🚀 go-pugleaf

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?

Ummm... if domestic partnerships keep people from getting married
when they aren't sure... doesn't that show *more* respect for marriage,
not less?

If I were willing to just skip down the aisle and then skip down to
the courthouse with divorce papers six months later *that* would
devalue marriage.

On the other hand if I feel like I might not want to be there 'till
death do us part, and I avoid those vows because of it, I am telling
people who do get married that I have more respect for their commitment.

You need to think things through...

>  And if they are not willing
>	to get married, then why should society recognize their
>	relationship?

Indeed, why should society (ie.. the government) recognize their
relationship at all?

Society in general, friends, family, etc... will note the same
commitment whether they have a piece of paper stamped by the
state or not.  The only real reason to get married is so that
the courts award your spouse your stuff if you die instead of
your family.  Seems you should be able to decide that yourself,
and the courts should pay more respect to wills.

Chris