?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Whole Gay Marriage Thang

I'm pleased for the people who have been able to go to City Hall in SF and get themselves hitched, but I'm confused about a couple of issues.

1. What is the likelihood that someone is going to come along at some point and say that all these marriages that have been performed are invalid and that no legal spousal rights are therefore conferred?

2. "Marriage" is two entirely separate things - legal and societal. I'm sort of assuming here that these people have had societal marriages for a long time. Is the whole legal thing just to bring this issue to the forefront because it's being overtly threatened now?

3. Is the mayor of S.F. suicidal? I can just see some guy from Dubuque flying out and taking him out. That wouldn't be good.

To me, the societal contract (I'm with you and I want everyone to know it) has always been the really important part of marriage. I've always wished that everything else (like insurance, inheritance, etc.) was on an "I say so" basis, meaning "This person is on my insurance because I say so."

It would be nice to cover other people who are in my circle, not just my children or spouse. It would be nice to be able to add my aged mother (when I get one - mine's still young) to my insurance. I was on her insurance when I was a child and incapable of caring for myself, why can't she be on mine when she's old and can't take care of herself?

I think that this particular challenge to the legal aspects of partnership is great for gays, but doesn't tackle the deeper issue. Going from "have not" to "have" in our society is incredibly difficult, and it shouldn't be.

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
kr8vkat
Feb. 14th, 2004 08:31 am (UTC)
The biggest reason I considered marraige to a past boyfriend was to get him insurance converage. I was pissed that I couldn't add him to my policy - we lived together for two years. Now, both of us are uninsured. Sucks.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )