A different take on marriage all together.

[Amimnoch]

Lately, like most of us, I've been pondering Prop 8, as well as equality in general.

Prop 8 is just one of so many places where we've faced losses of this nature, with only a few real wins under our belt.

Just a few of the rights that are at stake for us:
-Tax breaks that are afforded to others just for marrying.
-The ability to visit our partner when in the hospital under critical care.
-The ability to make informed decisions, based on our partners wishes, when they are hospitalized, and unable to make major medical decisions for themselves.
-The right to determine who our beneficiary is should the worst happen.. (while a will can help with this, it doesn't offer NEARLY the same legal protection as marriage does)
-The right to determine who is and isn't the legal parents of our children, and again who has custody should the worst happen.

Now, the biggest, and really the ONLY argument that the religious right even has against our obtaining these legal rights is due to the historical reference to marriage as an religious base institution that is sacred. The position we've taken so far is that regardless of any religious reference, it IS denying us rights, and is unconstitutional. On this front, we haven't done so well, and what's worse the religious right has been able to fairly successfully paint us as radicals waging war on the religions of the country.

I propose a change of venue that, I'm thinking, may be more successful.

Instead of challenging that we should have the right to marry, how about using their OWN words against them. Declare that they are correct that marriage is a historically based religious institution, and should be protected! Then, follow up, that since marriage is a recognized religious institution that is indeed sacred, lead a series of constitutional challenges against heterosexuals who are benefiting from congressional legislation. Challenge the current tax laws that allow tax breaks to those who are receiving tax benefits for being in a religious based relationship. Challenge hospitals that allow visitation, or major medical decision making by spouses. Challenge the laws on the books that allow for a spouse of a "religious institution" to be automatically granted custody should their spouse die.

Frankly, I don't want the right to "marry".. but I do DEMAND the equal rights that marriage bestows for my partner and I. Give them their argument that marriage is an institution, and take it OUT of government.. period. No tax breaks for being involved in a religious institution.. Instead of government offices offering "marriage licenses" at all.. have them offer forms that allows ANYBODY determine who the person('s) is in their life that they want to have those beneficiary, and decision making, and custody rights.. it can be a simple form done at city hall, and leave the "sacred" institution of marriage up to churches, and let them decide who they will/won't marry. Eliminate the tax benefit of being married all together, but increase the dependant tax benefit for children.

Just my recent thoughts on it.

[xchrom]

1. i certainly appreciate what you've written -- but if i think about it -- every marriage is different

if conservatives really dissected every marriage -- and marriages through history -- their collective hair would curl.

it's what we gay people know -- know in our bones -- right?

[Amimnoch]

5. I definitely agree! All the more reason the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage

to begin with imo. Leave the spiritual, and ceremonial aspects of marriage to the institutions of religion where they belong, but when it comes to rights, the right to determine who is your beneficiary, who is the person('s) who are allowed to make medical decisions for you should you be unable to, who has the right to have custody of your child/children should the worst happen to you.. The right to choose who the person or persons in your life is should be YOUR'S, not the governments, and definitely NOT the choice of churches or other religious institutions.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. In this country, marriage is an always has been a CIVIL matter

The First Amendment requires it. That religion uses the same term as the civil institution is irrelevant, and THEIR problem, not ours.

[Amimnoch]

6. The first amendment does require it, but I disagree that is how it has been effected.

If it was just a civil matter, then it would already be afforded to anyone and everyone.

Why is homosexuality even an issue if it's a Civil matter? Why is polygamy even an issue if marriage is a civil matter? I 100% agree with you that it should be a civil matter, but in our country it never has been. It has always been an unconstitutional hybrid of civil/religious based law. It's the religion involvement that makes it available to only "one man one woman", it's the religious influence that makes polygamy illegal. While a justice of the peace, or a vessel master at sea can also perform marriages, if marriage was just a civil arrangement, why is it that the vast majority of marriage licenses are signed by clergymen/women from various recognised religions? Why is a priest, or pastor's signature on a marriage certificate (the legal document for marriage) the document that affords so many people all of the legal rights that we, and others are denied?

Like I said, I agree that marriage SHOULD be a civil matter in the US, but when you look at it.. it isn't just a civil matter.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. What laws regulate who can and cannot be baptized?

What special tax benefits are given to those who have been bar mitzvahed? What statutory priviledges are granted to a person who has been ordained? What tax benefits are given automatically to people who have been confirmed by the laying-on of hands by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession?

Marriage IS a civil matter. That it is not fully equal is why the ban on same-sex marriage is inherently unequal, and why equal marriage is a matter of civil rights. The matter of legalizing polygamy is a quagmire I refuse to step into; my observations tell me that polygamy is almost always about control and power. Your raising religion proves how ignorant the "one man, one woman" crowd is about their own Holy Scriptures: Abraham, Jacob, King David, King Solomon -- most males in the Old Testament, actually -- either had more than one wife, or made use of concubines, or both. Even the New Testament makes the "one wife" a requirement only for clergy, implying that it is not a restriction for other believers.

As for the marriage certificate, clergy are granted by law a very limited power which also is given to judges and, in Florida, Maine and South Carolina, any notary public. I have submitted legislation to my state representative which will allow notaries public in Washington to officiate at marriages. That clergy have statutory authority to take this one jurat hardly means that marriage is not a civil matter. Also, keep in mind that no marriage is legally valid without that marriage certificate, which is obtained by meeting certain legal requirements, paying a fee to the appropriate civil authority, having that certificate countersigned by legally authorized people, and turning it in to the proper civil authority.

[ChristianMiller]

3. Equal Rights to Single Folks

Amimnoch, I think you are on the right track. Consider going a step further: Equal rights and benefits to all, including single people. There are about 100 million single voters in the country that are also being given the same unequal government benefits as same sex couples. Benefits to all or to none. Single voters is probably the most potentially powerful group that would benefit from your proposal.

[Amimnoch]

4. Exactly! The way I wrote it out above it would.

Since it would eliminate a tax break, it would be equality for all in that sense.

With what I proposed above, ANY person could designate anyone of their choice to be the beneficiary of the rights that's afforded only to heterosexual married couples currently.

While it would put us on the same legal playing field with married couples, it would also do exactly what you are suggesting.. afford single people, who may be disenfranchised with their families the right to name any friend, or associate, or alternate family member that they decide to have the rights of inheritance, child custody, medical decision making, medical visitation, right to determine if they will/won't remain on life support.. etc.. it puts everyone on the same playing field in being able to determine who they choose in their life will have those rights from them.