Slog
News & ArtsFriday, September 4, 2009
Homo On Why Asking Every Voter for Permission to Marry Is Absurd
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Tippers Marc and Paul have sent us this fantastic video from Ireland:
In case you can't see it, the commercial shows a young man knocking on a door to ask an older man for Sinead's hand in marriage. The older man, who we assume is Sinead's father, consents. Then the young chap goes to another door, asks an older woman, who also gives him permission. But then the young guy goes on to knock on every door in Ireland to ask for Sinead's hand in marriage. (Surprisingly, people don't seem bothered by the question because I'd be all, "Bugger off and put a ring on it.")
As it clearly illustrates: It's none of Ireland's fucking business if this dashing young fellow marries Sinead, Shannon, or Padraic. His marriage is as inconsequntial to Ireland as two women getting married is to the denizens of California. But clearly, as the band of bigots behind Referendum 71 make clear in Washington, they will take any attempt to legalize gay marriage to the voters. Hell, they'll even do when it's not about marriage—but lie and say it is anyway.
Via Gayrights.change.org.
1
But if they don't ask everyone in town, how will they get a Covenant Marriage and the cracker jack ring that shows they'll burn in hell when they sleep with their half-sister?
6
I agree etirely. So why in the hell is Ireland, or Califoria, or Washington, marrying anybody, gay or straight? Why is it any of the state's business to place a stamp of approval or disapproval on any relationship between informed consenting adults? Let's abolish government marriage.
As long as there is government marriage, there will be arguments over which kinds of relationships get the government stamp of approval, that decision will be the subject of the democratic process, and relationships of which most voters disapprove won't get the stamp.
As long as there is government marriage, there will be arguments over which kinds of relationships get the government stamp of approval, that decision will be the subject of the democratic process, and relationships of which most voters disapprove won't get the stamp.
10
Gets tedious as soon as you see where it's heading (about 15 seconds in). Now, where's my roach clip?
12
Brilliant, and brilliant. It's still beyond me why my boyfriend, or partner, or whatever, and I can't get married. We've been together for almost 8 years. I work with quite a few heterosexuals that are married but don't have kids (and will never have them... they've taken steps to see to this matter). And yet they get to have the benefits of marriage. They didn't have to ask the entire state for permission, or have anyone vote on their rights. It's fucking insane.
13
@6:
The simple answer to your question is: The government has to be in the business of sanctioning unions at some level, because of all the legal issues involved that fall under the purview of the government: rights of executing wills and estates, rights to sanction medical treatment or visitation in medical facilities, property sharing, inheritance or disbursement upon divorce or death; all sorts of rights, responsibilities and privileges that, under current law same-sex domestic partners do not have legally codified.
Most of these aren't really addressed in the religious arena, and so there needs to be some mechanism for addressing them in the secular, legal arena.
The simple answer to your question is: The government has to be in the business of sanctioning unions at some level, because of all the legal issues involved that fall under the purview of the government: rights of executing wills and estates, rights to sanction medical treatment or visitation in medical facilities, property sharing, inheritance or disbursement upon divorce or death; all sorts of rights, responsibilities and privileges that, under current law same-sex domestic partners do not have legally codified.
Most of these aren't really addressed in the religious arena, and so there needs to be some mechanism for addressing them in the secular, legal arena.
14
Comte @ 13: We have long-established means of addressing all these things without marriage. Your will can specify whomever you want as executor and benefeciary (and a boilerplate will can be done cheaply without a lawyer.) A one-page form can give medical power of attorney (and a boilplate version can also be had cheaply and without a lawyer.) Contracts can specify any sort of rules for joint ownership you can think up. And we have legal rules in place for what happens if people die or get sick or split up without having entered into a marriage or any other contract. Marriage does not solve any legal problems that cannot just as easily and more fairly be solved in an entirely non-religious, non-romantic context.
15
Comte @ 13: One clarification. There is one class of benefits that governet marriage confers that private contractual arrangements cannot: government benefits such as tax breaks and social security inheritance. I would argue that it is precisely that class of benefits that should not exist: the government should not be favoring some classes of romantic relationships over others. If you accept that governmet should favor some classes of romantic relationships over others, I think you have to accept that the boundaries of that class are the subject of legitimate democratic debate.
16
@14/15:
With regards to executors of wills, that was probably a small error in emphasis on my part. What is more to the point, however, is that without the legal codification of marriage, an unmarried "partner" has no legal rights with regards to the disposition of their deceased partner's estate; there have been enough instances cited over the years in the media of gay couples' leaving estates to each other in wills that have been successfully challenged by blood relations precisely because of the fact that, without the legal protection of marriage, the partner, regardless of the length of the relationship, is not legally considered a "surviving spouse" and therefore not a relation by marriage. That's just one example.
