Where do these people come from?

[giza]

An actual piece of campaign literature that arrived in someone's mail:



This Cheyrl Guthrie person makes me want to projectile vomit.

Comments

[rassah.livejournal.com]

What about power of attorney, inheritance, medical and funeral decisions, legal issues such as not being forced to testify against your partner, child ownership and decision rights, immigration rights for partners from other countries, etc? Some of those cost up to $3,000 per legal contract to set up separately, and many others are not available at all. Marriage contract, which I don't believe is a religion-owned word/status, costs about $25 to sign, confers all of these at once.
Here's a more exhaustive list of things besides just "health care and taxes"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

I think we're of two different mind sets.
I'm of the belief that as a person, I have an unlimited ability to contract. And as such, I can setup all those things legally without being married to anyone. I know because I already have a Health Care Power of Attorney, not to mention a will, and joint ownership of some things. A lot of this can be done at notaries, banks, and the like.
Costs. Again, that's entirely up to who you get it done with.
As for a lot of those other situations, I say change the laws that created those debacles. A child has two biological parents. Unless they are mistreating the child, or they've been adopted, then we kinda already know who "owns" and is responsible for them. And as for adoption, why can't a child have two guardians that aren't related?
The biggest reason I don't like marriage is that it is a union of three people, not two. You, your spouse, and the state. From that point forward your business, your property, your concerns, even your children, are now shared with the state. I really don't care for that kind of problem in my life.

On a side note, I have friends who have significant others. They share houses, cars, even have children, but they aren't married. And these are heterosexual couples.
So it's more than possible.

I will say this, you got me on the immigration one. See, everything up to now involves two people that are already citizens contracting with one another, so to speak. Dealing with someone who you technically can't deal with on a legal level leaves a gray area.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

Heterosexual unmarried couples living together and sharing their lives are just as much at risk as same-sex couples. They're just either as ignorant of the benefits, or believe the risks of marriage and headaches involved with it outweigh the benefits (or both). As I mentioned, there are many things you can get with marriage that you simply can not get as a contract by itself, besides the immigration one. Sure, we can add those 1000+ contracts to our legal system, but why bother if we already have them within marriage?
Regarding costs, the biggest one is information - more specifically lawyers - and that's why it would cost so much to set up all these contracts individually.
As for the state, technically, isn't *every* contract you get with someone else a contract between the two of you and the state's legal system, and thus a contract between 3 people? Expanding even more on this, isn't getting a similar contract from a private entity, such as a corporation, basically putting your contract and trust into a group governed by and voted on by the people (shareholders)? How would that be different from putting trust into the group governed by and voted on by the people we call "government?"

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about the contract being privy to the jurisdiction of the state, I'm talking about the state actually being a party in the contract(marriage license).
It's not too dissimilar to car "ownership", where the belief is that if you have a title you own the car. This is a fallacy. The holder of the MSO(Manufacturer's Statement of Origin) is the owner. Who has that? The state. They then in turn issue you a title to their car, in which you have to register it with them and pay rent(fees/tax).
This gets down to the bigger issue. Rights, both personal and property. As soon as you need someone to issue a permit, certificate, title, or whatever to do something, it becomes a privilege and you loose that right. I shouldn't have to ask "Mother may I?" to do these things.

Tell you what, bring back common law marriage, make it non-gender specific, and I'll be all over that. I want to declare my marriage, not ask for it.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

We have common law marriage here in Maryland. It does give a lot of the same rights as full marriage, but still not close to everything. And it still can not be used by same-sex couples :6 Plus I can declare my relationship to be a marriage, and have a wedding as well. Problem is that in the legal system we will be treated as strangers. Are you proposing being able to declare how you think certain parts of the law should apply to you in certain cases at specific times? (As in, yeah, "I may have been considered a witness to a crime last week, but this week I am declaring myself immune to questioning and prosecutions, and thus declare I can ignore that law")
But, valid points all. I guess we, as a people, have decided that there should be a reason for some of these permits, titles, certificates, or whatever, and now we are all dealing with our own consequences.

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

I suppose I got a little soap boxy back there. :p
Though, I'm not contesting being subpoenaed to testify before a court.
I mean that common law marriage should have the same standing as state certified marriage. As long as both spouses are consenting, who gives a shit?

[rassah.livejournal.com]

The third party that either enforces, or challenges contracts is the party that "gives a shit." Both common law and state certified marriages give rights that are only valid during times of outside influence, be it a challenge on inheritance by a wayward family member, or a challenge on a request for benefits by the government or an insurance agency. That's where a third party, be it a private entity or the government, comes in to enforce or better define the contract. So, if you and your partner are consenting, and have a contract between the two of you, that contract will only go as far as keeping the two of you in agreement over the terms. If one of you dies or becomes incapacitated, you are still strangers and have no contract in the eyes of the people and groups that actually matter :/ I think the only question remains is who do you want to entrust and enforce that contract through: government or a private entity.
P.S. not trying to be soapboxy, either. You have points and facts I had not considered and was not aware of, am glad to learn these from you, and appreciate being able to bounce my ideas off of your brain as it were.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

Ok, that was kinda long on my part, and reading again, I think I may have missed your point. I'm assuming you meant "outside parties should not give a shit as to who enters into a contract, regardless of who those outside parties are." In that case, I agree with you %100 (with extent that the outside parties are absolutely sure that the people entering into the contract are doing it willingly and consentiously, of course :)