…and this is a 
Sometimes I find it hard to believe how callous these conservative politicians can be. The governor of Rhode Island has just vetoed a bill that would have allowed a same-sex partner to make funeral arrangements for a dead partner. So imagine this: someone wracked with grief at the loss of someone to whom they had committed a substantial part of their life now gets to also be told that they are locked out of the responsibility of taking care of anything to do with the funeral ceremony. How degrading and insensitive; how vile and intrusive.
Shame on Governor Carcieri. It takes a real man to kick the heart-broken and bereaved at the moment of their deepest hurt, and Carcieri has arranged to do it over and over again for years to come.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 12, 2009 12:56 PM
Not enough faith in the existence of Hell, I guess.
Posted by: TimmyD | November 12, 2009 12:56 PM
Shame indeed. So sick of this.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 12, 2009 12:56 PM
This is one of the many reasons why LGBT people fight for marriage rights as opposed to settling for civil unions. Sadly, I cannot say I am surprised by this action. I expect to see more like this in the future.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 12, 2009 12:57 PM
And people wonder why gays and lesbians want marriage as this would certainly be covered by the rights within a marriage.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 12, 2009 12:58 PM
Maybe he's just afraid that the funeral would end up being, you know, gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: jj | November 12, 2009 1:01 PM
@#3Jannie,
"Separate But Equal" always means the former and never the latter.
Posted by: True Bob | November 12, 2009 1:01 PM
There's a technical term for guys like Carcieri.
"Dickhead"
Posted by: Ray Ingles | November 12, 2009 1:02 PM
The only halfway-coherent argument the governor gave was that there's '"no official or recognized form" of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island'.
Except the law as proposed put forth a definition...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 12, 2009 1:05 PM
As PZ said, shame on you, governor.
Posted by: Joel
|
November 12, 2009 1:07 PM
@Ray (8)
I'm sure that's just his way of suggesting that the legislature officially enact and recognize some form of domestic policy agreement, a la civil unions or marriage, right? And he'd surely sign that in a heartbeat?
Posted by: jolly | November 12, 2009 1:11 PM
It makes it pretty obvious that not wanting gays to be able to marry is about their bigotry, not about somehow "saving traditional marriage". How does this threaten those fearful fools?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 1:11 PM
"The legislation defines a domestic partner as someone who was in an "exclusive, intimate and committed relationship" with the deceased and had lived with him or her for at least a year prior to the death; is at least 18, not married to anyone else, not related by blood and who was financially "interdependent'' with the deceased as evidenced, for example, by a joint mortgage, shared credit card or domestic partnership contract."
If the legislation adds "shared durable power of attorney" to its definition, it is redundant.
Gay couples should ignore these political machinations and grant one another durable power of attorney if that's what they want. Then they aren't required to prove their "exclusive, intimate and committed relationship" to anyone and need not also share financial obligations if they'd rather not.
This legislation was pure politics, and it was not gay friendly. Vetoing it was also pure politics and was not gay friendly either.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 12, 2009 1:12 PM
The legal concept of "next of kin" does not require a domestic relationship. It could be a brother or a cousin for example, depending on circumstances.
So this law would not have needed marriage equality as a pre-condition, though marriage would be the best solution.
There is a "hateful relatives" problem that this proposed law was addressing, not marriage.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 1:14 PM
But think of the child...oh no wait...
I mean I know we never bought that excuse anyway but guys at least be consistent in your reasons for loathing other human beings.
and who was it that said domestic partnership was fine for a stand-in for marriage?
Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 1:19 PM
Durable power of attorney still won't get you in the hospital room to see your significant other if you're gay, in some places. It's not as simple as that. This is why it is so important for them to have equal marriage rights. There are so many rights and responsibilities that go into a marriage, and it is an intractable problem to replace every single one with a suitable substitute (and even when you do, there is no guarantee the contracts will be honored when it matters).
Posted by: Kermit | November 12, 2009 1:19 PM
Real men aren't brutes, governor.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 12, 2009 1:27 PM
I'll bet Gov. Carcieri considers himself "pro-family," too.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 1:43 PM
I don't know how anyone can make healthcare decisions for someone else without visitation rights, but if some hospitals refuse visitation to someone with a patient's durable power of attorney, I agree that a legislature should compel it. I don't agree that a legislature should craft some package of rights and obligations for gay couples or straight couples either for that matter. Individual couples can do that for themselves.
Straight marriage is nothing to crow about. Modern marriage is a legal institution of, by and for lawyers. If you love someone or want to share their bed regularly, that's a separate issue. Establish the union in a MCC service or any other ceremony of your choice, if you want, and then craft the terms of your relationship carefully, to bind yourselves together without later enmity. You'll never find any legislature doing that for you.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 12, 2009 1:43 PM
You know what they say: "Small state, small dick."
Frackin' bigots.
Posted by: Kraid
|
November 12, 2009 1:44 PM
Time to write Dan Savage and see whether we can get Carcieri redefined like Santorum was.
Posted by: JBlilie | November 12, 2009 1:46 PM
Disgusting swine. Intentionally harming gay people is a "family value" don't you know? Whaddya bet he's Catholic?
Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 1:49 PM
Like it or not, this situation exists already. There are some hundreds of specific issues that are handled through marriage, that straight couples don't even need to think about but gay couples need to jump through endless hoops for (and even when they have the right paperwork, there's no guarantee that they won't get screwed).
While I agree in principle that none of those things (e.g. power ot attorney, visitation rights) should be tied to marriage and there should be a clear and transparent contractual framework, that is not how things work. And it is privileged and irresponsible to go on about how things "should" be for everyone when the current system works just fine for one group of people and not for another. Amazingly, there is no vested interest in the group of people for which things "work fine" to redo the entire system, so at the very least the system should be adjusted to work equally for everyone.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 12, 2009 2:02 PM
He isn't so much kicking someone when they're down. He's rubbing dogshit into their wounds after cutting them.
Not only is that sentence disgustingly bigoted, it is also disgustingly un-parseable.
Posted by: Nomi | November 12, 2009 2:13 PM
I am a Rhode Islander and am angered and saddened by this man's callousness. He has shown insensitivity to many before this, but this may be a new low.
Posted by: cag
|
November 12, 2009 2:16 PM
With apologies to Janine, It must be remembered that god is ineffable, so if he cannot be effed, then true believers have to condemn anyone who gets effed for any other reason than to be "fruitful and multiply". I guess that explains why god is such a tight ass, and his/her/its adherents follow in god's image.
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 12, 2009 2:17 PM
you bleeding heart liberals make me sick. can you imagine what kind of a spectacle a gay funeral procession would be? all manner of despicable acts committed PUBLICLY (in front of CHRISTIAN children) to honor some fruit that god obviously saw fit to kill with AIDS in order to preserve the sanctity of man-woman relations (boom-chikka-wah-waaah!) now what? you want freakin' rainbow caskets with freakin' sparkles and freakin' glittery paint?!@!!!@@ IT'S PART OF THE GAY AGENDA!!!!!!
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 2:25 PM
So straights have this half-baked relationship crafted by politicians. So what?
... until they divorce.
712 civil unions occurred in Vermont in 2004. 224 of the participants were unioning for the second or third time, and that was less than four years after the first civil union.
A relationship works this way if partners arrange it this way.
Don't hold your breath. Being equally screwed by the system is not what I have in mind.
Posted by: Dan | November 12, 2009 2:25 PM
@26, uppity cracka:
I think you meant, "bow-chicka-WOW-woooow..."
Posted by: SteveM | November 12, 2009 2:27 PM
IANAL, but having just gone through the process of drawing up a will and living will etc., I do not believe that durable power of attorney (DPoA) gives you the power to make healthcare decisions for another. DPoA is mostly about making financial and legal decisions, for healthcare you need a healthcare proxy document. In other words, DPoA only gives you the power to draw money from his bank to pay for his healthcare, not decide what care he receives (and then only if he is unconscious or otherwise incapable of making his own decisions). This is how I understand it; if I'm mistaken I welcome correction.
Posted by: JBlilie | November 12, 2009 2:29 PM
An Anglican Bishop (Eugene Robinson, gay) is RIGHT NOW doing a great job defending gay rights on NPR's Talk of the Nation.
Posted by: Jessica | November 12, 2009 2:29 PM
In reference to: "he believes a "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals...[relative to] sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains.''
I'm really sick of this "I know what's good for you better than you do for yourself" crap... I say let gays get a really nice tax break until they have the same UNBIASED benefits as everyone else.
Posted by: Tim Carroll | November 12, 2009 2:32 PM
But I'll just bet that Herr Der Governator won't mind making the gay partner pay for the funeral.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 12, 2009 2:33 PM
Astonishing assholery. Carcieri should be ashamed, but I have no doubt he's proud of himself.
Posted by: SteveM | November 12, 2009 2:36 PM
Whereas even 1 second of marriage would be sufficient?
Posted by: Vicki | November 12, 2009 2:36 PM
I am not going to argue that marriage is necessarily the best way to handle relationships, or to protect my beloveds. But for all its flaws, here and now it has value. If an individual or couple--same-sex or mixed-sex--don't want to get married, they don't have to. Nothing in the marriage equality legislation offered in any state would force same-sex couples to marry. Nor would it force mixed-sex couples to divorce. What it would do is open that choice to all.
Martin, by all means work for more expansive relationship structures. But the best should not be the enemy of the good. If you want to get those passed in law or accepted, you're not going to do it by offering them as a marriage-substitute for a minority of the population. You need to make them attractive enough that even monogamous heterosexuals will see the attraction.