Additionally there have been an equally significant number of news stories about partners being denied hospital visitation rights for the same reason. Even if the absolute number of cases in either instance is relatively small compared to the overall population, the fact that ANY such cases occur points to a need for some sort of legal protection that currently doesn't exist. People are simply not being treated equally under the law, and that is something that needs to be rectified.
With regards to executors of wills, that was probably a small error in emphasis on my part. What is more to the point, however, is that without the legal codification of marriage, an unmarried "partner" has no legal rights with regards to the disposition of their deceased partner's estate; there have been enough instances cited over the years in the media of gay couples' leaving estates to each other in wills that have been successfully challenged by blood relations precisely because of the fact that, without the legal protection of marriage, the partner, regardless of the length of the relationship, is not legally considered a "surviving spouse" and therefore not a relation by marriage. That's just one example.
Additionally there have been an equally significant number of news stories about partners being denied hospital visitation rights for the same reason. Even if the absolute number of cases in either instance is relatively small compared to the overall population, the fact that ANY such cases occur points to a need for some sort of legal protection that currently doesn't exist. People are simply not being treated equally under the law, and that is something that needs to be rectified.
17
Comte @ 16:
Straight couple's wills have also been successfully challeged by families unhappy with the distribution. That's just a feature of the law surrouding wills.
If there are hospitals refusing to follow perfectly clear and legally valid directives about care and visitiation, then by all means that needs to be rectified by a few massive damage awards, but that's a straightforward matter than need have nothing to do with marriage. I suspect that a hospital administrator who hates gays enough to ignore a documeted medical power of attorney also hates gays enough ignore a marriage certificate.
Thanks, by the way, for the thoughtful response.
Straight couple's wills have also been successfully challeged by families unhappy with the distribution. That's just a feature of the law surrouding wills.
If there are hospitals refusing to follow perfectly clear and legally valid directives about care and visitiation, then by all means that needs to be rectified by a few massive damage awards, but that's a straightforward matter than need have nothing to do with marriage. I suspect that a hospital administrator who hates gays enough to ignore a documeted medical power of attorney also hates gays enough ignore a marriage certificate.
Thanks, by the way, for the thoughtful response.
18
2
What's "Love" got to do with it?
The government could care less if you are in "Love".
When you show up to get a marriage license no one will ask if you are in "Love".
Ask Dan.
Spare us the sob stories-
"Love at first sight...
"the pier...
"the rain...
"She makes me laugh!"
The government isn't in the business of validating your "Love".
Marriage is way too serious a business to be conflated with "Love".
Marriage creates Families that are the building blocks of a stable society.
Families that need to last a lifetime.
Families that need to last beyond
the sparkle in the eyes of moonstruck lovers
and past the point when she may no longer make you laugh.
The world is full of madly in "Love" Soulmates...
who are with their fourth or fifth "soulmate".
In fact, "Love" is a lot like "Sexual Orientation".
Squishy, hard to quantify, VERY fluid.
We just have to take your word for it.
A poor foundation for Social Policy.
A poor reason to tamper with the foundation component unit of stable society.
In "Love"?
Write a poem.
Leave marriage alone.
What's "Love" got to do with it?
The government could care less if you are in "Love".
When you show up to get a marriage license no one will ask if you are in "Love".
Ask Dan.
Spare us the sob stories-
"Love at first sight...
"the pier...
"the rain...
"She makes me laugh!"
The government isn't in the business of validating your "Love".
Marriage is way too serious a business to be conflated with "Love".
Marriage creates Families that are the building blocks of a stable society.
Families that need to last a lifetime.
Families that need to last beyond
the sparkle in the eyes of moonstruck lovers
and past the point when she may no longer make you laugh.
The world is full of madly in "Love" Soulmates...
who are with their fourth or fifth "soulmate".
In fact, "Love" is a lot like "Sexual Orientation".
Squishy, hard to quantify, VERY fluid.
We just have to take your word for it.
A poor foundation for Social Policy.
A poor reason to tamper with the foundation component unit of stable society.
In "Love"?
Write a poem.
Leave marriage alone.
19
"But clearly, as the band of bigots behind Referendum 71 make clear in Washington, they will take any attempt to legalize gay marriage to the voters....
Hell, they'll even do when it's not about marriage—but lie and say it is anyway."
Sob!
now now, Dominic.
Sponsors made it clear Civil Union was just a step to Gay Marriage-
even the knuckle draggers get that,
do you not?
Hell, they'll even do when it's not about marriage—but lie and say it is anyway."
Sob!
now now, Dominic.
Sponsors made it clear Civil Union was just a step to Gay Marriage-
even the knuckle draggers get that,
do you not?
21
@20
That's too bad. I'm sure they could arrange two slender gay men being hugging, as it seems that would be more to your liking.
That's too bad. I'm sure they could arrange two slender gay men being hugging, as it seems that would be more to your liking.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS