I just came across another one of these damn news items about some sort of gay marriage/domestic partnership proposal that the voters in Washington State got to decide on last week.I'm really quite sick of this entire matter; with all the other things bedeviling our nation and our world, this bizarre obsession that certain groups - obviously, mostly religious groups - have about ensuring that never, ever, not ever will two men or two women be able to call each other "the little woman" or "my hubby", ever.
Frankly, their religious obsession is their own business, and in the confines of their own home or where-ever it is that they do their religious business they are free to let their inner whack run free.Transfer your ownership of your daughter to her new hubby - don't forget the full disclosure and the extended warranty, dad. Do the "covenant marriage" thing, swear your woman to obedience and whatever, guy. Let your inner Jesus Freak hang waaaay out, man.
Just stop using my damn tax dollars to do it.
Look. What legitimate interest does the state - any state, Oregon, the United States - have in who moves in with whom?
It has a legitimate interest in the enforcement of legal contracts.
It has a legitimate interest in the prevention of preventable physical ailments that could result in a burden to the State as the caregiver of last resort.
It has a legitimate interest in the protection of legal minors and those unable to legally consent to the use of their property, including their bodies.And that's it.
When one homo puts his weenie into another homo Baby Jesus may cry. Or not - Baby Jesus and I don't talk much anymore. But that's not the State's problem. When one lesbian gives another lesbian crotch hickies, it may send Allah into a fucking heavenly tailspin. Or not - Allah and I don't even exchange Ramadan cards. But that's NOT the State's problem. When two women, a man and their pastor jump into a big, sweaty dogpile, it may offend everyone who thinks about it. But it's NOT THE STATE'S EFFING PROBLEM.
Laws that can't be enforced, aren't enforced or are unenforceable, ARE a problem. They help make the State look weak and foolish, and waste resources best applied elsewhere. That's why things like Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" are so foolish. That's why most sane people stopped agitating for sodomy laws and other bedroom legislation.
The state has no real business deciding what is or isn't a "marriage". "Marriage" is a loaded, theological term, anyway. I don't want my state deciding who can and can't "marry", or who is capable of "performing" a "marriage".
The state's interest in domestic partnerships is, and should be, limited to the legal and governmental aspects of them. Who pays taxes on what. Who are the parties to a mortgage, a contract, who owes who child support?
The state has not legitimate interest in who wants to knock boots with whom outside ensuring that some degree of consanguinity is preserved(although honestly? If some 60-year-old mother wants to "marry" her 40-year-old son, my only thought would be "Skweechy!" She's not going to be bearing his acephalic kid, so the only real objection is on the bounds of good taste. And when you start legislating good taste, well...)and that all the parties involved are able to legally consent to the arrangement.
So, for Ashtaroth's sake, people, let's take the axe of sanity to this tree and its rotten fruit.
There need be only one form of domestic contract needed in the legal sense: a "domestic contract". All parties need to be consenting adults. All parties need to be no closer than the third degree (second for the Appalachian states, let's not throw out tradition recklessly). You stop in to the registrar, you sign the document, pay your fifteen bucks, and, hey, la, you're an officially registered "domestic partnership". You get taxed that way, you can legally sign contracts for each other, you are immunized against your partner(s) testimony, you have visitation rights, your kids are yours until or if you break the contract. Then you see a lawyer about support, alimony...etc.
No, you can't "marry" your minor kid. No, you can't "marry" a goat. You want to "marry" both those hot college boys downstairs?Chocks away, Romeo! (or Juliet!) - knock yourself out...just make sure you know who's name(s) is/are on the lease, and who gets the ottoman and the "Runaway Bride" DVD when you break up.
But let's stop this idiotic argument about something the state has no business deciding, anyway.
Sweetgeezmarie, what a frigging goatrope. It took me, what, 200 words? to solve this problem. Th'fuck IS wrong with you people?