Please help Rick Santorum

So go for it.

 

If only. Santorum has plenty nonsense to share, and he's never hesitated to share it. He's considering another run at the presidency, so I'm sure we'll all be treated to more of his frothy opinions in the coming months.

It's not merely his position on this topic which rouses disgust and ire from people who don't agree with him.

A peaceful resolution is already taking place in churches, voting booths, legislatures, and court rooms around the world. In the US, more than half of the American public support same sex marriage, and it looks like that number will continue to grow.

 

Marriage is a very thorny issue. I mean half of all marriages end in divorce. We all know that. If you've managed to get married and avoided divorce, good for you. If you're still married and making each other miserable, what the hell are you thinking? Point being, who sanctions marriage is irrelevant to the outcome of said marriage.
Marriage is about commitment plain and simple. You commit yourself to each other in each others eyes not in the "eyes of God" not the eyes of the government or any other institution or belief system. Keep that in mind and screw anyone that thinks they are the ones that decide who is allowed to commit to whom. Period.

 

I have to say I'm interested in the idea of incorporating. Coin seems to believe that it is better than marriage in just about every way and that everything needed to make it work is currently in place .

I can only assume that he will soon be ending his own marriage (if he is in fact married) and replacing it with this allegedly superior alternative he's come up with. Can't wait to hear how it goes. If it seems to be working out for Coin's family and the families of his friends over the course of a couple of years then we might just give it a try.

 

Is incorporation better? Perhaps. I've outlined the reasons why incorporation might be better; judge for yourself.

A marriage contract doesn't work for a LOT of people. Incorporation may not work for them, either. Just sayin'. But, generally speaking, incorporation may be a very good contract for them as opposed to a marriage contract.

I don't hear anyone else coming up with any ideas other than "Let same-sex couples marry". Well, that's fine for two people, but what about if three people want to enter into the contract? We've had this discussion before, but marriage as it stands now and will (most assuredly) stand in the future only allows two people (and ONLY two people) who are not close relatives to enter into the contract.

The marriage laws that only allow opposite-sex couples to marry are too restrictive. I don't believe I'll get any argument from you about that.

The marriage laws that will allow same-sex couples to marry are also restrictive.

None of the marriage laws will allow siblings or other close relatives to enter into the contract and none will allow more than two people.

Incorporation solves all that as I've previously pointed out. My personal life is beside the point. I'm only concerned about the freedom and liberty of those who wish to enter into a legal contract and am, at least, offering an idea and a possible solution for them.

In fact, incorporation may have worked better for you than your marriage contract. As you've previously stated, you're geographically limited as to where your marriage contract is legally recognized and that fact may, unfortunately, continue for quite some time in the various states. You're also the target of hate mongers, bigots, sexists, closed-minded people and other assorted miscreants simply by the fact that you're gay and want to use the institution of marriage which they consider "theirs". Of course, you're probably never going to change their opinion regardless of the legal contract you've signed. They still won't want to see you kissing your husband in public. But, I'm not talking about emotions or affection. I'm only concerned (as we all should be) with the legal aspects and incorporation may offer you better options than the limits marriage has currently placed on you.

It appears incorporation would give more freedom to a lot of people who don't want to be limited to merely a two-person, "no-close-relatives" type of contract that, at least for now, isn't even recognized in every state of the Union.

Anyway, it's something to think about and if you have any friends who are contemplating marriage, you might do them a favor and ask them to consider incorporation instead. Much like the fight for same-sex marriage, it will take a grassroots effort to get off the ground. So, pass the word. The spark may ignite a flame.

​

 

For our purposes and those of the people we know who are interested in formalizing their relationship, marriage will work just fine, just as I assume it works for you. We don't need any special contracts or alternative approaches. The same system everyone else uses works for us.

The chances of our wanting to add a third person to our household or wanting to legalize some sort of poly-something relationship with a family member are remote. But should an eventuality like that arise we might revisit your incorporation thing.

As for geographical limitations, in America we are already good in those parts of the country that matter as well as in a few that don't. We don't plan on going to Africa. Latin America is coming along nicely, and Western Europe presents few if any problems.

It would be nice if Asia had made a little more progress in terms of visa and residence issues, but it will come. For the most part the people we interact with socially and in business treat us much as they would any other married couple. I'm not sure that the Japanese or the Chinese would be terribly impressed by any papers of incorporation we might wave at them anyway.

 

Takiji, have problems with insurance and inheritance been addressed with your marriage. In other words, is it now common that domestic partners are now recognized as legal spouses universally or is it limited only within states that have passed same sex marriages. If it is now universal, then I would say real progress has been made.

 

The Feds recognize all same-sex marriages legally performed in states which allow them. They recognize them even if a couple subsequently moves to a state which does not. Or to a county that does not. I don’t know if this policy would apply to a same-sex couple married in Canada or some other country, but residing here. I’m thinking it would but I don’t know that for sure.

For purposes of federal taxes, and federal benefits such as social security, pensions, survivor’s benefits etc. we are treated like any other married couple. For what it's worth, the IRS “marriage penalty” also applies to us. So on a federal level, there is uniformity across the country.

On a state level, of course, it varies. We currently live in a state which recognizes same-sex marriage, although we were actually married in a different state. We are treated the same as any other married couple under the laws of this state. If we were to go east to the next state over, however, we would suddenly become unmarried under the laws of that state, but would still be married under federal law.

I believe that the state of Washington is now in the process of “converting” domestic partnerships to marriages in order to eliminate the duel system that was created when marriage equality was legalized there last year. I don’t know how other states where same-sex marriage is now legal are dealing with domestic partnerships created under earlier separate-but-sort-of-quasi-equal arrangements created in an attempt to deal with the issue.

Marriage has given us a sense of security and predictability that we didn't have before. It's important now, and as we look to the future and how we are going to care for each other in retirement and old age. And when we say, "we're married" people get it. They understand the relationship and the commitment. There is something intangible but amazing about being treated like everyone else that we didn't expect to feel. We were beyond that kind of sh*t. At least we assumed we were, but we were wrong. I'm expressing this very clumsily. I'm not usually at a loss for words, but I am now.

 

Maybe it's the romance of being committed and not necessarily the legal obligations of the marriage contract that you're feeling. Contracts are seldom, if ever, romantic nor should they be, IMO. Regardless, I'm happy for you whether you're married, incorporated or bound by whatever legal contract you wish to be bound by.

 

Takiji said:
There is something intangible but amazing about being treated like everyone else that we didn't expect to feel.

Bingo, you could not of expressed it better. In conversations with friends, the legal aspects of their situation is usually what comes out in conversation, but that intangible aspect of being married is something everybody deserves. I defiantly get it. I unfortunately live in a city where most of the bibles are printed and a lot of the major churches have their national headquarters. We are a diverse mix here, and I tend to hang out with the bohemian set and ignore the thumpers, unless they get in my face. I am glad you live in a region where sanity has prevailed. Progress is slow and I am certain one day it will arrive here.

 

Certainly you weren’t intending to be offensive to a specific group of people due to their religious beliefs by referring to Christians using the derogatory thumpers?

 

Mainstay Christianity I encourage, and although I am not a believer, I will state that Jesus is my favorite philosopher especially in the ethical treatment of others. Empathy and compassion is a life goal. Thumpers, I narrow to those chosen individuals whose life mission is to inform others that unless your beliefs are in lock step with theirs, the the fiery pits of hell await you. Those are the people I intend to offend.