Re: [UUPoly-L] the VP debate last night

[Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>]

--- On Fri, 10/3/08, Wishful Thinking <third_edition@live.com> wrote:

>> I find the view (not new with me, btw) that a national registry of committed relationships, contracted relationships, covenanted relationships, marriages ... whatever you want to call them ... in which people would register each relationship and the rights specifically shared in the relationship appealing. 

On the one hand, I can see some benefits if you are simply recording the existence of such relationships.  On the other hand, I can see the potential for such a list being abused, esp when you include "unconventional" relationship arrangements.

My own view falls a bit short of the hard-boiled libertarian view that government should get out of marriages and domestic partnerships altogether.  I do see a value in government institutions at least acknowledging the existence of formal committed relationships, not to mention how unrealistic it would be to move to such a model from the current state of affairs.  I prefer moving towards having committed relationships based on privately-agreed contracts rather than state-issued licenses, whether you call them marriages or any other name.  Let the members of each such relationship determine the rights, responsibilities, members and duration as they see fit, and keep government's role to simply acknowledging just as deeds and wills are registered, stepping in as an arbiter only when called for by parties directly affected.

Back to the VP and Presidential debates ... It's clear that Obama and Biden are willing to do what McCain and Palin are not -- going beyond merely appealing for the votes of LGBT folks and allies, and actually listening to us.  Even when they fall short, they still come out much more ahead than the GOP ticket.

Desmond Ravenstone

********************

http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone