We can have gay marriage right now (and really piss 'em off)

[Neecy]

I posted this over in LBN, and I wonder if a large, public, massive Marriage Day would work. It certainly would have the opposition grinding their teeth (and it would prove a point - we won't be stopped).

I've often thought that the impetus behind the opposition to gay marriage is fiscal - the usual suspect, big business, driving their agenda by turning the issue into a 'moral' one and letting the sheeple do their dirty work for them. Simply put, the corporations that don't currently pay domestic partnership benefits don't want to have to legally extend those benefits under a civil marriage.

Perhaps the only way to break the back of this corporate intransigence is for a massive 'marry-in' between gay men and lesbians. We'll have gay marriage of a different variety - one that's legal in all 50 states. And one that gives full benefits to both partners. The beauty of it is with a simple marriage license, there's no need to the married partners to even live together - they're legally married, right? Just rake in the benefits that the rest of the country enjoys, such as access to our spouse's health care benefits.

There's more than one way to strike back. And it really *is* time to strike back.

[Burma Jones]

1. Hell, Corporations will simply use Gay Marriage as an excuse

to stop providing benefits altogether.

[Siyahamba]

2. When you're in the hospital...

The one who would be able to visit you would be the opposite sex person you married - not your partner. Just an example.

[noamnety]

3. Inheritence, ownership

A lot of marriage benefits are specific to the spouse for a reason, although health insurance is a huge benefit that is good for any person who can get it.

You'd have to have some rock-solid prenups to deal with separate finances, and do things like make sure both (wo)men's names were on deeds and bank accounts. And you'd have a liability issue - you don't want a husband racking up credit card charges, and the wife being held responsible for it.

But it is an interesting idea.

[murray hill farm]

4. Other than a spouse can visit u in the hospital!!

What do you mean???

[Siyahamba]

6. I mean there are benefits that are more personal than financial

Such as sick care leave to care for your actual partner - these are things you could not do with an opposite sex substitute. There are other legalities such as immigration - if they discovered your "marriage" was fraudulent, you'd be deported.

[murray hill farm]

8. Sure...

and there would be the problem with inheritance. If you should die, your legal spouse would be the one to have the guaranteed 2/3 right by most states to your assets...so u would have to really, really, really trust your "legal" spouse to do right by you.

[unblock]

5. marrying the wrong person won't help, but powers of attorney can

with a fairly hefty set of legal documents (powers of attorney, etc.), you can get a good chunk of marriage benefits.

your idea might be useful in a few cases, but i doubt it; in any event, it's certainly not worth the extra legal hassle.

for instance, to get the income tax benefits of marriage, in your scenario you would marry the wrong person, but then you would need a boatload of legal documents to "unmerge" your finances from the wrong person and "remerge" them with the right person. and all this then runs the risk of having the irs decide it's a sham marriage and throw you in jail for evasion.

[Neecy]

7. true....

You would certainly need a rock-solid prenup, and the tax implications - such as one partner having a tax lien that the other partner automatically assumes, prenup or not - would be problematic.
Still, I'm not sure the IRS can determine if a marriage is 'sham' or not - the INS can, but that's for an entirely separate purpose.

My point is, this is a two-front war - with the 'moralists' who object for religious reasons, and the corporations who simply don't want to provide health benefits. We can't slay the first dragon, but we can harm the second - and the health benefits would be the primary reason for doing it. For example, Kansas is about to outlaw not only gay marriage but domestic partner benefits. A state that passes such punative legislation shouldn't be rewarded, but fought against by having gay-lesbian marriages to reinstate the health benefits. It's legal - after all, it's the cherished 'man-woman' scenario - and it shows that we won't allow the few rights we have to be eroded.

[Ian David]

9. I posted something similar as a suggestion a while back

Subject: proposal for a new tactic

Every time a gay person has to go to court to protect their rights, it costs someone time, money and resources.

1) The municipality that has to fight against it.
2) The anti-gay groups that for some reason think they have a stake in the issue.

So, here is my proposal:

Simultaneously, on the same day, a WHOLE BUNCH of gay couples all file civil rights cases in MULTIPLE JURISDICTION AND MULTIPLE STATES for the right to marry.

These jurisdictions will be selected in favor of those that are:

1) The most conservative, most likely to object (also has punitive value).
2) The least likely to have the resources to defend themselves.

A dirt-poor community would need the most help from the anti-gay activist groups.

These civil rights cases would all be filed pro-se (without a lawyer).

The goal is to become a burden on THEIR resources without spending any of our own.

The strategy would be to target ultra-conservative-anti-gay-dirt-poor communities that can't bear the burden of a defense which will also over-whelm the logistical resources of the anti-gay fundie groups that seem to have way too much time to make gay people miserable.

Call it a legal "Shock and Awe" campaign.

More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x6063


See also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=6065#6074
<snip
5) Shock-and-awe campaign of simultaneous gay-rights lawsuits filed pro-se in ultra-conservative dirt-poor jurisdictions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x6063
<snip>