6 Comments

Were it put to a vote again in California, I’d vote to allow civil contracts that are the functional equivalent of marriage, and recognized in law as such. As far a the law is concerned, “marriage” is really just a contract about rights and property. The metaphysical aspects of marriage, and perhaps the word itself, are best left to churches.

(Agreeing with Goracle….head swirling….Landru! Guide me!)

Still, I do not think marriage –gay, straight– is an inherent right of the kinds we recognize under the constitution. I think it should be left to the states whether these contracts are allowed under their law. Whether this would be a violation of the Article I, Sec. 10 provisions about contracts is a question I can’t answer.

–Anthony

Business expansion on a bad economy is near impossible, unless you create new clients out of whole cloth; ergo gay divorce.

My attorney friends can’t wait…. they say lots of them have lots of money.

not that there is anything wrong with that

I’m reminded of the quip “even a broken clock is right twice a day,” but good for Al. If only Rudy had the courage.

… allow civil contracts that are the functional equivalent of marriage, and recognized in law as such. As far a the law is concerned, “marriage” is really just a contract about rights and property.

Property issues can be handled with wills right now. Such contracts as you envision could not be restricted to same sex couples, consider the consequences.

Court: Gay couple married in Massachusetts can’t divorce in R.I.
Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers wed in Massachusetts in 2004 after that state became the first to legalize same-sex marriages. The couple filed for divorce last year in Rhode Island, where they both live, citing irreconcilable differences.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, said the family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce because state lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.

Though the women could divorce in Massachusetts if one moved there for a year, Ormiston said that was an unfair burden and something she would not do. She said she was “embarrassed” for the court.

One can see the can of worms being opened here. If the gender of the people in the union makes no difference, why should the number? Given historical precedent, the polygamists have a stronger leg to stand on than the same sex folks.

Better yet, get the government out of marriage altogether. One does not need a license to have children, why is one required for marriage? Licenses came about after the civil war to prevent miscegenation. Prior to that, people went down to their church, the minister made a note in his records, and that was that.

I agree, Boojum.

We should get the government out of the business of arguing metaphysics at all. This is a perfect example. Heck, “Canon Law” marriage was only for the rich, wealthy and upperclass throughout most of this millennium. Common Law marriages, handfasting etc were far more common and involved two people declaring publicly that they were married and that was that. Even the Biblical story of Mary and Joseph showed a marriage that was basically Joseph hauling Mary to his house in public. The idea that a big ceremony and a church and the government all have to be involved is a product of very modern times.