…and this in itself is an excellent point. The main issue under debate here, as far as I can tell, is what the law should say about a “same-sex arrangement”. You seem to have just acknowledged that any argument for MFM must rely on religion and/or morality. Where is the connection that the law should be influenced by either?
The law need not be religious, or even necessarily moral.
…tch, and here’s the other disconnect. The rest of your post hinges on this part here, so let’s deal with it first. Imagine two couples as examples: In the first, you have a man and a woman, both with college degrees working full-time, with no children. In the second, you have two men, one of whom works full-time and the other stays home to care for his 2-year old adopted son and take care of housework.
Neither couple is implausible, and the latter sounds much more like your hypothetical “OFM”. Except that’s also the same-sex one. Hmmmm. You may want to say that the conditions I described are not common; that may be right (or it may not, I can’t say for sure) but you cannot claim either is impossible.
As far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing that the law should support two-person permanent relationships where one partner works and the other raises children. Fine, that’s a valid position to take, and is not at all unreasonable. But this–in and of itself–does NOT generalize to homosexual versus heterosexual. Would you support a law granting legal marriage status to any couple regardless of gender who fit the breadwinner-homemaker model, and no legal recognition regardless of gender to couples who don’t?
To clear this up a bit: According to my Property professor, tenancy by the entirety is available in about forty percent of states. minty, you may be thinking of community property, which is only available in nine states (including Hawaii). The difference between the two is as follows:
In a tenancy by the entirety, husband and wife share an interest in the whole estate (all property of each party). One spouse’s property share automatically passes to the other spouse upon death.
With community property, all property acquired by husband and wife through earnings after marriage (marital property)is shared equally. Upon death of a spouse, that spouse’s estate would then receive half of the marital property.
Joint tenancy, by contrast, may be held by two or more unmarried parties. It seems pretty much like tenancy by the entirety–right of survivorship, etc.–and I’m not sure (for division of property) why it wouldn’t work just fine for gay couples.
Gadarene
As it was explained to me, the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy by the entirety is that in a joint tenancy each person owns half and in tenancy by the entirety, the couple,as a unit (sort of like a marital corporation), owns the whole. Neither can sell “their half” out from under the other and the house is only vulnerable to judgements and liens if both parties are liable.
'Kay, makes sense. It’s true that shares in joint tenancy can be transferred, though to do so would destroy the survivorship rights. Thanks for the clarification, doreen.
