Well, you know, I might agree with you. That might be nice. But I think the law exists as it does for a reason. If we get rid of marriage, how do you propose we handle issues of child adoption/custody, health and life insurance, home loans, power of attorney in life-threatening situations, wills and estates, etc.
Perhaps, but then, we have quite a few redundant/useless/harmful laws on the books, do we not? It's not getting rid of marriage, it's getting rid of the "legal" paperwork. But as you've noted, that opens up other issues. Society has grown so complex, so huge, it seems we're stuck with the paperwork whether we like it or not.
I've got a genetic disorder. My body is very breakable and it doesn't heal well. Someday I'll probably be too disabled by it to work full-time or maybe work at all. When my theoretical partner tries to get me signed on to his health insurance, how is the insurance company going to verify that I'm not just some random dude that my partner's just trying to help out? Let's say something bad happens, let's say I get hurt. Really hurt. When my theoretical partner comes strolling into the hospital and wants to visit me in the ICU, how are they going to know he's not just some dope? If I'm in too bad of shape to make medical decisions and he has to make them for me, how are they going to know he's not just some goofball who I don't want making those decisions? It's like they would need some sort of legal documentation of it--and there, we're back to legal marriage, or something like it. There really are some solid reasons for having partnerships be legally recognized.
I have my own physical (birth-related) issues... don't know if they're genetic or simply environmental/developmental, but, last time I broke a bone, it took 18 months to recover, and I had to repeat the 7th grade twice... lost an entire year of school. So yes, I understand where you're coming from, and I can agree that a person, whatever their "orientation", needs some legal means to assert the rights you mention. Yes, the "marriage license" may be a privalege, but you should have the same rights with or without the "paper". But then, thanks to a whole butt-load of anal-retentiveness, we'd need some other form of "paper" to enumerate those particular rights you mention. As I've mentioned before, people used to be able to get married without documentation, without a problem. But somewhere along the line, we ended up with laws that required us to have a license for legal recognition. Rather than demanding to be included on the existing license, the LGBT community needs a "license" of its own, created especially for their specific needs.
And no, I have no idea how you'd accomplish that. I just know you'd have better success if you left "legal marriage" as a contract between a man and a woman, and came up with your own unique legal contract. At least I'd hope you'd have better success.
Well, I think this came up last time we discussed this--a clone of legal marriage but by another name. I wouldn't have a problem with that, I don't think many other LGBT folks would either. (Unless, I suppose, they themselves are religious.) Unfortunately, there really isn't another widely-known term that we can
use. "Civil unions" don't come close to legal marriage as far as the law's concerned.
We could just make something up, but with respect to reader comprehension, we're kind of stuck with "legal marriage" for now.
Then that sounds like the issue. The LGBT folks need a form of "Civil Union" that legalizes their needs. Call it a "Civil Union Plus". Yes, "legal marriage" has the whole comprehension thing down, but isn't that the problem? You want something the LGBT community and the gov can agree on, but something that won't gain the ire of the NON-LGBT community. And since you already have the right to marry, and just need the legal recognition, the focus should be on getting that legal recognition by whatever means will be successful. Continuing with the same tactics that have been failing just isn't a good use of time and energy. You need to stop stubbornly treading on toes. Because that's no way to gain support for your cause.
There is absolutely nothing to base this argument on. Privileges are social contracts that we earn through good behavior. Rights are inherent. Free speech is a right. Freedom to practice any religion you so choose (or none) is a right. Being alive is a right. We have to establish certain things as inalienable rights for our society to foster a sufficient amount of trust between its members to operate. Rights are what allow us the opportunity to earn further privileges.
Of course there is. In fact, in your very next sentence, you've made it clear that even marriage, itself can be considered a privalege, since marriage is a social contract that is earned, is it not? You have to earn the affections of your partner, so you have someone to marry in the first place. Homo or hetero. So yes, free speach is a right. Because it isn't a social contract. Religion is a right. Because it isn't a social contract. Being alive is a right (unless you happen to still be in your mother's womb). Because it isn't a social contract.
One right, established in the Due Process clause of our country's 14th amendment, says that state and local governments cannot deprive their citizens of life, liberty, and property, without steps being taken to ensure fairness. Protection from discrimination is a right, and it has to be treated as a right, because in the past when we've left things like racial or sexual discrimination up in the air, people have abused them. By passing amendment 1, North Carolina will be depriving all couples currently in domestic partnerships of rights they used to have. This is applied unfairly, since it limits legal recognition of couples to being something only certain people can obtain, through circumstances they did not earn.
Point taken. But success has a lot to do with how you present yourself. And there are times when you must change your approach, if you hope to change how other people view your cause.
Amendment 1 bans common law marriage. Also, why does it so offend you that gays want tax benefits that straight couples can already get? This seems like such a non-argument. Tell me why you think they shouldn't have those, if you think straight couples should. And make it a good argument. None of that "well they can't reproduce" shit, because they actually can, and there are arrangements where they do, and there are straight couples that choose not to have kids, or can't have kids, and under any such argument those couples should be denied benefits, no?
It doesn't offend me at all. I just had someone spouting off about love when the simple fact is they CAN get married. Just can't get the legal recognition. And yes, with that legal recognition comes a whole host of bennies, including those tax-related. So, rather that spout on about love and junk, be honest with what you're after. Admit you want all the bennies.
As for straight couples, they also have the right to get married without a license, and like gays, forgo all the bennies. And like I've mentioned, I've read about how marriage is on the wane, straight couples getting married without the legalities, so they don't have the legal tangles of divorce, should things not work out. If you're not "legally" married, then you don't need to concern yourself with a "legal" divorce. See? No need to bring reproduction into this at all.
I cannot understand where you're coming from, for that matter. To what ends are you trying to argue against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage? In the principle of applying the law fairly to all demographics, that is the only logical thing to do. If you wanted to argue against any financial benefits given through legal marriage... that's an entirely different argument isn't it? And that pursuit is a worthwhile one. It's also politically impossible right now. So we're focusing on equality in this area first, and then we'll move on to the next step. And regardless, there are legal issues that are not financially-related that need to be equalized anyway.
Well, that's your issue, not mine. But I'll try again. I'm simply saying that marriage, at its very start, did not involve a "legal" contract. And if you're not aware, plenty of people live together in "relationships" without even being married, let alone "legally" married. Children and all.
And yes, all the issues you bring up could indeed stand to be equalized. I've already mentioned possibilities, above, to avoid the whole social tangle involved in the issue. Or at least enough of the tangle to give you an easier time, perhaps. Personally, not being gay, I have no investment in the whole issue, either for or against. I just see some of the perceptual problems, and try to suggest alternative approaches. Take it with a grain of salt, if you must.