dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (04/13/84)
Regarding comments about anti-discrimination laws having little effect on attitudes and practices, I would agree that they have little immediate effect, but that alone is not an argument against passing them. I found Mike Simpson's analogies with civil-rights laws and the following backlash against blacks on the part of whites a little short-sighted, for it was these very laws which catalyzed the courts to drag the rest of American society into the 20th century and began to change the attitudes of most ordinary Americans. In the same way, anti-discrimination laws and policies protecting gay people *may* lead to some increase in harassment (I am not convinced of this) but we should not concern ourselves with the short-term fallout. On a mildly related issue, I have always wanted to have the chance to flame against the San Francisco ordinance which would have extended the city benefits to spouses of city workers to co-habitants, meaning especially, though not exclusively, to gay man and lesbian couples. It was rightfully defeated, but I was disappointed at the outrage that it caused. Think of the legal morass it would have generated, as one tried to define who was deserving and who wasn't. There may be many arguments against marriage in many people's minds, but from a legal point of view, one thing is very clear--either you is married or you ain't. Marriage endows the couple with a set of rights and responsibilities which can be legally enforced. Cohabitation exists at the whim of the parties involved. Of course, this leaves gay people on the outside as far as this kind of protection goes. My point is that a bad ordinance isn't going to solve much of anything. Better to work for some kind of legal recognition for gay couples--one hesitates to call it "marriage" because of all of the psychosociological drek that comes with that word, but an equivalent to "marriage" is what is required. Could this ever happen soon? /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (04/16/84)
***
16 April 1984.
Nothing like a good controversy to get people going
again. Or is it just springtime? I dunno. ("LOST: One Spring.
Last seen about eleven months ago. If found, please return to
Greater Boston Weather Pattern AT ONCE.")
Anyway, in response to Steve's statement that I was a
little "short-sighted" in comparing the backlash that might have
followed passage of the "gay rights" bill in California to the
furor surrounding passage of civil rights legislation , I wish to
state that it is my belief that most successful "rights"
legislation in this country is merely 'ratification' of a change
in values. I am not sure whether America's view of homosexuals
today is more or less positive than America's view of people of
color in the early 1960's. I hope it's MORE positive, but I'm
sure that I will be corrected if necessary.
If we were to find some way of 'endowing' willing gay
relationships with the same legal responsibilities as those of
straight marriages, then I can see extending job benefits to your
lover/partner. Of course, if simple 'straight' cohabitation for
a certain amount of time were also covered, then I see no reason
why a same-sex relationship (for the same amount of time) should
not also be covered.
Keep those cards and letters coming, folks!
--
-- cheers,
Mike Simpson, BBN
msimpson@bbn-unix (ARPA)
{decvax,ima,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet)
617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (04/16/84)
Naturally, if unmarried heterosexual cohabitants (sounds awfully clinical,
doesn't it?) were given special protection and benefits through the
statute, one would be rightfully outraged if the same were not given to
same-sex relationships. I don't think that was the issue in S.F.
neither group had protection previously--the purpose of the statute
was to extent protection to cohabitants, regardless of sex.
You have an interesting point regarding "common-law" marriages.
