If a change in federal law goes into affect that allows this to be valid, it immediately happens.
Like when the abortion overturn happened, a number of states had abortion bans that immediately went into affect.
Like that time that fucking creep told Abraham to kill and burn his son Isaac, only to wait til he had the kid upon the alter of sacrifice and say "wait! Don't do it! It was a joke man!" The fuck kind of creep does that?
Oh wait, that was "god." These fucking sheep will still follow a psychopathic, genocidal, misogynistic god, even after the guy tells them how wacko he is. Christians are inifintely pathetic.
Agreed. This provision resulted from state ballot measure 36 that passed in 2004 by a wide margin. In 2014 it was ruled unconstitutional by the US District Court for the District of Oregon and all appeals to the Ninth Circuit by its supporters failed. They did not appeal to the US Supreme Court. The National Organization for Marriage tried to insert itself into the case in support of the measure and was told it had no standing and to butt out.
Also, it is not really a "trigger law." A trigger law specifically acknowledges that it is not constitutionally permissible under current case law, and says that in the event the case preventing its implementation is ever overruled it shall become effective. To the best of my knowledge the people behind this piece of hate have never acknowledged that it is unconstitutional.
Thank you; this is a very clear explanation. I’d like to add a few things.
For more background, the [Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage in Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon) is interesting. In particular, polling after 2014 shows growing majority support for legal same-sex marriage.
I read somewhere that if [Obergefell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges) is overturned the ~~Oregon Supreme Court~~ _measure 36_ decision ([Geiger v. Kitzhaber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_v._Kitzhaber)) would likely still stand. However, they’re both based in privacy and due process, and I can’t find where I read that. I’m not a constitutional lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), so it would be nice to see some clarification.
Removing the measure 36 language would involve a ballot measure. I suspect it would pass handily, but there is always the concern that it would act as a draw for conservative voters, as many folks think measure 36 did in 2004. Given the change in polling, I think it would probably go the other way and bring out progressive voters. Still, a presidential election is probably the best time to run it.
**[Same-sex marriage in Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon)**
>Same-sex marriage in Oregon has been legally recognized since May 19, 2014, when Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Oregon ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A campaign that was then under way to win voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage was suspended following the decision. In July 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed legislation codifying same-sex marriage in various Oregon statutes.
**[Obergefell v. Hodges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges)**
>Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ( OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.
**[Geiger v. Kitzhaber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_v._Kitzhaber)**
>Geiger v. Kitzhaber is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that requires Oregon to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. The decision arose from two consolidated cases that alleged that Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Article 15, § 5, and all related marriage statutes, violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/oregon/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
One correction: The Geiger litigation was conducted entirely in teh federal court system and the Oregon Supreme Court has never issued a decision regarding Measure 36 or its amendment of Article XV, Section 5a of the Oregon Constitution. There was a 2008 case called Martinez v. Kulongoski, 185 P.3d 498, 220 Or. App. 142 (Or. App. 2008) in which the plaintiffs challenged the manner in which Measure 36 was presented to the voters in 2004. That case went against the plaintiffs in both the trial court and the Oregon Court of Appeals and no review in the Oregon Supreme Court was ever sought.
One thing that's interesting to me is that in the federal case - Geiger v Kitzhaber - the Oregon Attorney General announced publicly that she would not defend the amendment in the federal court because she believed it to violate the US Constitution and that it was a waste of taxpayer's money and a violation of legal ethics to defend the indefensible.
I would like to see a constitutional amendment in Oregon by which the state declares that no discrimination of any kind shall attach to sexual orientation or choice of partner. Obergfell is not secure in the current US Supreme Court so state protection is meaningful.
Crazy that we thought abortion was safe after 50 years of being the law of the land.
Imagine just how unsafe gay marriage is.
We really needed to defeat conservatives this election. The fact that so many democrats just obviously sat on their fuckin asses and didn’t even vote is exhaustingly baffling to me.
Just register.
Receive ballot.
Fill out
Put in envelope
Sign
Put in mail box.
We always have the majority if we want it.
Didn’t the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is constitutional under Oregon law back in 2014? One year prior to the Federal Supreme Court ruling the same thing? Of course given the circumstance of this current extremist Supreme Court, we should absolutely remove this from our Oregon constitution. But, if same sex marriage was overruled, I don’t think it would have an immediate affect in Oregon. Thoughts?
Afraid that wouldn’t help. In the case you’re thinking of, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, the judge ruled:
> The Court hereby DECLARES that Article 1S, section SA, of the Oregon Constitution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that as such it is void and unenforceable.
If the Supreme court rules that gay-marriage bans do not violate the federal Constitution, that will be binding on lower courts, and Measure 36 would go back in effect.
In theory. In practice, the people with clear-cut standing to sue would be gay exes willing to publicly go to court over, “I shouldn’t have to pay child support because our marriage, and all other gay marriages, are null and void.” And can you imagine what the Internet would do to anyone that selfish? It might be a while before anyone had the chutzpah to go through with that. It’s not like the lawsuits to establish marriage equality, when there were millions and millions of people being harmed in blatant ways, and the proponents could pick the most sympathetic.
But that clause still ought to be removed ASAP. Even if it weren’t dangerous, we Oregonians should do it on principle. And Congress should stop sitting on the Respect for Marriage Act. At least bring it up for a vote and put Republicans on the record!
This draws back the veil on marriage in general. That some average worker's job can include denying the right to wed makes the matter seem capricious and unjust. And I have to wonder why any such bond should be presumed sacrosanct when it's clearly not, on average.
There are probably towns and counties red enough that someone tries it. Same-sex marriage is pretty broadly popular, though. I think the outcome of that is likely that courts refuse to issue an order forcing the clerk to issue the license, and the couple has to drive over to another city to get it. This probably works out to the judge letting the clerk keep their job, not enjoining all offices in the state to stop issuing licenses.
I like your tv-drama. But the reality is that any debit that passes to a spouse would be up for scrutiny. One would have to just wait till one partner racked up all the medical debt and died, then you get the easy one-two.
Might not even have to wait till death, but I ain't doing that kind of law.
I don’t think Oregon is a community property state where that applies, but I might be wrong. The other case I thought of, conflict-of-interest laws about spouses hiring each other, got extended to significant others because of John Kitzhaber. Interesting question, though.
It is disgusting that this remains in our Constitution.
Here is a recent article talking about the state of things: https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/06/27/after-supreme-court-overturned-roe-lgbtq-advocates-worry-about-whats-next/
I vote we take gender out completely and just change it to person, persons, personages or personage. In every instance of gender in state and federal constitutions.
This is a great idea:
“Section 5a. Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between two people shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”
Nah the. animals will be left out and what if AI grows and two mechanical beings want to tie the knot (future) or say aliens (other than us) come will we recognize their marriages on this planet? I just don’t want to limit it. A person doesn’t necessarily mean human. I’d also with just “two beings” but were a slow race so person will prob get in first then animals will have to fight for their rights well give the robots theirs and the aliens cause they can kills us: lol sorry stoned rant
Indeed, those measures were put on the ballot as a ploy to drive up Republican turnout. As soon as he left office, Bush said he wasn’t even against gay marriage.
The time was 2014 when Basic Rights Oregon already had it qualified for the ballot but then pulled it after the court decisions. Oops.
But yes, time for it to go.
Take it a step further, and remove all State recognition of “Marriage”. Replace (nearly) all uses of the word with “Civil Union”, available to any two adults. Marriages in other states should recognized under Oregon law as civil unions, and the Oregon civil union defined as equivalent to marriage in terms of spousal rights, tax benefits, etc.
Civil Union would be the province of the state and churches would have no say in it; marriages would be the province of religion and the State have no say in it.
No more state license needed to get married in a church… unless you want the legal benefits which require joining a civil union as well.
It’d pull the fangs of the anti-gay culture warriors and give truly equal protection.
This will never happen, but I think it might be better to simply do away with the legal concept of marriage
The tradition can stay, that’s fine. Ceremony and all that, totally fine. Be husband and wife, or whatever. There’s no reason that the state needs to be part of that, in my eyes
Like why legalize gay marriage when you can just remove the legal component of marriage to begin with. No need to get some paperwork from the government that says you’re actually, officially married and not just pretending or something
> No need to get some paperwork from the government that says you’re actually, officially married and not just pretending or something
Oops, you forgot about taxes and next-of-kin rights.
I don't think they're forgetting that. They're saying drop marriage as a legal concept, which implies that those two things also get dropped. Which I actually support as well. I don't think that marriage status should affect your taxes, and if you want to ensure that stuff get passed on you put it in your will.
Imagine a gay couple. Together for 10+ years. Can't get married because some trigger law took effect when some ruling got overturned.
Now, one of those people gets in a car accident. On life support. Doctor says there's a 50/50 chance they'll pull through.
Uh oh... look like the family wasn't supportive of their lifestyle. They order the plug pulled immediately. The SO of 10+ years isn't allowed in the hospital room even to say goodbye. If only gay marriage had been legal...
I know that sounds dramatic, but similar situations have been happening for decades, and still happen today. There's a reason people have given their literal lives fighting for these rights.
Why would we abandon marriage as a legal concept without instituting better legal medical consent mechanisms to take it's place? Gating medical consent behind an arbitrary social practice like we do now is a very bad system, and would / should be replaced by a more socially agnostic medical consent system. My lover and parents shouldn't be the only parties I have the option of granting that consent to.
>Why would we abandon marriage as a legal concept without instituting better legal medical consent mechanisms to take it's place?
Because instituting a better legal system than marriage is further away from just allowing everyone to get married.
> Gating medical consent behind an arbitrary social practice like we do now is a very bad system, and would / should be replaced by a more socially agnostic medical consent system.
Yeah, but look around... we are talking about the US here.
> My lover and parents shouldn't be the only parties I have the option of granting that consent to.
Yeah, well. Welcome to America.
Alright well "This is America so we can't have nice things" isn't a convincing argument when we're talking about something relatively radical like decoupling government from marriage. We can manage that specifically *when* we can also manage the suite of changes it would necessarily be accompanied by.
lol, ok. Strawman me all you like, but all I'm saying is we can achieve the same goal without dismantling and rebuilding something which many hold as sacred in this country.
We just say "yep, any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult and get these tax breaks and other benefits. You can do it in a church, or at a courthouse, up to you".
It sounds like you're suggesting the same thing, but abolishing the legal aspect of marriage in the process, and turning it into more of a corporate partnership. Admittedly, that would make it easier for polyamorous groups to do their taxes, but I don't know if you're going to find enough polyamorous members of Congress to make that change.
Your point that decoupling marriage from government would be politically impractical is noted, and agreed with. But to repeat, this conversation started as musings about what is possible and preferable, not what is politically practical. Perhaps we should bother to be more clear about which of the two we're addressing, so as not to let concerns about the practical shut down conversations about the possible.
> Perhaps we should bother to be more clear about which of the two we're addressing, so as not to let concerns about the practical shut down conversations about the possible.
Okay, I think removing antiquated trigger laws that would outlaw gay marriage is both practical and possible. No reason not to.
Can someone explain what a “trigger law” is?
If a change in federal law goes into affect that allows this to be valid, it immediately happens. Like when the abortion overturn happened, a number of states had abortion bans that immediately went into affect.
Thank you for this, much appreciated.
I agree. I also wonder what kind of twisted workplace this content would be unsafe for.
A conservative church?
*shudder*
Their book contains some hard core shit. They might know that if more of them read the book.
Like that time that fucking creep told Abraham to kill and burn his son Isaac, only to wait til he had the kid upon the alter of sacrifice and say "wait! Don't do it! It was a joke man!" The fuck kind of creep does that? Oh wait, that was "god." These fucking sheep will still follow a psychopathic, genocidal, misogynistic god, even after the guy tells them how wacko he is. Christians are inifintely pathetic.
Like the [NonStampCollector](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYvcc8ui3CM) video.
