suv_guy_19 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 other than the terminology? Why should there be a difference in terminology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Why should there be a difference in terminology? Without getting into the possible legal ramifications, I'd say it distinguishes between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Without getting into the possible legal ramifications, I'd say it distinguishes between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Sounds about right. Why not give the words married couple and domestic partners the same legal rights and the same penalties, isn't marriage a religious term more so than a legal term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 Sounds about right. Why not give the words married couple and domestic partners the same legal rights and the same penalties, isn't marriage a religious term more so than a legal term? WOW....there we go! Excellent Ron....but still take away their "rights" too vote.....and as far as I know marriage is the union of two under the premise of the church.....here we go....now religion enters the foray.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Sounds about right. Why not give the words married couple and domestic partners the same legal rights and the same penalties, isn't marriage a religious term more so than a legal term? Don't they have them now? 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. California citizens simply decided that "domestic partners" cannot be recognized as "married" by the State of California. Edited May 28, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 as far as I know marriage is the union of two under the premise of the church.....here we go....now religion enters the foray.... Don't they have them now? California citizens simply decided that "domestic partners" cannot be recognized as "married" by the State of California. So let them argue with the church about the terminology, isn't church and state (laws) supposed to be separate? Why was this pushed to be a law and why was time and money wasted on a vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 So let them argue with the church about the terminology, isn't church and state (laws) supposed to be separate? To many, the differentiation between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" are the means to keep church and state separate. Why was this pushed to be a law and why was time and money wasted on a vote? It was placed on the ballot because enough people (California citizens) signed the petition to put it there, as provided for by the initiative amendment process under the California Constitution, and upheld by the CA Supreme Court. It was pushed into law (as in, the language was added to the CA Constitution) because a greater number of people voted to put it there, than voted against it. The reasons are as diverse as the number of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 So let them argue with the church about the terminology, isn't church and state (laws) supposed to be separate? Why was this pushed to be a law and why was time and money wasted on a vote? Because, the gay agenda does not stop. It just keeps going, and going, and going, and going... As a whole, they will never really be happy. That is the sad part. Self destruction for many of them. This just gives them something to focus on. I would not trade shoes with them for anything. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Because, the gay agenda does not stop. Gay agenda? You mean of equal rights. Also, not all gay people are self destructive. I know a few. Some have problems...others don't. Society constantly giving them the cold shoulder certainly won't help anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
417strokers Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) The purpose of a marriage is to have a family There is no way two guys can have kids so marriage is not a realistic thing . Adoption for Two guys or two wemon should never be considered because a child with out both a father and a mother figure is deprived of a proper up bringing. the reason we have problems with this is because the polititions don't have enough balls to make a mater of fact statment that they are wrong. prove to me that two guys can make kids and I will agree to your marriage. Edited May 28, 2009 by 417strokers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Oh, thank goodness. I read the title and thought it was compulsory now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The purpose of a marriage is to have a family There is no way two guys can have kids so marriage is not a realistic thing . Adoption for Two guys or two wemon should never be considered because a child with out both a father and a mother figure is deprived of a proper up bringing. the reason we have problems with this is because the polititions don't have enough balls to make a mater of fact statment that they are wrong. prove to me that two guys can make kids and I will agree to your marriage. after reading your second sentence I guess divorce shouldn't be allowed either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) The purpose of a marriage is to have a family There is no way two guys can have kids so marriage is not a realistic thing. Marriage is a contract...and where you live, it's a contract between two people...with some exceptions. Edited May 28, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Oh, thank goodness.I read the title and thought it was compulsory now. I for one am glad it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 after reading your second sentence I guess divorce shouldn't be allowed either! Pity there wasn't a chapter 11 for divorce..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Pity there wasn't a chapter 11 for divorce..... A lot of divorces lead to Chapter 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The purpose of a marriage is to have a family There is no way two guys can have kids so marriage is not a realistic thing . Adoption for Two guys or two wemon should never be considered because a child with out both a father and a mother figure is deprived of a proper up bringing. the reason we have problems with this is because the polititions don't have enough balls to make a mater of fact statment that they are wrong. prove to me that two guys can make kids and I will agree to your marriage. Then by your definition of marriage couples who can't have/don't want children should not be able to marry. Divorce should be outlawed for those who have children and widows/widowers with children should have to give them up. I have many clients who have children in one parent households due to divorce, death or who were unmarried at the time a child was born. Like gay couples, they have extended families who fill in the role of the missing parent. The problems we may have as a society aren't caused by two people making a commitment to each other to be together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 The purpose of a marriage is to have a family There is no way two guys can have kids so marriage is not a realistic thing . Adoption for Two guys or two wemon should never be considered because a child with out both a father and a mother figure is deprived of a proper up bringing. the reason we have problems with this is because the polititions don't have enough balls to make a mater of fact statment that they are wrong. prove to me that two guys can make kids and I will agree to your marriage. which raises the question, in a gay marriage whom is the Husband and whom is the wife........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 which raises the question, in a gay marriage whom is the Husband and whom is the wife........ This may help.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 This may help.... but what about............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 but what about............ .....is nobody's business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 .....is nobody's business. LOL!...are you sure that its not....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 .....is nobody's business. David Hyde Pierce agrees that it is nobody's business. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/d...s_n_208636.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 David Hyde Pierce agrees that it is nobody's business. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/d...s_n_208636.html What two (consenting) adults do in their private lives is nobody's business but theirs. However, when the government is specifically petitioned to ratify/sanctify it, it becomes everyone's business. That's the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 What two (consenting) adults do in their private lives is nobody's business but theirs. However, when the government is specifically petitioned to ratify/sanctify it, it becomes everyone's business. That's the difference. That is a good argument for having no government recognition of any marriage. Either the government treats all equally or it doesn't. Since gay relationships are not against the law and do exist, the government should treat them equally with heterosexual relationships. The fact that some people are offended by the use of the word marriage should have no bearing on the matter. The government recognizes marriages between athiests performed without religious sanction. Marriages between mixed religion couples are recognized even when performed by a judge or other secular authority. Why shouldn't Mr. Hyde-Pierce and his partner of 25 years be accorded the same rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.