?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

There's a meme going around LiveJournal that says:
Copy this sentence into your LiveJournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage/relationship (or if you think you might be someday), and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.


This meme is presumably going around in part because California has a proposition on the ballot, Proposition 8: "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

I had a marriage ceremony with a man, but we didn't tell the government, because we would rather not have some of the legal and financial ties that are involved. I don't consider this a "heterosexual" relationship because I'm bisexual, but it is an opposite-sex relationship.

If I had my druthers, legal protection of relationships would be available for everyone, not just for opposite-sex couples and blood relatives. This could be accomplished either by getting the government out of marriage altogether or by allowing anyone to form a legal relationship with one or more other people.

But that's not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, if opposite-sex couples can enter into a legal relationship called marriage and benefits accrue to them as a result of this arrangement -- including the benefit of having their relationship legally recognized almost everywhere in the world -- then same-sex couples should have the same deal.

(The bold part of the above paragraph is why I don't think that "domestic partnership" arrangements are just as good as marriage arrangements. Domestic partnership arrangements only apply in the jurisdiction where they are written into the law. As soon as a couple steps out of that jurisdiction, they lose their protections. But with marriage, most of the world recognizes the relationship.)

I don't think that giving same-sex couples the same deal hurts opposite-sex marriages.

The only reason I can see for opposing same-sex marriage is because a person thinks it is icky or against their religion. But I don't think icky should be a basis for laws. I also don't think religion should be a basis for laws, at least not in the United States where separation of church and state is written into our Constitution.

So I voted no on Proposition 8, and if you live in California I hope you also voted no or will vote no on November 4.

(Anyone who is surprised that I think any of this, raise your hand.)

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
loracs
Nov. 2nd, 2008 09:40 pm (UTC)
*sitting on both hands*
Well said and ditto!
mjlayman
Nov. 3rd, 2008 03:37 am (UTC)
I was gonna say that! Seriously, good words.
clever_doberman
Nov. 3rd, 2008 02:10 am (UTC)
word
clever_doberman
Nov. 3rd, 2008 02:11 am (UTC)
...and well said.
mistdog
Nov. 3rd, 2008 12:43 pm (UTC)
I don't consider this a "heterosexual" relationship because I'm bisexual, but it is an opposite-sex relationship.

"heterosexual" means "of different sexes" so it is by definition a heterosexual relationship. Which is exactly why most people, unless told otherwise, will assume that the people in it are heterosexual.

Of course I agree that if different-sex couples can have benefits then same-sex couples (and multi-person relationships) should have access to the same benefits. But:

I don't think that "domestic partnership" arrangements are just as good as marriage arrangements. Domestic partnership arrangements only apply in the jurisdiction where they are written into the law. As soon as a couple steps out of that jurisdiction, they lose their protections. But with marriage, most of the world recognizes the relationship.

Sadly I don't think that's true. Just because it's called "marriage" does not mean that a country which doesn't have same-sex unions of any kind will recognise a same-sex "marriage" from another country. Same-sex legal relationships, whether they are called marriage, domestic partnership or civil partnership, are simply disregarded in such countries.

(Even countries *with* same-sex partnerships don't always recognise other countries' same-sex partnerships. For example, I'm in what is called a Civil Partnership in the UK, which is legally identical to marriage except for the name. France, which has civil partnerships too, called PACS, does not yet recognise UK civil partnerships as being equivalent, at least for tax purposes.)

I think the name should be the same for same-sex and different-sex couples because it's the fairest, and because it's probably the quickest way to full acceptance, but I don't think the name makes any difference for legal purposes.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars