tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post6244522777995116122..comments2023-06-08T03:05:43.638-07:00Comments on Gay Married Californian: Should there still be DPs if there is marriage?IThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-6028475530011139592011-07-02T08:27:27.617-07:002011-07-02T08:27:27.617-07:00Interesting article! As I've argued previousl...Interesting article! As I've argued previously, I think the best and most successful case for gay marriage rights has to be a case for marriage in general, just as the case for extending voting rights to African Americans ultimately had to be a case for voting in general (Martin Luther King understood this well). One of the reasons I like this blog is because I think IT understands this, and would agree with me. <br /><br />Also, while some liberals argue that the government should be totally neutral and "get out of the marriage business," I disagree. I think society has a general interest in encouraging marriage, and it's therefore appropriate for marriage to have some specific legal/tax benefits. The government can't (and shouldn't be able to, and never will be) able to make anyone get married, including people who think that marriage is fundamentally sexist/heterosexist/whatever. But government should have the ability to favor certain generally-desirable behaviors, including but not limited to marriage (and this obviously includes letting gay people participate). As far as the specific question of whether or not DP's should continue, I'm undecided.Want Some Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04364292885194421472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-24657469099529340122011-06-29T05:11:52.036-07:002011-06-29T05:11:52.036-07:00I'd like to see DPs for all sorts of situation...I'd like to see DPs for all sorts of situations, not just "partners". I <a href="http://somedisagreewithmom.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">blogged</a> about it.PseudoPiskiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12070541512355253553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-62676565076139217882011-06-29T05:00:06.464-07:002011-06-29T05:00:06.464-07:00Paul, exactly the point of the article I quoted. ...Paul, exactly the point of the article I quoted. Heterosexism is just another form of sexism.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-82092295595130727712011-06-29T04:59:32.490-07:002011-06-29T04:59:32.490-07:00JCF, DPs vary state to state in what they provide ...JCF, DPs vary state to state in what they provide and how they are viewed. For example, of them are relatively easy to get out of, some (as in CA currently) require a judicial order a la divorce. <br /><br />What seems common is that they do not come with any federal recognition, or promise thereof.IThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605163506396013904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-42744638565723410592011-06-28T21:34:42.113-07:002011-06-28T21:34:42.113-07:00First and foremost, those who currently have DPs s...First and foremost, those who currently have DPs should get to keep them (that is, they shouldn't automatically be re-classified as "married").<br /><br />Beyond that, I'd just have to see the precise differences between them.<br /><br />Is it NOT have the word "marriage", mainly? [In much the same way, ironically, as some of our phobic opponents fight so hard to deny us the WORD "marriage"?]<br /><br />And if not (if there's more difference than just the term), what is it? Is there the presupposition that ending a DP won't be as legally (and/or <i>financially</i>) onerous as ending a marriage? [Obviously, kids are kids, whether the result of a marriage, DP, or simple schtupping, vis-a-vis child support]<br /><br />Does the language of DPs convey <i>less</i> exclusivity/monogamy? I wonder if that may be an issue, too (stereotypically, for gay men. I've heard one describe his partnership as "monogam<i>ish</i>")<br /><br />My <i>gut</i> agrees w/ you, IT. If you're not up for "forsaking all others", you can create your own individual legal framework, but Marriage = Marriage (and that---civil marriage---should be the sole product of the state in the couples-authorizing biz).<br /><br />But I'm willing to hear other arguments.JCFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4271923532585508158.post-23621709472149527592011-06-28T20:48:24.316-07:002011-06-28T20:48:24.316-07:00Interestingly, Linda Hirsch thinks that marriage e...<em>Interestingly, Linda Hirsch thinks that marriage equality for LGBT people will mean more equal straight marriages too. Thus, that whole patriarchal notion is taking a hit. </em><br /><br />Not surprising at all. Feminists have been saying for some time that this was why the right wing has reacted the way thy have to the gay issue. According to this view, the right finds egalitarian relationships very threatening.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410143259690873128noreply@blogger.com