Posted by: aduzik.myopenid.com
|
November 12, 2009 2:45 PM
From the article:
That's the political way of saying that the bigotry of 50% + 1 people should determine the rights of GLBT people.
The former governor/Wrestlemania Champ-in-chief of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, said of Maine on election night that if you put slavery to a vote again, it would easily pass. Seeing this steady stream of bullshit, it's hard to disagree with that assessment. Despicable.
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 12, 2009 2:53 PM
Gov. Carcieri identifies as a Roman Catholic. For someone who subscribes to a religion based on God's love, he sure can bring the hate.
The question is, who's going to make the arrangements for that portion of the priesthood in RI? Quick! To the Pope-phone!
Posted by: DominEditrix | November 12, 2009 2:56 PM
SteveM @29:
Another name for a "health care proxy" is "durable power of attorney for health care" or "health care directive". Many states also have legal provisions for directing disposition of the body after death, be it organ donation, full cadaver donation or funeral [burial or cremation].
The unmarried partner exclusion from a hospital affects straight people, as well. It is wise to consider that, if one is not married to one's partner.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 12, 2009 3:07 PM
According to my copy of the Agenda, rainbow caskets, sparkles and glitter are merely optional, not mandated. So while you're technically correct, you're hyperboleialy wrong.
Do I get points for getting it halfway right?
Posted by: Ray Ingles | November 12, 2009 3:11 PM
Martin Brock@18 - according to the article PZ linked to, the legislation that got vetoed was, in fact, in response to officials disregarding a power of attorney: Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner's office "our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate" from Connecticut, but "no one was willing to see these documents."
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 3:14 PM
Specific laws vary. My mother had the durable power of attorney for her niece and had her removed from life support, so it implied healthcare decisions in her case.
I'm not an attorney, but legal standards exist for this sort of thing practically everywhere. You are entitled to name someone else to make healthcare decisions and similar decisions for you, including funeral arrangements.
However you do it in your state, do it, if that's what you want. Don't wait for the political process to do it for you. In the time it takes to march around your state capitol carrying a sign demanding these rights, you can have most of them.
Posted by: Constance Reader | November 12, 2009 3:18 PM
In re: all the commentors discussing power of attorney, it should be pointed out that these men HAD powers of attorney, and wills, and living wills all laying out the deceased's desire to be cremated. His surviving partner also presented their marriage certificate from the state of Connecticut. Rhode Island ignored all of these legal documents.
A commenter at Volokh Conspiracy noted that he hoped the surviving partner sues all offending parties (including the state of Rhode Island) under the "full faith and credit clause" of the U.S. Constitution, for failing to recognize the four aforementioned valid legal contracts executed in another state. Note that for an opposite-sex couple, that Connecticut marriage certificate would have eliminated all discussion.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 3:18 PM
I think uppity cracka should be killed. Put down immediately, in a particularly public and painful way if possible.
Why?
because THAT is NOT human.
It is a goul. A hollow freak of nature.
Have it put down before it kills someone.
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | November 12, 2009 3:20 PM
I'm a pretty calm person all around, but bullshit like this really gets me going. Fucking bigots. This Carcieri asshole should be ridiculed out of office. All homophobes should be as stigmatized as racists. Michael Richards was ripped to shreds for using a racial slur, but anti-gay assholes like this douche get away with horrible discrimination, and are praised for it by a far too large part of the population.
Posted by: GreyRogue | November 12, 2009 3:21 PM
Martin Brock @41:
Of course, those two things are not mutually exclusive. I think you're on the right track with looking for alternative ways to achieve what is so easily obtained by straight married couples, but that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't also change.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 3:25 PM
Then why wouldn't they disregard this law too?
Even if they had regarded the law, it required Goldberg to prove his intimacy with his partner. If the police and the state medical examiner's office were inclined to ignore a power of attorney, they'd have loved that. "O.K. You want to make the funeral arrangements? Prove that you fucked the guy." Then a judge is deciding the meaning of "intimacy", and on and on. Talk about a freak show.
Again, if a legislature can compel these officers to respect a power of attorney in these cases, I support that. Nothing else is needed. Details of the relationship between the deceased and his designated representative are irrelevant.
Posted by: Christopher | November 12, 2009 3:29 PM
I wouldn't be caught dead being gay in Rhode Island
Posted by: James | November 12, 2009 3:33 PM
He followed his ruling with "I'm not a homophobe, I just don't think genders should mix like that. I have lots of gay friends, they come over to my house, I let them used my bathroom"
It boggles the mind.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 3:36 PM
If you've ever been divorced, you know that what's so easily obtained by married couples is not so dreamy on the way out. The joy of cooking for yourself is eating only what you like. I don't see why the terms of romantic partnership are different. I don't ever foresee a time when gay marriage will be any less of a lawyer's trap than straight marriage.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 3:39 PM
-I wouldn't be caught dead being gay in Rhode Island-
If you got found out, you probably would be.
Posted by: Carlie | November 12, 2009 3:43 PM
This is one of those things that make me not want to even get out of bed in the morning.
Posted by: GreyRogue | November 12, 2009 3:44 PM
I didn't mean to imply that it would be. But in most places, gay couples don't even have the ability to choose the package of blessings and curses that is the institution of marriage. On the other hand, if it were legal, that would not prevent gay couples from choosing PoAs, living wills, etc. if that is the route they wanted to take--the same ability to choose that hetero couples have now.
Posted by: Tim_Danaher | November 12, 2009 3:55 PM
@Richard Eis #43:
Your post was a satire of cracka's satire, right?
Gets so hard to tell, sometimes...
Posted by: Tony P | November 12, 2009 3:58 PM
This is the technical definition of bigotry and malfeasance of office. I want the SOB impeached and post haste.
I said so to Rep. Frank Ferri, and my representative and senator are both going to hear from me. I really want him to be the first RI Governor thrown out of office.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | November 12, 2009 4:06 PM
Martin Brock@46 - Back in 18, you said that "if some hospitals refuse visitation to someone with a patient's durable power of attorney, I agree that a legislature should compel it."
I pointed out that that's exactly what the legislature was doing.
Then you come back with, "Then why wouldn't they disregard this law too?"
Let me know when you've decided which argument you want to stick to.
Posted by: Dead Guy Kai
|
November 12, 2009 4:09 PM
Good news for the Massachusetts funeral industry!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 4:17 PM
-@Richard Eis #43:
Your post was a satire of cracka's satire, right?
Gets so hard to tell, sometimes...-
No
I did wonder if it was satire (needed eleventy more things really)... But since I didn't find it the least bit funny anyway I think he should still be strung if only for poor taste in comedy.
Posted by: BMS | November 12, 2009 4:23 PM
MB at #41:
First, really? Really? Perhaps you haven't been following the news lately. We've been working on this for most of my life - I'm 44.
Second, let me suggest you know not whereof you speak. "Most of them" - I laugh in your uninformed face. My VT-CU partner / CA-DP partner / CA wife / NV-DP partner spent $2500 drawing up PoAs, wills, living wills, Health Care PoAs, and associated documents. For a grand total of less than 10 documents. Do you know the cost of a marriage license? About $50. Do you know how many rights, duties, and obligations flow from said license under federal law? According to a 2004 GAO report http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R, there are 1138 references to the word marriage in the federal code.
Please mansplain to us how fewer than 10 out of 1138 is an any universe "most."
Third, well, shit.
I'm so god-damn fucking tired of 100% uninformed dipshits patting us cute little queers on the head and telling us that we can "just" get a few legal documents and all is fine. Fuck you. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Just.
Fuck, man.
If you think you're an ally, get off my side.
Posted by: Murrow | November 12, 2009 4:24 PM
Copied from the Post Q&A with Patrick J. Deneen, associate professor of government at Georgetown University:
Patrick Deneen: I think the basic premise of the Post's story requires clarification. The premise of today's story was that the Catholic Church was threatening to cease to provide charitable services if the law legalizing gay marriage is passed. In point of fact, it is the DC government that would cease to license or contract with the Church unless the Church conformed to a definition of marriage that violates its faith tradition. Without a set of broader legal exemptions allowing for the Church to remain faithful to its definition of marriage, it will cease to be permitted by the City to provide the contracted and licensed services that it has for well over a century. The Church's fundamental desire in this controversy is to continue its desire and freedom to serve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/12/DI2009111208573.html?sid=ST2009042801406
Posted by: MadScientist | November 12, 2009 4:24 PM
Is his name really 'Carcieri'? It sounds so much like Latin for jailer, but I'm too lazy to find the language books and look it up.
Posted by: Walton | November 12, 2009 4:27 PM
Martin Brock,
I understand and, to some extent, sympathise with your criticisms of marriage as a legal institution. It is flawed in many respects. And no one is forcing you, or anyone else, to get married or to give any kind of personal recognition to the institution of marriage.
However, like it or not, marriage as an institution is broadly accepted in our society, and most couples in longstanding domestic relationships - including gay couples - want to have the chance to get married, and to enjoy the rights and privileges attaching to that institution. Since I believe in maximising individual freedom, I would argue that, unless the State has a convincing argument for denying those rights and privileges to gay people (which it doesn't), it ought to guarantee the same rights to all couples who want legal recognition of their relationship, regardless of their gender/sexual orientation. I'm not concerned either way as to whether it's called "marriage", but the law, IMO, ought to grant the same legal protection to gay couples in a committed relationship that it grants to straight married couples.
Posted by: Marilove | November 12, 2009 4:40 PM
Oh, Joy! Martin Brock, a presumably straight man, is here to tell us how much he hates marriage! Yay!
Can we stop with this derailing topic, MB? Marriage exists and as it exists today it is discriminatory. I'm sick and tired of some dolt coming into every fucking conversation regarding gay marriage and saying, "Well, I don't believe in marriage AT ALL!!!" Generally it's someone who is not affected in any way, shape, or form from these anti-gay votes/laws/etc.
Either you want everyone to have the same equal rights, or you don't. Either you side with the bigots, or you don't. And remember that REAL PEOPLE are affected by this shit, and discussing theoreticals that have no basis in reality gets us nowhere, and just moves us further away from equal rights for all. Marriage is not going to be abolished any time soon and you know it.
Basically, what Walton said, though I don’t like the idea of calling it something separate. The only argument to calling it something separate is a religious argument, and since marriage is a secular government contract, the religious argument for “separate names” is unacceptable.
Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 4:51 PM
@62
Actually, Martin Brock has implied bisexual tendencies in other threads. It's not that he's a straight man telling you how much he hates marriage, it's a bisexual libertarian berating you for not being able to take care of your affairs yourself and expecting the state to give you the same rights everyone else has.
Posted by: SteveM | November 12, 2009 5:01 PM
Formally, the state protects rights and grants privileges. But regardless of whether you think marriage is a right or a privilege, the state is obligated by its constitution and the federal constitution to do both in a non-dicriminatory way with respect to a person's sex. Requiring that only opposite sex couples can obtain a marriage is discriminatory. Even the most conservative republicans (or actually especially them) would be outraged if only opposite sex parties could enter into any other form of contract.
Posted by: stogoe | November 12, 2009 5:04 PM
A-fucking-men. Fuck you, Martin Brody. You're a moron.
Posted by: A lurker | November 12, 2009 5:08 PM
You mean they have a list of people authorized to make funeral arrangements? I have a better idea than allowing same-sex partners on the list.
My idea is simple: I should be able to name any person whatsoever who is willing and able to do it for me regardless of the nature of their relationship with me. It should not matter whether or not we are relatives. It should not matter if we are partners. Nothing should matter beyond my wishes if the person named in my will (or whatever legal document is appropriate) is willing and availiable.
Obviously it would be more complicated if the deceased had not named anyone and I am sure the law covers that. Obviously if gay marriage is allowed then they same-sex partner would get first priority as spouse.
Posted by: defiantskeptic
|
November 12, 2009 5:19 PM
At least you only have to hear about him every once in a while. Try living with this idiot as governor, and in a state where we have the first openly gay mayor of a state capital!
Cicilline must be shaking his head in disgust.
Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 5:20 PM
Congratulations on missing the point, A lurker. The whole issue is that with gay couples, even when the contacts are in place and legitimate, some state governments do not honor them. The whole point of this thread is that a law trying to remedy that shortcoming was vetoed.
You want the ability to enter into legitimate contracts. Great, so do the rest of us. It's completely beside the point here, and at best mentioning it here is an unintentional obfuscation.
Posted by: Natalie | November 12, 2009 5:25 PM
BMS @ 58 - hear hear.
I'm straight (and unmarried), but you, Martin Brock, are an ass.
Every committed (ersatz married) GLBT couple I know has signed wills, PoAs, etc etc etc. Having those documents a) still doesn't get their relationship full recognition and b) doesn't mean that they don't want to spare future couples that enormous fucking headache. They aren't chased out of the queer rights club because they've managed to gain a handful of rights for their relationship.
This seems so typically libertarian to me - you think your "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" mindset is somehow shared by everyone. Well, it's not. Some of us are able to make do in the meantime while still working for equality.
Posted by: Mark | November 12, 2009 5:34 PM
What would Jesse have done? My guess...kicked Carcieri in the balls and comforted the man who lost his partner.
Posted by: David B
|
November 12, 2009 5:52 PM
Until a year or so ago I thought that gay marriage and/or civil partnerships was pretty much a non issue - figuring that personal commitments were personal things that the government should have no interest in, though it might be a useful institution where kids were involved.
It is threads like this, in other message boards that changed my mind about it. I hadn't thought of all sorts of practical ramifications that marriage can have.
The internet can get people to change their mind. I've changed mine, and now argue in favour of gay marriages IRL.
David B
Posted by: John M H | November 12, 2009 6:12 PM
Carcieri = Shit
Posted by: Texas Reader | November 12, 2009 6:37 PM
maybe he is taking a page from the NRA playbook "SLIPPERY SLOPE!! SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!
Posted by: davej
|
November 12, 2009 6:39 PM
I don't know. I don't understand why a good lawyer can't write up a document that would provide an equivalence to marriage. Maybe this is a civil union. Maybe it simply isn't possible. So you write a will and a living will.
Posted by: Texas Reader | November 12, 2009 6:42 PM
davej - those documents would cost several thousand dollars in legal fees. contrast that to the cost of a marriage license.
Posted by: Texas Reader | November 12, 2009 6:45 PM
to clarify my previous comment - getting all the docs drafted to give a couple the same benefits as married people would cost several thousand dollars - i used to work with a guy who had it done. i wasn't referring only to a will.
Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 6:54 PM
Last time I'll say it, then someone else will have to if they deem it important enough. It's irritating having to repeat oneself.
The law that was vetoed was a response due to people actually drafting and getting the proper paperwork, just to have it duly ignored by state officials because they were not married (because the state does not allow same-sex marriage). You can spend thousands of dollars to get the paperwork done, but without marriage the state can still screw you. "Just do the paperwork" is not a valid response to the issue at hand, because THE PAPERWORK WAS ALREADY DONE.
FFS.
Posted by: BMS | November 12, 2009 7:14 PM
davej, I will quote myself at #58:
And also too what Paul said at #77.
Follow that link to the GAO's summary, then follow the links in that summary. Then come back with some suggestions for, for example, how an attorney would word the spousal privilege between same-sex couples such that it would hold up in court, or how an attorney would word a contract that would allow same-sex partners to transfer property (like a car or a house) to each other without incurring taxes. M'kay?
FFS. Seriously. Do you have any frakkin' clue what comes pre-packaged with a marriage license (don't answer - that's a rhetorical question)?
Posted by: Canadian Curmudgeon
|
November 12, 2009 7:24 PM
I'm so glad I live in Canada where gays would never be allowed to marry and destroy the natural order of things. If we allowed that, we might end up with socialized medicine or something equally horrible.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 7:31 PM
Nice to meet you too.
Then they're on the right track.
a) This law didn't get their relationship fully recognized either. In fact, it singled out their relationship for incredibly onerous burdens when a simple extension of the power of attorney would have sufficed and wouldn't have singled out gay couples at all.
b) Wills and declarations of power of attorney are a good idea regardless of marriage and are not an enormous headache.
You're right. Being queer, they expand queer rights by gaining rights for their relationship. This law didn't expand queer rights at all. It required queers to prove their intimacy to obtain rights they should have simply by declaring a power of attorney.
What am I supposed to have gotten? I'm not even married. When I was married, my taxes were higher.
But I'll say this. For me, the gay rights movement was about sodomy laws. It was about repealing the criminality of homosexuality, not about inviting legislatures to write the terms of gay relationships.
I was pro-gay rights, writing letters to the editor under my real name, twenty-five years ago. I've marched, distributed leaflets, lit candles, attended meetings, contributed money and all the rest of it. I've cared for a dying gay man and watched him die, slowly, because I had lived with him. I remained in his house for a decade thereafter, because he left it to me in his will, because he was in love with me. I don't need any sanctimonious wrist slapping from you.
Posted by: BMS | November 12, 2009 7:32 PM
. . . and some of my best friends are black . . .
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 7:46 PM
Actually, I explicitly acknowledge homosexual practices in other threads. If you've only seen "implied tendencies", you've skipped too many posts.
You leap to incredible conclusions with a scintilla of information. You don't even know what the law we're discussing says. You hardly know me from Adam, but you don't hesitate to judge my character, because you don't like a few comments I leave in a blog, based on an incredibly skewed understanding colored by your undeniable hostility.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 12, 2009 7:54 PM
Dan,
Since it was apparently talking about its own "opposite marriage," I think it was right the first time.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 7:54 PM
I don't have any black friends at the moment, really. I've only lived and slept with a gay man while he died slowly after attending candle light vigils for gay rights and visiting victims of HIV with him, but my politics clearly disqualify me from any sense of compassion or justice for queers, so you can just ignore all of that.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 8:05 PM
The law that was vetoed required people to prove their intimacy when getting the proper paperwork should have been enough. So why didn't R.I. enact a law compelling state officials to respect the proper paperwork, rather than requiring gay couples and only gay couples to prove their intimacy?
Posted by: BMS | November 12, 2009 8:42 PM
Because they're a bunch of bigots, Martin.
Posted by: Mack | November 12, 2009 8:47 PM
"For me, the gay rights movement was about sodomy laws. It was about repealing the criminality of homosexuality, not about inviting legislatures to write the terms of gay relationships."
Well congrats, that's your view of the gay rights movement, and you're welcome to it. But for many, many, many others, the gay rights movement is about getting all the rights that other people take for granted, such as marriage.
Marriage implies certain rights and obligations under the law, that's why it's considered a social institution. The dozens of legal documents a couple can fill out if they choose, or don't have the right, to get married don't cover all the gaps.
Say a couple, gay or straight, have a child, who is biologically related to one of the partners, but not the other. If the biological parent dies, the non biological parent often doesn't have rights to the child if s/he hasn't formally adopted the child or been named guardian in the biological parent's will. Or if they get divorced, or separate. The non biological parent often isn't guaranteed any parental rights under current laws. The laws are evolving, but slowly.
Posted by: HMDK | November 12, 2009 9:40 PM
"But I'll say this. For me, the gay rights movement was about sodomy laws. It was about repealing the criminality of homosexuality, not about inviting legislatures to write the terms of gay relationships."
So,in other words, your didn't want (and rightly so!) to be thrown in jail if someone reported where you stick your dick.
But you somehow stop short of wanting equality with straight couples, because of some fever dream of government getting out of the marriage-game altogether. Which would be nice, sure, but who the hell are you kidding, besides yourself?
It's a fine goal to eventually work towards, but to IN THE MEANTIME, throw away any hope of equality with straight couples is downright insane and self-crippling. Or maybe you're a liar? Or, worst of all, maybe you're just such an INDIVIDUALISTIC RATIONAL ACTOR that what you don't want nobody else could possibly deserve or need.
Basically, you are wrong because it ISN'T AN EITHER OR QUESTION.
Posted by: Mack | November 12, 2009 9:58 PM
*Sorry, not divorced. I meant to say if they dissolve their union. Divorce gives them rights.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 12, 2009 10:12 PM
"But I'll say this. For me, the gay rights movement was about sodomy laws. It was about repealing the criminality of homosexuality, not about inviting legislatures to write the terms of gay relationships."
There's a difference between the liberation movement and the rights movement.
This is an area of particular interest to me. The Liberation movement that arose in the aftermath of Stonewall (I'm thinking of GAA and GLF in particular) was specifically invested in the destruction of the entire hetero/homo binary. Yes, the removal of sodomy laws was a huge part of that. And it became a big issue after the odious Hardwick v. Bowers decision. Queer Nation was, in many ways, a direct descendent of GLF and GAA. Statements like those flowing from the Gay Liberationist that the movement's aim was to "free the inner homosexual for every heterosexual" would make little sense in the current environment. The sort of liberationist threat of queer activism was one that stressed the removal of regulations from sexuality, be they in state determinations of what counts as a family or psychiatric definitions of mental illness.
The more "assimilationist" approach has been one that, rather than attempting to break down boundaries, has reinforced identity categories and the enactment of legislation based on those categorical differences. That's where we see the claims of equality come into play more and more. Gay and Lesbian folks (and bisexuals and transgender folk, and more recently intersex folks) are different categories of people who are entitled to equal treatment in the law, or whatever other system of social regulation.
Both approaches do flow from a similar space. That notion is one that stresses the way society is organized in terms of heterosexual domination and supremacy. The rights based approach focuses on establishing equal rights for those who have previously been denigrated and denied the rights that heterosexuals have established as belonging to only them, whereas the liberationists want to tear down the entire system of distinction.
I find myself moving back and forth between those positions, to be honest, claiming them both simultaneously. It's a conversation that's been going on within LGBT/Queer communities, movements, and publics for decades. For the most part, the rights-based assimilationist approach has tended to dominate, aside from a few historical moments of liberationist ascendance (the immediate post-Stonewall years and the ACT-UP/Queer Nation moment). The assimilationist are more pragmatic, but the liberationists probably have a more thorough critique of the social organization of sexual life and politics.
I'm going on a full bottle of wine this evening, but to contrast, check out Steven Seidman's Beyond the Closet, Michael Warner's Publics and Counterpublics and Fear of a Queer Nation, anything and everything by Pat(rick) Califia, Amber Holibaugh's work, and anything by Jeffrey Weeks. Avoid Andrew Sullivan at all costs.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 10:48 PM
Gay marriage does not establish equality, because it does not provide any similar package of benefits to platonic roommates, cohabiting siblings and other partnerships without the romantic characteristics of marriage.
Gay couples don't need a relationship instituted by the state. A gay couple is a free association and may choose any terms it likes to govern the relationship. A package of rights and obligations constructed by a legislature adds nothing to this option, unless the legislature offers benefits not offered to other partners.
Gay marriage is only a pretext to gay divorce.
The bonds of matrimony are an institution, instituted by the civil authority, not simply a voluntary compact. If marriage were strictly volunteer, no bondage would be necessary. I understand the bondage primarily in terms of the rights of children and the mutual interest and shared obligation of coparents.
Most married couples are not better off than most gay couples, because most married couples support children and often pay higher taxes. Some gay couples support the children of one partner or adopted children, and I believe the law should address these cases for the benefit of the children.
Other gay couples feel disadvantaged compared with married, childless, straight couples, and I understand this feeling, but gay marriage is not the only remedy for this inequality and is not the remedy I favor.
Instead, I would end marriage for childless, straight couples and return to something like marriage by common law for parents of the same children. Outside of rape cases, you're married when you have children together, and you're married until the children are liberated. You support the children, and you support each other except in extraordinary circumstances like abuse or neglect. Marriage does not compel cohabitation now, but divorce is not an option.
Marriage would exist otherwise only between adoptive parents. I have no problem with gay couples adopting, and these couples would be married on the same terms benefiting the children and the couple's shared interest in the children with no possibility of divorce.
I know that's not about to happen, but gay marriage is not about to happen either. Civil union statutes are under attack everywhere they're enacted, they're not gay marriage anyway, and gay couples are not flocking to accept the terms they establish.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 11:04 PM
I have little interest in the rights movement. Other than gay parents, gay people have no shortage of rights. They need to exercise the rights they already have. In some cases, they need to demand respect for rights they already have, but they don't need to line up at the legislature with a laundry list of additional rights. Lawrence v. Texas was decided five years ago.
I have no problem with asking legislatures to compel compliance with the expressed wishes of any individual. If I assign my gay lover or anyone else rights to visit me in a hospital or remove my body from a morgue or anything else, I expect authorities to respect my wishes. This is not a "gay" issue per se. We can make progress on it without invoking the politically charged "m" word, and I don't see what's so wondrous about marriage anyway. If you want to live with your lover, do that. If you want to buy property with him, do that. If you want to pay his credit card bill, do that.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 12, 2009 11:17 PM
Martin Brock,
"The romantic characteristics of marriage" are entirely of your own doing. It is not necessary to observe them. Get a civil marriage with your lover and then, "If you want to live with your lover, do that. If you want to buy property with him, do that. If you want to pay his credit card bill, do that." There is no need to be afraid of taking up marriage and using it how you see fit, without respect to contemporary or traditional culture.
Posted by: StanDahl
|
November 12, 2009 11:22 PM
@True Bob #7
"Phallocephalic"?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 11:41 PM
There is no need to be afraid of living in sin and deciding the terms of your relationship for yourselves.
Posted by: Mack | November 13, 2009 1:02 AM
How does marriage affect the terms of your relationship? Marriage is a social institution that endows married couples with certain rights. How you conduct your marriage is completely up to you and your spouse. If you don't want to get married, fine. Don't. But don't push your view that marriage is only a "pretext for divorce" or "bondage" on other people. Many people want that institution, they want the rights and privileges it grants, under the laws.
Marriage is bad, so gay people should be happy they don't have it is an absurdist argument. Plus, it ignores the very real point of, many gay couples want to get married.
You can expect the authorities to respect your wishes all you want, but unless you have legal protection and support for those wishes, well, put the authorities' respect in one hand and shit in the other, and see which fills up faster.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 13, 2009 1:10 AM
There is no need to be afraid of living in sin and deciding the terms of your relationship for yourselves. splendid. now if you could convince the German government to let me import my boyfriend without me having to marry him first, we'd be golden.
you really don't spend much time in reality, do you.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 13, 2009 1:13 AM
blockquote fail. whee.
Posted by: Skeptiksnarf | November 13, 2009 1:26 AM
as an American i feel myself getting more disgusted with this country every day
Posted by: Walton | November 13, 2009 4:58 AM
Martin Brock,
Twelve years ago, actually. It was decided in 1997.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 5:25 AM
YES BUT THEY DON'T YOU STUPID FUCKING ASSHOLE. Thats the whole fucking point. The pieces of paper we sign mean nothing because it doesn't have the M word all over it.
Of course you don't care, you're like a fat rich guy wondering why all those skinny poor people are complaining about lack of food all the time.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 13, 2009 5:55 AM
You don't need marriage for this. Back home in New Zealand the Civil Partnership legislation essentially rolled what had been civil marriage into allowing LGBT people to tie the not. This was very canny since now a whole segment of the population has a stake in it, not just LGBT people. The legislation is also very flexible with different levels of commitment allowed within it. You can for eg just use it to declare someone officially next of kin which would have fixed this situation. In fact you do not have to be in a sexual relationship to use it. An elderly person for eg can use it to name a favourite grandchild or niece or nephew as next of kin if they do not trust other relatives to act in their best interests.
This is the sort of legislation you want. Let the religious have theirs and let everyone, literally everyone else have their way of formally registering their commitment. You get married in a Register Office you get a Civil Partnership regardless of who you are.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 13, 2009 6:31 AM
Twelve years ago, actually. It was decided in 1997.
No, SCOTUS decided Lawrence in 2003. That's when anti-sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. They were still operative in 13 states until that year (4 were same-sex specific, 9 were gender neutral--yes, providing oral sex even on a married spouse, was illegal in 9 states)
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 7:25 AM
The violation of law occurred in 1998. The Supreme Court decision striking down the law on constitutional grounds occurred in 2003. Here it is. You may be thinking of some other decision.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 7:34 AM
In Alabama, the sodomy law did exempt married couples, so heterosexual, oral and anal sex were illegal only outside of marriage. On the other hand, Alabama didn't actually have a fornication law, so procreative, sexual acts were (and still are) legal outside of marriage. You couldn't lick your lover's clit outside of marriage, but if you knocked her up, that was O.K. In terms of being fruitful and multiplying, this standard is perfectly reasonable, of course.
Posted by: Dancaban | November 13, 2009 7:35 AM
Incarcerate Carcieri!
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 7:56 AM
So the magic M word on your pieces of paper will change everyone's mind? A legal document without this magic word can never work, but the M fairy can save you?
Again, if a will or power of attorney or some similar election of the deceased does not suffice in this case, the legislature may change the law so that it does. If people will ignore this law, they'll also ignore a gay marriage law.
In fact, people seem much more inclined to ignore a gay marriage law. They'll bend over backward to ignore a gay marriage law. They'll go to court at taxpayer's expense to ignore a gay marriage law. If you really want your rights respected, leave your sexual preference out of it.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 8:15 AM
I oppose practically all restrictions on immigration, but the German government doesn't answer to me.
You'd be happier if you were "equal" to a straight, childless, married couple in this regard. Suppose I want to import my dearest friend who is like a brother to me or the priest who was like a father to me when I lived in an orphanage (hypothetically), though I've never slept with either? Do you also want my equality with the straight, childless married couple? Where does your sense of "equality" end?
Would you allow an impoverished Lithuanian, who could work more fruitfully in Germany than in Lithuania, to immigrate?
How about if I'm the U.S. father of a German child conceived out of wedlock? May I import my child, with the mother's consent, if I don't marry her first? Answer: No. But if I'm the U.S. mother of a child conceived of a German father and born in Germany, my child is entitled to immigrate.
For an authority on my domicile, you know remarkably little about me.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 13, 2009 8:28 AM
For one complaining about ignorance, you sure are ignorant of EU law.
Posted by: stogoe | November 13, 2009 8:33 AM
I seem to have read somewhere that Washington's new domestic partnership law was expanded by voters this year to cover much the same thing.
Posted by: marilove | November 13, 2009 9:21 AM
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! The US is a secular nation The religious can have whatever the fuck they want, as long as it has nothing to do with the government. Marriage is a secular contract given by the government. Therefore, "Let the religious have what they want" is a bullshit fucking argument, and PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Posted by: marilove | November 13, 2009 9:24 AM
Well, that was an HTML fail. Still, at least it gets the point across!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 13, 2009 9:40 AM
In fact, the main problem with marriage is that it's seen as a religious ceremony when its main effects are in the civil (that's right, EVIL GUMMINT!!!!) realm.
The Mormon-Catholic War on Gays is all about framing this as a "freedom of religion" issue: "They want to force the Pope to gay-marry Siegfried and Roy in the Vatican! And then participate in the ORGY afterwards!" (Not that a Pope who wears Prada would necessarily object to this, but hey.)
But if you decouple religion from marriage -- if you point out that it's not the preacher but the courthouse license that makes a marriage legal, and that more people are skipping the whole church part and heading straight for the courthouse -- suddenly that line of attack is weakened if not utterly made useless.
As for the whole notion that government is icky icky big stinky poopers nasty, here's a bit of history on the "Southern Strategy" that popularized gummint-bashing.
In the Southern Strategy (which also works to some degree in white-flight megachurch exurbs north of Dixie), gummint-bad folks = I don't want my tax dollars going to some Negro folks. Lee Atwater, key architect of the Reagan Devolution, explained it all way back in 1981 (quoted by Bob Herbert):
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 13, 2009 9:44 AM
Kraid @ #20:
I think something involving necrophilia. This guy's name should be inextricably linked to the rape of corpses until the day his putrid rotting carcass is thrown to the vultures.
Posted by: Natalie | November 13, 2009 9:57 AM
Martin,
I'm surprised you haven't noticed, since you were part of the conversation, but this entire thread has moved away from this specific law to the advantages or disadvantages of same sex marriage. Perhaps they are, and perhaps you don't find the process onerous. Most GLBT couples, on the other hand, would like the choice to either get married, and have over a thousand (according to BMS) different rights granted to them automatically. What about that bothers you so much? Sigh. Your statement that gay people who "carry signs" - work for gay marriage - could have all the rights they want by signing a few papers suggests this attitude. At no point did I say that you literally made this claim about marriage. No one has ever suggested that legislatures should write the terms of anyone's relationship. Legalizing same sex marriage will not force anyone to get married, nor will it change how any couples structure their relationship. It just offers a convenient way to gain various rights and privileges that are currently available to straight couples.Well aren't you just precious. Sadly, that doesn't prevent you from being wrong.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 13, 2009 9:58 AM
Oh yes: The whole point of getting working-class white men, in the South and out, to hate taxes/gummint and see cutting taxes/gummint as a way to kick around black people, is as a Trojan Horse for the slashing of corporate taxes (and the subsequent withdrawal of Corporate America from the social contract). If we went back to the tax rates that existed under Eisenhower (where the rich actually paid serious taxes), and hadn't allowed unions to be all but destroyed in the wake of the Taft-Hartley Act, we'd still have a middle class that didn't need two or more incomes per family to prop it up.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 10:20 AM
-If you really want your rights respected, leave your sexual preference out of it.-
Considering my "sexual preference" has resulted in said (lack of) rights i'm a little unclear why I should "remove" it from my reasoning in order to get respect.
Thats like black guys bleaching their skin so they can be respected by the whites while they discuss race issues.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 13, 2009 10:25 AM
Marilove @ 112: It worked for me!
And yes, the whole point is that the Mormons (who are bankrolling the whole antigay fight but for obvious reasons are letting the Catholics be the public face of the fight) and Catholics are trying to claim that marriage is a purely religious ceremony with civil implications when in fact it's those civil implications (meaning the various rights allowed married couples) that are the whole reason we get married nowadays.
One of the reasons I chose to be married at home, by a judge, with no preachers present, is precisely because I wanted to emphasize that it's not the preacher, but the judge with the license, that makes a marriage legal.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 13, 2009 10:27 AM
Says the king of sanctimony.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 10:27 AM
Ah...of course!!!! It just hit me.
We are the new atheists/gayists. Martin is an old gayist/accomodationist.
We are too strident!!!!! We need to be quiet and respectful to um....um...people that hate us and deliberately want to cause us misery and hassle while pointing out that life is only a hassle for us because we are gay.
Posted by: Anri
|
November 13, 2009 11:24 AM
I'm still not certain where Martin Brock has explained to us just why gay couples don't deserve to be married.
Could someone point me there?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 11:37 AM
I think:
He doesn't like the current "marriage" paradigm. So instead of working with that and directly countering the bigotry of the religious and their hold on "sacred" things we should um... do something else I think.
and he has piles of gay friends.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2009 11:39 AM
"I'm still not certain where Martin Brock has explained to us just why gay couples don't deserve to be married."
I believe it's in comment #91, where he says:
"Gay marriage does not establish equality, because it does not provide any similar package of benefits to platonic roommates, cohabiting siblings and other partnerships without the romantic characteristics of marriage."
Seems rather callous to say to gay couples that they shouldn't be able to get married until we can let platonic roommates in on it, but hey, why have the good when you can have The Perfect?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 13, 2009 11:43 AM
When civil partnerships were being debated in the UK, some of the more religious members of the House of Lords tried to de-rail the legislation by putting forward amendments that allowed civil partnerships for platonic friends.
Do you think Brock is aware he is arguing on the same side as the bigots ?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 11:45 AM
-"Gay marriage does not establish equality, because it does not provide any similar package of benefits to platonic roommates, cohabiting siblings and other partnerships without the romantic characteristics of marriage."-
Well actually it would let them get married. Whats the problem?
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 13, 2009 12:02 PM
Martin Brock wrote,
Then you misunderstood what I was saying. The whole married-unmarried dichotomy that would make you say people who are not married but living together are "living in sin" is your own religious value judgment about a pretend special power that marriage licenses have. I am imploring libertarians, such as yourself, to not look on a marriage license as a religious blessing by the state, but as a conglomerate contract that the state will honor between you and whoever else you choose (in an ideal situation where marriage is equal for straights and non-straights). Marriage is not sacred any more than religion is sacred, so why pretend that it is?Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 13, 2009 12:43 PM
#121Posted by: Anri:
Could someone point me there?
#122Posted by: Richard Eis
Yet he was married at one point in time, so apparently he was O.K. with the paradigm then. I'm just speculating, but, perhaps, like Saul of Tarsus, he now counsels shunning of marriage since his own was so crappy.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 13, 2009 12:48 PM
You have to pity anyone who had the misfortune to marry Brock.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 1:07 PM
I never say that gay couples don't "deserve" to be married. I don't even know what this means. When do I deserve some institutionalized relationship crafted by a legislature?
I say that marriage is an institutionalized relationship crafted by politicians and that gay couples are better off crafting the terms of their relationships themselves.
So are straight couples for that matter, but children are not either party to their parent's relationship, so I understand some need for an institutionalized relationship governing families with minor children. The children primarily deserve this institution, not the parents. The parents might not want the obligations involved, but that's irrelevant.
I don't distinguish gay couples with joint guardianship of children from straight couples with children, but straight couples are obviously more likely to have children because their relationship is procreative.
If it were up to me, marriage would not govern childless couples regardless of gender or sexual orientation. I don't know why childless couples want to be married. Often, it only raises their taxes, and they don't need it to cohabit, share property, power of attorney and so on. If people do want to be governed by the terms of a legislated institution, then they live with whatever the legislature enacts.
Posted by: marilove | November 13, 2009 1:13 PM
So essentially, Brock, you side with the bigots.
Are you proud?
Fuck you.
Posted by: Paul | November 13, 2009 1:20 PM
Martin,
Just read #77.
You keep repeating things like gay couples are better off crafting the terms of their relationships themselves, but you're ignoring the fact that when they do states have a history of ignoring those legal contracts. It makes you come off as a lout with no connection to reality.
Great, you wrote letters to the editor fighting for the right to sodomize legally. You got what you wanted. At the very least, refrain from being an ass when other people are pushing for what they want (which is merely equal access to a secular institution/contract).
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 1:21 PM
No. I give my reasons repeatedly, and I've never mentioned my marriage before except to say that my taxes were higher.
I'm a pointless, boring, pompous git, but a remarkable number of people here are so interested in my personal life that they can hardly contain their speculation.
My marriage was nothing to crow about, but I have a good relationship with my children's mother. My youngest turned 18 last month, but the three of them still live at home. Since I moved a year ago from Alabama to Georgia a year ago, I stay in their house (formerly our house) routinely, usually for several days at a time.
Technically, in Alabama, these overnight visits imply that I've remarried my kid's mom, even if though we haven't slept together, but we're ignoring the common law marriage precedents for the sake of convenience.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 1:28 PM
Yeah, we tried that, it's the reason for this post. I think you didn't read it very well.
Yes, yes, ok. I'm well aware that the whole thing is a mess but this is a step in the right direction. By letting gays marry you ARE removing the sacred element in a very definite "religion can go fuck itself" kind of way which is the heart of the problem.
and I am NOT a libertarian. I buy my own books thank you.
Posted by: eddie smith | November 13, 2009 3:26 PM
Upity Cracka, I think you're forgetting one thing: Most gays aren't the crazy fruity kind, and a funeral is not a place or time to be committing such chickanery. Yo sound like a rapper. You should know, damn well, that in the current genertion there is so much homosexuality it is not even an issue anymore. Your post suggests an adolescent one. You'd think you'd be above such stupid comments. Guess not--the lowest comon denominator still choses to wallow in superficiality. Also, incase you didn't undrstand, the Godless liberal comment is called "irony".
Talk about your sleeze-balls, I'm going to have nightmares just knowing that you exist.......
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 3:35 PM
Eddie Smith, Uppity Cracker was kidding. Settle down.
Posted by: maureen brian | November 13, 2009 3:44 PM
Eddie,
I don't think Uppity Cracka has ever attended a gay funeral. The last one I was at celebrated the multiple talents of the deceased and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. It was generally socialist with Buddhist overtones, attended by persons of all persuasions - all of whom kept their pants on - and, as far as possible in the circumstances, totally positive.
That sounds like exactly the sort of experience UC really, truly needs.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 13, 2009 3:48 PM
Ya, leave uppity cracka ALONE! The uppity style may not be to your tastes, but it (#26) was all tongue-in-cheek satire.
Posted by: Numenaster
|
November 13, 2009 4:04 PM
Speaking as someone who six months ago had to arrange the funeral of my domestic partner/wife of 16 years, I can confidently state that a roadblock such as this would push some bereaved partners over the edge. Carcieri will have blood on his hands at some point in the future. Well done, asshole.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 13, 2009 4:11 PM
Martin Brock @108, thank you very much for so beautifully demonstrating just how tenuous your relationship with the real world is.
Posted by: BMS | November 13, 2009 5:27 PM
O_o
Posted by: Anri
|
November 13, 2009 5:59 PM
I didn't think I was being cryptic.
Do you believe that gay couples that wish to be married should be able to do so?
And should they oppose legislation designed to prevent them from doing so?
When you and your partner desire it.
Um, yes, that's where our laws do come from in most parts of the world.
Including, for example, the right to be recognized as 'married'?
So, 'true' marriage, for you, solely involves children. If a man has children by several women, or a woman by several men, they're 'married' to all of them?
And they might very well want them. We call that 'seeking marriage'.
So, you would deny them that right to seek it, then?
And if they don't like those terms, they should...
What, exactly?
Try to change the law?
Do you oppose or support their efforts?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 11:26 PM
I don't believe that a childless gay couple should receive legislated benefits not available to platonic roommates, cohabiting siblings, a parent living with an adult child, two nuns, etc. I don't believe that a childless straight couple should either.
I support some institution incorporating the rights of children and the obligations of their joint guardians. The genders or sexual relationship between the guardians is irrelevant. They could be gay or straight or two nuns or whatever, but since straight couples are natural procreative, they'll dominate this institution.
I'm not holding my breath for any of these reforms, but that's my preference.
Gay couples that want a legislature to write the terms of their relationship and call it "marriage" will do that. It's no skin off my back, unless they end up with benefits that I must subsidize. I'm a minarchist. I'm describing the minimally useful state that I can support.
Gay couples can also write the terms of their own relationships with no help from any legislature, and if they ask me, that's what I'll advise. Legislators won't write terms in the best interests of gay couples. Among other things, they'll construct an attractive pretext for divorce, because divorce is profitable to them.
Also, gay marriage is a public registry of sexual orientation. I'm all for being out, but I don't think the public registry is a good idea at this point. Lawrence v. Texas was decided only five years ago. Progress is not a straight line. I prefer measures like power of attorney that do not imply the sexual relationship between partners.
I just don't agree with that. Everyone doesn't get whatever package of benefits from the legislature that they want.
I don't care what you call your relationship. You can be "married" in an MCC right now. The state doesn't call it "marriage", but your community within the MCC does. If you prefer a more secular community, find one or form one.
I'm not interested in what the state calls me. Only five years ago, it was calling me a "sodomite" (or a "criminal against nature") and threatening to jail me. Now I'm going down to the courthouse to register? Not me, brother.
I don't define the word "marriage", but if you're asking me what sort of marriage-like, institutional bond I support, that's it. I don't see the point otherwise.
Polygamy? Yes. If it happens, the law should protect the rights of children and the rights and obligations of parents regardless. The law should not encourage polygamy, because two parents with undivided loyalties to their jointly guarded children is a time-tested institution. It's also a natural pattern among highly evolved creatures like many birds. Being natural doesn't make the arrangement "good", but it does make it time-tested for fitness.
Children are the point of this bondage of parents to one another. If you love your partner for the moment, or forever, you don't need any bondage instituted by the state.
They might or they might not. What they want is irrelevant. That's the point. Between you and your lover, what the two of you want is completely relevant. It is the only relevant consideration.
I would deny them statutory benefits not available to platonic roommates.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 11:50 PM
I read the vetoed statute itself and quote it above. It requires a gay man to prove his intimacy with his dead partner. You read the headline and think "pro-gay law", but this law was not a pro-gay. R.I. could have simply ordered morgues to respect an established power of attorney, since the offended party cited in the article had one of those. If the legislature's intention was so pro-gay, why did it require gay men to prove their intimacy with their dead partners? How the fuck am I supposed to that anyway?
No, it wasn't. A step in the right direction would have been, and still is, a simple requirement by the R.I. legislature that morgues respect an established power of attorney.
Marriage is a sacred institution. The very fact that it's a sacred institution is why many churches are going ape-shit about gay marriage. I'm not interested in being "in your face" with the Southern Baptists. I live in Alabama and Georgia, fella. Do you think that does me any favors? You think you're my heroic knight in shining armor? Well, y'ain't.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 12:04 AM
I support every adult's right to live with anyone they choose, to own property jointly with anyone they choose and to declare a power of attorney and entitle that person to make healthcare decisions, visit in a hospital, make funeral arrangements and so on. I support many other rights available to everyone. What they do with their genitals is completely irrelevant.
Posted by: Anri
|
November 14, 2009 12:07 AM
I thought that you said marriage did nothing for you but increase your taxes. Where's the 'benefit' you are complaining about?
And all of the people you listed (save parent/child, who already enjoy a similar legal situation) could, if they chose, take advantage of the same 'benefit' by...
..wait for it...
...getting married. If it were allowed to people who have similar genitalia.
No provisions for people who are planning ahead, then? No way to get married and then have children? Don't you believe that a state-sanctioned recognized form of binding yourself to another person is a good environment to bring a child into to begin with?
You'll also notice that that's not actually what's being debated currently in many places. I'm still not entirely sure of your stand on the real-world question of extending or denying gay couples the (existing) institute of marriage.
Not in many places, they won't. Not legally, anyway. That's the issue we're actually facing in the actual world, sorry to keep bringing boring ol' reality up, but there you are...
Not if they want it legally recognized, they can't.
Really.
Who's the last 'them' in the last sentence? I'm not sure what you're saying here...
So, you're all for being out, so long as nobody knows, gotcha.
I agree.
But that's not the issue here. The issue here is, can gay couples get the types of legally recognized relationship ('marriage') presently available to (on most places) straight couples only.
Do you think that is too much for gay couples to ask?
Other people do.
But refrain from fixing the one you're in presently, if it does not recognize your relationship legally? Is that what you're saying?
Some people are braver than you.
And if other people do see a point to it... what, they're just plain wrong?
Legal complications aside, I would not be opposed to an organized setup for poly marriages either. That, unfortunately, is not on the table anywhere that I might be living anytime soon. So, I'll try to help fix one injustice at a time.
