[lbo-talk] Gay marriage

[John Thornton]

James Heartfield wrote:
> "It is a simple matter of solidarity, with nothing to debate: Gays want
> marriage; therefore radicals support marriage for gays. Leftists who
> quibble are scabbing on their companions." Carrol Cox
>
> Well, I would not want to scab, and as long as the issue is posed as gay marriage for and against, then I am for, but maybe the long-term answer is that heterosexual marriage should be de-legalised. There is something wierd about the government having a role in your private domestic arrangements. And there is something wierd about making heterosexual marriage the ideal model for gay people.
>
> Why should married people have any advantage in law over single people, or cohabiting couples?

We already have a simple legal form in marriage.
Why change something that works?
You could, at great expense, hire an attorney and legally contract most 
of the rights marriage confers but why?
Even if you could contract all the rights what advantage would that have 
over marriage?
As I wrote before a marriage license should be looked at like a drivers 
license or business license. You fill out the proper forms sign them and 
get the license.
It makes no sense to eliminate something that works just fine and 
replace it with something more unwieldy.

Carrol is correct. Marriage exists and gay people want to exercise this 
option.
We should support this demand. Offering something "just as good" but 
different is insulting.
Denying any group of citizens the right to a standardized method of 
joint ownership and rights is complete crap.

What advantage are you referring to when you ask "why should married 
people have an advantage in law over single people..."?
When I got married the only advantage I saw immediately was that it 
increased my federal taxes.

John Thornton