First step to gay marriage?

September 6, 2001 4:27 AM

First step to gay marriage? Or just more money in the coffers for Ken Livingstone (I think they have to pay to register)? I can't see this having any impact outside London.
posted by Summer (5 comments total)

It's great that changes are being made, but this seems a little pointless. I think my view is fairly representative of gay men in that I want long-term cohabiting gay couples to have the same rights as long-term cohabiting heterosexual couples, which should be the same as for married heterosexual couples. I really don't want to dress in cream suits and have an embarrassing wedding. Just recognition is enough.
posted by creeky at 5:22 AM on September 6, 2001

I think the major sticking points are benefits that are accorded to married couples, moreso than the actual event. Example: Pension benefits after death, health insurance, same visitation rights when partner is hospitalized, acknowledgement in career (take this ham to the little missy, but since you're single none for you), etc.

Of course I wouldn't mind a wedding myself. But cream suits? Yech. Maybe just some nice black suits would do, a small affair with close friends and family, nothing extravagent. Maybe you couldn't even call it a Wedding, but a party with a committment ceremony. That would be nice, only because I like a good dinner party. I could do that without government recognition though.

But, my stance has been for some time that I view marriage as a religious thing. Religious people view marriage as a religious thing. Thats fine. Then the government has no place sanctioning marriage. They should have, perhaps, a "committment contract" or something to show two people together. But then why is it illegal to marry more than one person, but because of religious implications. The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. But since that probably isn't going to happen, there needs to be equality for all.
posted by benjh at 7:52 AM on September 6, 2001

I'd like a totally non-emotional contract you could draw up between partners, gay or straight, that gave you total legal rights, one that you could pull out of really easily. The idea of marriage has always horrified me, mainly because I think my relationship is nobody else's business, especially not the state's.
posted by Summer at 8:48 AM on September 6, 2001

I think that all preferences to dress in cream colored suits, have a religious ceremony, or float in a vat of spaghetti after the ceremony are just that: preferences. The bottom line is that you need to protect yourself, your partner, and your assets in case anything happens to either of you that leaves one of you dead or in a vegetative state. Whether you sign a state sponsored document or not, you should sign some type of legally recognized contract that recognizes the relationship and provides rights to property or power of attorney to your partner.
posted by thibadeau at 11:57 AM on September 6, 2001

thibadeau: True, and it's what I plan on doing with my partner. However, there are still issues, namely having to dig up the papers (and possibly your lawyer with them) for the hospital, etc. They'll tell the guy next to me, "oh, you're Mrs. Doe's husband? Right this way sir." They'll tell me, "visiting hours ended half an hour ago, sir."

Of course, that's ojnle a huge concern because it's, generally, time-sensitive, much more so than things like power of attorney and inheritance rights, etc.

Oh, and remember to have anything you sign witnessed by someone, preferably someone with authority (like a lawyer, or a...notary public, is it?). Otherwise you'll have a hell of a time if you actually need to use the contracts.
posted by CrayDrygu at 6:39 PM on September 6, 2001