Until or unless their immediate family comes along to take your rights away, as is currently happening in the country I live in.
I think that should change.
Until you and their parents have a disagreement about keeping them on a respirator for another 48 hours. Then, all of a sudden, the ability to voluntarily make yourself the closest form of next of kin - legally speaking - with someone you care for becomes very, very relevant.
I wasn't aware that current marriage statutes require sexual contact. Platonic roommates can indeed get married, if they are willing to do so.
Unless, of course, they live in many parts of the world and have similar genitalia. Then they can't.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 14, 2009 12:17 AM
Precisely. Libertarians (or should I say minarchists) just don't get it. Marriage is not a sacred institution, but it is restricted to opposite-sex couples.Posted by: Richard Eis | November 14, 2009 4:41 AM
Hell No.
A) I'm in England.
b) I think the whole marriage thing is a pile of shite. But i'm damned if i'm going to let some religious asshole treat people like me as second class citizens over some supposedly sacred ceremony.
Posted by: Anri
|
November 14, 2009 1:15 PM
Have we lost Martin? Or has he just moved on to other threads?
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 3:12 PM
It's nice to know I'm missed.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 3:38 PM
Marriage is a traditionally sacred institution, with ceremonies still performed overwhelmingly by clergy in churches. Even my marriage was performed in a "church" (UUA), 25 years ago, though neither of us were believers. Ignoring reality doesn't change it.
Marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, because it's associated with procreation. Childless marriages don't contradict this assertion. They're exceptions proving the rule. Intentionally childless marriages are increasingly common for obvious reasons, and this development does warrant legal reform in my way of thinking.
Everyone knows this already.
There are two approaches to the "unfairness" of excluding gay couples (and other domestic partnerships) from marriage, 1) include gay couples and other partnerships in benefits of "marriage" or 2) exclude childless couples generally from these benefits. I advocate the latter for many reasons.
Personally, I'd repeal all statutory tax and other benefits for childless couples, and I'd harmonize the rights and obligations of parents regardless of "marriage", or I'd define "marriage" exclusively in terms of the joint guardianship of children.
I'd also repeal divorce. If you share responsibility for children, you're married. If you don't, you aren't. All benefits of marriage would assume this joint responsibility. Marriage wouldn't imply a continuing sexual relationship or any sexual relationship in cases of adoption, and a sexual relationship wouldn't imply marriage.
My position is not "unfair" to gay couples. It treats gay couples and straight couples indiscriminately with respect to marriage.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 5:14 PM
I said that marriage increased my taxes. "Nothing ... but" is your embellishment.
Often, marriage offers few benefits and can offer no benefits on balance, but I haven't "complained" about any benefits. That's you again. I only say that other partnerships are not entitled to benefits of marriage either. The "equality" or "fairness" issue is not simply between straight couples and gay couples.
No. Siblings can't marry either, and they're also excluded from civil unions. Two of my aunts lived together for their entire lives. Their domestic partnership was longer than any other I've known. Joey and Chandler don't want a civil union either because everyone will assume that they're gay.
But I don't care about your genitalia. I have no idea why you want the state to institutionalize your relationship with another person because of what you do together with your genitalia. I understand why you might want to declare a power of attorney for example, and you should be able name anyone you choose, and your declaration should be respected.
Nothing prevents you from planning to have children, but you aren't "married" until you actually have the children.
If you choose to procreate with another person, you bind yourself to the person by making this choice.
That's why I'm not holding my breath.
I would not extend the existing institution of marriage. I would rather withdraw it from childless couples. For example, I would eliminate tax advantages (and disadvantages) of filing a joint return, unless the couple is jointly responsible for children.
I would also fill all the holes in power of attorney and similar declarations that now are used to discriminate against gay couples. Power of attorney is an appropriate remedy for the particular injustice discussed in the opening post.
Yes, they can. You can write a will. You can declare a power of attorney. There are many things you can do. If people don't respect these legal declarations, that's a problem, but marriage is no solution to this problem, because it's just another legal declaration.
"Them" is legislators. Most legislators are lawyers. Lawyers have fraternal interests. My dad was one and told me all about it. Legislators don't represent you. They only tell you what you want to hear long enough to win your vote; otherwise, they represent themselves.
I'm using my real name here, sister. A public registry of sexual preference at the courthouse is beyond "out".
Yes. I also think it's a counterproductive thing for gay couples to ask. If you want a state-sanctioned institution, you get what the state sanctions. If you look at the fine print of the law we're discussing in this thread, you'll see that it's not a gay-friendly remedy at all. A friendlier remedy would simply have required morgues to respect a will or power of attorney. This law instead required a gay man to prove that he was "intimate" with another man who is dead. The word "intimate" is in the text of the law.
No. An MCC "marriage" does not imply joint filing of income taxes for example. I don't support joint filing of income taxes for childless gay couples or any other childless couple for that matter, so I don't see this reform as a "fix" of anything. I would fix the injustice toward the person described in this article by fixing his power of attorney.
There's a thin like between bravery and foolishness. If Jerry Falwell demanded a public registry of sexual orientation, we'd cry "Nuremburg", and we'd be right.
I just plain disagree with them. If you demand a state-sanctioned institution, you invite me into the discussion of the terms of your relationship with your lover. That's your choice, not mine.
Well, my "polymarriage" is limited to people responsible for children conceived with two other people, and it also implies obligations to the two other people, so it's not something that most people in their right mind will line up for. I believe the law should discourage it, but states can't prevent it by passing a law against it.
If you're saying that grandparents and other family members can challenge your custody rights based solely on your relationship with your gay lover, you're definitely in my territory now. Them's fightin' words. It's not just cause for seeking legal redress. I'll aid and comfort resistance to this standard by any means necessary, short of harming your children.
I'll say the same in the case of Bertrand Russell, who was raised by his grandparents when they overruled his parents' expressed will (after their untimely death) for his guardianship, on the grounds that the appointed guardians were irreligious.
You need a power of attorney for that, and it's a reasonable requirement. If you have the power of attorney, the hospital should respect it over the parent's objection in my way of thinking, but I can't feel as strongly about this issue as I feel about the custody issue. You must have children to understand that. I can't feel as strongly about anything.
Marriage doesn't require cohabitation either for that matter, but it does exclude adult siblings and other adult family members, and so do civil union statutes for no apparent reason.
I'd limit marriage to joint guardianship of children. Sexual contact is irrelevant, and it's the last thing I want states regulating, outside of rape.
Posted by: Vene
|
November 14, 2009 5:47 PM
I want to know why Martin Brock thinks it's within his rights to keep me from marrying who I want to. Nobody is saying you have to get married, but you have no fucking right to say who I can or can't. You're never going to kill the institution of marriage, which is equally secular and religious. Instead you are just denying a basic civil right to a minority. I don't care if you're a member of the minority in question, you can still fight against gay rights while being gay (or bisexual).
Fuck off, you sack of shit. I shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars for a small fraction of what tens of dollars would give just because me and my partner have the same genitals.
Posted by: Anri
|
November 14, 2009 6:51 PM
Martin Brock sez:
Except, of course, in the real world, when that exact issue is precisely what's being discussed.
They, like siblings, were family members. Marriage is a legal way of forming a family where one did not exist before.
And they shouldn't be allowed to get married, either?
If they wanted to?
Yes, it should.
But again, in the real world, marriage is a generally considered a more powerful thing than power of attorney. Good or bad, that's the way the law is structured, and, more importantly, applied, and I'd like that to apply to all of those that would like to take advantage of it.
The law disagrees with you on this point.
Yes.
This is called 'parenthood', and is legally recognized as a different thing than being married. This is a very good thing, as it allows a person in an abusive relationship to not have a status of 'married', while still maintaining a status of 'parent'.
So, would you like to help us with our, admittedly imperfect, but a hell of a lot better than status-quo fight here and now?
Ideally, this is not a bad solution, I suppose. We have had a number of people talking about getting the state out of the marriage business completely. In principle, that's not a bad idea.
However - and I seem to say this a lot, something's not sinking in for one of us - that's not what's happening in the real world.
Or, you can, in a single, comparatively simple, already defined legal action, take care of all of those things at once.
That's called marriage.
Which, although interesting, is neither surprising nor at issue. Unless you are of the opinion that legislators and lawyers are not involved in the processes of setting up joint property, powers of attorney, and wills, the presence of legislators and lawyers in the process of marriage seems a given.
Not to mention, many gay people are trying to make marriage more to what they want it to be - available to them. In some places, they're succeeding, and I think they should be helped out.
Um, ok.
In the same way it was counterproductive for racial relations to strike down miscegenation statues, right?
And, given that we have the ability to alter that...
Which is one reason I'm arguing the larger picture. The law can be made quite simple, in giving priority to married couples, and just ditch the whole 'making sure your fishing tackle suits the religious' bit in regards to marriage.
Once again, this is less forceful than marriage, in the actual world.
Yes, and if people wanted to tell others about their sexuality, even to the point of having it made a matter of public record, we must stop them.
Right?
No, it's not a gay couple's choice to do so.
That's my point. They don't have that choice.
I talked about my opinion in regards to marriage vs. procreation above.
No, I'm saying that family ties are often seen as stronger than the ties provided by a power of attorney. Right or wrong, that's the way it's done. We can address that by allowing people to form new families ('marriage') without regard for their gender.
Ok, I'm having trouble telling if you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, so I'm not certain how to respond.
