Gotta have a government-recognized binding contract so your spouse can make legal decisions for you. Call it whatever you want (marriage cert, domestic partner) but it has to be the same for all people under the law.
This is part of what the fight for marriage equality was all about. Spouses were unable to see their partners in the hospital, or get custody of children, or inherit, etc. etc. Some people tried to draw up legal agreements, but they ran into obstacles with other family members taking them to court. Remember, “Separate, but equal is inherently unequal.”
I feel like that’s kind of the point they’re making
When you tie so many of those things to marriage, you’ve created an inherent inequality between married people and unmarried people.
Let the idea of “marriage” be up to you, your spouse(s) and whatever god(s) you think may exist.
And let people sort all the rest of it out for themselves.
For example
You can have your spouse and kids covered under your health insurance that you have through work. You don’t necessarily need to live together or even be on good speaking terms as long as you have that piece of paper that says you’re married.
So why shouldn’t you be able to share those benefits with someone else of your choosing? Maybe you’re single and would like to make sure that your best friend and their kids who you see all the time and think of each other as family can go see the doctor when they need to. You probably have a closer relationship with them than someone with an estranged wife and kids they never talk to, why shouldn’t you be able to add them onto your health insurance?
Gotta have a government-recognized binding contract so your spouse can make legal decisions for you. Call it whatever you want (marriage cert, domestic partner) but it has to be the same for all people under the law.
This is part of what the fight for marriage equality was all about. Spouses were unable to see their partners in the hospital, or get custody of children, or inherit, etc. etc. Some people tried to draw up legal agreements, but they ran into obstacles with other family members taking them to court. Remember, “Separate, but equal is inherently unequal.”
I feel like that’s kind of the point they’re making
When you tie so many of those things to marriage, you’ve created an inherent inequality between married people and unmarried people.
Let the idea of “marriage” be up to you, your spouse(s) and whatever god(s) you think may exist.
And let people sort all the rest of it out for themselves.
For example
You can have your spouse and kids covered under your health insurance that you have through work. You don’t necessarily need to live together or even be on good speaking terms as long as you have that piece of paper that says you’re married.
So why shouldn’t you be able to share those benefits with someone else of your choosing? Maybe you’re single and would like to make sure that your best friend and their kids who you see all the time and think of each other as family can go see the doctor when they need to. You probably have a closer relationship with them than someone with an estranged wife and kids they never talk to, why shouldn’t you be able to add them onto your health insurance?
I’ve been making this argument for years. Gay marriage rights were always missing the mark.
It’s a partnership, like partners at a law firm. Doesn’t need to be any different.