Contractual Unions

nospam@example.com (Jason Frisvold) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:59:51 -0500

I was listening to MP3s from the Penn Jillette radio show the other day and the subject of Gay Marriage came up. What's interesting here is Penn's view on marriage in general, not just gay marriage. As I listened, I found myself agreeing more and more with him.

The general idea goes something like this. There is a push to legalize gay marriage. There are arguments on both sides, some good, some insane. But, the bottom line seems to be that homosexual couples would like to enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples do. It's purely a legal argument, not a religious one.

The arguments against gay marriage seem to be almost exclusively religion oriented. Some believe it is morally wrong for two people of the same sex to be together. Some believe it's against their religion. And some believe that same-sex marriage will lead to other insane things like people marrying animals. The latter argument is rather insane because regardless of the desire, animals cannot enter into legally binding contracts, which a marriage is. Therefore, marrying your dog still won't be allowed.

Regardless of the kook theory, we need to look a little deeper at this. The source of most arguments against same-sex marriage are rooted in religion. According to the first amendment to the Constitution, however, there must be a separation of church and state. Given this amendment and the arguments against same-sex marriage, this is an easy win, right? Well... not really. There's a deeper problem here.

Marriage itself is generally recognized as a religious ceremony, though civil unions can and do exist. When the marriage laws were first put into place, same-sex relations were secretive due to societal pressure, shame, and the general belief that same-sex relations were immoral. At the same time, religion played a big part in making many of the laws that stand today, regardless of the first amendment.

Fast forward to today and you have laws that identify marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The problem here is that the government should have no say in what a marriage is, nor should the government define what a person can do in the privacy of their own bedroom. So, the underlying issue here is whether or not marriages should be recognized at all. And when you boil it all down, the government portion of marriage exists solely in the contractual obligations and benefits bestowed.

What if we did away with "government approved" marriage and moved solely to a contractual system wherein any two individuals could enter a legally binding contract that would allow them certain rights. For instance, if two persons are contractually bound, they could enjoy the same health benefits. If something were to happen to one of them, the other could handle any of the "next of kin" duties such as healthcare decisions or inheritance of property. As it stands right now, if a person enters a same-sex relationship and one of the partners is sick or dies, the other partner has no rights at all to any property not in their name.

The laws can be written in ways to prevent "polygamous" contracts as well. An added benefit here may be for relatives to enter into these contracts as well, irregardless of whether the relationship is sexual or not. There are likely scenarios where relatives such as brothers and sisters, or cousins, live together as a single unit, similar to a married couple.

Changing the laws to work in this way preserves the so-called "sanctity" of marriage. Churches can still perform marriage ceremonies and even choose to not recognize same-sex unions. There is no change to the status quo with respect to their beliefs. The major difference here is the legal recognition of these unions for the purpose of benefits, taxes, etc.

I think this may be a workable way forward, preserving everyone's beliefs and still providing for all. The biggest hurdle here is that proponents of marriage will immediately see this as an attack on marriage itself and not a preservation of sanctity. Perhaps cooler heads will rule. Regardless, I definitely see same-sex marriage being legal within the next 10 to 20 years.

Oh no! Homos in Maine!

nospam@example.com (Jason Frisvold) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:37:09 -0400

Ok, seriously. Can someone please explain this ad to me?

Apparently it's the same ad they ran in California for Proposition 8, albeit with a different actor. But it confuses me. I went through school, I did my time, I learned what I was supposed to. I don't remember learning anything about marriage, though ... No, not a single class on marriage. So why would allowing same-sex/gay/homosexual/lesbian/whatever marriage suddenly mean this will be a topic in class?

Sorry, but I think this is yet another scare tactic from those in the world with closed minds. I'm not gay, and honestly, the thought of sex with another man repulses me. But that's me, and I don't think it's proper for me to force others to live like I do. I've had many gay friends over the years. And guess what?!?! It didn't turn me gay! Seriously. I had gay friends, hung out with them, invited them to parties, and yet I still don't have the urge to suck cock. I know, amazing.. I must be really lucky, because as we all know, gay is a disease. A disease that can be transmitted by merely hearing about it!

Ugh ... stupid people sicken me.

Look, whether or not homosexuality is a choice or an inherited trait is irrelevant. It's none of your business what a person does in the privacy of their own home. In public, people have the right to act how they want, provided it falls within the law. I don't see you getting all up in arms about a boy/girl couple holding hands or even, *gasp*, kissing! I don't see a problem with same-sex couples showing the same affection in public, either. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. The same works for what you hear or see on radios and TV. Don't like it? Change the station. Don't like what's on that web page? Don't go there.

This is common sense, people. No one is forcing you to agree with this, and no one is forcing you to approve. There's lots of stuff I don't approve of. I've written about a bunch of it in this blog. But that's what makes this nation such a great place to live. I can believe what I want, and no one has the right to tell me otherwise. And as long as I'm living within the law, you can all go to hell.

Can we stop trying to make laws that prevent people from doing things we find offensive? Yeah, we need laws against stuff like murder, rape, etc. But laws against marrying someone of the same sex? Where is the harm in that? It's not your life!

Explosive Expressions (Entries tagged as same-sex)

Contractual Unions

Oh no! Homos in Maine!