| sc94597 said: 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 a 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 bueracracy. 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. |
In theory, I agree with virtually everything you've said here. The problem is the speed in which the US Government works, especially on divisive issues, and most especially on divisive issues that include religious issues. So, because you cannot force anyone to propose legislation, and then force anyone to vote yes for legislation that is proposed, there has to be a short-term solution while the Government catches up. Otherwise, well, you'd have zero movement and the same problems for decade after decade. I don't think this judgement is the final say in this issue, but for now, it provides access to those who've previously been excluded from receiving the full support of US law.
