Since there's currently no litmus test for what constitutes a committed gay relationship (ie marriage), it seems like a bureaucratic nightmare to distinguish between two same-gender friends and a gay couple. For example, there are a lot of single-family residences that don't allow unrelated inhabitants. How does the apartment manager get to decide whether to allow two guys that show up wanting to rent a unit?
Yeah, I know that's not the best example in the world, but I meant that to demonstrate the milli
OK. Is there a form for straight unmarried partners to sign so that they can receive the same benefits?
The schism really seems to be between married and unmarried couples, rather than gay and straight couples. I think governments would be better served to address that issue than to patch a bunch of smaller laws.
I could see that as a substitute for civil unions if it were available to both orientations and on-demand. Otherwise, a straight couple could make a pretty reasonable argument that they shouldn't have to wait a year (or however long it takes to be married under common law in Washington) when a gay couple can sign a piece of paper giving them the same privileges immediately.
Which leads to a related question: if John and Kevin apply for things normally only available to married people by signing an affidav
And in the states who haven't repealed the laws, is adultery outside of a gay marriage a criminal matter?
And if John is bisexual and marries Jane later without divorcing Kevin first, is that bigomy? If it isn't, does that mean one person can be a party to both a straight marriage and a gay marriage at the same time? (other permutations left as an exercise to the reader)
If Mary and Jane get married and Mary gets pregnant, does the common law assumption of paternity declare that Jane is the father and req
The reason that every major university maintains a department of
mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I know that's not the best example in the world, but I meant that to demonstrate the milli
Re:Good for them (Score:2)
You are inventing problems.
Re:Good for them (Score:2)
The schism really seems to be between married and unmarried couples, rather than gay and straight couples. I think governments would be better served to address that issue than to patch a bunch of smaller laws.
Re:Good for them (Score:1)
"Common law" marriage, maybe?
Re:Good for them (Score:2)
Which leads to a related question: if John and Kevin apply for things normally only available to married people by signing an affidav
Re:Good for them (Score:1)
And if John is bisexual and marries Jane later without divorcing Kevin first, is that bigomy? If it isn't, does that mean one person can be a party to both a straight marriage and a gay marriage at the same time? (other permutations left as an exercise to the reader)
If Mary and Jane get married and Mary gets pregnant, does the common law assumption of paternity declare that Jane is the father and req