Let us suppose that a federal law is passed which allows gays to have all the rights and privileges of marriages, but is not called a marriage. Let’s say it’s called a civil union, or whatever they decide to call it.
In considering this, I have to admit it sounds an awful lot like you are being told you are “separate but equal.” However, the definition of marriage specifically says “husband and wife” or “man and woman.” So I guess I can see both sides of the argument.
How do you all feel about this? Would you be satisfied with this, or not until you can be “married” to your S.O.?
I don’t think too many gay people would resist it. Also, there is nothing that would prevent the public from calling it marriage or calling the ceremonies weddings. It would just be a technical legal distinction which could be easily ignored in popular vernacular. I think you’d find far more resistance to this from the right than from the left.
Semantics mean very little to me. I agree, call it Shirley.
The reason that the community cannot just go ahead and make a decision based on popularity and not law, is that the legal rights and duties of marriage are numerous. If “Shirley” existed (and was truly equal to marriage except it was between me and my boyfriend instead of me and my girlfirend), then we would pay taxes different, I would automatically be entitled to my boyfriend’s property, I would get to make medical decisions on his behalf if he were uncommunicating, and I would have a lot of other options available to me which are not currently available (even in Vermont) to couples living within a civil union.
Unitl “Shirley” truly equals marriage, its all merely ceremonial. Don’t get me wrong, I think ceremony is very important and has its place. To be truly worthwhile to me, however, the ceremony needs to have some authoritative backing–some real significance.
I seriously doubt thats legally feasible, but many rights are acquirable through other means if you want to pay substantially more for all the fees. I don’t think there’s any way, however, to ensure a will is not contested or to get another person designated as next-of-kin who is not a blood relative.
I am gay, and a lawyer, and have never heard of adult adoptions. What I have heard of, and have drafted for people, are Last Wills and Testaments (LWT) and Durable Power of Attorney. With an LWT, a dead person directs how they want their property split up, and who they want to have be in charge of that somber task. If it is carefully drafted, in most states you can spcifically exclude blood relatives so that they get nothing and the same-sex partner (or lover, or SO, or whatever term you prefer) takes the bulk of the property.
With Durable Powers of Attorney, a living person can appoint a person to act on their behalf in all sorts of situations (e.g., entering inter binding financial obligations, signing tax forms, making healthcare decisions, etc.). In fact, a well drafted and broad Durable Power of Attorney can grant a person many more powers than are typically allowed for a straight husband and wife.
In addition to these documents, gay couples can also be sure and hold themselves out as “together” by designating each other as beneficiaries on life insurance forms and pension forms, by opening a joint bank account, and by buying property tegether (read real property like a house, not personal property like DVDs).
Carefully planning, with the help of qualified experts, can set up a relationship which will give a gay couple a legal relationship which is very similar to marriage. One caveat, however, would be taxes. Unitl Uncle Sam changes the rules, a couple cannot legally file as “married” regardless of how many other documents they may have signed.
Priam is right. A contest to the documents is always possible. But with careful planning, steps can be taken to help ensure that the partner is victorious. There are, however, no 100%, iron-clad gaurantees.
I’m in the ‘call it Shirley, but get it done’ camp.
However, I think that calling it marriage would save a lot of time and trouble on the government’s part. There are currently, I believe, 1049 federal laws which apply to married people; rewriting all of those to include Shirleyed people would seem counterproductive, when instead we can rewrite the legal definition of married couples.
Either way, though, I’d be happy to just have the same rights straight people enjoy.
Well, considering that right now, I feel seperate and not equal, “seperate but equal” would be a big step forward. Please put me down for a Shirley. Then I can start pushing for Poly unions. (Lavern and Shirley?)
So long as it doesn’t end up like the so-called “separate but equal” black schools, no problems here. You want to hold on to marriage as an exclusively heterosexual term? Peachy keen. In fact, I call it better than using it as a blanket term. It’ll give us the chance to continue building our own traditions and ceremonies.
I’d rather be Shirleyed my way than wedded in the stereotypical format. The simple fact which a lot of tolerant people, and even many gay people these days, overlook is that yes gay people are different. Especially gay couples. Where bigots go wrong is assuming that different is inferior, perverted, or sinful. Every couple on the face of this planet is unique in its dynamics, but being same-sex carries dynamics of its own (for good and ill). So give me a blank slate, a Shirley if you will (although personally I prefer Dorothy for these things), to write the verses of my relationship on. Who knows? We’ll at least have the upper hand in access to florists, gowns, and tasteful decorations! Soon maybe straight people will be lining up to get Dorothy’d…
I would certainly be bothered by “separate by equal,” but would probably take advantage of the “Shirley” option if present. But it would have to be absolutely equal. ALL rights EVERYWHERE.
I always said that marriage doesn’t really work all that well for heteros, so why would I bother.
I like the “Shirley” option better…I have been with my SO for 22 years. We basically have few, if any rights. We have made Wills that designate each other as benefactors.
But when it comes down to it, we got squat.
The laws should be changed not only for my lover and myself, but for all (hetero and Gay) people who simply live together and care for each other.
I do, however, want to add that times are changing. My SO recently had to go to the hospital for a serious life threatening operation…at the admission desk, the woman took our information and wrote Domestic Partner next to my name. Everyone at the hospital treated me the same as if we were married. The doctor gave me the info while he was still recovering. The entire staff treated me like a member of his family. They had the legal right to dismiss me as nothing more than a roommate, but didn’t.
The experience showed my how things should be.
I only hope I live to see the day that that is the way things are legally obliged to be.
(Watching the Supreme Court ruling re: Texas Sodomy with great interest.)
I know a few gay women who would prefer a ‘different but equal’ union, because they wouldn’t want to condone the patriarchal marriage system. I know a lot of other gay women who would continue to fight for the traditional wedding. Personally, I would rather just get married, but if, um, ‘Shirley’ has a great chance of becoming legal, then Shirley me up.
If Shirley was created today, it would probably be a lot more suited to our society than ancient marriage. It may include a probationary period, or different rights esp. with regard to children and stepchildren, and obviously a different format. It would also not have the historical baggage of the woman being her husband’s ‘chattel’, arranged marriages, even your own personal history with your parents’ unhappy marriages.
Therefore if this were to happen, I bet some straight couples would start to clamour for the right to be Shirleyed too. If the straight couples then won the right to be Shirleyed (which they should do), that would reinforce the arguments of those gay people who wanted a full wedding. Since the Shirley union would by then have helped with acceptance of gay relationships, there would probably be a lot less objection to allowing gay couples to get married.
Finally, all people straight or gay would have the right to two different kinds of ceremonies, one of which has a long tradition and resonance, one of which is made for modern society. The perfect outcome, IMHO!
I would support the Shirley option, as long as it was explicitly stated that all of the various legal and economic rights and responsiblities of marriage applied equally and automatically to Shirleyization.
The wording of the laws on the books is an illusion, just a very powerful and engrained illusion in the hearts and minds of those who wish to see it explicitly state “man and woman”.
“Shirley” sounds like a lovely bit of legislation to squeeze in there right next to “Marriage”.
Once the power of the illusion has abated, I’m fairly confident that the two concepts would be united on the books.
This is just a question, I’ve seen and heard about marriage ceremonies between gay couples, in Canada as well as the United States. These are strictly ceremonious and have no legal impact, right? I’m pretty sure that’s how it works in Canada, as gay marriages aren’t allowed (because marriage laws are upto provincial governments, which means federal can’t change them, etc. etc.). If anyone could clue me in that’d be great.