Mississippi’s Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One Yet

Living in Mississippi, it's been incredibly daunting to see the amount of support this bill has gotten from my neighbors and co-workers. Historically, we're a state built on the discrimination of the minority, and it's upsetting that we haven't learned from the past.

The upside is, numerous different officials from cities throughout the state are standing up against it and trying to find ways to fight it. I'm hoping the demolition of this bill doesn't take as long as California's Prop 8.

What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

Nothing. All the rights granted by marriage are able to be granted by other legal forms. Its just an easy method to cover several things including wills, power of attorney, medical choices etc.

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

You could not grant many spousal benefits and privileges by a contract such as those granted by federal and or state law in The US at least. Otherwise a contract could cover many things but not all of them and not some very important ones.

Br. John wrote:

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

You could not grant many spousal benefits and privileges by a contract such as those granted by federal and or state law in The US at least. Otherwise a contract could cover many things but not all of them and not some very important ones.

Which items are you thinking could not be granted? Because as far as I know anything you can do via marriage you can do via contract. Might take more then one bit of paper but it can be done to the best of my knowledge

Instead of marriage people could even incorporate. As long as they end up paying royalties to a conveniently-placed offshore company they also own they'll be prosperous. And in the event of "divorce" the benefits of a fair, just and family-court-free deal would be unparalleled.

I totally feel like I'm onto something here.

On thing I can think of beyond the ability of any contract, power of attorney or will in The US is Social Security Survivors Benefits. They can only go to your children, spouse, and in some cases former spouse, but nobody else.

Br. John wrote: On thing I can think of beyond the ability of any contract, power of attorney or will in The US is Social Security Survivors Benefits. They can only go to your children, spouse, and in some cases former spouse, but nobody else.

Not something I had thought of. Thank you. I am in paralegal studies so learning things like this are good for me. Might be worth something to fight for this to be a thing you can will to anyone you wish. I mean its your money. Dont know the traction it would get but something to consider.

Br. John wrote:

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

You could not grant many spousal benefits and privileges by a contract such as those granted by federal and or state law in The US at least. Otherwise a contract could cover many things but not all of them and not some very important ones.

Besides the legal benefits of marriage, there is a very strong implication of LGBT being second class citizens, similar to when Black people were "separate but equal".

is this the law that says that preachers cannot be forced to perform marriages for same sex couples?

because if it is, while i disagree with the spirit that it was written in, by and large i do support the law itself, and imo so should you

i dont believe the law should require a religious leader to perform a ceremony he (or she, if that ever happens) sees as contrary to the mandates of their religion

it would be basically saying "the law demands that you actively violate your religion" and thats just not something any american should agree with

i support lgbt rights, ive easily done several hundred hours of fundraising and letter writing campaigns for hrc when i worked for telefund and i believe in freedom for all americans and all people

but i understand that freedom means accepting that some people will choose to use their freedom in ways that i dont like

thats the part that i dont see anyone on any side of nearly any issue really recognizig, but as far as i can tell it is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of what it means to believe in a free society

people are going to use their freedom in ways that you dont like, but still you have to support freedom itself, because no matter what you want to do there is someone out there who wont like it

so we either work to ensure that everyone has the right to choose for themselves how to live, or else we are just squabbling over which groups get to impose which of their own personal sensibilities on the whole

dont decease personal choices and individual capabilities - promote general increase in individual education and personal competence

thats my general position and i apply that standard to pretty much everything, because imo thats what will make for the strongest (diverse) society, ultimately