MarriaAnother bill being created: Cohabitation bill

[Ceicei]

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2490313

When the Marriage bill was passed in November duringhe elections (in many States, including Utah), many opponents claimed the marriage initiative would destroy the rights of those who are not married, in other words, the right to be able to select each other as beneficiaries and to protect each other with medical/financial/other types of issues.

As an answer to that argument, a new bill is currently being created and broadened to include not just those who cohabitate (of either gender), also those who may be related (siblings, grandchild/parent, ect.)

What do you think of this? Would this satisfy the same groups that opposed each other on the definition of marriage issue?

- Ceicei

 

[Phoenix44]

Sounds like a step in the right direction. I'm not sure what it says about HETEROsexual cohabitating couples. It sounds like it would only apply to those who are not eligible for marriage.

 

[raedyn]

Just this weekend I learned that the province of Alberta has already passed legislation very similar to this. They were, in part, trying to head off the gay marriage issue at the pass. But the agreements under the Alberta law will not be registered centrally anywhere. So no one knows how many people, if any, have entered into these agreements. There has been very little publicity of this even in the province where it applies.

This will address some of the needs of gay couples. But how well is the legislation contructed? Is there a standard agreement? Will it require a lawyer (so, how expensive & difficult will it be to get)? How challengable are the agreements? (IE if I am gay, sign one of these contracts with my life partner, and my homophobic family doesn't like the funeral arrangements she plans, can they just take over? Can they challenge my will and win?)

While this is a step in the right direction, it's unlikely that this will satisfy many people that are currently campaining for equal marriage. It's still a separate class. So committed gay relationships aren't given the same treatment and recognition as straight ones. It's not equality, and equality is what equal marriage proponents are demanding.

And Phoenix, I read the article same as you. It says it would only be for couples not eligible for marriage. So there's still no 'common law' arrangement. But then, that's only the article and not the actual legislation. I've learned to question the reliability of reporting....

 

[loki09789]

Sounds like a step in the right direction. I'm not sure what it says about HETEROsexual cohabitating couples. It sounds like it would only apply to those who are not eligible for marriage.

Which could do two things:

1. Establish a criteria for a political/social/legal perception of a more/less 'legitimate' cohabitation status - so it doesn't do much in the short term, but may be a stepping stone in the long haul.

2. Satisfy the mainstream objectors to the idea that the legal definition of marriage will be preserved because they are confusing their religious 'marriage' definition for the legal one but only infuriate the cohabitationally elligible because it is a fluff gesture.

 

[raedyn]

2. Satisfy the mainstream objectors to the idea that the legal definition of marriage will be preserved because they are confusing their religious 'marriage' definition for the legal one but only infuriate the cohabitationally elligible because it is a fluff gesture.

And I think that's exactly what this bill would do.