Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever

[Roza <alliumphobia@hotmail.com>]

i agree with much of what i've read here on this topic.  my parents' uu minister, for several years, was perfectly happy to marry anyone who asked her to marry them, regardless of gender.  but she would not sign the marriage license, although she did it for reasons of equality, adn if she couldn't legally marry gay couples, she wouldn't legally marry anyone.  i wonder what she'll do now that gay marriage is legal in CT, where her church is.
i really like the idea of drawing up a contract between the people wishing to be married to each other and filing that with the government, or wherever.  however, currently, there are 1100 federal laws giving benefits to married couples.  i'm not sure that most people would be able to remember all those benefits, as well as local benefits.  i think as a civil/legal matter, 'marriage' (or civil union) should be opened to anyone who wants to partake of it at the governmental level, but that the religious end of things can be more personalized.
roza

Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.



> From: licorice.gumdrop@gmail.com
> To: alisaww@comcast.net; uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:09:46 -0500
> CC: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] marriage/civil union/whatever
> 
> IMO, "marriage" is a religious/spiritual concept, not a civil one.
> 
> I'd like to see the gov't out of the marriage business - I don't think  
> it has any business defining relationships between consenting adults,  
> which is what it's doing.
> 
> this isn't to say that the benefits currently bestowed by the gov't on  
> heterosexual unions don't have a valuable, stabilizing effect on  
> society. property rights, pension benefits, etc., all allow adults a  
> level of certainty in sharing their resources that is beneficial to  
> the system as a whole, and quite frankly, would be a nightmare to  
> unravel. but there's no reason these benefits should be limited to  
> couples, or even poly groupings. they could also be extended to  
> sibling affiliations, or to any other grouping of people willing to  
> take responsibility for each other.
> 
> I'd like to see a system whereby the gov't recognizes adult  
> affiliation, in whatever form it might take. the policing could be  
> limited to making sure individuals don't "double dip" impermissibly  
> (such as naming two beneficiaries for a pension and trying to get the  
> whole sum for both.)
> 
> just my two cents.
> 
> -j
> 
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 11:30 AM, "Alisa WW" <alisaww@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> >> Of course if poly unions ever take off, the legal aspects will get
> >> interesting, but that's what they get paid the big bucks to sort out,
> >> right?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Have fun with this thought,
> >>>       Francesca
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008