Dissolve into Evergreens
This blog used to be about politics. Not so much anymore as I have worked through my fascination with that subject. It now seems appropriate that with a new president and the end of the Bush nightmare that I move on to new subjects that are more in line with my current interests. I may still occasionally express an opinion about political matters but for the most part I will be commenting on music, photography and personal observations. Thank you for reading.


Current Playlist

Top 100 in iTunes

juscuz's Last.fm Overall Artists 

Chart




Atom Site Feed

B4 d- t k s u- f i- o x-- e- l- c+

Blogarama


< ? Colorado Blogs # >

« - ? Blog Oklahoma * # + »
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
8.05.2003
 
dustbury.com:

"Regardless of the hardware possessed by Heather's, um, parental units, marriage is fundamentally about children, about providing them a structure within which they can grow and develop; the partners themselves, like it or not, are secondary players. This is not to say that childless couples don't deserve to have their unions sanctified by church or state or whatever, but the fact remains: marriage is fundamentally about children. "


Playing devil's advocate I'm going to assume that marriage is fundamentally about children. From there it follows that we would:

1) Not allow people to marry unless they are planning to have children, maybe even make the marriage legal only once a child has been born. After a year of probation if a child has not been produced then the couple will have to go back before the state and declare their intentions to bear children or else have their marraige dissolved.

1b) People that have children are forced to marry even if the pregnancy was a mistake. (Just like the old days!)

2) Not allow married couples with children to divorce or separate unless the child has reached eighteen years of age and has declared his/her independence.

2b) if rule #2 is not applied then once couples have divorced, their children are taken away from them and given to a married couple. Same rules apply in the case of the untimely death of a spouse. Remember that if marraige is about children then single mothers/fathers are no good.

3) Not allow marraige for people with fertility problems unless they agree to adopt a child. After adoption rule #2 applies.

4) Allow gay couples to marry if they adopt a child. Again rule #2 would apply.


-enough of that! Admittedly we have some sort of system like this in place already when you consider child support.

The fundamental issue is that you receive special privileges as a married couple.

Here are just some of the Rights you lose as Same-Sex Partners without the Civil Union:

Automatic visitation rights in a hospital should your Partner ever get sick
Automatic Inheritance from your Partner
Being able to make Medical Decisions for your Partner in Emergencies
Wrongful Death Benefits for the surviving Partner
Property Rights and Protection in the event of Death
Bereavement and Sick Leave Rights
Parenting and Adoption
Shared benefits like Social Security and Medicare
and Many, Many More!


While not being gay myself, I have had a long term commited relationship where some of these special privileges would have been nice, especially the access to the other partner's benefits. I resent the fact that in order to gain access to these perks I have to go and get married, which we both decided we didnt want to do. I know many people that have been in long term commited relationships that never proceeded to marraige, and I have known people that have been married multiple times for short periods of time. But somehow making it official (italics denote sarcasm) means its binding? Hardly. The decline in the relative value of marriage may be due to the fact that there is incentive for people to get married, the aforementioned benefits. When you gain special access because of your marital status then that may be enough to overcome the threshold of marriage. Whereas it might be harder to come to that decision were it not for the carrot dangled before you. It may be respect for the gravity of marriage that many people do not enter into it hastily, despite having to pay a penalty for doing do. Consider that.

Granting some form of legal standing to gay relationships is a no brainer in my mind. It doesn't have to be a religious marriage but I don't think that's what they're asking for. They simply want access to the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals get by virtue of being married. Its ironic that straight people can get married and divorced, married and divorced, over and over again but we deny commited life long partnerships of the same sex the respect it deserves.

Its a done deal, its only a matter of time. The people fighting this same sex civil union are cavemen in my eyes. Go bang on your cave walls the world will go on without you.


|

About Me

bruce
35 yr old
Married
Okie
Highlands Ranch
Denver
Colorado
Student
Recording Engineer
Gemini
Arrogant
Voted for Kerry
Voted for Obama
Scumbag
Narrow-minded
Liberal
Uncle
Smug
Hypocrite
Philosophical Type
Taken
Omicron Male
Feminist Friendly
22.3% Less Smart
Whacko
Rabbit



Any Box

email

Barack Obama Logo
Get Firefox!




Dissolve into Evergreens