Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

["Truckee" <Truckee@ltol.com>]

Hello Bear,

lobbying our government... now that is an interesting topic. So far this
year I have been down to our state capitol three times for various political
reasons.  On my first time down, I walked into the GLBT caucus when my main
group was done for the day.  I was greeted with "Oh my God" Do you mean that
some one is "out" in your town...  All I could do was smile and say... no I
am just here to support your platform.. That is alright isn't it?  They did
not have any idea what Polyamory is about.  On subsequent visits
relationships have not come up.  I will be meeting again in July and discuss
relationships and the laws in California again at another political
gathering.  I again hope to educate the GLBT caucus more about what
Polyamory can offer.  If any one on this list wishes to bring up issues that
they want me to discuss please write me off list.  What I keep trying to
explain to other law makers is that to regulate love is to limit your way of
thinking.  If to or more people are in love than why not honor their
commitment with a marriage that is fair to everyone.

Truckee



-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+truckee=ltol.com@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+truckee=ltol.com@uupa.org]On Behalf Of Bear
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:46 AM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality


Instead of trying to quote and paste, I am just going to state my view...
ya'll who are reading this thread already know what everyone else has said.

There are many injustices done in our supposedly free country. There are
several issues nationwide, and several more on the local levels, that this
isn't true. In this case, the main point is that I do not wish to have other
peoples religious beliefs imposed on me, just as they wouldn't want mine
imposed on them.  It is supposed to be one of the fundamentals of our great
country.

The current issue is that of what constitutes a family.  This has 2 parts,
legal and moral.

The legal issues are also 2fold: what are familial rights, and how do we
document previously non-familial individuals establishing a new family unit.

Our government recognizes that family members have rights that do not exist
for those outside the family.  For instance, family members have the right
to a higher level of contact in medical situations than non-family.  (your
mother, brother, daughter have the right to come in and see you while you
are in a coma - a right that non-family just do not and should not have).
To keep individuals with power from keeping family from performing as a
family should, there does indeed need to be a codified definition of what
familial rights are.  These issues range from making a standard of
inheritance for those who do not specify, to rights to care for family
members who are incapacitated and unable to care for themselves (physically
and mentally), and decisions on child rearing.  We do not have to let
government decide these issues - we could have a government that looks at
individuals but not family, and then marriage and family rights would not be
legal issues.  I do believe that most people will agree that government
needs to protect family rights.

For those who do not agree, there is your platform - lobby for government to
not have any say in family.  For the rest of us, defining what constitutes a
family unit is where the moral issues interfere.

There is only one family unit that is obvious to me - birth mother and
child.  This is rather direct and self-definable.  The rest is in need of
defining.  Do we grant the biological father familial rights?  The
grandparents? A non genetically related man or woman? Do siblings have
familial rights?  How many people can make a family?  Are there situations
where the birth mother should NOT have familial rights? Does it matter the
gender, age, etc of the adults in a family?  Does a family require some form
of sexual compatability or conformation?

All good questions.  All of them can be argued differently from different
moral backgrounds.  To answer from a moral standpoint is to deny a different
morality their freedom.

I see only one real and workable solution, that also comes in 2 parts (today
is a 2day, pun intended)
1. Let the government set familial rights (hospital visitation, standard
inheritance, etc.) and make non-consent laws (age of participation is based
on ability to make informed and intelligent consent... there are other
issues as well)
2. Let the defining of family be a contractual civil matter, definable by
the contract between consenting signatures... regardless of gender, number,
color etc... Making divorce a "breach of contract" or "release of contract".

This combination allows familial rights to be protected, while not
pressuring one morality on all involved.

Tony
BearDrummer@GMail.com

_______________________________________________
The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
UUPoly-L mailing list
UUPoly-L@uupa.org
http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l