Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

For the last time...

it ain't about LOVE.

The state has no business talking about love. They're bad at it, and need to stay the hell away from it, and so does everybody else.

It's about the state interfering in the ability to MAKE CONTRACTS between two adults so that the property, debts, and entitlements which accrue to the individual follow a stipulated path (currently defined by state and federal laws regarding obligations of and to spouses). My social security would go to support a man I married, whether I loved him or not, whether I had sex with him or not, whether I lived in the same house with him or not. But if I die unmarried, it goes to no one, even if I had lived with, supported, and loved someone, male or female. So, the state doesn't CARE about love, and people need to stop using that as the argument, compelling reason, etc.

It's about inequity in the ability to make contracts. And it's wrong. And it needs to get fixed.

But it isn't about love. The state doesn't give a f*ck about love.



( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 27th, 2013 03:56 pm (UTC)
Too true.

It also isn't about religion- plenty of people get married by a justice of the peace or a friend without involving any church. I did. Or get married religiously without involving the state, as my Grampa and his second wife chose to. They are separate issues.
Mar. 27th, 2013 04:03 pm (UTC)
But the State is all about money.

If they don't have to pay your death benefits to anyone, it means they get to keep the money.

Yes, I am that cynical.

Mar. 29th, 2013 04:07 pm (UTC)
Having been single for 5 decades....A will, a power of attorney, and a living will solve so many problems. Those items can stipulate who makes your medical decisions if you can't, who is at your bedside when you're dying, who gets your dog, your record collection, your TV, your retirement. With the exception of Social Security, which would go to a spouse or minor children, all other things/issues can be handled with the documents listed above.
Mar. 31st, 2013 06:48 pm (UTC)
Agreed, except that many of those can be fought over (and have) over the years by blood relatives, but if there is a "marriage contract" the successful interference of others is reduced to a near vanishing point. And the "exception of Social Security" is not negligible. I do not think that churches should be forced to recognize unions which do not conform to the sacred documents of the faith. I do think that the legal privileges and obligations that accrue when a man and woman agree to marry, and do so following the laws of the state, should be a contract that any two legal adults can enter into. I believe you should only be able to enter into that contract with a single other adult, and that an adult may only be a signatory to one such contract at any given point in time. I also believe that it should be no easier (nor harder) to dissolve that contract than any other equally complex contract. But I really do see the financial and legal status issues as contract law and that the laws need to be made equitable.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )