May. 28th, 2009

joreth: (polyamory)

As Mr. Hertz explains, the problem for unhappily married same-sex couples living in a state that bans same-sex marriage, is that “getting a divorce requires a recognition of the marriage.”

This whole individual-states-get-to-decide-on-marriage thing is really very stupid.  It creates all sorts of problems for interstate economy and invidual interstate travel, aside from the whole civil rights issue.  I'm sort of glad for the opportunity that the recent ruling on Prop. 8 in CA presents, because now opponents are taking the issue to the federal courts.

As [ profile] leora says in a recent post, some things should transcend the right of mob rule, and our nation was specifically designed to accomodate just those exceptions.  It doesn't make any sense at all that 2 men can walk down to the courthouse, sign all the required documents to give them all the same basic rights and responsibilities as a marriage would (well, all the rights and responsibilities that they would *want*, anyway, since most people don't even know all of the 1,000+ rights they are afforded in the marriage contract), and that's all legal because two men above the age of majority are allowed to enter into legal contracts.  But lump the contracts all together and call them, collectively, a "marriage contract" and somehow their gender makes it illegal for them to sign on the dotted line.  WTF?  2 adult men can own property together, can have their names on a checking account together, can write each other into their wills, can make each other medical power of attorney which gives them hospital visitation rights, and can even be found, individually, as proper guardians for children, but if they do it "together" or under the "marriage" label, it's all illegal.

AND, it's only illegal in certain places, so trying to get out of these contracts in a formal, methodological manner with precedents and procedures is not only a hassle, it's sometimes impossible, whereas each of these contracts individually can be broken and handled by standard contract law.

::bangs head on desk::

I just don't understand why this is such a problem.  So *some* churches don't like the idea of two men boning each other.  Fine, they don't have to perform the ceremony or consider those men as part of their congregation.  Don't think of them as married then.  When a person claims to be polyamorous, but only gets romantically involved with one person at a time, and sabotages or prohibits her partner from having other simultaneous partners, resists any attempts to involve her in the community or talk to others with similiar issues, and, for all intents and purposes, *looks* like a monogamous person, I don't call her polyamorous.  But she can call herself that if she really wants to, I won't take legal action to stop her from calling herself poly, even though it doesn't look like polyamory to me.

So what if this particular church down the street doesn't want to call my relationship a "marriage"?  That church around the corner will and the government will regulate the legal aspects of the contract.  This has nothing at all to do with infringing upon the rights of religious organizations and using religious reasons to write discrimination into our legal system is immoral and unconstitutional, not to mention impractical.

This is just such a stupid fight and I can't believe we have to have it at all.


September 2017

3456 7 8 9
1011 12 13141516