THIS IS IT. Gay Marriage Goes B4 Cali Supreme Court Today!

[Alex]

Obviously, those things would change if the official government institution went away. But all the "by marriage" inheritance rules are just shortcuts that are easily handled in the estate planning you should be doing anyway.

But yes, there'd definitely be a period of transition where things have to get figured out. Just as the invention of gay divorce is proving to have all kinds of unconsidered quirks in those places where it was just adjudicated into law (especially because the state rules don't match the federal ones).

But if it happened, in very short order there would be standard tested pre-made contracts that most people would just fill in various blanks and sign. But I have no problem with it being a hurdle. Drop the hurdle for making emotional commitments to each other but it is probably a good thing if people actually thought through the financial and long term implications of what it means to join together into those ways.


Anyway, it's all moot since it will never happen. Government does not give up authority it already has.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

It's significantly more difficult to draw up each contract

Why would it be difficult? Just take the language that applies to marriages, slap it in a standard "legal partnership form", sign the dotted line. Voila.

and there are some things not available at all under contract, only by marriage. I think those are about inheritance and some Federal benefits. I haven't looked into it for a while.

Only because current marriage law prevents it. Remove the marriage laws and private parties could make whatever agreement they please.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

[color=Black]Why would it be difficult? Just take the language that applies to marriages, slap it in a standard "legal partnership form", sign the dotted line. Voila.

Only because current marriage law prevents it. Remove the marriage laws and private parties could make whatever agreement they please.

No, no, no, no, no.

You're asking to abolish marriage entirely and have the entire system be contractual only, which completely ignores the fact that the government, OR ANY OTHER ENTITY (lets say hospitals, funeral homes, etc.) as a third parties, don't have to do diddly sh*t with respect to that contract.

Plus you ain't gonna do away with marriage entirely. It is too ingrained in our society. (It would be like, let's do away with the concept of blood relatives and family...yeah that's really gonna fly) Accept it and move on.

Two women have a baby. They "contract" that the baby is both of theirs. Congratulations. Then the women grow bitter of each other. The "birth mother" decides that the baby is hers, and hers only, and...wow the law is going to side with her as long as she isn't smoking crack in her bedroom (and even then, it may be okay). But ho-ho! They have a CONTRACT! Ummm sorry sister, not legally binding!!!

Or maybe John is in the hospital, family members only (if we haven't abolished the concept of family in this alterna-world). Mark, his life partner, wants to see him. Hospital staff says no. But ho-ho! They have a CONTRACT!!! Good for Mark, but do you see the HOSPITAL's signature on that contract? Please, please find it for me. Sorry Mark, you get to wait in the parking garage while John's family makes decisions about how John was in no capacity to write that will giving everything to Mark. Ooopsie!

In a contract, parties make an exchange of promises to do things for consideration (i.e. money). I can't contract with Not Afraid for Disneyphile to bring me bon-bons to eat every Sunday, unless Disneyphile owed Not Afraid the bon-bons every Sunday to begin with.

Gays and lesbians have been trying for many years to create a "quasi-marriage" relationship via contract -- you think a regular family law divorce is bad? Try dissolving that stuff when it's contractual only. I've been to seminars which talked about this -- and the legal nightmare that is created in trying to "divorce" and/or enforce the contract would turn your curly hairs white (and that's BEFORE you get the attorney's bill).

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Gays and lesbians have been trying for many years to create a "quasi-marriage" relationship via contract -- you think a regular family law divorce is bad? Try dissolving that stuff when it's contractual only. I've been to seminars which talked about this -- and the legal nightmare that is created in trying to "divorce" and/or enforce the contract would turn your curly hairs white (and that's BEFORE you get the attorney's bill).

But I would argue that a large reason this is difficult is because it is forced to operate within the existing structure where government has carved out for itself the primary responsibility for establishing control over such relationships and therefore private contracts must be something less significant.

Also, responsibilities towards children have already been largely rewritten to exist independent of marriage exactly because government defined marriage has proven inadequate to the realities of how people actually live. So I would say it is the current institution of marriage that doesn't seem to take human nature into account and not vice versa (I know it wasn't you that said that part).

But you're right. The idea of state sanctioned marriage and looking to your politicians to define the obligations thereof is way too ingrained to go away. But then, the inherent assumptions of societies sometimes change very quickly so I'll hold out hope.


But again on the topic at hand, good luck and I hope everybody doesn't regret getting what they wished for.

[lashbear]

I want DP to do the centrepieces for mine. When it happens. Eventually.

...our government are slow-movers on this issue too.

[tracilicious]

I recently saw Alix Olsen, spoken word artist and political activist, perform wearing a shirt that said, "No Divorce For Straights." It was pretty funny. I agree with most everything said in this thread. Here's hoping!

[Chernabog]

Updates on what's going on (the questions asked, etc.):

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_844953...ce=most_viewed

[Gemini Cricket]

In Boston, when the issue came up before the courts, I watched the back and forth between the protesters in front of the city capital. I found it interesting that the pro-gay marriage protesters were local people and the anti-gay marriage people were carted to the capital in shuttles, were from either out of state or out of the country (some barely spoke English) and were paid to be there. Actually, I think there was one nun there on the anti-marriage side who was from a local parish.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hospitals are already adapting to the emerging concept of a living will. The only reason they get away with ignoring other agreements is that they are supported by existing laws that can override them. If those didn't exist it'd be a different story.

Unfortunately Alex is right that the odds of the government giving up that control are low. I'm with NM that the ideal solution would be for the government to butt out, for people to be allowed to make their own decision as to who their legal partner is. With the concept of government recognized marriage non-existent, hospitals and other entities would have no choice but to go by those agreements. But it's all too ingrained in the culture at this point for that to ever happen.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

With the concept of government recognized marriage non-existent, hospitals and other entities would have no choice but to go by those agreements.

LMAO... why? Health Insurance Co., of which Party A is a member, is going to pay for Party B, just because Party A and B have a contract together? Absolutely not, at least there's no legal requirement to. Plus, anyone could just contract with anyone for health insurance benefits... hell, how about multiple contracts with multiple partners? Health Insurance Co. is going to pay for Party B (and Parties C-Z because they also have contracts) because it's nice customer service? One thing I know about Health Insurance Companies is how much they loooooooooooove to pay out on claims that they aren't required to by the contract that THEY actually signed.

But it's all too ingrained in the culture at this point for that to ever happen.

Exactly... I'm just being, you know, "reality" based hehe "Just get rid of it all and do it by contract" or "just keep the current system and do it all by contract" are either unrealistic solutions or are riddled with nuclear legal landmines for the simplest of situations.