In higher ed, there is a push for benefits for domestic partners. This would not have been an idea except for the fact that gays cannot marry. This is what makes benefits unfair: a couple cannot have the extended family benefits because they cannot marry.

Of course, a straight unmarried couple could not enjoy extended benefits either.

I never thought much about this: the couple times I've lived with someone I wouldn't have dreamed that there should be benefits for domestic partnerships because, let's face it, it's awfully hard to define. Joe and Joann may just be roommates, but can use the same insurance that Mark and Marsha, who are legally married, use. It's really insane when you think how far this can extend. I mean, Homeless Guy Parasite could have been covered under MY insurance. Uh. No. I don't even want that option.

The solution is so obvious I can't stand it. Gays should be able to marry. There should be no difference between ANY kind of married couple or ANY kind of 'domestic partnerships.'

If Joe and Joann, Mark and Marsha, Jim and John, and Blaine and Bill want the economic benefits, they get married.

I don't get why this is such a big deal.

Oh yeah, religious wingnuts who know what is best for everyone.

The real solution to the 'problem' is, of course, the one no one brings up, that being: remove gov sanctioning of marriage, return the event to the religious sphere and leave it there.

Under this scheme: no one gets any financial breaks by way of marriage (and the 'state' gets no licensing fees). If Joe and Jack wanna tie the knot: find a Unitarian Universalist minister, or, go to war with the Roman Catholic Church (or the Jewish or the Islamic Orthodoxies).

Government (those 'in' it) wouldn't (shouldn't) have any say either way (in sanctioning or condemning).

IM, I agree. All united couples should have the same opportunities for benefits and the negatives also.
For example, a very good friend recently lost his partner after a long debilitating illness with much hospitalization and procedures, finally culminating with hospice care in "their" home.
My friend recently told me that he was thankful they weren't legally married. That was the only thing that saved him from complete financial ruin...
Just sharing the other side.

hq:
I almost agree. I think that the government SHOULDN'T recognize marriages - but I think the government SHOULD recognize civil unions.
You wanna get married? go to a church.
You want a civil partnership defined by a legal contract? get a civil union.
Voila!

I agree totally with that. Marriage Defined by the bible is between a man and a woman. I don't think we should cross that line.

No, I meant ALL marriages. The government shouldn't recognize ANYBODY's marriage EVER.

"You want a civil partnership defined by a legal contract? get a civil union."

Better yet: just go to a shyster and have an idiosyncratic contract drawn up between you and your honey, one binding on the two of you, one granting each all the pleasures and burdens of living exclusively with the other and 'forsaking all others'.

With this: the gov (by way of the courts) can act as final arbiter in contract disputes but never as bestower of 'right'.

In fact: most couples (gay or straight) can do this now and cut out the middle man ('government').

Sure: it might cost a pretty penny in shyster fees, but not a one (gay or straight) has to wait for (or, fight for) the nation to 'accept' his or her proclivities.

that's the perfect example of homosexuals being "faithless".

Nope, JB. You just aren't paying attention to the entirety of what I said.
I said that the government has no business in a religious rite like marriage, and therefore this whole debate would go away if the government would recognize only legal contracts between individuals.

edit: plus, i'm not homosexual, asshole.

hq:
the problem with that is the sheer volume of things that the government recognizes as rights afforded to married couples, that any lawyer's contract can't afford you. Like filing joint taxes, or other tax deductions, or certain domestic violence protections, or important custody norms and rights, or... the list goes on. On top of that, no private institution, like hospitals or schools or insurers, would be legally compelled to recognize a private 3rd-party contract, and could deny those contracted couples the same things they offer to all married couples.

All true, Ib, but ain't nuthin' for free...for every sanction and protection issued by gov there's a price (usually a kind of hobbling of mind, if not body)...most folks (it seems) are willing to be overseen (hell, many folks crave being overseen!) by gov so as to safeguard what you outline above; some ill-fitting pieces, however, willingly (gleefully, even) reject the oversight by gov so as to better go his or her own way.

I speak for at least one of those ill-fitting pieces...*shrug*

And I in no way think that people who want to engage in legal unions without governmental protections of that union shouldn't have the right to go their own way. In fact I think it's fabulous. But you and I clearly fundamentally disagree on the role of government. I think it's there to defend civil and human rights - of which I believe "marriage" or a civil institution with the same role is one of - and to construct a safety net to ensure a minimum quality of life for all citizens. You don't believe that, and that's fine - but I think most people who make up our country agree on those points, even if they disagree what sort of safety net should exist, how high, and how many civil rights should be afforded to the population at large.

"...you and I clearly fundamentally disagree on the role of government."

HA! Ya think?

#

"I think most people who make up our country agree on those points..."

No doubt...I essentially say this with, 'most folks (it seems) are willing to be overseen (hell, many folks crave being overseen!) by gov so as to safeguard what you outline above..."

Me: just offering two solutions in this thread to the 'problem' of gays and marriage...never said either solution was appealing, only that both are options (in particular, the second wherein a couple tells the gov, and society, to go fuck itself).

That many or most may turn a nose up at my suggestions is no nevermind to me.

asshole; it's whats for dinner... :)

Why, jbk? They were having an exchange of ideas. It was a good conversation. No assholes were harmed in the making of those posts. ;)

Infi, for a long time in UK there has been "common-law" marriage. If two people live together as married partners for 6 months (I think), they can claim any rights afforded to the legally married. It works just fine in the main. No need for marriage, no need for declaration of official intent. piss or get off the pot.