Skip to main content

View Diary: Terminally ill man and his husband fight to force Ohio to recognize their marriage, and judge agrees (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That distinction has always perplexed me. (0+ / 0-)

    I know someone who's both liberal and religious. Their religious side made them against SSM but their political bent made them favor an exactly equivalent "civil union" concept -- just as long as the state didn't call it "marriage". Very strange.

    Personally, I think the state should recognize marriage of ANY two people (including siblings and parent/adult offspring) as it's just a convenient set of contractual obligations and rights that society and government recognizes. This has always been the one thing that I've objected to about the SSM movement -- it seemed to me to be somewhat discriminatory and selfish, "I want mine - damn others who are even more of a minority".

    For example, I see no reason that two elderly sisters should not be able pool their assets, estates, responsibilities, and decision making in their declining years by getting married. They likely would be much more committed to each other and trust each other in end of life decisions and want to make sure the other is provided for should one outlive the other than two 18 year old "kids" getting married. Yes, it would screw up Social Security, pension, and annuity actuarial assumptions a bit so something might need to be done there - what, I don't know.

    Actually, I think the state should recognize polygamous marriages. However, I recognize that doing so would raise a lot of technical difficulties given our existing statutory and case law. For example if three people are married and one is on life support and the other two can't agree on "pulling the plug", what should the hospital do? So, until I better understand these impacts, I don't push on this one very hard -- but the public should be having these discussions.

    (Before some troll says "So, can someone marry their six dogs?" -- NO, a dog doesn't have the ability to consent or agree to marriage any more than a dog [not a trust created for the benefit of the dog] can own a piece of property.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Elections (25)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Politics (15)
  • Science (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Police Brutality (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site