I was thinking the same thing as Jack. I've met folks who never got married. No
license, no wedding pictures, no rings, nothing but devotion to one another for
many, many years together; but they were none the less married by common law in
states where this is legal. I suppose common law is a deterrent against
pre-marital cohabitation for some folks in common law states, but for those who
find they get along and care more for one another than for anyone else, it
turns out just fine anywhere.
In fact, unless one has a need to appear not to be 'living in sin', I don't
think any sort of marriage is a good idea.
The topic of this thread is a darn good reason to wait on any legislation
concerning marriage in this session. I know that some are disappointed in
leadership for not offering any given the victory for some seen in keeping a
gay marriage ban out of the state constitution, but it makes sense to build on
that victory by building a consensus of just what marriage should mean in this
state. I'm one of those folks who feel it means a whole lot less than most
think it does, as I've seen precious few good marriages and many pathetic ones
held together only by a sense of obligation to the children of such a union
(whether they are damaged by the failures of that union or not) or by one
notion or other of the will of God as dictated by conscience or religion.
The leadership should drop or block any efforts on repealing the marriage
nonsense Pawlenty and his losing Republicans put into law for now, and put down
any efforts to derail putting the state back on track economically. It is not
about overreaching for DFL leadership, it is about getting what has to be done
now, done in this session and letting the idiocy of folks who would deny
Minnesotans their functioning government take the spotlight if that's what they
want. If this Legislature can do that and there remains time to consider
something else, then let advocates introduce legislation to undo the
discriminatory law so stupidly passed by Republicans in the beginning of this
century; then let those debates have the full attention of the people of
Minnesota when they get the sound bites in the news.
Advocates for gay marriage have work to do and consensus to build and they
should not seek a champion in this Legislature IMHO, and choose a future one
for this battle if you must fight.
My position remains unchanged: government must not recognize marriage, a
religious institution, but should reform law to recognize the rights and duties
of all citizens across all spectra whether from religious affiliations to none,
or from one gender or sexual orientation to the next.
This will take some time. 'Live in sin', real or imagined or live for one
another in your own manner, but wait for a wide consensus on how this state
should treat those who love one another enough to live with them under the
force of state law.
If you want to live together under God's law, leave the state out of it, Will
ya? Deal with your religion's keepers to get what you need.