Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Washington State okays domestic partnerships

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Same-sex domestic partners would have all of the rights and benefits that Washington offers married couples under a measure passed by the state Senate. Full story here.
The debate about same-sex marriage has been raging in America, with California's decision to amend their constitution coming as a big surprise to many residents of that so-called 'liberal' state.

I've always supported same-sex marriage - not because of any high-minded principles, but because I think same-sex couples should enjoy the same legal rights as married couples. The word 'marriage' is meaningless to me. It's the legal protection that makes this a valid issue.

Therefore, the lawmakers in Washington who've decided to extend legal rights to same-sex 'domestic partners' have accomplished everything that I wanted them to. I think it's a very fair compromise. The definition of 'marriage' is unaffected, while the issue of equality and human rights has been addressed satisfactorily.

If this principle was rolled out across the whole of the United States, perhaps this issue could be put to bed once and for all.

America is a nation in which 'all men' are created equal and have 'inalienable rights.' Those rights include the right to partner yourself with any consenting adult you choose, regardless of gender.

It's not merely a legal or religious issue. It's an issue central to everything that the American nation stands for. Washington state has recognized that and acted accordingly.

7 comments:

Tom said...

Those rights include the right to partner yourself with any consenting adult you choose, regardless of gender.

This is obviously wrong, seeing as how gay marriage bans have been upheld in court.

I mean, I believe that gay marriage is a good thing, and that legislatures should pass laws to allow it. But I don't think that there's any sort of fundamental right to it, that would take the issue outside of the normal legislative process.

It's really hard to claim that something that has been disallowed for 200 years is suddenly a fundamental right.

Roland Hulme said...

Not gay marriage exactly, but the right to live with and have a relationship with whichever consenting adult you choose. Surely that's a fundamental right.

I think the 'marriage' thing confuses the issue. Marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman. I'm fine with it staying that way.

But I think everybody in American can live with who they want and if they want them to visit them in hospital, or inherit their money, or look after their kids, they should have that right.

Anonymous said...

Where do you draw the line?
Man/multiple wifes...
multiple men/multiple women
woman/multiple men
brother/sister
mom/son
dad/daughter

Where does welfare come into play with this?

Tom said...

You say "surely that's a fundamental right"... but the law in many states, and the result of court cases in those states, says differently. So I think that this is far less sure than you make it out to be.

You say that _should_ be a right, and I agree with you on that. And I suggest that legislatures get their act together and pass legislation safeguarding that right.

But it takes more than a single person or a group of people asserting that a right exists to make it actually exist. That's democracy for you, the worst system of government except for all the rest that have been tried from time to time.

Roland Hulme said...

Good comment, CK!

I have no problem with multiple wives (although, eegads, I can hardly cope with the one I have.)

however, I think in polygamous societies, women are pressured into marriages and there's a lot of incest/pedophilia going on.

If it was all out in the open and TOTALLY consensual, I'd be all for women with two or more husbands - but I don't think society will ever be that advanced.

As for incest... Well, there's the consent issue again (a dad marrying his daughter... Can we say she truly went into that without being pressured/coerced?)

Secondly, kids born from incest have a high chance of birth defects, so for the well being of their kids, that shouldn't be allowed.

But there have been cases in England of brothers and sisters getting married in their seventies (with a judge's permission) since it 'doesn't do any harm' as they're both two old to have kids. That way they benefit from the legal protection of marriage.

So it's not all black and white.

But I would say the line is drawn at anybody's right to have a relationship with a single, consenting adult who willingly and voluntarily enters into that relationship.

Pedophilia/bestiality etc. aren't worth mentioning because they involve people/animals who can't consent. No consent = rape, which is clearly, deeply wrong.

Roland Hulme said...

Good one, Tom. That reminds me of something Jefferson said:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Tom said...

That's sort of true. There are a couple of ways the American system guards against this.

The first is by enumerating a series of rights that are absolutely protected: The bill of rights. Well, not absolutely, but with such a high bar to change as to make it practically so.

The second is by limiting the power of government. The constitution prescribes a fundamentally limited government. Most rights are enforced by the government not having any power to abridge them.

(Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of US government is the way it uses the commerce clause to stick its nose where it doesn't belong.)

Something like gay marriage is interesting because, unlike other rights, it forces the government to do something. I think that for the government to be bound in this way, a law must first be passed.