Re: OT: What? the clean-shaven outnumber the bearded? "YerUgly Mug," etc.

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Tristan McLeay wrote:
> > (And it would be nothing more than that. The current benefits of
> > marriage (w/sh)ould not be related to marriage.)
>
> So, would you create a new category that would have those benefits, but
not be called marriage,

Vermont, if I'm not mistaken, calls them Civil Unions. The problem now is,
with states passing "Defense of Marriage" acts, Vermont CU's are not
considered legal in those states.  Which violates the Constitution.  Another
problem, that I think has already arisen, is, how do you dissolve a CU??
In some localities, declaring a "Domestic Partnership" gets you certain
benefits, but this can be subject to the whims of the City Council.

or would you simply have no legal recognition of
> those benefits?
That could be done too, which would put everyone on an equal footing.

If there are legally recognized benefits, there would
> have to be some way of defining when those benefits can be had.
>
Rights of community property (in some jurisdictions), support and legitimacy
of children (if any), rights of inheritance are all pretty much axiomatic in
the state called "marriage".  Some goodies, like favorable treatment under
the Tax Code, can be given or taken away at the whim of Congress.  In my
view, there is no intrinsic reason why ANY two adults, who decide to commit
their lives to a partnership, should not be entitled to do so and to obtain
whatever benefits that entails.

As Stone mentioned, he and his partner went through a lot of legal rigmarole
to establish their union.  But there is always the danger that an unfriendly
judge could throw the whole thing out.

In this country, you may marry only by license from the state.  So much for
the idea that Marriage is an institution "ordained of God."   OTOH, if
marriage were _strictly_ a religious matter, and your church disallows
same-sex marriage, it would be a simple matter to join a church that does.