What's this all about, anyway?

[kyburg]

Okay, two people of the same gender want to marry. What's the problem with this?

Or better question - WHY would they want to? I mean, that's got some responsiblities and standards association with it. Who would want them, if you didn't need them?

You hear the word 'love' used here. A lot. Let's take another look at this.

The love is already there. Given. I hear people want respect. Okay - well, the people who know you or give a damn, that's also a given. Guy on the street doesn't respect me any more or less - only if I press, do we really have something even to discuss on the matter, neh?

When we really have something to discuss. Ah. There we go.

It's not about the sex. Nobody is getting married to have it, unless the traditional reasoning one expects (sex, done right in heterosexual relations, makes more people and that's the original reason for marriage, folks - ownership of your kids and what made 'em) is in play, and even that doesn't do more than create a mental stutter. So, put that aside, it's already going on, as the saying goes.

Kids are also not the reason, obviously. You can adopt if you can't make 'em yourself, and either option is open to the single person. So that's not it, is it?

So what's it all about?

The ability to designate your next of kin.

Marriage does one thing that in every other case, only biology can do. It makes your spouse your nearest next-of-kin - replacing your parents, siblings and any other family member. Period. You have a spouse, you can tell the spouse's family to go pound - anytime you want to. You HAVE that authority, no questions asked - or can be asked. For life.

By your choice. You know the old saying, you can pick your friends but you can't pick your family?

Marriage is the only exception to that rule. Yes, you can pick your family - in this one case, singular. You also stand in front of the most reasonable, respected authority you ALSO decide is - and promise not to change your mind about it, ever. That, in a nutshell, is the whole ball of wax.

(I think a lot of people miss this point, because in every other 'family link' - it's incest if you do the same things you do with your spouse, neh?)

I mean, if you just want to get married to be clear that I'M DOING SO AND SO FOR LIFE - that would be one thing.

It's not - this has a much longer view, and nobody is making this clear enough or enough of a talking point.

We're not talking about beginnings here. We're talking about endings. And who gets to make the decisions surrounding them.

You hear about people being turned away from deathbeds because 'they're not kin.' It goes beyond that.

"My DNA donors don't deserve to even know if I'm alive or dead." Right now, unless you marry hetero, they will - because the law will need to find them upon your demise to make arrangements, funeral and otherwise...if you have a will or no. They'll find them, notify them and so on - and if they want to toss your will into probate...guess what. THEY CAN. Unless they find someone? You might end up cremated and stored - even if you have a partner willing to take over...because that person is NOT next of kin, the search can continue until it is completely exhausted. Grand-nephew of a second cousin. No, I'm not kidding.

Marry hetero, that person just inherits the lot and doesn't have to tell anyone. And it's scary how just matter of fact that is, trust me - firsthand experience speaking here.

Have an advanced directive? Hope it's in the hands of a blood relative or marry hetero - because it may take a bit for the legalese to catch up with the people on the floor if you're going to be given 'heroic measures' in case of something Really Bad like a persistent vegetative state. May even take a court order to enforce, regardless. Think about the time.

And when you really just need to know what's going on? Yeah, that.

I've also got some first-hand on this one, too. One time Cliff was taken into the emergency room, Joyce brought him in - and the ER staff just assumed they were the married couple (hey, one of each and she knew as much as he did about what ailed him....) so when I called and identified myself...they didn't believe me, and wouldn't tell me anything. It took an hour to sort out...and I was NOT amused (and neither was Joyce or Cliff, even if we laughed about it later). ER visit - not doctor's office. Assumptions made.

Not funny.

So when you're getting all huffy about those fags wanting to kiss in public, tuck this away somewhere (and people getting ready to put the next ballot initiative up there, you too) - it's not about the sex. Either one. Or what goes into slot B.

It's allowing people to decide who their family is - reducing the load on government and society at large by making it clear who's got the responsiblity and not tossing the load on all of us by default. People WANT this responsbility. I say, give it to the people who want the job, frankly.

And congratulations on setting a precedent I doubt you considered.

51% of any voter turnout could do any number of things now.

Like making Spanish the primary language for everything.

