mornelithe said:
You have to understand, that sometimes you have familial disputes during these trying times, and not every family is accepting of how their sons/daughters etc... are born. There are horror stories where, because the State doesn't recognize the marriage, the family (blood relatives) of the ill/victim/decedent can refuse entry to the spouse. I mean just utter utter cruelty and meanness. It's these kinds of situations that really impact me. I cannot fathom being kept out of my ill/dying spouses hospital room, because of a power/hate struggle with blood relatives. For me, as a single, straight, white male, my concern is that every citizen of the country is treated with equal respect under the eyes of the law. I don't demand everyone like each other (a fools errand), simply that the law doesn't treat any citizens as beneath anyone else (The Law should be blind to everything but whether they're a citizen or not). The way 'marriage' is woven deeply into US State and Federal Law, demands that everyone have equal access to it. By the State/Feds own hands, it goes well beyond just tax benefits. I'd personally be fine with seeing the word marriage erased from all fed/state law. Given the fury over this, it really shouldn't be a difficult case to argue. The religious think marriage is their word, as such, it has no place being recognized by American law. Just make sure when it is removed, and everyone has to go and get new licenses for , we all point out that if certain religious organizations/people hadn't been such utter pricks about this, you wouldn't have to deal with another layer of bureaucracy. |
Well that is why you would create a contract stating who receives what and whom decides what. It is the same thing as a marriage license, except it is more specific to your situation. If you don't want to go through all the time and effort to make that contract, then you can purchase a pre-designed one from a trusted lawyer or even the state and that can be used in court during the event of such a dispute. Hospitals will recognize the contract in the same way they recognize a marriage license. If they don't recognize the contract, then the family members would face serious civil litigation, and if it is clear enough - the hospital as well. That would act as a deterrent just like refusing a state-recognized spouse has legal consequences.
I agree that as long as the state is involved it should treat people equally. However, I think a lot of people aren't realizing that non-married persons, who aren't married for whichever reason, also don't get a lot of these benefits and that is wrong and unequal treatment. That is all that is being asked for. Equal treatment for ALL, not just people who have state approved contractual agreements.
I don't think it is just the word that should be removed though. It should be the actual institution. The state should not recognize certain contracts or institutions over others. It should only enforce the contracts themselves. If the state wants to give out "marriage contracts" that people can sign and become legally binded by I have no problem with that (besides the allocation of tax resources) as long as it allows competition and will recognize and enforce other forms of "marriage contracts" or contracts between individuals that aren't called "marriage." In the end that is all marriage is - a contract - and I find it dissproportionally unegalitarian on the states' part to only recognize a certain subset of such spousal contracts. I understand that it would take a while to dismantle this bueracracy and it won't be easy, but that is okay. It took a while to construct the very same bureaucracy. That is why I support temporary steps like legalizing "gay marriage" before dismantling state-recognized marriage in its entirety. One is a short-term solution, the other a long-term one.
