Just one big paragraph, because mostly I'm in way too good a mood to be snarky about this for long.

[go_team]

So last year a few thousand same-sex couples got married in Portland, and a few months later Oregon passed a same-sex marriage ban, Measure 36, in response. Then last month the state Supreme Court decided to punt on the bigotry amendment's constitutionality or lack thereof and overturned all those marriages basically on the grounds that queers were already and still are second-class citizens even without Measure 36. At the same time that decision was being handed down, a civil unions bill got introduced that basically says "every time the law says 'marriage', substitute 'marriage or civil union'." I'm not 100% sure, but I somehow suspect that these civil unions will be queers only, no opposite-sex couples allowed. But whatever, it's a starting place for continued legal battles of doom. Meanwhile, the anti-same-sex marriage crowd has introduced a "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill, like a weaker version of what Hawaii's got, which is good not just for same-sex couples but also for say, siblings or roommates or grandparents and grandchildren, or basically any two people who want to designate each other with certain rights and privileges more limited than those granted by marriage. The idea is to make civil unions look too extreme or something, and I'm supposed to be up in arms about it, according to the latest action alert email . But really, I want both of these bills to pass. Duh. Anything that helps raise awareness of the fact that legal marriage is just a standardized contract, but that really there's a lot of different ways for relationships to be structured, legally or otherwise, is awesome by me. And reciprocal beneficiary stuff, while basically just a standardized version of stuff like inheritance and power of attorney that can already be arranged if you're motivated enough to get a lawyer to set up the contracts, is more inclusive than same-sex-only civil unions. Grawr. I know that if reciprocal benificiary stuff gets passed first, then wankers are going to argue that civil unions aren't necessary, just like the Measure 36 campaign ran ads claiming queers could get all the rights and privileges of marriage through contract law, but no. What we need to do is holler, loud and clear, that both of these laws are a good idea, they should both pass, and p.s. if civil unions really are the same as legal marriage then frickin' well make them open to opposite-sex couples and make legal marriage obsolete while you're at it. Duh. (That last should probably be my secret agenda, huh? People really seem to like the m-word. Oh well. Oops!)

Comments

[bettsbaby.livejournal.com]

Just a little ra-ra-ra for Massachusetts here...

Mark and I went to get our marriage license last week and it was clearly written in a way that "Party 1" and "Party 2" could be whatever sex you want. When the lady (mid to late 50-ish) reviewed it after we had filled it out and saw we were combining names she rolled her eyes and said "Oh you guys..." and I thought "Oh no, here it comes" but then she finished with "...are so cool! That is the neatest thing! I've never seen that, but I think that is really great." And my belief that Massachusetts is the only place I want to participate in the legal part of marriage was affirmed. :)

[qousqous.livejournal.com]

I've decided that if i get married, it's going to be in Massachusetts or Canada or the Netherlands or Belgium or anywhere else where it's fair.

But then the question(s) is (are)...

[goteam.livejournal.com]

If you got married in MA, what status would you use to file U.S. federal taxes? (Look at me, only just barely not going off on the huge rant about how it's ricockulous to divide people into "married" and "single" instead of "married" and "unmarried"! Feel free, of course, to imagine me ranting if you feel deprived of the ridiculousness.) Likewise, I've considered the Netherlands option but I'm not sure I want to stay in the Netherlands or lie to the U.S. government or fight for the right to be recognized as unmarried so long as the laws here remain unequal. Bleaurgh. I'm so glad I can afford to stay unmarried and avoid all these issues, not to mention all the personal cognitive dissonance crap. Instead, self-righteousness galore!

Re: But then the question(s) is (are)...

[unkle-social.livejournal.com]

Oh dear, i don't know. I might take advantage of the opportunity to give the US government less money.

I would be willing to get hitched in the Netherlands, but of course, unlike you, i wouldn't be able to stay there.

It's a mess. I am all for doing away with legal marriage and replacing it all with civil unions.

Re: But then the question(s) is (are)...

[qousqous.livejournal.com]

er, oops, that was supposed to be from me. i don't think she can even see that entry. how bizarre!

[pants-of-doom.livejournal.com]

The reciprocal beneficiaries stuff is awesome. I'd like to have a way of doing things where you could select which kinds of legal coverage you wanted in addition to having a couple of standard types for whoever doesn't want to actually read the fine print and understand what they're getting into.