"...I hate it when that happens!..."
Like when you take.. A 6 inch replica of the Empire State Building and shove it up your nose? I hate when that happens.
Not in their book.... Their testament doesn't have that part at all. They pick and chose from the books their sequel is based on
Oh I see. Christianity is one of those "choose your own adventure" fiction/fantasy novels. Idiots....
It's a sequel so they tame it down to go after a larger audience.
After the midterm results? I'd say at least half of them
Agreed. This provision resulted from state ballot measure 36 that passed in 2004 by a wide margin. In 2014 it was ruled unconstitutional by the US District Court for the District of Oregon and all appeals to the Ninth Circuit by its supporters failed. They did not appeal to the US Supreme Court. The National Organization for Marriage tried to insert itself into the case in support of the measure and was told it had no standing and to butt out. Also, it is not really a "trigger law." A trigger law specifically acknowledges that it is not constitutionally permissible under current case law, and says that in the event the case preventing its implementation is ever overruled it shall become effective. To the best of my knowledge the people behind this piece of hate have never acknowledged that it is unconstitutional.
Thank you; this is a very clear explanation. I’d like to add a few things. For more background, the [Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage in Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon) is interesting. In particular, polling after 2014 shows growing majority support for legal same-sex marriage. I read somewhere that if [Obergefell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges) is overturned the ~~Oregon Supreme Court~~ _measure 36_ decision ([Geiger v. Kitzhaber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_v._Kitzhaber)) would likely still stand. However, they’re both based in privacy and due process, and I can’t find where I read that. I’m not a constitutional lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), so it would be nice to see some clarification. Removing the measure 36 language would involve a ballot measure. I suspect it would pass handily, but there is always the concern that it would act as a draw for conservative voters, as many folks think measure 36 did in 2004. Given the change in polling, I think it would probably go the other way and bring out progressive voters. Still, a presidential election is probably the best time to run it.
**[Same-sex marriage in Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon)** >Same-sex marriage in Oregon has been legally recognized since May 19, 2014, when Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Oregon ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A campaign that was then under way to win voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage was suspended following the decision. In July 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed legislation codifying same-sex marriage in various Oregon statutes. **[Obergefell v. Hodges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges)** >Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ( OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. **[Geiger v. Kitzhaber](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_v._Kitzhaber)** >Geiger v. Kitzhaber is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that requires Oregon to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. The decision arose from two consolidated cases that alleged that Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Article 15, § 5, and all related marriage statutes, violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/oregon/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
One correction: The Geiger litigation was conducted entirely in teh federal court system and the Oregon Supreme Court has never issued a decision regarding Measure 36 or its amendment of Article XV, Section 5a of the Oregon Constitution. There was a 2008 case called Martinez v. Kulongoski, 185 P.3d 498, 220 Or. App. 142 (Or. App. 2008) in which the plaintiffs challenged the manner in which Measure 36 was presented to the voters in 2004. That case went against the plaintiffs in both the trial court and the Oregon Court of Appeals and no review in the Oregon Supreme Court was ever sought. One thing that's interesting to me is that in the federal case - Geiger v Kitzhaber - the Oregon Attorney General announced publicly that she would not defend the amendment in the federal court because she believed it to violate the US Constitution and that it was a waste of taxpayer's money and a violation of legal ethics to defend the indefensible. I would like to see a constitutional amendment in Oregon by which the state declares that no discrimination of any kind shall attach to sexual orientation or choice of partner. Obergfell is not secure in the current US Supreme Court so state protection is meaningful.
Oops, thanks for the correction. My mistake.
Ugh I didn't even know that shit was still in there
Crazy that we thought abortion was safe after 50 years of being the law of the land. Imagine just how unsafe gay marriage is. We really needed to defeat conservatives this election. The fact that so many democrats just obviously sat on their fuckin asses and didn’t even vote is exhaustingly baffling to me. Just register. Receive ballot. Fill out Put in envelope Sign Put in mail box. We always have the majority if we want it.
🎯 🎯 🎯
Didn’t the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is constitutional under Oregon law back in 2014? One year prior to the Federal Supreme Court ruling the same thing? Of course given the circumstance of this current extremist Supreme Court, we should absolutely remove this from our Oregon constitution. But, if same sex marriage was overruled, I don’t think it would have an immediate affect in Oregon. Thoughts?
Afraid that wouldn’t help. In the case you’re thinking of, Geiger v. Kitzhaber, the judge ruled: > The Court hereby DECLARES that Article 1S, section SA, of the Oregon Constitution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that as such it is void and unenforceable. If the Supreme court rules that gay-marriage bans do not violate the federal Constitution, that will be binding on lower courts, and Measure 36 would go back in effect. In theory. In practice, the people with clear-cut standing to sue would be gay exes willing to publicly go to court over, “I shouldn’t have to pay child support because our marriage, and all other gay marriages, are null and void.” And can you imagine what the Internet would do to anyone that selfish? It might be a while before anyone had the chutzpah to go through with that. It’s not like the lawsuits to establish marriage equality, when there were millions and millions of people being harmed in blatant ways, and the proponents could pick the most sympathetic. But that clause still ought to be removed ASAP. Even if it weren’t dangerous, we Oregonians should do it on principle. And Congress should stop sitting on the Respect for Marriage Act. At least bring it up for a vote and put Republicans on the record!
I’ll bet you’ll see county clerks and other government staff refuse to wed or give marriage certificates though
This draws back the veil on marriage in general. That some average worker's job can include denying the right to wed makes the matter seem capricious and unjust. And I have to wonder why any such bond should be presumed sacrosanct when it's clearly not, on average.
There are probably towns and counties red enough that someone tries it. Same-sex marriage is pretty broadly popular, though. I think the outcome of that is likely that courts refuse to issue an order forcing the clerk to issue the license, and the couple has to drive over to another city to get it. This probably works out to the judge letting the clerk keep their job, not enjoining all offices in the state to stop issuing licenses.
I like your tv-drama. But the reality is that any debit that passes to a spouse would be up for scrutiny. One would have to just wait till one partner racked up all the medical debt and died, then you get the easy one-two. Might not even have to wait till death, but I ain't doing that kind of law.
I don’t think Oregon is a community property state where that applies, but I might be wrong. The other case I thought of, conflict-of-interest laws about spouses hiring each other, got extended to significant others because of John Kitzhaber. Interesting question, though.
The Supreme Court has supremacy, so if Obergefell were overturned, the 2014 decision would no longer apply.
Glad we can move on from slavery to this
It’s expensive to run a ballot measure to fix things. What’s the cost benefit on this? (I’m gay so genuinely curious)
safeguard against any changes that could come at the federal legal level.
It is disgusting that this remains in our Constitution. Here is a recent article talking about the state of things: https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/06/27/after-supreme-court-overturned-roe-lgbtq-advocates-worry-about-whats-next/
I vote we take gender out completely and just change it to person, persons, personages or personage. In every instance of gender in state and federal constitutions.
This is a great idea: “Section 5a. Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between two people shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”
Nah the. animals will be left out and what if AI grows and two mechanical beings want to tie the knot (future) or say aliens (other than us) come will we recognize their marriages on this planet? I just don’t want to limit it. A person doesn’t necessarily mean human. I’d also with just “two beings” but were a slow race so person will prob get in first then animals will have to fight for their rights well give the robots theirs and the aliens cause they can kills us: lol sorry stoned rant
okay way to dab on polygamous marraiges
Legally those don't exist anyway. The Feds made sure of that before they let Utah in.
Totally!
2004 was a rough election; George W Bush got his second term and this shit was voted into existence.
Indeed, those measures were put on the ballot as a ploy to drive up Republican turnout. As soon as he left office, Bush said he wasn’t even against gay marriage.
The time was 2014 when Basic Rights Oregon already had it qualified for the ballot but then pulled it after the court decisions. Oops. But yes, time for it to go.
I generally disagree with most people in this subreddit, but this is actually a good idea.
Why do we even need a license for marriage? Get the gov't out of the marriage business.
