That's not quite true, there are number of rights that are not rights (contract law provisions, etc.) that can be (and have been) denied to same sex couples that aren't actually married.
See, if an insurance contract (for instance) were to stipulated spouse or married partner, they can choose to exclude someone who's merely their domestic partner. If they're married, that's not an issue. It's 'easier' to change the definition of marriage than it is to change all of these 'rights'.
See, if one of them were in intensive care, and their partner were of the opposite sex... they'd be allowed access regardless of whether they're married or just a girlfriend. If their partner were of the same sex, outside of areas like the bay area, they're likely to be blocked. At least in this case they can say they're the spouse and resolve the situation.
I agree with you on the involvement of the government. I'd rather see something like paperwork for a civil union that grants all of the 'rights' of marriage, minus tax benefits for marriage (I'm okay with tax benefits for dependents)... and then let "marriage" be defined by whatever organization that will perform the service for you.
But that's not going to happen. It's too big of a change, and the people that "got theirs" are going to defend it tooth and nail.
What's sad is that the government got involved in marriage in the US in the first place to block mixed race marriages, so the arguement could be made that the institution of marriage is almost by definition exclusionary.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-24 04:12 pm (UTC)See, if an insurance contract (for instance) were to stipulated spouse or married partner, they can choose to exclude someone who's merely their domestic partner. If they're married, that's not an issue. It's 'easier' to change the definition of marriage than it is to change all of these 'rights'.
See, if one of them were in intensive care, and their partner were of the opposite sex... they'd be allowed access regardless of whether they're married or just a girlfriend. If their partner were of the same sex, outside of areas like the bay area, they're likely to be blocked. At least in this case they can say they're the spouse and resolve the situation.
I agree with you on the involvement of the government. I'd rather see something like paperwork for a civil union that grants all of the 'rights' of marriage, minus tax benefits for marriage (I'm okay with tax benefits for dependents)... and then let "marriage" be defined by whatever organization that will perform the service for you.
But that's not going to happen. It's too big of a change, and the people that "got theirs" are going to defend it tooth and nail.
What's sad is that the government got involved in marriage in the US in the first place to block mixed race marriages, so the arguement could be made that the institution of marriage is almost by definition exclusionary.
People should all have the same rights. Period.