🚀 go-pugleaf

bearpaw (bearpaw@world.std.com) wrote:
: mikep@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:

: >David A. Kaye (dk@crl.com) wrote:
: >: You might be interested to know that in the years since San Francisco has 
: >: had domestic partner registrations (a sort-of marriage license) the VAST 
: >: majority of people applying for these registrations have been male/female 
: >: couples, not gay male or lesbian couples.  The ratio is something like 8 
: >: to 2.  So much for viewing domestic partnerships as a same-sex thing.
: >
: >	This certainly seems to imply that 'domestic partnership' and
: >	similar efforts do indeed devalue marrage... (which is what
: >	bothered Wilson the most, leading to the veto domestic partners
: >	bill in CA.)  For if most registrants are opposite-sex, then
: >	why don't they simply get married?  And if they are not willing
: >	to get married, then why should society recognize their
: >	relationship?

: Perhaps they dislike some of the societal baggage that comes with being 
: married.  Maybe they don't want to take advantage of something that's
: available to different-gendered couples but not same-gendered couples.

	A bingo on both counts, I think...  A devaluation/weakening of
	the social forces associated w/marriage.  Marriage has baggage
	(for a reason).  It used to have more baggage than it does now...
	little things like comittment.  You know.  Some baggage is
	perhaps properly disposed of... while discarding others was a
	mistake.

: (Those would be a couple of *my* motivations, 'cept there's three of us,
: so it's a moot point for the forseeable future.)

	I hear ya.

: Anyway, why does something have to have the Gov't Seal of Approval for
: society to "recognize" it?

	It's not 'required'.  Many, many people give significant recognition
	to any 'pairing' or 'tripling' or what-have-you.  What I think
	is unique about this issue is that it's a way to force recognition 
	(to a point) via legal means, rather than true social valuation.

	I think the whole 'domestic partner' issue was handled poorly.
	The best way to handle the major issues behind it, I think, would
	be to deal with them one at a time, for example: Hospital visitation.
	It should not be difficult to make it law that any patient can name
	any visitor they want.  Period.  Either verbally while admitted,
	or ahead of time by a simple signed/notorized document.  Done.
	Hospital visits should have _zip_ to do with marriage.  Your 
	family might be the _last_ people you would want to see :-)
	
	Etc. wrt other related issues.


	-Mike-