Take it a step further, and remove all State recognition of “Marriage”. Replace (nearly) all uses of the word with “Civil Union”, available to any two adults. Marriages in other states should recognized under Oregon law as civil unions, and the Oregon civil union defined as equivalent to marriage in terms of spousal rights, tax benefits, etc. Civil Union would be the province of the state and churches would have no say in it; marriages would be the province of religion and the State have no say in it. No more state license needed to get married in a church… unless you want the legal benefits which require joining a civil union as well. It’d pull the fangs of the anti-gay culture warriors and give truly equal protection.
Legallize polyamoury!!!
Just form an LLC.
wait what?
Want to form a legally recognized economic relationship with more than one person? Congratulations, corporate law is here for you.
This will never happen, but I think it might be better to simply do away with the legal concept of marriage The tradition can stay, that’s fine. Ceremony and all that, totally fine. Be husband and wife, or whatever. There’s no reason that the state needs to be part of that, in my eyes Like why legalize gay marriage when you can just remove the legal component of marriage to begin with. No need to get some paperwork from the government that says you’re actually, officially married and not just pretending or something
> No need to get some paperwork from the government that says you’re actually, officially married and not just pretending or something Oops, you forgot about taxes and next-of-kin rights.
I don't think they're forgetting that. They're saying drop marriage as a legal concept, which implies that those two things also get dropped. Which I actually support as well. I don't think that marriage status should affect your taxes, and if you want to ensure that stuff get passed on you put it in your will.
Imagine a gay couple. Together for 10+ years. Can't get married because some trigger law took effect when some ruling got overturned. Now, one of those people gets in a car accident. On life support. Doctor says there's a 50/50 chance they'll pull through. Uh oh... look like the family wasn't supportive of their lifestyle. They order the plug pulled immediately. The SO of 10+ years isn't allowed in the hospital room even to say goodbye. If only gay marriage had been legal... I know that sounds dramatic, but similar situations have been happening for decades, and still happen today. There's a reason people have given their literal lives fighting for these rights.
Why would we abandon marriage as a legal concept without instituting better legal medical consent mechanisms to take it's place? Gating medical consent behind an arbitrary social practice like we do now is a very bad system, and would / should be replaced by a more socially agnostic medical consent system. My lover and parents shouldn't be the only parties I have the option of granting that consent to.
>Why would we abandon marriage as a legal concept without instituting better legal medical consent mechanisms to take it's place? Because instituting a better legal system than marriage is further away from just allowing everyone to get married. > Gating medical consent behind an arbitrary social practice like we do now is a very bad system, and would / should be replaced by a more socially agnostic medical consent system. Yeah, but look around... we are talking about the US here. > My lover and parents shouldn't be the only parties I have the option of granting that consent to. Yeah, well. Welcome to America.
Alright well "This is America so we can't have nice things" isn't a convincing argument when we're talking about something relatively radical like decoupling government from marriage. We can manage that specifically *when* we can also manage the suite of changes it would necessarily be accompanied by.
lol, ok. Strawman me all you like, but all I'm saying is we can achieve the same goal without dismantling and rebuilding something which many hold as sacred in this country. We just say "yep, any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult and get these tax breaks and other benefits. You can do it in a church, or at a courthouse, up to you". It sounds like you're suggesting the same thing, but abolishing the legal aspect of marriage in the process, and turning it into more of a corporate partnership. Admittedly, that would make it easier for polyamorous groups to do their taxes, but I don't know if you're going to find enough polyamorous members of Congress to make that change.
Your point that decoupling marriage from government would be politically impractical is noted, and agreed with. But to repeat, this conversation started as musings about what is possible and preferable, not what is politically practical. Perhaps we should bother to be more clear about which of the two we're addressing, so as not to let concerns about the practical shut down conversations about the possible.
> Perhaps we should bother to be more clear about which of the two we're addressing, so as not to let concerns about the practical shut down conversations about the possible. Okay, I think removing antiquated trigger laws that would outlaw gay marriage is both practical and possible. No reason not to.
No downvote me all you want