Since any proposition that attempts to discriminate against gay and lesbians is an attack on homosexuality in general it is a shame that the proposition was passed but I would ask a more general question. Why should the state of California or any government in general believe it is correct to bless or not any union - same sex or not? I feel there is an implicit assumption that somehow a relationship is less valid if not ratified by the government which I'd disagree with. What some opposers say is that the reason that a government should recognise marriage is that if there are children then it is worth supporting the marriage to give the children both male and female parents. A same sex marriage does not have the same presumption of parenthood so should not need the same state sponsorship. What I am clumsily trying to say is that this is not simply an issue about whether a same sex union is the same as a different sex one it is also about what is the purpose of marriage. The religious ceremonies I have attended make it clear that it is about bringing up children in the right way. If you accept that (and to some extent I do) then you only need to get married if you intend to have children.
There are three general purposes of marriage as I understand it. Leaving aside child-rearing that leaves: 1) Union of property, which the state can get involved with for tax purposes sometimes allowing you to merge your income tax allowances, allowing capital gains tax free transfers of assets, and, crucially allowing IHT exempt inheritance. It also sets general rules for undividing property when the union breaks up. This is the most practical value of marriage for the child-free, but I'd say that purpose 2 goes to the heart of the matter. 2) Declaration that the spouse, and not your parents, is your next of kin for all practical purposes; becomes very important in medical cases.
Most of the stuff can be done on an ad hoc basis for cohabitees, but it's very handy to be able to make a big formal declaration that "This person is my next of kin, we will hold our property in common until this partnership is dissolved," that bundles all the paperwork into one certificate.
That's true but I think that both of those could be done more cheaply and flexibly with a simple contract. I think the inheritance tax exemption is mostly a perk so the government doesn't have to turf too many poor old ladies out of the family home. Of the couple of dozen weddings I have attended in a non professional capacity (I was also a choir boy) I reckon the most common reason for getting married is the desire to share one's love with friends and family and to make a formal commitment. This requires no government seal of approval and I have generally preferred the religious and humanist ceremonies I have attended to the civil ceremonies.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brixtonbrood![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 12:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 04:42 pm (UTC)What some opposers say is that the reason that a government should recognise marriage is that if there are children then it is worth supporting the marriage to give the children both male and female parents. A same sex marriage does not have the same presumption of parenthood so should not need the same state sponsorship. What I am clumsily trying to say is that this is not simply an issue about whether a same sex union is the same as a different sex one it is also about what is the purpose of marriage. The religious ceremonies I have attended make it clear that it is about bringing up children in the right way. If you accept that (and to some extent I do) then you only need to get married if you intend to have children.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 05:08 pm (UTC)1) Union of property, which the state can get involved with for tax purposes sometimes allowing you to merge your income tax allowances, allowing capital gains tax free transfers of assets, and, crucially allowing IHT exempt inheritance. It also sets general rules for undividing property when the union breaks up. This is the most practical value of marriage for the child-free, but I'd say that purpose 2 goes to the heart of the matter.
2) Declaration that the spouse, and not your parents, is your next of kin for all practical purposes; becomes very important in medical cases.
Most of the stuff can be done on an ad hoc basis for cohabitees, but it's very handy to be able to make a big formal declaration that "This person is my next of kin, we will hold our property in common until this partnership is dissolved," that bundles all the paperwork into one certificate.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 02:40 pm (UTC)Of the couple of dozen weddings I have attended in a non professional capacity (I was also a choir boy) I reckon the most common reason for getting married is the desire to share one's love with friends and family and to make a formal commitment. This requires no government seal of approval and I have generally preferred the religious and humanist ceremonies I have attended to the civil ceremonies.