Forget the Word Gay Marriage
How homosexuals can gain all the protection of marriage without drama.
If homosexuals were really interested in creating legally binding unions, they would avoid the word “marriage”. Only Gays sacrifice their rights to gain public acknowledgment of their rights. No one ever refused to rent to the two men or two women who would be “roommates”. Sharing a flat has never been a problem with same sex persons; until same sex persons decided to move what they did behind their door into the hallway, so that a stranger to their relationship was nowasked to venture an opinion on homosexuality.
Once that heterosexual landlord or landlady was presented with the sexual nature of her tenants, she was forced to make a decision on what would be none of her business if the couple hadn’t made it her business. Hence, the fundie Christian landlady, renting to two women, about to advise them that she didn’t allow men to spend the night, is now given the opportunity to recite Leviticus. It is this obstreperousness which is more harmful to the Gay community than the entire Mormon Church. Throughout the ages contracts have existed to protect the rights of parties to that contract. Whether it is for goods or services, contracts have existed to form legally binding relationships between parties. Marriage is a contract. So are partnership agreements.
Often the latter contains better protection and a more concise division of property on the dissolution of the partnership. There is no reason why homosexuals who wish to protect their partners can not form a contract which provides all the rights one would gain (and lose) in marriage. That Proposition Eight passed in California should not be taken as a loss by the Gay community. It must be read as the opportunity to create something new and better than the current marriage act. Let us examine the current ceremony of marriage. A female, designated bride, is shrouded in white to symbolise purity and led to the altar, where a male, the groom, waits. The bride is led by her father or male relative who “gives” her to the groom. The words said at the altar seem rather silly if the parties have already engaged in sex. At the end of the ceremony the female become “wife” the male becomes “husband” and the wife takes the name of the husband. Does this ceremony in anyway suit a homosexual couple? Would it not be more useful to totally redraft the ceremony avoiding one being led and “given” to the other. Instead of a marriage contract, the parties would sign a partnership agreement they have written specifying the rights and responsibilities they desire.
The archaic terms; wife and husband are dispensed with for the more egalitarian partners. The legal provisions of the agreement are binding and yet, termination of the partnership is a matter for the partners, and the relationship can be painlessly terminated, hence the avoidance of divorce. Here is a union between two people, a legally binding union. A union which can be celebrated in whatever ceremony the parties desire. A union in which the rights of both are fully protected. A union that requires no constitutional amendment, no voting, no public display, a union that simply recognises the relationship and protects the rights of the parties. The fact that homosexuals refuse to utilise the laws already in existence, and search for the “magic word” which will provoke heterosexual society is cogent proof it is not about rights, it is about attention. ?
Liked it
User Comments
Ruby Hawk
On November 9, 2008 at 11:40 am
Thank you for expressing it so well. I have absolutely no problem with homosexual living but there has always been something I couldn’t quite put my finger on that bothered me about marriage between two of the same sex. You said it for me. Take care, Ruby
a fool
On November 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm
If it was merely about rights, any lawyer can advise. The fact
homosexuals focus on a word and not the substance makes the
process suspect.
Drew Diligents
On November 9, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Your argument is poorly formed, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the issues surrounding this debate. I shouldn’t be too surprised at your ignorance however, it is neatly expressed in the title to this piece,’Forget the word gay marriage’. Gay marriage is two words.
Ruby Hawk, your comment that the argument was well expressed gives me pause as to your good sense. Marlowe is easier to read than this rubbish!
A fool, the fact that your thought process seems to be in reverse makes me think you’re suspect. The truth that lawyers can advise people of their rights is universally accepted. The reality that homosexuals focus on the institution of marriage, means that there is more to the debate than contractual rights.
a fool
On November 9, 2008 at 9:28 pm
No Drew. It’s not about ‘rights’. It’s about pushing until
there is a reaction, which the vote in California proves.
Anyone can form a partnership, a company, a contract.
Hence any homosexual can set about organising his or her
property to insure his or her partner is protected.
Marriage is between a woman and a man in Western nations.
And because of all the activity in the Gay Community, this
will be confirmed. Unlike those who are interested in simple
rights and will use what is available to insure them, you are only interested in the word. Many Divorce lawyers want Gay marriage as their retainers will double.
Drew Diligents
On November 11, 2008 at 7:28 pm
A Fool. Marriage is more than just a legal contract, it’s a social contract as well. If we are to progress as a society and throw off the shackles of discrimination, as we are slowly doing on many fronts. We can no longer suffer the pretense of fairness whilst denying a group, any group, access to what everybody else takes for granted. Marriage may be just a word that encapsulates a legal framework to you, but it represents, and symbolizes much more than that.
a fool
On November 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Marriage, as you know it, was created in 1609 by Lord Hardwicke
in England to prevent the abduction of heiresses.
All that dearly beloved two witness thingy was decreed by
an English Lord and much of the provisions were taken by
other European countries.
Hence, the guardian of the female leads her to the altar
and gives her to a man who then has rights over her.
This is what marriage is, at it’s essence.
Now imagine a Gay Couple, draft their own partnership
agreement. Puts everything they want into it. They
create a ceremony that means something to them, and
they come before a lawyer in the presence of all their
friends, and sign this contract, this legally binding
contract, and are, officially Partners.
Gone is the ‘husband’ ‘wife’ terminology.
Gone is the female servitude of a man giving a woman
to another man at an altar like a sacrifice.
Gone also is the need for divorce if the Partnership
breaks down; for the parties can terminate when they
chose without having to go through the discomfort of
divorce.
With a partnership agreement, everything can be worked
out, so that at the end of the day the parties know what
they have gotten into, get out of, and can live without
the slightest fear of who votes on what proposition.
The word ‘marriage’, considering the divorce rate, has
lost a lot of its cache, and the Gay Community is in
the position to create something better.
Drew Diligence
On November 12, 2008 at 4:50 pm
A Fool. Your view of marriage as a European 17th Century institution is hopelessly misguided. All societies of all credos going back thousands of years practiced marriage.
Marriage is a social compact which gives those who invest in the institution legal and social standing. Whilst the legalities of the marriage contract may be mimicked by legal form, its status and tradition cannot.
The word marriage encapsulates more than just a legal framework. Marriage is a lifestyle, an acceptance, a status. It carries with it responsibility, and security. These are the elements represented by the word marriage that the gay community wants to tap into. Who are we to deny them?
a fool
On November 12, 2008 at 5:52 pm
all societies have marriage to confirm the parentage of children.
Obviously, that is not what you are talking about. What I have to
tell you is that you are not familiar with divorce. The problem
with marriage today is that half, (or more) end in divorce. Divorce
isn’t just two people walking in separate directions, as would happen in a partnership, it is an all out pitched and public battle
in a court where every item of property is fought over.
Although in it’s infantcy, a number of straight people are eschewing marriage as it exists today, opting for other legal
relationships.
Drew Diligents
On November 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
A Fool. You are changing your argument. I would argue that as it is the right of straight people to marry and divorce, so it is the right of gay people to marry and divorce.
Relationships outside of marriage do not protect your assets from dispute. The break up of non marriage relationships also result in court battles.
If marriage was such a disparaged arrangement as you attempt to say, why is it still the norm? The rich and powerful prefer the prenuptial contract, and marriage, to the legalistic wranglings you bleat on about here.
a fool
On November 13, 2008 at 9:53 am
no, I\’m not changing my arguments. The reality is that Gays
want \’marriage\’ because a man and a woman can marry in society.
The fact it is totally unnecessary does not impinge on their
demand.
Partnerships, company agreements, contracts work better, and
any court battles are usually due to fraud or an unclear provision in the document.
Up until your last sentence I assumed this was an intellectual
discussion;……Only Gays sacrifice their rights to gain public acknowledgment of their rights….
In short, The Gay Marriage argument is not about protecting
the Rights, it is about annoying the hell out of straight
society.
The point is not that Adam and Steve have a \’right\’ to love
each other or a \’right\’ to live together or a \’right\’ to have
their status respected, that\’s too boring.
The point is to attack every institution of straight society
and demand whatever it is; even a special public bathroom..
(I\’m sure that\’s next) for attention and to \’punish\’ straight
society for being straight.
Drew Diligents
On November 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm
A fool. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I think we are starting to see your true colors. You have shrouded your prejudice in a cloak of pseudo intellectualism. What does a comment about public bathrooms have to do with a debate on the institution of marriage?
I’m afraid I’m going to have to call you on that. Your last response is that of a bigot.
You contend that straight society is annoyed at the machinations of the Gay fraternity. I’m not annoyed. I don’t live my life wondering what this or that organization are doing. However I recognize what’s fair, and what’s unfair.
If my children, or grandchildren were gay, I would want for them to enjoy all of the freedoms and responsibilities that I have enjoyed.
You continually avoid my point that marriage is not just a legal contract, it has a social standing as well. Gay people want to benefit from the more esoteric meaning of marriage.
a fool
On November 14, 2008 at 8:27 am
In your last post to me; your closing sentence reads..
“legalistic wranglings you bleat on about here.”
Now upon reading the word ‘bleat’ I comprehended
your actual position as psuedo-straight.
Hence, we are not discussing a topic, you are
shrouding your agenda in ‘a cloak of pseudo
intellectualism.’
In a south east asian nation, the push of homosexuals
and trans-genders has led to the establishment
of a special bathroom for their use.
Surprised this isn’t on the wall of your room
marked as another ’success’.
You are not annoyed at the machinations of the Gay
raternity, for those are your machinations.
I recall a chap calling himself ‘Ricardo’ claiming
to be straight and married, posting very much like
you until he was revealed to be a member of the
Lavendar Wolves; (please don’t pretend you don’t know
that organisation).
Please show the benefit to anyone who claims to be ‘married’
when such is not accepted by the majority of locations
on Earth.
Hence the Gay couple who follows your reasoning, eschews
all other legal possibilites, gets married in Conn. (which
as of writing recognises Gay Marriage) but said marriage
is not recognised anywhere else in the world.
I am writing about protecting ‘rights’ you are regurgitating
the usual rhetoric.
Drew Diligents
On November 14, 2008 at 10:06 am
A Fool. Let me address your points one by one.
To your first point, that wasn’t the closing sentence of my last post, it was the terminating part of my last sentence, of my second last post.
Your second point. I don’t understand how the word bleat would lead any body to presume somebody is “pseudo straight”. Whatever that is. It is in fact a reference to sheep, sheep bleat, and I regard your protestations as bearing close resemblance to many others; hence the bleat phrase.
I don’t understand your third point. You seem to be accusing me of using your shroud. Not sure what’s going on there.
I wasn’t aware that South East Asian homosexuals and trans gender people had a special bathroom. Sounds a lot like crap to me.
I have absolutely no idea what your next point is, something about success being marked on my wall.
In your next paragraph you you infer that I’m Gay. Sorry no luck there. You don’t need to be gay to have an opinion that gay people should be allowed to marry. Its just not a part of the deal. As difficult as it may be for you to believe I am actually, a happily married straight man, with two children. As stated in my last post, if my children, or grandchildren, were gay I’d want them to have the same rights as every one else.
I have no idea who Ricardo is. I don’t believe I even know a Ricardo. And I have no idea who the Lavender Wolves are.
Your statement that gay marriage is not recognized any where in the world is wrong. England has gay marriage.
Rather than arguing my points you are attempting to portray me as some sort of gay stealth fighter. Your woeful diatribe only further evidences your obvious dislike of homosexuals, and nullifies your rather inane foolish position.
a fool
On November 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The assumption you are gay is due to your rabid support of a bankrupt argument. The discussion concerns protecting rights now, as the headline reveals:How homosexuals can gain all the protection of marriage without drama.
As to transgender bathrooms in Thailand, I expected you, as you are so deeply involved in Gay Issues to refer me to
Is Our Nation Going to Pot? Transgender Bathrooms at Ivy League …
A recent report indicates that campuses across the US are playing host to gay and lesbian groups by installing trans-gender bathrooms.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/34731 is_our_nation_going_to_pot_transgender.html
However, I suppose you occasionally miss things.
An English ‘Gay’ couple is not accepted anywhere in the
Caribbean or South America, save the Brit. colony of Cayman.
Not recognised in other parts of Europe, Africa, etc.
Let us suppose, right now, a Conn Gay couple marries. Nothing
else. Then, the Mormons come to Conn. and the law is changed
so that they are no longer married.
One dies, and out of the woodwork comes relatives, for the
\’Spouse\’ of the decedent is not Recognised. He gets nothing.
He may sue for servants wages or be able to prove that he
bought the television.
By using other legal means it doesn\’t matter what the voters
in Conn. decide. Hence, by gripping the word \’marriage\’ Gay
couples put themselves at risk.
There is no magic to \’marriage\’ when other laws in effect can
give better and more certain protection.
Currently a group of gays in California are proceeding in the
paths I have suggested, and though some will go through a
marriage ceremony for their own personal enjoyment, they look
to the less \’charged\’ laws for protection.
The topic is protection of rights not semantics.
Y’know, during the civil rights movement in America, a number
of white liberals set themselves up as spokesmen for the black
community. These white liberals assumed they could articulate
the demands better than those who were making them.
If you are, as you allege, not gay, then it is better you
forge no opinion on a matter which does not concern you.
Drew Diligents
On November 14, 2008 at 9:11 pm
A fool. You are missing the point. The protections of marriage carry further than the legal standing and rights of married couples. It carries to the social spectrum as well. It is these rights that the gay fraternity aspire to. It is these rights that only marriage can provide.
A legal form of partnership, and legally drawn up wills, and trusts have been part of gay life for decades. There is nothing new in what you are stating in your article about how gay people can seek to protect their relationships. Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
Your obsession with toilets I find … troubling.
There is most certainly a magic to marriage. People want at some point to progress their relationship, marriage is an important outcome in that development, for all of the societal, and legal benefits that marriage conveys.
You speak about protection of rights by seeking to deny a right. If marriage is such a poor form of legal protection, and is such a disparaged institution, why not give gay people access to it.
I don’t need your permission on which opinions I will or will not forge.
a fool
On November 14, 2008 at 11:17 pm
No, Drew, the ‘protection’ of marriage does not go as far as
certain other legal relationships. Company Law, for example,
protects property far better. Contracts specify rights far
better. This is because marriage, as it stands, is not
eglatarian and was never created to deal with rights.
Today many straight couples choose to live together sans
marriage. This is because marriage does not give the parties
the kind of equality they have as single people.
You can hold any opinion you wish. That is your right.
What I find troubling, is your belief that you can make
decisions for persons outside of the group you belong to.
I recall a white liberal professor at a University I
attended enunciating the demands of the black students
and one of them stood up and told him, most rudely, to
shut up.
He was ‘trying to help’. The best help, he was told,
was to stay out of the way.
The ‘transgender toilet’ argument is currently raging,
I don’t see how someone so deep into homosexual affairs
as you are would be unaware of it.
I thought someone as entrenched in homosexuality as you
are would be in the front lines of demanding that all
public buildings have transgender toilets.
After all, it’s one of the rights guaranteed by your
constitution isn’t it?
a fool
On November 15, 2008 at 8:43 am
By the way….marriage offers what ‘protection?’
I can tell you this, if you are sued and do not
have enough cash to pay that debt, your house
can be used to satisfy. Hence where is the
‘protection’ for your family?
BTW if the house was owned by a company it
could not be so used.
Drew Diligents
On November 15, 2008 at 8:19 pm
A Fool. As ever your comments are drivel dressed up as fact. You drone on about legal protections, all the while ignoring my argument that the reason gay people seek to marry, and have the right to participate in the institution of marriage, is so that they can avail themselves of marriages more esoteric rights.
I wasn’t aware I belonged to a certain group. I thought we were all humans together. I’m not making decisions for anybody, merely proffering my opinion.
Your fascination with toilets, and fixation that I am deeply involved in homosexual affairs is wrong on at least two levels, and points to some sort of psychosis which you may need to seek medical advice on.
Your reading of the law is somewhat naive. The house owned by the company may be protected, however your shares in the company are not. And if it can be proved that the asset was acquired by the company to stop it being pursued for debt, it can be reclaimed.
I reiterate my point if marriage is such a poor form of legal protection why not allow gay people to marry?
a fool
On November 15, 2008 at 11:00 pm
As usual, your opinions are pushed as if you are in the running
for some liberal award, but are more detrimental to the group you
think you are protecting than the Mormons.
Firstly, if a company owns property, as it is a legal person in
law, it’s property is separate and apart from that of a private
individual. Shares in a private company which have restricted
transfer can not be taken by a third party. Hence where there is
a private company and the Articles of Association, as they must,
restrict the transfer of shares between the directors, a third
party could not acquire your shares.
Hence creating a company which manages the property of the parties creates a far safer environment. (This has been tested
and proven in a Court of Law, so unlike you, who spew verbiage
about a group you do not belong to, are now spewing foolishness
about a subject you know nothing about.)
Not being gay, you have no locus standi as to why gay people wish to marry, hence your opinions on the mind set of a group
you do not belong to, according to your own avowals, is the
typical white american males belief he knows best.
The article simply offers legal advice to gay partners which they
can utilise now. To put it simply, yes, I know to change a tyre
I should use a lug tool, but I don’t have one, so I’m using a
wrench.
You may wish to stand on the side of the road and expound the joys of a lug tool, but I need to change the tyre now, so I’ll
use the wrench until if/when I get a lug tool.
Drew Diligents
On November 16, 2008 at 12:38 am
A Fool. You are changing your argument again, and seeking to subvert your articles intent. Did you think that I would forget what you wrote, when I can plainly see what is written above. Gay people already use the various legal mechanisms available to them to protect their relationships. Given that there must be another reason for them to so ardently pursue marriage. That reason is not, as you would have me believe, a nation wide gay conspiracy to annoy you. It is to gain true equality and validation of their relationships.
Your insights into company structure and law are laughable. If it were so easy to protect companies and assets owned through trusts and limited companies there would be no such thing as a prenuptial agreement.
Even with a prenuptial agreement, there is no absolute guarantee that a court would not abandon, or modify that agreement.
Your claim that this article constitutes legal advice, wounded me… I laughed so much my sides split.
My Locus Standi is that I represent a person in the community, and as previously stated, would want my children or grandchildren, if they were gay, to have the same rights and privileges that I do.
Your absurd contention that I have to be gay to voice an opinion on gay rights, flies in the face of your own opinion, (I’m assuming you’re not gay), and my own rights to free speech. I might also say, I am not an illegal immigrant, I’m not President of the United States, and I’m not a woman, that doesn’t mean I am somehow unable to comment on illegal immigration, politics, or women’s rights.
Your trite characterization relating this debate to tool use, gives evidence as to the small minded contempt you exhibit for this subject. You seek to prop up your own ego at the expense of arguing the point.
a fool
On November 16, 2008 at 8:50 am
Having written the article I would know its contents.
Further, I have never changed my position.
What I can’t understand, is where I am defending
my article, you seem to gain no particular benefit.
(you do know I’m paid by hits, right?)
Unlike you, I do not discuss what I neither know, nor
concerns me. I happen to be a lawyer. You are not a lawyer.
I think anyone reading this fascinating exchange must
ponder why a so-called straight man has become
so fascinated by this topic.
You penultimate paragraph’s final sentence says it
all;
‘that doesn’t mean I am…unable to comment on…
women’s rights.’
Not that it isn’t hysterically funny to see a white
guy telling black people what they want, or women
what they want, or a pseudo straight telling gays
what they want…
it is just that such comments are worthless.
Having posted the original article’s contents elsewhere
and having received comments from the Gay Community…
that is, people who admit they are Gay and that the Law
effects them, have agreed with the concepts I raise in
re protection.
As you might notice, no Gay reader has attacked the
legal issues as many are familiar with these methods
and use them.
However, continue to respond to my posts.
I am basing another article on the exchanges.
Drew Diligents
On November 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm
A Fool. You are like the hands of a clock, forever changing position.
The benefit I gain is to challenge your misconceptions, and to further the debate. I suspect the Dear Reader benefits more from reading this exchange than the poorly constructed article which is the source of our fracas.
I am well aware that you gain huge amounts of money from this tête-à-tête, maybe as much as three or four cents. No doubt you need the money, and as I am not paying the bill, I couldn’t care less.
My friend if you are a lawyer I’m Osama Bin Laden’s left butt cheek. Your poor grammar and phrasing are not indicative of a person whose profession revolves around the written word. You also have no idea of who, or what I am. I didn’t concoct the nom de plume Drew Diligence so I could advertise my identity to all and sundry.
Your contention that persons who are not of a particular group cannot offer worthwhile comments in support or otherwise of that particular group are… strange.
I am very aware that the gay community are well informed of their legal rights in regards to protecting their relationships. That is my point. Being thus aware, there must be another reason why the gay fraternity pursues the right to Marry. It is not the trite reason you put forth; to “provoke heterosexual society”, (those are your words in your article). It is the pursuit of true equality and the true validation of their relationships.
I look forward to your new article, I can only hope it is better written and more informed than the rubbish you normally inflict upon us, the Dear Reader.
Drew Diligents
On November 17, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hello Iron side; (that’s another fictional lawyer, just in case you didn’t get the reference)
I knew if I kept at you, you would show your true colors.
Your overarching belief is that the pursuit of marriage by gay people is attention seeking. That gay people are involved in a nationwide conspiracy to openly pursue marriage rights to “provoke heterosexual society”.
I saw your article for what it was on first reading and determined to bring you to account for it.
You are nothing but a bigot.
You need not worry about any more posts from me; you have condemned yourself with your own words. If you can’t recognize the ignorance of what you are saying, nothing I post will change that.
FESBIAN LEMONIST
On November 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The Gay Community means male homosexuals. Male Homosexuals do
not speak for lesbians.
Ive waded through the crap posted by Drew Diligence and its the same old garbage Male Homosexuals have been pushing for decades.
As a lesbian, if I wanted to be married Id be straight.
I dont want to be married in a white dress in church or anywhere else given to someone or someone is given to me.
I want protection, yes. I want my partner to be protected, yes and if there is a way to do it without the tired old crap of marriage, then that is what I want.
If Drew is a straight married man as he claims to be then get out
of my life. I dont need no straight married man to tell me what
I want or what I feel.
If Drew is a gay guy playing straight as many do because deep down they are ashamed of their orientation I dont want to read his opinion ten times.
Glynis Smy
On January 8, 2009 at 2:45 pm
OOOHHH dare I mention my cousin and his partner ‘married’ after 25yrs and are celebrating their 1st anniversary? I am celebrating 30yrs of marriage this year….what is the difference,aside from 5yrs, neither party has hurt anyone and we are 2 happily married couples. The difference? My family didn’t go ‘ ugh’ ‘What?! shock horror’ when I met my partner for life. Interesting debate, sorry article.
a fool
On January 8, 2009 at 11:21 pm
The point I have tried to make; if your marriage could be annulled at any moment by the state; if your relationship depends on the mood of the population at any given time, then what you have to do is resort to other legislation to insure protection.
fesbie
On August 21, 2009 at 9:11 pm
When are people going to wake up? The relationship, not the word is important. You want to say my partner is more important to me than my blood relatives and I am legally protecting my partner.
I wish all the Gay sheep and Liberal Bigots would stay out of the debate.
Trey
On August 25, 2009 at 3:27 am
Um Hello,
If you are straight, there is no need for lawyers or any of that bull! So what makes it different for gays? The fact that they are a couple of the same sex?
And btw, Gay discrimination and Hate antics aren’t only thrown at gay people but any effeminate male, any tom boyish girl and their acceptance by society is not only a wholesome inclusion which benefits society as a whole but also protects many people who identify as queer and children who were reared in gay partnerships. The tragedy in this column is the perpetuated mythos that gays should be in hiding and if not they should fear the reprecussions of such publicity! Tripe! Equality is the day justice doesn’t stick her petty hands in my underwear and ban me from marrying my partner. It’s that simple. We want to get married. I think this is a matter we have to be vocal on, so yes, we do need attention. How can a population of 3-10% percent do anything without some sort of attention, when the rights of a minority (a minority whose opposing majority is religious based) dissolve at the whim of voters?
Here you are, Gay person… Here is the maze of lawyers and law cases and you are here media res. You have no veritable ‘choice.’ If you find yourself in a corner, you are suspect of anyone you meet there. Do not dare bring someone else along, do not dare compare yourself to the others in the maze.
And by the way, saying “its about the relationship, not the word,” buy another vowel, Yo-r f-cked. When do you stop whittling down what you feel for you partner, your hopes for a life with that person. Until the voices of the conservatives are stridently truthful. “It could be anyone else.” When you want to say it for your valiant forever, you say it with marriage, not a partnership.
A. Fool
On August 25, 2009 at 11:30 am
A lot of straight people, if you haven’t noticed, are not going through marriage ceremonies for the same reason. Think of how many straight people are just living together, forming companies, contracts, etc to avoid the problems. The Gay community should be leading the way.
Considering the number of pre-nups, considering the utilisation of contracts in re property in many many hetero marriages today, one wonders what the gay community is thinking.
Post Comment