Comments on: An “Outside Of the Box” solution to Gay Marriage Debate http://www.whytheheck.com/2009/12/04/an-outside-of-the-box-solution-to-gay-marriage-debate/ Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:47:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: alewis http://www.whytheheck.com/2009/12/04/an-outside-of-the-box-solution-to-gay-marriage-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-960 alewis Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:53:45 +0000 http://www.thinkoob.com/?p=828#comment-960 Assume that you are in a state that already has civil unions for gays. Gays can receive a license for a civil union. The rights of civil unions are identical vis-a-vis the state (and for health care and pensions, employers) to those of a married couple. Rights vis-a-vis each other might be different, like what each partner's rights are in divorce -- more on this in a minute. Therefore a homosexual couple that got a license for a civil union AND agreed in the marriage contract to be bound by the family laws of the state regarding marriage, would in effect be married, EXCEPT that they cannot get a marriage license from their town. The town or city could easily just create a new civil union license, then, that looks IDENTICAL to a marriage license except that the word "Pairage" replaces the word "Marriage." They are within the confines of the state statute, which does not regulate what they call the civil union on the license other than it isn't a marriage, to call it a "pairage." Then a heterosexual couple could also get the exact same license, agree to be bound by laws regarding marriage not already in the civil union (if any), and have a "pairage" identical to a marriage. If even a few hetero couples opt for a pairage (as I would) the entire debate becomes moot because suddenly a civil union is elevated to parity with marriage. Since the large majority of people support civil unions, it is unlikely that any legislature will repeal civil unions. Absent that repeal, you now have a coupling agreement which is identical for straights and gays with all the rights and obligations of marriage. Assume that you are in a state that already has civil unions for gays. Gays can receive a license for a civil union. The rights of civil unions are identical vis-a-vis the state (and for health care and pensions, employers) to those of a married couple. Rights vis-a-vis each other might be different, like what each partner’s rights are in divorce — more on this in a minute.

Therefore a homosexual couple that got a license for a civil union AND agreed in the marriage contract to be bound by the family laws of the state regarding marriage, would in effect be married, EXCEPT that they cannot get a marriage license from their town.

The town or city could easily just create a new civil union license, then, that looks IDENTICAL to a marriage license except that the word “Pairage” replaces the word “Marriage.” They are within the confines of the state statute, which does not regulate what they call the civil union on the license other than it isn’t a marriage, to call it a “pairage.”

Then a heterosexual couple could also get the exact same license, agree to be bound by laws regarding marriage not already in the civil union (if any), and have a “pairage” identical to a marriage.

If even a few hetero couples opt for a pairage (as I would) the entire debate becomes moot because suddenly a civil union is elevated to parity with marriage. Since the large majority of people support civil unions, it is unlikely that any legislature will repeal civil unions. Absent that repeal, you now have a coupling agreement which is identical for straights and gays with all the rights and obligations of marriage.

]]> By: harvardeconomist http://www.whytheheck.com/2009/12/04/an-outside-of-the-box-solution-to-gay-marriage-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-959 harvardeconomist Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:29:43 +0000 http://www.thinkoob.com/?p=828#comment-959 I usually read this blog for the economic ideas (and will order the book) but while I see how this solution works, I don't get why you don't need a law to be passed to allow it I usually read this blog for the economic ideas (and will order the book) but while I see how this solution works, I don’t get why you don’t need a law to be passed to allow it

]]> By: Al Lewis http://www.whytheheck.com/2009/12/04/an-outside-of-the-box-solution-to-gay-marriage-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-957 Al Lewis Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:34:33 +0000 http://www.thinkoob.com/?p=828#comment-957 Just to encourage the rest of you to Think OOBily, I got permission to list the real name of the guy who came up with the word "Pairage," David Blacklock, of Waco, TX. (Also a prolific Amazon reviewer to whom an advance review copy was sent, who gave my book five stars, if anyone would care to look at the OOBonomics Amazon page.) David will be receiving his $500 check -- the third person to do so -- as soon as either a second OOBonomics edition comes out OR the word "pairage" gets into the vernacular. (He doesn't get the $1-million because the actual idea of a third word for straights and gays to marry was mine. It's a bit harder to win the $1-million than the $500, as you might imagine.) Just to encourage the rest of you to Think OOBily, I got permission to list the real name of the guy who came up with the word “Pairage,” David Blacklock, of Waco, TX. (Also a prolific Amazon reviewer to whom an advance review copy was sent, who gave my book five stars, if anyone would care to look at the OOBonomics Amazon page.)

David will be receiving his $500 check — the third person to do so — as soon as either a second OOBonomics edition comes out OR the word “pairage” gets into the vernacular. (He doesn’t get the $1-million because the actual idea of a third word for straights and gays to marry was mine. It’s a bit harder to win the $1-million than the $500, as you might imagine.)

]]> By: alewis http://www.whytheheck.com/2009/12/04/an-outside-of-the-box-solution-to-gay-marriage-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-956 alewis Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:49:37 +0000 http://www.thinkoob.com/?p=828#comment-956 It also occurs to me that -- in states where gays are allowed civil unions with rights identical to those of marriages -- you would not need to change the law at the state level. The law exists. You are merely changing the wording on the marriage license to "pairage," and marriages are done on the municipal level, at city halls. I myself would be willing to get married just to be the first straight couple to get a "pairage license." Yes, someone would sue to enjoin the process, and say this has to be done by the state but until then we would enjoy our pairage just a little bit more than we would have enjoyed a marriage, knowing that gays are enjoying exactly the same pairage we have, the only difference being the birth control. It also occurs to me that — in states where gays are allowed civil unions with rights identical to those of marriages — you would not need to change the law at the state level. The law exists. You are merely changing the wording on the marriage license to “pairage,” and marriages are done on the municipal level, at city halls. I myself would be willing to get married just to be the first straight couple to get a “pairage license.”

Yes, someone would sue to enjoin the process, and say this has to be done by the state but until then we would enjoy our pairage just a little bit more than we would have enjoyed a marriage, knowing that gays are enjoying exactly the same pairage we have, the only difference being the birth control.

]]> By: Al Lewis http://www.whytheheck.com/2009/12/04/an-outside-of-the-box-solution-to-gay-marriage-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-941 Al Lewis Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:29:46 +0000 http://www.thinkoob.com/?p=828#comment-941 Yes, the whole concept of marriage being legal -- in the absence of minor children -- is a bit of a head-scratcher. In my last marriage (to a previous girlfriend who had a terminal disease and only lived 8 weeks after we got married), we never got a license and didn't feel any bit less married as a result. Someone suggested the word "pairage" for a marriage that either gays or straights could enter into but for some reason the comment didn't show up. A GREAT word! Yes, the whole concept of marriage being legal — in the absence of minor children — is a bit of a head-scratcher. In my last marriage (to a previous girlfriend who had a terminal disease and only lived 8 weeks after we got married), we never got a license and didn’t feel any bit less married as a result.

Someone suggested the word “pairage” for a marriage that either gays or straights could enter into but for some reason the comment didn’t show up. A GREAT word!

]]> By: Mary Whisner http://www.whytheheck.com/2009/12/04/an-outside-of-the-box-solution-to-gay-marriage-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-933 Mary Whisner Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:34:47 +0000 http://www.thinkoob.com/?p=828#comment-933 This is similar to a proposal that there be one legal relationship that the state creates and that it be available to everyone (call it civil marriage or domestic partnership or civil union), and that there be another, religious relationship that people who choose to can have recognized by their religious institutions. If you want the legal obligations and benefits, you go with the legal relationship. If your faith recognizes your relationship, you can also go to your church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever, and have it blessed. By the way, radical gays think that the whole move for marriage is way too conservative. They argue that the institution of marriage is bad all the way around. There are also some people who argue that there should be legal protections for all sorts of families -- e.g., elderly sisters who live together. This is similar to a proposal that there be one legal relationship that the state creates and that it be available to everyone (call it civil marriage or domestic partnership or civil union), and that there be another, religious relationship that people who choose to can have recognized by their religious institutions.

If you want the legal obligations and benefits, you go with the legal relationship.

If your faith recognizes your relationship, you can also go to your church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever, and have it blessed.

By the way, radical gays think that the whole move for marriage is way too conservative. They argue that the institution of marriage is bad all the way around. There are also some people who argue that there should be legal protections for all sorts of families — e.g., elderly sisters who live together.

]]>