Or not allowing religious organizations to retain non-profit status. Even any recognition as a charitable organization, period.

Maybe even not allowing your faith at all. What else could you have elimated? Only takes a vote - 51% of people registered who show up. Not who live here. That SHOW UP. (Work a poll for an election - you'd be scared witless right now by that alone.)

Got nothing to do with the horizontal bop, folks.

Congratulations. Instead of fixing what's broken, more money is going to be spent breaking something even further.

Dumb as dead cats. And you know which ones those are.

Comments

[cahwyguy.livejournal.com]

Many have argued for a long time that what we need to fix is the initiative process in California. It is far too easy for the electorate to change the constitution in this state.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

J and I have been trying to explain to our 18-year-old daughter all the legal ramifications of marriage, because (while she certainly has no objection to it) she doesn't understand why same-sex couples care about official, legal, state-recognized marriage (as opposed to marriage in whatever religious or cultural environment they choose).

[sakuya-masaki.livejournal.com]

I think people just need to get it through their heads that this is a legal issue. It's not a religious thing, no matter how hard you try to make it one and it's not giving people the right to have gay sex on your front lawn. It's just a group of people that want the same rights as everyone else.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

It is far too easy to "propose" anything in California. Multiple CONTRADICTORY propositions on the same freaking ballot.

ANd don't get me started on Prop 13...

(used to live in California... up until 2 years ago)

[gallo-de-pelea.livejournal.com]

The whole 'legal spouse/next of kin' thing also extends to spousal health insurance coverage.

[yasha-chan.livejournal.com]

I had to take my girlfriend to the ER a couple years ago. I couldn't go with her, couldn't see her, couldn't even ask about her. But if I had man junk, there'd have been no problem.

We will still be here, no matter what legislation is passed. There have been same sex couples throughout history and there will always be same sex couples. I just don't understand how people can fuck up the lives of thousands of others they've never met, just for spite. You don't need laws to have faith, it's an issue of control, not religion. The more I study religion, the more I realize that.

[rin-o.livejournal.com]

far too many people complaining it's far too hard to make "lasting change" insted fo admitting they're a bunch of gits trying to cover their ass in case they get caught screw us over....

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

Other reasons:

Tax deductions, if one partner is not working, sick, or otherwise not better off filing single.
Health insurance - plenty of companies still don't offer "domestic partner" or charge more.
Inheritance issues. Who gets the condo?

And then there's the raft of Federal benefits that we haven't even touched yet because *none of these marriages are Federally sanctioned* - Social Security, widowers, Medicare, hundreds of tax deductions, any benefit dependent on "family size", HUD and so on.

There's a lot of money in those things. Queers pay taxes equally, but don't get spousal benefits.

...can I heavily tax the proposition process now? That money might fix the economy...

[sal_amanda]

This.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

there are actually dozens of legal protections married couples get that non-married couples can't. I think that the most important is alimony/marital-property rights, myself.

I do think, though, that most couples get married as a symbolic declaration of love, not really for legal benefits. And I think that's 100% valid, not to be discounted.

[sekl.livejournal.com]

No of course not, but symbolic declarations are more easily discounted in the legal arguments about why marriage and not a civil union.

After all it's not illegal to have a huge white wedding in California with a same sex partner, it's illegal to have a piece of paper declaring that ceremony a marriage.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

yeah, but the paper is part of the whole thing. It's the fact that you are legally entering into a contract that it is hard to break that makes the symbol meaningful.

what I mean is, there are plenty of couples who get married for the symbolic aspect - but who would feel it was a meaningless gesture without the state recognition. Going through a ritual that doesn't actually involve any sacrifice, any legal binding promises, is hollow for most people.

[sekl.livejournal.com]

Exactly, but it's a matter of semantics to express that in a way the law understands. "I feel this ceremony is hollow and empty" doesn't carry as much legal weight as "I walk way from this without the same rights as my fellow citizens." And that's all we're arguing. No one's forgotten the emotional commitment, the legal is just easier and more logical to quantify.

Of course, apparently, it's fine and logical to discriminate against others, so long as the majority thinks you shouldn't have the same rights as your fellow citizen.

