|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days)  Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
While I agree that everybody should be able to marry (and in my country, gays can). I personally don't see problem to the following solution:
Make every marriage a "civil union", and allow churches to "marry" people, but don't give the church marriages any legal status. Meaning that people who want to get married can (in a church, this will probably exclude gays), and gays and straight people can both get "civil unions", where they get the legal status of what is now a marriage. Are people really that retarded to protest because it just has a different name? By the way, this is kinda how it works in my country. Church marriages have no legal status whatsoever, in fact, you can't get married by a church unless you first get married by law. It's just called marriage all around.  I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Hmm, yes that last part may cause a problem. Stupid legalese.
This will require rewriting literally tens of thousands of laws across federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions. All currently "married" couples will need to be relicensed as the contracts refer to "marriage," not "civil union." Too, this will mean that no federally recognized contract will be recognized outside of the United States because other countries recognize "marriage," not "civil union." If you were to try to provide your old "marriage" license, you would be engaging in fraud because you no longer have a "marriage" contract.
Also a problem then. I hadn't thought of those consequences.
That's the problem with the argument that this is just a matter of semantics. It isn't. There is a whole structure of legal activity predicated around the contract of "marriage" that simply cannot be adjusted by later writing, "Well, we really mean 'civil union,' instead." Legal precedent is that words have specific meanings. That's why the warnings say, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." You'd think that "mutilate" would cover the first two, but it doesn't. They are different things and thus different words are used.
Bah, I hate these stupid things. Like the story I keep hearing about a woman that supposedly put her cat in the microwave to dry it and it died, ending up sueing the company and won, because they hadn't put it in the manual that drying cats isn't a function of the microwave oven (no idea if that is true). I mean how fucking stupid do these things need to be?
It isn't a question of people. It's a question of the law.
So the law's retarded?  Yeah I guess, it's probably more trouble then it's worth. Any idea what the current text in the law syas regarding marriage? Is it defined as between two people, or as between man and woman? Or something else?
Your "civil union" isn't recognized here because it isn't a "marriage." That's the law. If it were a marriage, you'd call it a "marriage." Since you're calling it something else, that means it is something else and thus cannot be a "marriage."
Hmm... Seeing all the trouble that could ensue with this different name, because laws are stupid that way, then the easiest would indeed be to call it marriage.
That's pretty much how it works in the US, too: A church marriage means absolutely nothing. The only way to get a legal marriage is to go to the clerk and sign a marriage contract. Now, priests, captains of ships, and various other people are commonly given authority by the state to fill in the appropriate paperwork on that contract, but it's still a legal contract, not a religious one.
And that's impossible here. The only ones that are able to fill out the legal document are the civil servants in the local "governments"(not sure what to call them at county level)
That was a lovely ceremony, but the couple didn't actually get married standing in front of the altar.
Well they did, in the eyes of the church. There's absolutely no legal consequence, but I'm guessing the church will view them as "married", right?
They got married when they signed a piece of paper back in the priest's office.
Yes, for the law, that's when they got married.
The priest may decide not to sign it unless they went through the ceremony, but the ceremony has no legal standing.
Yep, that's the way it is here, except that a priest can't sign the document. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
Actually, it already doesn't since it current meaning is: Somewhat related to the current discussion, the word "fag" has changed significantly over time. It has ranged from a collection of firewood, to a disparaging term for an elderly person, to a cigarette, to a disparaging remark in reference to homosexuals, etc. It's still changing today, as the word "fag" is now often used as a generalized insult against anyone. Give it 20 years and it may have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals at all any more. 1. An extremely annoying, inconsiderateperson most commonly associated with Harley riders. 2. A person who owns or frequently rides a Harley.  (pop culture reference for the win) Edited by Huntard, : decided to add link for clarity I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
