize it, so if you move, you are covered by the "marriage" laws of that state? Do "registered domestic partnerships" get the same benefits? That could be a powerful reason to want gay "marriage" instead of the California domestic partnerships . . . but like I said, I'm speaking off-the-tentacle without having done any research.

At least I can stop reflexively jerking my head around while driving when I hear horns honk going through an intersection, then realizing that it was just somebody honking at the (usually) pro-Prop-8 demonstrators on the corner . . .

Sure, Dread One, but what's that worth? The important marriage laws, which, contra the somewhat disingenuous arguments of the gay marriage lobby, are not hospital visitation or inheritance without a will, but rather the custody and property division divorce laws, vary tremendously from state to state.

So, practically speaking, when you move from state to state the legal character of your marriage changes quite a bit. In fact, it used to be pretty commonplace for well-off married persons to jurisdiction shop when it came time to file for divorce, to find where the law was most congenial to them (and least congenial to their soon to be ex-partner). A Federal law (Uniform Child Custody something or other) put a stop to that as far as child custody goes, I believe.

This is all because "marriage" is a bizarre mixture of a private contract and public status. In general, it would be abhorrent to have a private contract the terms of which silently and substantially change when you move from state to state, and which the legislature feels free to change whenever they please, even retroactively, without consulting or even informing you. But that's family law at present. It's weird that we put up with it.