Truth in love
Well-Known Member
There is concern that the supreme court will do to the gay marriage decision what they did to Roe V Wade. (Frankly from a legal standpoint there is a strong argument for this, but that’s a side note).
Back in the 0’s there was a lot of discussion about marriage privileges. Things from tax benefits to visitation rights in hospitals. The core argument was that if gays could not marry, they did not have equal protection under the law (again a strong legal argument).
So, IF (a big if at this time) the supreme court overturns Obergefell. What can we do?
If we have the government exit the marriage industry, we have a good shot at peaceful change.
If we return marriage to a church only thing (it can be a gay humanist church) the way we define marriage is not forced on others.
We could also set up a legal shared life document and registration system. You head over to the court house spell out which parts of legal shared lives you want with who, get it singed and notarized and all the legal marriage benefits are yours. (You want tax breaks for being in a relationship with Bob, but want Sally to decide when to pull your plug great). (Yes you can do a lot of this now at great cost).
This system would work for heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, tri-sexual 6-somes, 2 straight dudes who want to raise their kids together, a mother and daughter living together and pretty much any other possible combination people might want.
Religious freedom is preserved. The cake shop owner does not have to bake a cake. The traditional marriage views may be enjoyed by all who see things that way and anyone disagreeing can still have their life without legal penalty.
This also makes for a great soft landing for any gay couples who could find themselves unmarried in many states.
I’m well aware that this won’t make everyone happy. Those who want to force their view on others will lose out. However, in dealing with the realities we have it seems a great balance of needs and views on the topic.
Thoughts on improving this concept?
Back in the 0’s there was a lot of discussion about marriage privileges. Things from tax benefits to visitation rights in hospitals. The core argument was that if gays could not marry, they did not have equal protection under the law (again a strong legal argument).
So, IF (a big if at this time) the supreme court overturns Obergefell. What can we do?
If we have the government exit the marriage industry, we have a good shot at peaceful change.
If we return marriage to a church only thing (it can be a gay humanist church) the way we define marriage is not forced on others.
We could also set up a legal shared life document and registration system. You head over to the court house spell out which parts of legal shared lives you want with who, get it singed and notarized and all the legal marriage benefits are yours. (You want tax breaks for being in a relationship with Bob, but want Sally to decide when to pull your plug great). (Yes you can do a lot of this now at great cost).
This system would work for heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, tri-sexual 6-somes, 2 straight dudes who want to raise their kids together, a mother and daughter living together and pretty much any other possible combination people might want.
Religious freedom is preserved. The cake shop owner does not have to bake a cake. The traditional marriage views may be enjoyed by all who see things that way and anyone disagreeing can still have their life without legal penalty.
This also makes for a great soft landing for any gay couples who could find themselves unmarried in many states.
I’m well aware that this won’t make everyone happy. Those who want to force their view on others will lose out. However, in dealing with the realities we have it seems a great balance of needs and views on the topic.
Thoughts on improving this concept?