Katherine Franke, Professor of Gender etc. at Columbia Uni, doesn't come out and say it in so many words, but it's clear she's bricking it at the prospect her dearly beloved might one day screw her in divorce court.
She complains that she wants to keep the "marriage-lite / recognised domestic partnership" that gives gay folks the ability to benefit from joint insurance, without all that inconvenient property division / alimony etc. etc.
If gay folks are going to get marriage - which they damn well should - let's keep "marriage-lite" and EXTEND IT TO STRAIGHTS TOO!
Us straights want a "menu of choices" too!
Equal rights!
Gay rights for straights!
Straight rights for gays!
Can I get an Amen?
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=2
"Heres why Im worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. Hows that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, winning the right to marry may mean losing the rights we have now as domestic partners, as well be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.
Of course, this means well be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry whether they be gay or straight to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.
At Columbia University, where I work, the benefits office tells heterosexual employees that they must marry to get their partners on the health plan. A male graduate student I know, informed that hed have to marry his longtime girlfriend for her to get benefits, was told, Too bad your girlfriend isnt a man it would be so much easier!
She complains that she wants to keep the "marriage-lite / recognised domestic partnership" that gives gay folks the ability to benefit from joint insurance, without all that inconvenient property division / alimony etc. etc.
If gay folks are going to get marriage - which they damn well should - let's keep "marriage-lite" and EXTEND IT TO STRAIGHTS TOO!
Us straights want a "menu of choices" too!
Equal rights!
Gay rights for straights!
Straight rights for gays!
Can I get an Amen?
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=2
"Heres why Im worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. Hows that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, winning the right to marry may mean losing the rights we have now as domestic partners, as well be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.
Of course, this means well be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry whether they be gay or straight to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.
At Columbia University, where I work, the benefits office tells heterosexual employees that they must marry to get their partners on the health plan. A male graduate student I know, informed that hed have to marry his longtime girlfriend for her to get benefits, was told, Too bad your girlfriend isnt a man it would be so much easier!