Well, this issue holds more water with me, as I do not have children, but have been through the degenerative disease/ life support route with more than a few friends and relatives.
It is 'for no apparent reason' unless you assume marriage as a legal way of forming a new family where one did not exist before. Then it becomes quite clear.
And I'd limit marriage to consenting adults, not already related, who seek it, and leave parenthood under the legal heading 'parenthood', where it already is, and IMHO, beongs.
Yipes this is getting long.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 6:57 PM
It's not. It's within the legislature's rights, and that's apparently how you want it.
You don't need to spend anything, much less thousands of dollars, to draft a will and declare a power of attorney. You can google for all the help you'll need. You can spend thousands if you want, but you can spend thousands on a wedding too, and many people do.
I want all of these rights respected, but that's up to the legislature too.
Many of the benefits of marriage you imagine are illusory anyway. I haven't checked the tax laws lately, but in the eighties, I paid a thousand dollars a year in higher taxes, just because my wife and I filed as a married couple rather than two singles. I probably paid ten thousand or more over the course of the marriage.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 14, 2009 7:08 PM
*headdesk*Posted by: Vene
|
November 14, 2009 7:24 PM
I point you to this. I don't care about the wedding, because there are 1400 legal rights that are given upon marrying. Do you really think that power of attorney and a will confers all of them?
And it's not just legislatures, somebody has to be electing them for one, and there have been two states where same sex marriage has been voted down after it was granted. Not to mention numerous states that have had citizens vote in defense of marriage amendments. I used to live in Michigan, a state where marriage is constitutionally defined as between a man and a woman because that is what the populace voted for in 2004. It's idiots like you who are allowing this to happen. Because the right can point to you and say 'See! They don't even want to be married!'
You take your anti-marriage crusade elsewhere. I am sick of being a second class citizen and I am sick of not having the same choices just because the person I love has the same genitals as me.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 9:42 PM
This is an emotional topic, and it's becoming repetitive, but I'll go one more round. Your may have the final word. I'll read your reply.
I do think it's unfair that childless, straight couples enjoy benefits of marriage unavailable to gay couples, so I would withdraw these benefits from childless, straight couples.
They are biologically related, but they are not entitled to family insurance coverage through employers for example. I may not cover my parents or my siblings or my children beyond a certain age. Sibling partners don't have anything like power of attorney without a declaration either.
Not in my way of thinking about the merits of "marriage" as a statutory institution with the mix of rights and obligations the word describes now.
However, I'll change my position here. You can have "marriage". It's only a word, and I'm not married to it.
So you can marry anyone you want, and anyone else can marry anyone they want, including their family members. I declare this new institution as Philosopher King, and the legislature will reform the law of marriage accordingly. I can't tell you what law they'll enact. It might not resemble existing marriage law very much, but any adult may choose any adult marriage partner they like.
At the same time, I declare a new legal institution called "merriage" for couples with joint guardianship of children, and the legislature also constructs law governing this institution. Merriage does not imply marriage or vice versa.
How's that? Do you really want to "marry" anyone of your choice, or do you want the particular package of benefits now enjoyed by straight married couples, even though marriage developed over centuries largely with children in mind?
Marriage is a different thing than power of attorney, because marriage developed over centuries with particular couplings in mind. Gay couples are more like straight couples than ever before, because gay coupling is safer, from the state itself, and childlessness is easily elected and common, but that's no reason to extend benefits of an institution designed over centuries for couples presumed to procreate to couples that cannot procreate. Fairness suggests to me that we withdraw this institution from the childless straight couples instead.
We've lost the flow of the exchange here. We were discussing reforms of marriage I favor, not marriage as it currently exists.
Parenthood outside of marriage is an increasingly weak and divisive, even adversarial, institution with too few obligations of parents toward one another, while childless marriage is an institution with benefits resented by gay couples excluded from marriage.
The status of "coparent" is always there, regardless of marriage.
With modern marriage, you're married today. You change your mind tomorrow. If that's the "marriage" you want, I don't really care.
Joint responsibility for children is a very different sort of relationship. It's not about what you want. It's about an indissoluble bond between two people, established by other parties to the relationship.
So let's finish the process of reforming children out of marriage altogether. Let's make marriage strictly a partnership between two adults, at their sole discretion for as long as the partnership lasts.
But don't expect the same package of benefits now assigned to marriage, because marriage descends from an institution that a few generations ago was not so easily escaped because it was presumed to bear children.
I don't know what you're fighing for exactly. The word "marriage", without any other benefits? I don't think so.
A right to visit your lover in a hospital and arrange her funeral? I support that. A right to sponsor her immigration? I support that too, because I oppose most restrictions on immigration generally.
A right to have your partner covered by your employer's health insurance program, though the same program does not cover my adult son living with me? No.
A right to pay substantially lower taxes if your partner is out of work, a benefit designed for full time parents and unavailable to others, like me when my adult son is unemployed and lives with me? No.
Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars I have already spent to raise my children? I have the receipts, and I'm not finished yet, not by a long shot.
You aren't disdvantaged compared with me, but have you heard anything on the evening news about extending these rights to me and my son, or me and my daughter, or me and my mother who might be living with me too someday, God forbid? No. I might be living with my children someday too, precisely because I've spent hundreds of thousands raising them, and they won't get any marriage breaks then either.
Gay marriage isn't happening in the real world either. Civil union isn't gay marriage. It doesn't imply the immigration rights for example. It doesn't affect your Federal income taxes. I don't know about state taxes in states adopting it. If you're asking me if I might support any law establishing a new form of domestic partnership, the answer is "yes", but this agreement means little without details of the law. Would I have supported the law discussed in the opening post? No. I wouldn't have supported it, because it's a bad law for gay people. The devil is always in the details.
That's not what's happening in the real world. There is no prospect whatever of simply expanding marriage, as it exists, in its entirety, to gay couples.
But if you go to R.I. and propose simply to order morgues to respect a well documented power of attorney, without reference to any sexual relationship, you might actually get that. If you propose to order hospitals to permit visitation by a properly designated power of attorney, you might get that too. My "outness" is not the issue here. R.I. legislators are the people you must convince.
I live in the U.S. Gay marriage doesn't exist here at all. Civil unions in Vermont are not marriage. I want each and every gay couple to make their relationship what they want. If they want to share power of attorney without being responsible for one another's debts, I want them to have this option. If they want to share financial obligations without the power of attorney, I want them to craft their relationship that way.
No. Interracial couples bore children regardless of miscegenation statutes.
Do we? I thought we were stuck in the real world.
It's not simply about religion. Moses didn't invent sexual reproduction.
I've told this blog about mine, so we clearly don't need an act of Congress for that. Not creating a public registry at the courthouse is not stopping anyone from outing themselves.
A statutory institution is not simply any couple's choice. The legislature and judges craft the institution as well. Married couples do not decide the terms of their marriage. The terms can even change after the marriage, without the couple's consent. That's why it's an "institution" and not a "contract".
So if the legislature says "only if you prove intimacy", that's what you're signing up for.
We can address it by changing power of attorney. You'll never be related to your lover as I'm related to my parents, siblings and children. Our relationship is genetic. The legislature can't make your relationship the same. It can only grant you rights.
I'll spell it out. If a judge limits my access to my children based on my sexual relationship with a man or any similarly frivolous pretext, I'll kill him. And by "kill", I mean unlawfully to take his life, to murder him. I'm threatening to murder lawful authorities, and I'm not sure I won't torture them to death, because it hasn't happened yet. That's the gist of it.
I don't assume that legislative acts form families. Legislative acts grant legal rights, and that's all. Politicians can threaten to shoot me if I don't bend to their iron will, but they sure as shootin' don't tell me who my family is.
Maybe you don't know enough about parenthood where it already is.
Way too long. Sleep well.
Posted by: Anri
|
November 14, 2009 10:51 PM
Martin:
Ok, you've granted me the last word, and I'd be rude not to take it, so I will. (But not with endless quote stacking - we've had plenty of that).
It seems that our primary disagreement comes from what we expect marriage to be. It seems to me that marriage has, as the world has modernized, become less and less about children and more and more about financial (and, more recently, privacy and access) issues. Therefore, I don't accept you model of marriage as being strictly relating to children.
What I find most frustrating about reading your posts, to be honest, is the constant repetition a variant of "Let gay couples do what they want". Many gay couples in the US (and other places, but I am speaking about what I am most familiar with) want to be married. I don't believe that gay couples are less well-informed, on average, or less able to decide, on average, the effect that their acceptance of the state's definition of marriage - only that it not be constructed to exclude them.
I understand your gripe about not being able to cover your adult son under your insurance - I think that's a silly rule. But I have explained why I don't think it's relevant. If nothing else, (and I'm going out on a limb here), but you wouldn't want, for emotional reasons if no others, to marry your live-in son.
We seem to be getting caught up in the difference between a marriage with children and one without. Clearly there are differences between these things... and they are, as a result, treated differently by the law as well. It is easier for a childless couple to get divorced than it is for a couple with children - as it should be. Coparent does not disappear with a dissolution of marriage, nor have I ever said that it did, or should.
In any case, I think we've both made our views fairly clear here. I like many of your ideas, but I suspect the goals I am reaching for are a bit closer to things we might see in the near future.
Thank you for the conversation, and good night.
Posted by: BMS | November 15, 2009 12:26 AM
Ignorant needle-dicked bug fucker.
Posted by: Paisley | November 23, 2009 10:29 AM
now we know to vote Gov, Carcieri OUT! and any pig that votes against any bill granting us rights we deserve