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

Those propositions that California does is by Majority; if it's 50%+1, that's enough to change the constitution. If the courts reversed it, they would be reversing the whole proposition system. After all, how many propositions have passed by simple majority?

Of course your upset because the courts ruled against what you believe in. Maybe California should do away with that system in the first place, not many states have that kind of back-door process in the books.

Just wait till next year and get out the vote to repel it; sounds simple to me, all you need is a majority.

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

And they can have the same rights under a "Civil Union."

The only reason why people are dead set against Gay Marriage because it has the word Marriage in it. Since Marriage is related to Religion and what not, it just doesn't sit well with majority of Americans (including myself). Label it different, then people are better about it.

To think of it another way, it's like force feeding pork to Muslims/Jews... sure the other white meat is tasty, but you can't just force your will onto others because it's really not a filthy animal.

People shouldn't be quick to judge others without looking in the mirror first.

[thatwordgrrl.livejournal.com]

Fine.

Then let's do away with ALL marriage in California.

I'm game.

Oh, wait...now let's see how fast people backpedal.

I guarantee you that howling you would hear coming from My State would be the same folk who voted FOR Prop 8.

No, this is not even looking in the mirror. This is "I got mine, Jack."

[thatwordgrrl.livejournal.com]

When our Rent-A-Reverend asked us what we wanted for the ceremony, I responded without hesitation: "I want the state of California to be satisfied that I am legally wed."

OK, part of that was my being so over Getting Ready to Be Married, and just wanting to Be Married.

But 16 years later, I still feel the same way. The symbolism is dandy. But at the end of the day it doesn't have a thing to do with state recognition of the marriage act.

[sakuya-masaki.livejournal.com]

I don't see why the word "marriage" makes it religious at all and I don't see why calling it something different would make anything better. To me that seems like "seperate but equal". It's like saying you can have your little union, but you can't use our special words and that doesn't make any sense to me. Many religions and cultures have the institute of marriage so I don't understand why one religion or another can claim it as their sacred practice.
And I don't see how this is being forced upon anyone either. It's like some people believe that people are being gay *at* them. Like they're forcing it upon them and being gay just to offend them and challenge what they believe in when really they're just being who they are and living their lives like anyone else.
Again, people need to keep in mind that this is, in fact, a legal issue. They're not asking for it to be accepted by a particular religion. They just want the same rights as everyone else. It wasn't too very long ago in our country's history that a white person and a black person weren't legally allowed to marry and there were people who would quote you scriptures from the Bible on that as well.
Gay people have been around for as long as there have been people on Earth. They just have more of a luxury of being open about it and that makes some people uncomfortable. But unfortunately for them, the world is constantly changing and there are just some things that are going to keep moving forward. This is something that will happen eventually. It's just a matter of time.

[shandra.livejournal.com]

No, it's like Muslims and Jews telling you you can't eat pork.

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

And if you were in the Middle East, you would have a very difficult time finding some pork chop sandwiches.

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

You can look up the word "Marriage" to see it's relationship to religion (dictionary, wikipedia, etc...).

I also find that you can find a lot of crap in the bible that can go both ways... just how one interprets it.

I'm not arguing that there were Gay people that roam the lands during the Dinasour age; I'm just saying what it is... and if you can't understand what I said, then you don't understand a majority of America. Things do change with time, for good or bad.

[washuotaku.livejournal.com]

Unrealistic to assume a propitiation like that would even be able to make it on the ballot. Not the first time I've heard that though, just highly unrealistic at best.

[sal_amanda]

But that doesn't make it wrong to make your own.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

51% of any voter turnout could do any number of things now.

Hallelujah! Maybe we should put reinstitution slavery to a public referendum? Or take the vote from wimminz? (Honest to pete, there are enough shit-for-brains women who work against their own wider interest already, that if you had most men approving it, IT WOULD PROBABLY FUCKING PASS.)

Sometimes the government does something because it MUST. Because not doing it perpetuates a violation of even a minority of people's basic right to exist and be happy WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S RIGHT TO SEEK THEIR OWN HAPPINESS. What the fuck do the straights who oppose gay marriage think it's going to take away from them? Jesus? I doubt it. God? Probably not. Moneys? Um - how?