Could a proposition like this be common ground for proponents both for and against gay marriage?

[AreaCode7O7]

I'd propose the government gets out of the marriage business entirely. How on earth, for either heterosexual or homosexual couples, did the government wind up with the authority to determine who is married and who is not?

Governmentally, what does marriage even mean? It seems like just a term slapped on a particular set of citizen benefits. I'd much rather see the government issue long term co-habitation licenses to anyone who's made a commitment to share space - that may be a romantic relationship, it may be a roommate situation, whatever.

Marriage is an emotionally-loaded term with no actual collective definition. I would say leave that to churches, synagogues, mosques, personal interpretation, the recognition of friends and family, and keep the legal side of it entirely separate. Don't regulate romantic relationships in any way.

To either side, do you find this a distasteful proposal? Why?

For the pro-gay marriage side, you would have the same full legal benefits as a hetero couple; no discrimination. You live your life as you believe.

To the anti-gay marriage side, you officially recognize that the government doesn't have the authority to redefine marriage. You live your life as you believe.

 

[Capt Caveman]

What about the taxes, insurance, hospital/life rights, etc?

 

[nageov3t]

it would never happen.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm totally on board with this. Why does this personal relationship need to be licensed by the state? There shouldn't be any legal privileges for being married. This was the reason I didn't vote for or against Prop 8.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Government involvement in love. How fucking retarded do you have to be.

"Oh yeah baby. I love you so much, let's bring the government into this!"

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What about the taxes, insurance, hospital/life rights, etc?

Cohabitation license would allow those benefits to two people who chose to take advantage of them. Realistically, why do we tie those benefits to romantic relationships? What's the (modern-day) purpose?

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it would never happen.

Likely enough. But what's your opinion of it?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What about the taxes, insurance, hospital/life rights, etc?

Cohabitation license would allow those benefits to two people who chose to take advantage of them. Realistically, why do we tie those benefits to romantic relationships? What's the (modern-day) purpose?

Cool. So now roommates or those living in college dorms can get cohabitation benefits.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cool. So now roommates or those living in college dorms can get cohabitation benefits.

Yeah I don't like the idea of cohabitation licenses. It's not something that needs to be licensed.

Benefits should be for individuals, not for couples. THe only issue is intestacy and hospital rights, but some different legal document could sort this out.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What about the taxes, insurance, hospital/life rights, etc?

What about them?

Taxes is the only place is applies. Insurance and Hospital rights can all be taken care of irregardless of marriage.

 

[Mursilis]

There's tons of legal issues related to marriage - you can't just throw it out. To the state, all marriage is is a legal contract. But I think I see where you're going with this, which is why I support civil unions for all. Let the state issue civil unions, and let churches or other organizations marry people. Only civil unions would be recognized by the legal system as conferring any rights on the involved parties. Marriage would be strictly private, and would have no legal significance.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What about the taxes, insurance, hospital/life rights, etc?

Cohabitation license would allow those benefits to two people who chose to take advantage of them. Realistically, why do we tie those benefits to romantic relationships? What's the (modern-day) purpose?

Cool. So now roommates or those living in college dorms can get cohabitation benefits.

If you want to offer those benefits to romantically-involved couples, they should be offered (generally as an all-or-nothing package; you want your roommate making your medical decisions?) to non-romantically-involved couples. Why should an individual unlucky enough not to find love be discriminated against in taxes or other benefits?

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cool. So now roommates or those living in college dorms can get cohabitation benefits.

Yeah I don't like the idea of cohabitation licenses. It's not something that needs to be licensed.

Benefits should be for individuals, not for couples. THe only issue is intestacy and hospital rights, but some different legal document could sort this out.

Cohabitation doesn't need to be licensed, but it would take some type of legal filing to make you and another person eligible for certain benefits. Which becomes almost irrelevant if your second point is applied, I realize, and then I concede your first point as well.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
There's tons of legal issues related to marriage - you can't just throw it out. To the state, all marriage is is a legal contract. But I think I see where you're going with this, which is why I support civil unions for all. Let the state issue civil unions, and let churches or other organizations marry people. Only civil unions would be recognized by the legal system as conferring any rights on the involved parties. Marriage would be strictly private, and would have no legal significance.

Pretty much the point I'm making, though I don't necessarily see why the government needs to be limiting this to people who claim to be in love. Not even a marriage/civil union situation is necessarily intended to be lifelong these days, and a lot of roommate relationships last longer than legally-bound romantic relationships.

The roommate thing is somewhat hyperbole, somewhat a serious question I've been playing with in my mind.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Mursilis
There's tons of legal issues related to marriage - you can't just throw it out. To the state, all marriage is is a legal contract. But I think I see where you're going with this, which is why I support civil unions for all. Let the state issue civil unions, and let churches or other organizations marry people. Only civil unions would be recognized by the legal system as conferring any rights on the involved parties. Marriage would be strictly private, and would have no legal significance.

Pretty much the point I'm making, though I don't necessarily see why the government needs to be limiting this to people who claim to be in love.

Do they limit it? It's not like I had to take a test when we got our marriage license. Pretty much anyone with the $$ got the license. The gov't seems to test it only when a citizen is attempting to bring a non-citizen into the country. For that reason, I can see that the feds would have to modify the way marriage with immigrants is currently handled. Otherwise, a person could make a pretty good living marrying foreigners, getting them papers, flying them into the US, and then getting a quickie divorce. Repeat until rich.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Mursilis
There's tons of legal issues related to marriage - you can't just throw it out. To the state, all marriage is is a legal contract. But I think I see where you're going with this, which is why I support civil unions for all. Let the state issue civil unions, and let churches or other organizations marry people. Only civil unions would be recognized by the legal system as conferring any rights on the involved parties. Marriage would be strictly private, and would have no legal significance.

Pretty much the point I'm making, though I don't necessarily see why the government needs to be limiting this to people who claim to be in love. Not even a marriage/civil union situation is necessarily intended to be lifelong these days, and a lot of roommate relationships last longer than legally-bound romantic relationships.

The roommate thing is somewhat hyperbole, somewhat a serious question I've been playing with in my mind.

I could be entirely misled on this, but I think that the core reason that government in involved in the promotion/subsidizing of marriage is to encourage population growth. If that's true and it's the only factor that matters in the argument, there could be a legitimate argument against anything other than opposite sex marriages being recognized by the state.

Pure pragmatism aside, your idea is by far the best solution and one that no doubt we'll end up with. Government needs to get entirely out of "marriage" and leave that function to religious organizations. Instead, recognize "civil unions" and bestow whatever rights and subsidies come with marriage today on those partners. Nothing short of that is fair.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Mursilis
There's tons of legal issues related to marriage - you can't just throw it out. To the state, all marriage is is a legal contract. But I think I see where you're going with this, which is why I support civil unions for all. Let the state issue civil unions, and let churches or other organizations marry people. Only civil unions would be recognized by the legal system as conferring any rights on the involved parties. Marriage would be strictly private, and would have no legal significance.

Pretty much the point I'm making, though I don't necessarily see why the government needs to be limiting this to people who claim to be in love.

Do they limit it? It's not like I had to take a test when we got our marriage license. Pretty much anyone with the $$ got the license. The gov't seems to test it only when a citizen is attempting to bring a non-citizen into the country. For that reason, I can see that the feds would have to modify the way marriage with immigrants is currently handled. Otherwise, a person could make a pretty good living marrying foreigners, getting them papers, flying them into the US, and then getting a quickie divorce. Repeat until rich.

Yeah, a very valid point on immigration, and definitely something that would need to be dealt with differently than it currently is.

As far as limitations, yeah, I'd say overall it is limited. They don't test or anything but that's just because roommates getting married for the benefits isn't a common practice. Under current practices I bet there'd be a big uproar if that started happening.