Same-sex Marriage Helps Heterosexual Marriage (legal, attorney, economic, Massachusetts)

[PurpleLove08]

Gay Marriage Seems to be Helping Straight Marriage (Gay Rights - Change.org)

Well, five years after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, not only has none of these doomsday predictions come true, but Massachusetts ranks as the state with the lowest divorce rate in the entire country.

[groar]

*crickets*

[58robbo]

i have always been on the side of gay marriage but now i'm changing my views. i want heterosexual marriage to go in the direction of gay marriage not vice versa. i'm somewhat perplexed why people would want to be licensed and their relationship to be given the state stamp of approval.

purplelove, please can you tell me what all the benefits and privileges heterosexual couples have that gay couples don't? ie visitation rights etc. can you list all of them?

[groar]

there are about 1400, depending on what state you live in. here are some of the more significant ones:

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

there are a lot of benefits that are not obtainable except through marriage (or in some states, civil unions). and setting up contracts to cover the rest would be an extremely costly process.

i had a friend whose longtime (hetero) partner was stabbed, was in a coma for a while, and then died. because they were not married she had absolutely no say in what happened to him medically, she wasn't allowed to visit him except during normal visiting hours, and she had no say in the funeral arrangements or what happened to his possessions (i guess his money too, although he really didn't have any). instead, his estranged family had control over everything. it just added another level of heartbreak to an already terrible situation. the next guy she was in a serious relationship with, she married. there was a case recently where a woman wasn't allowed to see her dying female partner (who she married in their home state) in a florida hospital because hospital wouldn't recognize their marriage. it gets even more involved when there are kids and one partner is not a biological parent. and of course there are a lot of practical economic benefits as well. that's why people want to have their relationship be "given the state stamp of approval."

my view is that the state should get out of marriage and only perform civil unions that confer all of the rights that marriage currently does. civil unions would be performed between any 2 consenting adults, no romantic relationship necessary. marriage would become the domain of the church, and churches can make their own decisions about who they want to marry. or people can have whatever kind of commitment ceremony they want to have. if marriage is a religious institution, then the state shouldn't be involved in it, period.

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by groar

i had a friend whose longtime (hetero) partner was stabbed, was in a coma for a while, and then died. because they were not married she had absolutely no say in what happened to him medically, she wasn't allowed to visit him except during normal visiting hours, and she had no say in the funeral arrangements or what happened to his possessions.

so what you are saying is that my wife has a greater say than my mother over what treatment i get if i'm in a coma? that is something that i'd want reversed. if i was in thatposition i'd want my mother, father, brother, daughter and then my wife (in that order) to make the decisions for me! is there no opt out?

visitation rights are another one which puzzles me. cannot you not stipulate that were you in an accident i'd want my bf, gf, boss whomever to have full visitation rights. does there really have to be a law surrounding this issue? can this not be left for doctors to decide?

regarding having no say over his possessions, isn't this topic covered in the will?

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by groar

my view is that the state should get out of marriage and only perform civil unions that confer all of the rights that marriage currently does. civil unions would be performed between any 2 consenting adults, no romantic relationship necessary. marriage would become the domain of the church, and churches can make their own decisions about who they want to marry. or people can have whatever kind of commitment ceremony they want to have. if marriage is a religious institution, then the state shouldn't be involved in it, period.

i sort of agree with this point of view. although i think states should stop confering rights on unions fullstop. i don't for instance see why there are tax benefits for married people?! this is deeply unfair to people who'd prefer to remain single.

[artsyguy]

The idea of gay activism is to promote acceptance, fairness, and education of a minority group. It also promotes critical thinking. An example is: Are all the negative things you heard about gay relationships and gay people true? Activism in no way attempts to erode or undermine the majority group.

If you watch documentaries on gays coming out to their families you will realize that a lot of the families had heard through their church that gays are evil and perverse. Reeducation and continuing education about such matters is very important.

[groar]

Originally Posted by 58robbo

so what you are saying is that my wife has a greater say than my mother over what treatment i get if i'm in a coma? that is something that i'd want reversed. if i was in thatposition i'd want my mother, father, brother, daughter and then my wife (in that order) to make the decisions for me! is there no opt out?

if you wrote a living will, you could say who you want making decisions about your medical care. there are a lot of things that can be taken care of with contracts and other legal documents. but why do that when you can confer 1400 rights at once with a $35 marriage certificate?

Originally Posted by 58robbo

visitation rights are another one which puzzles me. cannot you not stipulate that were you in an accident i'd want my bf, gf, boss whomever to have full visitation rights. does there really have to be a law surrounding this issue? can this not be left for doctors to decide?

it's a common, possibly uniform, rule in hospitals - only immediate family are allowed outside of visiting hours and when someone is in critical condition. i am not aware of there being any way to stipulate that certain people should be allowed in to see you. ultimately it is the hospital staff's decision if they want to enforce the rules or look the other way, but what if they're like the ones in that florida case, who won't let a woman see her dying partner because they don't like gay people?

Originally Posted by 58robbo

regarding having no say over his possessions, isn't this topic covered in the will?

it is, but again, 1 marriage license making your partner your next of kin vs. paying a lawyer to draft a ton of contracts, living will, will, power of attorney, adoption, etc, and then paying the filing fees for all of those documents.

and married couples aren't always better off when it comes to taxes, i can say from personal experience. it depends on what your incomes are and how they may differ.