quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, no snark from you, either.
All "marriage licenses" that are in effect until my proposal is set into law, will remain titled "marriage license." Everything else going forward would be a "License to Wed." In a legal sense, there would be no such thing as a "marriage" going forward. All current marriages would be considered civil unions, and all future weddings would be considered civil unions.
Is that really all the difficult to understand? Really?

Ok, I see there'd be a sort of grandfathering in exception. The legal institution of marriage would just be destroyed for the next generation.
I have a counter proposal, no more religious marriages. If you're married by a holy man you have to call it a civil union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Why do we mince words?   Call it a marraige, call it a wood tick, call it a civil union, call it Herbert Muckenfutch.   Solve the debt and quit redefining words thru legislation, for imagined need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Oy gevalt! The PPLs turn me around on another issue.

As "defined" by the usual lefties on this thread, I now stand opposed to same-sex unions and will only support candidates that do the same.

Cheers!



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

As opposed to redefining words for political gain? <SNIP>

quote:

If the two terms are equal then how bout the same sex folks call their unions marriages and the jesus phreaques call their unions religious unions?

quote:

because "civil union" is much shorter than "religious union"

quote:

and now you'll be codifying a "religious union" in law, while going the civil union route doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Wouldn't it be more sane for a religious rite that doesn't carry civil benefits to not be called simply a civil union?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union?

Because it is a marriage: a loving, faithful commitment to building a life together. And, imho, gay folks' marriages deserve the same respect and dignity as others'. Part of that respect stems from nomenclature.
Why is it so important to you that the word "marriage" not be applied to same-sex couples? You're going through remarkable contortions, including an ahistorical redefinition of the term, just to keep from sharing the word with queers.

I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?

I'm working on changing two things:

1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter.
2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples.

You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding.

If the two terms are equal then how bout the same sex folks call their unions marriages and the jesus phreaques call their unions religious unions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

If the two terms are equal then how bout the same sex folks call their unions marriages and the jesus phreaques call their unions religious unions?

quote:

because "civil union" is much shorter than "religious union"

Any validation for this it of moronic bullshit

quote:

This is a flat out lie.
If the two terms are equal then it makes no difference who wears which label except to the jesus phreaques.
Why does having an invisible friend entitle them to special priviledges?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.

And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.

Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriously conservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner

http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-lesbian-moms-partner-10147997.html

quote:

That is fucked up in so many ways it makes my head hurt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuriThe two terms are equal in the eyes of the law. But, to propose that a religious rite be called a civil union when it won't carry any civil benefits....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
The law on the difference has already been posted, as has the notice that you keep running away from it. Now you have progressed to full blown lying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuriThe two terms are equal in the eyes of the law. But, to propose that a religious rite be called a civil union when it won't carry any civil benefits....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.
And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.
According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.
Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriously conservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/17/2029361/texas-judge-forbids-lesbian-woman-from-living-with-her-partner
http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-lesbian-moms-partner-10147997.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The two terms are equal in the eyes of the law. But, to propose that a religious rite be called a civil union when it won't carry any civil benefits....

quote:

No one (that I've seen) on the left is interested in actually "solving the problem" and making sure that a segment of our society has access to the rights that they deserve.

quote:

The left is willing to let these people suffer as "second class citizens" because they are refusing to give up their toehold on a religious exercise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The two terms are equal in the eyes of the law. But, to propose that a religious rite be called a civil union when it won't carry any civil benefits....

DS, you're wasting your breath. The obtuseness you're facing is because they want the issue alive and well.

No one (that I've seen) on the left is interested in actually "solving the problem" and making sure that a segment of our society has access to the rights that they deserve. The left is willing to let these people suffer as "second class citizens" because they are refusing to give up their toehold on a religious exercise (which they, supposedly don't care about, anyway).

It's not about solving problems. It's about keeping them active and holding a segment of our society hostage, in the mean time.



Peace and comfort,



Michael