I oppose marriage - hetero or gay

I don't understand why I must be legally married to someone in order to have visitation rights at hospitals, certain advantages in inheritance, etc. Must I accept the outdated tradition in order to have a first-class rather than second-class relationship? Can't my future partner and I make our commitments to each other without telling the whole world and their dog, "We've decided to live together!"?

I oppose gay marriage, yes, but because of the marriage part, not be cause of the gay part.

And to a lesser extent, women.

Most states have "community property" laws, giving each member of a married couple equal rights to income earned by the other. Because of the disparity between wages and salaries between men and women, that tends to elevate womens' financial power.

There need to be laws that protect and elevate my future partner. Okay. But why does it have to be marriage? A civil union, or better yet, a property agreement, can do the job just as well, without forcing me to adhere to the outdated institution that is marriage.

Isn't it just a bit silly to get all hung up over the word that is used?

If you have a civil ceremony instead of a religious one, isn't it pretty much the same thing regardless of whether you call it marriage, civil union, hodgepodge, etc?

Your relationship and how you approach is pretty much up to you.

...because the word marriage implies a religious ceremony. Moreover, the whole idea of a ceremony as opposed to simply putting our signatures on a paper is ridiculous and forces a tradition on us.

On another note, what I'd really like to see is legislation that gives unmarried couples the same vistation, adoption, etc. rights of married couples.

My 22 years of marriage says that the word does not imply a religious ceremony any more than the term "ice cream" implies chocolate.

For things like insurance, medical decisions in case of emergency, etc?

Sorry, but as a gay man, it's a pain in the ass to try to cover all the bases legally with various affidavits and powers of attorney and it's expensive too.

1. The worst: civil union (no marriage but we're still declaring our personal preferences to everyone)

2. Better: more powers to property agreements

3. Best, IMO: legally give unmarried couples the same rights as married couples when it comes to insurance, medical decisions, adoption, etc.

You are going to have to figure out some way to legitimize the relationship in the eyes of the law. Without that, I could just walk into the hospital and claim I am your partner and make medical decisions for you. I think we need something a little more than just my word for it that I am your boyfriend and entitled by law to make those decisions for you instead of your parents or anyone else who shows up.

...visitation and medical decisions can be dealt with in a separate contract - or, the property agreement can simply include something like, "we, John Smith and ary Jones, allow each other to make medical decisions for us in cases of emergency." Adoption is not a problem because as long as both partners pledge to contribute to the upbringing of the child, there're no complications I can think of.

Why do you assume I want to burden myself with joint property?
:)

In other words, we are back to all the little pain in the ass things and expenses my partner and I have had to go through in order to even come close to an approximation of the exact same legal rights and responsibilities a marriage contract would provide, and all because you are hung up over the word "marriage".

To me it's like saying: "I want to go to an institution where I am instructed in the art of learning and taught specific subjects, but I don't want it to be called 'education' or a 'school' and I don't think I should be required to have a 'diploma' or a 'degree', but I want everything to be treated by society as if I had gone to 'school' to get an 'education' and recieved a 'degree'.

is that the Christian fundamentalists will claim that marriage is a sacred bond promoted by Jesus Christ. In fact, nowhere in the Bible did Jesus teach that a man and a woman have to get married; in fact, he basically said that if you want to get married, by all means do so, but be sure you keep your committment. On the other hand, if marriage isn't your cup of tea, then don't do it.

In the Old Testament times, marriage was simply a way of claiming property (women).

...some OT laws prohibit pre- or extra-marital sex, so marriage does have the vital function in Christianity of being the only way to continue the next geenration without sinning.

Of course, you can see from my avatar that the Old, New, Newer, Newest, or whichever testaments are not exactly what I base my views on.

That being said, I also don't like it. But my dislike is personal and shouldn't limit other people in experimenting if it works for them.

...just don't force me to go thru your idiotic ceremonies.

In most places one can file a marriage liscence and sign it in the prescence of a witness and notary with no particular ceremony required except an indication from both parties that you entering the contract of your own free will.

It certainly doesn't require any major ceremony or religious trappings. Where did you get the idea that it did?

Fill out the marriage license (I think you have to have your names, SS#'s addresses and DOB), go to a judge, and he will officially mary you with narry a word about God, Religion, Vows, Etc.

A friend of mine got married by a Justice of the Peace, and the whole shebang was over in less than 5 minutes

JOP: Do you, HUSBAND, agree to be legally wed to WIFE?
hub: YEP
JOP: Do you, WIFE, agree to be legally wed to HUSBAND:
wife: Yep
JOP: Do you agree to abide by all laws regarding marriage and understand that only a legally recognized divorce will officially end this marriage, and that you can not marry another person while legally married to this person?
Both: Yep
JOP: Okay. you're married. Sign here. Pay the cashier on your way out

That was it.

No religion there at all. Just a legal contract between two people, which by your post, sounds just like what you're looking for

of my "simple" solution. EVERYONE who wishes to enter into a "couples" contract for insurance, inheritance, child protection, partner protection etc. et al, fills out some forms, pays some fees, goes to the courthouse for a "ceremony" after which ALL RIGHTS PERTAINING TO COUPLES are federally recognized. THAT GETS REGISTERED. Anyone wishing to do the temple, church, Vegas, dress, guestlist, caterer, band, kidnapping, honeymoon thing would be free to do so at their own expense and have it duly recorded if they so wish, complete with affidavits, affiliations and pictures. ;-)

has been adopted as the secular norm for the application of all family law. The two need to be separated. The people who need the religious ceremony can get it if they wish but it should not offer them any greater protection than the couple who live together and declare their couplehood in a civil union.

The only people who would suffer from this approach? The Bridal industry which is getting to be as big a burden from a financial standpoint as a college education. It also is responsible for a fantasy shield that keeps people considering commitment from looking at real issues.