A Suggestion to Defuse the Gay Marriage Bomb

[Occulus]

Let's face it: the term "gay marriage" is offensive to most married and unmarried people alike. They see it as gay people wanting "special rights" that we don't legitimately deserve- and they ignore the hypocrisy of divorce rate statistics and the influence of homosexuals on children (a complete myth; a fabrication).

Shouting that all we want is for our relationships to be recognized as legitimate doesn't help, because they see our relationship as "sinful" and that will never change. We simply cannot convince them otherwise. Perhaps, this being part of their religious beliefs, we should not.

There are other reasons. They don't see our "type" of relationship (people who don't "naturally" love each other) as legitimately deserving of any sort of break or benefit- mostly because we, to them, made a "lifestyle choice". Answering that marriage and childbearing are themselves, when considered together, "lifestyle choices", doesn't even make them blink because accoring to their religion, it's the right choice.

I think the answer to getting them behind an initiative that would support GLBT relationships is to make it about more than GLBT relationships- and I don't mean by calling it a "civil union". I think perhaps what we need to, for now, accept is that it needs to be not really about GLBTs at all.

I'm thinking about three groups right now, GLBTs being one. The other two would be seniors and college students.

College students? I mean, gay college students, right?

Wrong.

What I'm talking about is a "joined household" law. Something which would allow any two or more people, after a certain set period of time living together, qualify as a household for tax purposes. Inwardly, within the relationship, we could call it whatever we wanted to for ourselves, and we could still find receptive priests to conduct our ceremonies in private. But this wouldn't just be about us.

It would primarily be put forth- preferably- as for the otehr two groups: seniors and students. Seniors, because many of them don't want to go through the rigamarole of getting married all over again, and all that process implies. If after, say, three or four years of living together, they wanted to join their incomes and set up wills and so forth, they ought to be able to. They've certainly, by their very age, earned the right to as much security as they can get!

As for the final group, being students, I would say this: wouldn't it be nice if they were able to pick a roommate they knew they could get along with and, once they graduated, they could both go to grad school or something with a reduced tax obligation? We could make it immediate upon completion of an apartment lease for living together for two years or something to get these groups onboard (fast-track their benefit), but we would have to say that it doesn't mean you're gay (and they will try to say that if we did such a thing).

Or should we just openly forget about anything protecting or benefiting the GLBT citizens of America?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I have a better idea

We'll all leave America if they arrange for us to get political asylum in the French Riviera and pay our moving expenses and purchase villas for us. They get their theocracy, we get France.

[one_true_leroy]

3. France??!!

You're really settling...

[one_true_leroy]

2. ABSOLUTELY!!!

I believe ANYONE should be able to declare themselves a household or civil partnership for tax and other purposes. As an unmarried rapidly approaching 30 yo hetero male, I know that if anything happens to me, by default, my 'estate' (my precious guitars and CD's) will go to my parents and my remains will be handled by them. This despite my best friend since puberty knowing me and my wishes FAR better than my parents would. I believe that any group of people can enter into a business partnership with legal and tax protections, rights, and responsibilities, so they should be able to enter an analogous personal partnership. Mariage, IMO, should remain a religious institution sanctioned by God/dess/s and a church's interpretation of the will of the divine.

[Droopy]

4. I guess it would be a step in the right direction

I guess there were anit-gay marriage proposals to amend state constitutions in many states to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It broke my heart when I saw that on the ballot because I knew it was going to pass. Our gay brothers and sisters deserve so much better than that, and those amendments have made the fight for equal rights an even more of an uphill battle than it was before. My heart goes out to you all.

[Occulus]

5. those amendments give the nod to other things as well

Things like not allowing gays to rent, to hold their jobs, etc. I go to work at 4:30 today; we'll see if any masks fall while I'm there.

I'm considering not even going in today. I don't know if I can handle it...