|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
BillBab 
Group: Members
Posts: 4500
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
 |
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 1:23 pm |
|
   |
First Marriage....now husband, wife, bride, and groom have to go away
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddsta....es.html
Once again the minority triumphs 
I especially liked this part
"Sprigg suggested the heterosexual couples could challenge the new terms by simply crossing out the new language and inserting the old.
“I wonder if the state would accept that,” he asked. “If not, it would suggest this movement is intent on being even more totalitarian.”
So the majority of people could mark up the form.....instead of the minority
Makes perfect sense
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39589
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 1:26 pm |
|
 |
“Person A” and “Person B,” just like any other contract, seems reasonable.
FWIW were I to see lines labeled "Husband" and "Wife" on a building contract I'd question the contractor's sanity and then walk away not wanting to deal with the increased zaniness.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
cweston
Group: Members
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mar. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 1:34 pm |
|
|
Why is it so important that the form use specific words like "bride" and "groom?" If the state is legally recognizing your marriage, WTF cares? Why wouldn't they change the form to use words that can accommodate everyone who can legally marry in that jurisdiction?
Your complaint seems ridiculous to me.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23921
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 1:43 pm |
|
|
Not saying two wrong's make a right or anything, but...
I am much more disgusted with the word play back in the Bush W era -- you know, terms like "enemy noncombatants" to skirt both the Geneva Convention (hey, they ain't soldiers just because they too fight and carry weapons) and our own laws (hey, they ain't civilians either)! Where the heck were you back then? 
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
double cabin
Group: Members
Posts: 15442
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 2:38 pm |
|
|
See what happens when you imagine batsheet kwap over and over again?
Grow up Bill. You lose...again.
Let Freedom Ring...For Everyone!
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
TehipiteTom
Group: Members
Posts: 5279
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 5:14 pm |
|
|
See what happens when you stop discriminating against people? Bigots get butthurt.
--------------
If tautologies are outlawed, only outlaws will use tautologies.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
geophagous
Group: Members
Posts: 1753
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 8:51 pm |
|
|
It is pretty cool. City hall will open at midnight on Dec 6 in Seattle which is first day to get same sex marriage license.
Then on Dec 9 is first day you can get married, and city hall will be open and decorated by volunteers for anyone who wishes to hold their ceremony there and be married by the mayor! Free for anyone, and they are starting at noon, but will open earlier if demand warrants it.
So yes things are getting pretty damn crazy in Seattle. The language on the forms are REALLY hurting people here.
It is so very nice to see the outpouring of support from all over for this! Pretty gosh darn cool.
Sadly on December 9 my marriage and all other hetro marriages in WA will be null and void. Little known fact ONLY gay people can now be legally married in WA! Take that gay agenda!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39589
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 9:08 pm |
|
|
What's the over/under on the first gay divorce?
#PeopleBeingPeople
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
justwalkin
Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 9:19 pm |
|
|
I've always felt that there should be a seperation of marriage and state. The entity that provides sewage and streets should have nothing to do with a lifetime commitment between consenting adults.
--------------
If a day in the mountains is better than a week at work, why aren't I working in the mountains?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
GoBlueHiker
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Group: Members
Posts: 14071
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2012, 9:45 pm |
|
|
(justwalkin @ Nov. 29 2012, 7:19 pm)
QUOTE I've always felt that there should be a seperation of marriage and state. The entity that provides sewage and streets should have nothing to do with a lifetime commitment between consenting adults.
As HSF noted, that'd be a lot easier to do if there weren't about a gadzillion legal rights (and numerous responsibilities) automatically endowed to married couples the moment the marriage is finalized. And the overwhelming majority of people see those rights as a good thing to keep. If it weren't for all that, the separation of marriage and state would be easier.
There still is a distinct separation, of course. The new laws in WA and ME don't keep any church at all from marrying or not marrying (as a sacrament) whomever they like in their congregations. So yeah, there's that. Whether the concept of a "civilly recognized marriage" should exist at all is another debate altogether. But in the meantime, until all the legal rights of marriage are nullified, it still most definitely does exist. The fact that the civil definition is changing, IMO, is cause for celebration.
A big "hoo-rah" to Geo's post.  When the world of civilized people doesn't actually end in a year as the bible-beaters have long predicted, it'll be nice to see more states able to take up the cause for civil rights as well.
--------------
Wealth needs more. Happiness needs less. Simplify.
www.RainForestTreks.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
muttpacker
Group: Members
Posts: 339
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 30 2012, 11:58 am |
|
|
Like much else that social conservatives hold dear, I fail to see how the verbiage on a government form can be such a concern. What exactly are we supposed to be seeing as a consequence of this? (referring to the "See what happens" bit in the thread title) That people are treated as people? That a marriage license is viewed as a contract? If you were here I'd show you my shocked face.
When someone can offer a legal reason, not a religious one, for denying marriage rights to consenting adults, I'll happily listen to the argument. In the meantime, if you don't want gays to call their committed relationships "marriages" I have little to offer you, other than a Kleenex. Maybe it's the freaky social conservatives that should call their arrangements something other than a marriage. They clearly don't take them very seriously if having gays use the word somehow detracts from the validity of their own unions.
And please quit using words like "traditional" and "biblical" when describing what a marriage is. Either the words mean something different to you or you're patently unaware of the history of the institution, and most especially marriages within the Bible.
--------------
Ignorant is temporary. Stupid is permanent. Choosing to be ignorant is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