I wonder what the wording of the statutes is in those states which
recognize such relationships.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAwoods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (04/17/84)
> If we were to find some way of 'endowing' willing gay > relationships with the same legal responsibilities as those of > straight marriages, then I can see extending job benefits to your > lover/partner. Of course, if simple 'straight' cohabitation for > a certain amount of time were also covered, then I see no reason > why a same-sex relationship (for the same amount of time) should > not also be covered. I think the real issue is not "gay or straight", here, but "lover or roommate". The problem is, how the hell do you know? I've had some relationships with women where I didn't know if we were lovers, romantic or what. I've also had lots of roommates (both male and female) that I had no emotional or sexual involvement with and certainly wouldn't want to be held responsible for in any way. How do we decide whether there is legal responsibility or not, be it gay or straight? Clearly, mere cohabitation isn't enough. How does a court measure commitment? Personally I think it's a bad idea to even give them the *power* to do that. After the Michelle "Marvin" case, I'm almost afraid to even be seen on a "date"! :-) I don't want to debate the Marvin case here, I'm just using it as an extreme example. Maybe she deserved some compensation, maybe not. I haven't got all the facts. The point is, do we really want to evaluate all these things on a case-by-case basis (the only fair way to do it)? Can we afford to? I say no. I say do away with all the legal commitments entirely. Everyone should always be responsible for supporting themselves. If it weren't for the fact that some people actually want children, there would be no problem.... :-) GREG -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax} !hao!woods
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (04/17/84)
To my mind, Greg, the issues are more in the areas of inheritance, property ownership, and tax issues. Right now, same-sex couples are denied the protection which is afforded to married couples. This S.F. ordinance would have extended some limited insurance coverage to partners of city workers. Apparently, you would have to "register" your partner with the city, and could not change your partner more than every six months. Ludicrous. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/17/84)
Doubtless some lawyer will correct me, but my assumption would be that 'common law' marriages don't exist in the States. I thought that the USA specifically did away with the whole british approach to law. In UK law, there is a distinction between 'common law' and Statute law. The former is essentialy whatever is defined by long custom, or more exactly by precedent. I suspect though that the term "common law marriage' is a bit of an oxymoron. Can anyone clarify? Julian Davies uwo!julian
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (04/18/84)
Exactly right, Steve. Financial issues. Exactly what I was talking
about. Every six months, change partners?!?!? Surely, that's not your
idea of commitment, the kind that (supposedly) earns tax deductions
for married (heterosexual?) couples. Can you really claim to be a financial
unit with a different person every six months? Do you want or expect to
be doing that? How much demonstrated commitment does there have to be?
Is willingness to fill out a required form enough, regardless of gender(s)?
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
!hao!woodsdyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (04/19/84)
Exactly right, Steve. Financial issues. Exactly what I was talking about. Every six months, change partners?!?!? Surely, that's not your idea of commitment, the kind that (supposedly) earns tax deductions for married (heterosexual?) couples. Can you really claim to be a financial unit with a different person every six months? Do you want or expect to be doing that? How much demonstrated commitment does there have to be? Is willingness to fill out a required form enough, regardless of gender(s)? Um, just so no one misunderstands, I'm on Greg's side (reread my articles.) I think the S.F. ordinance was asking exactly for what you object to. My complaint is that long-term gay relationships cannot be presently be recognized as a legal unit for the purposes of taxation, inheritance and the right to live together. Too often one hears of landlords who decide arbitrarily that two unmarried men or women may not share an apartment, or of the situation where one's partner dies, and the surviving person is left on financially shaky ground, or the relatives come in and clean their life away, or the survivor is evicted from the apartment they shared because the dead person's name is on the lease. None of these situations are made up; they have been well publicized in the gay press. It *IS* possible to legally circumvent some of these problems by careful legal attention to wills, insurance policies, tenancies in common, etc, but there are still large inequities. My comment is that the S. F. ordinance doesn't address these problems at all, preferring to institute a quasi-legal morass which is fiscally irresponsible, questionably useful, and not particularly desirable (at least to my mind.) -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (04/20/84)
>> It *IS* possible to legally circumvent some of these problems >> by careful legal attention to wills, insurance policies, tenancies in >> common, etc, but there are still large inequities. Are there lawyers who specialize in providing gay couples with the best financial and legal protection possible given the lack of legally sanctioned gay marriage? If such legal services don't exist, why not? It seems like the perfect sort of thing for the gay community to mobilize behind, and one where a lot of real headway could be made. Gays are not exactly in the same sort of boat as other victims of discrimination have been -- there are, after all, lots of gay lawyers. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
tj@sun.UUCP (04/20/84)
'Common Law' marriages still do exist in that US of A. I once knew of a girl who, becuase she has signed her name on a apartment lease as Mrs. so-and-so, she had to legally divorce him a couple of years later. Of course, the judge looked at her case and had to decide whethere 'everyone' elae considered them 'married' and if in fact that considered themselves as such, (more or less). Cal Thixton ...sun!tj