0 Votes
RE: Why not?
When you say freedom, do you mean the “freedom to have the government define the relationship I’m in as a marriage?” Or something else?
When I say freedom, I mean the freedom to have the same protections under the law that come with heterosexual marriage. The right to jointly own property without creating a business entity. The right to not have wills contested by one partner’s family. The right to immediate acceptance as “next of kin”. The freedom to adopt and raise kids. There are lots of protections that aren’t there for gay unions. Even in places where they have set down legislative rules in a separate-but-equal kind of way (civil unions), gays often find out that, in practice, hospitals and others just disregard them.
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Protect unions of two consenting adults and allow them the same benefits. Call your union whatever you want, but one name under the law for legal purposes.
RE: Why not? by Occams
I mean the freedom to have the same protections under the law that come with heterosexual marriage.
I agree absolutely with all of that, but I think that Gays are demanding the name of Marriage as well, and that strategy is causing a lot more resistance to the rights issue. It inflames the religious right and gives conservatives more ammo. This poll tried to focus on the name issue only, but all the equal rights aspects are equally open for debate.
In my opinion the right to adopt children is a much bigger issue than the name. I saw recently a TEDx talk where the speaker was an African American Gay who was obviously a stable, decent person, and already a good father to an admirable son from his failed marriage. He had been denied the right to adopt, and was very bitter about that.
I think that the adoption authorities must always be extremely careful about to whom they give vulnerable children. Being gay should not automatically rule a person out, but all the other criteria should be the same as for straight couples. I can’t help a bias here. I still think that on average a child would do better with both a mother and a father, and that is a worthwhile goal for the authorities, who must consider averages in their policies. I have no proof to offer on this average assumption, it is merely a gut feeling based on my own experience as a child and a parent.
I agree that there will always be exceptions, and the policies should provide for gay adoption with a greater onus being placed on a gay couple to demonstrate that they are one of those exceptions. Natural justice rules should apply, including rights of appeal.RE: Why not? by Brandon
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
Agreed.
Protect unions of two consenting adults and allow them the same benefits.
Are you saying they should specify two, or was that a slip up? Because really, why should the government care if there are more?
Call your union whatever you want, but one name under the law for legal purposes.
Would you oppose using something other than “marriage” as that name? Say, something sterile and generally undesirable like “designated legal partner in personal matters” – or, DLPIPM?