The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: AlohaDawg on December 14, 2004, 01:35:55 am
-
I agree with Wombat and also if the end result is achievable while maintaining the status quo, no harm for now. You can get married a lot easier than you can get unmarried.
Which begs the question: how does common property work in a common-law marriage? Can you get spousal support if you would have merited it under a 'legal' marriage? If you just break up after five years, is that it or is there paperwork?
I don't like the whole common-law thing; it just seems like another way of eroding institutions that began as important parts of life lived within a faith.
-
Dang it, I just want to use my Flex Spending account to pay for my SO's birth control. I don't need no invisible man in the sky butting his nose in. Especially because he apparently is no good with money.
-
I don't like the whole common-law thing; it just seems like another way of eroding institutions that began as important parts of life lived within a faith.
I'm really confused by what you mean by that. I understand that marriage is a sacred vow, &c. -- but there's also a legal and a secular social element to marriage that goes beyond just religion. Is this inappropriate? Is there any reason why two individuals who are living as if they were married should not be treated that way, even in some watered-down form? (Should I be reading up on Catholicism so I can convert if the SO proposes?)
-
Well, looking at that long thread should be a better answer to that question than starting that long thread again. Suffice it to say I have yet to understand the 'advantage' of marriage from a purely 'legal' standpoint. Why have marriage at all if you need only spend enough time with the same person to be able to call yourself married? Why have a state called 'married' that is different from "living together' or 'having hung out together for a long time' if all three cases basically result in the same thing?
-
This is why I wish we'd go towards having two separate institutions, with "marriage" only meaning something for those folks who need a member of the clergy to sanctify their union, and some sort of domestic partnership (or whatever you wanna call it) for those of us who just want the legal bennies.
My SO and I have been living in sin for about 6 months now, an arrangement that will continue indefinately, but we have no desire to get hitched unless we need the health care or other such benefits. We just don't want to mess with the religious aspect (and since we're heathen and my dad's a preacher, that will be a big deal). I guess we could just waltz down to the courthouse if we needed to, but since everybody makes such a big deal out of the big M word, that seems insufficient somehow. I agree it's all a big mess.
Maybe someday we'll suck it up, fill out the requisite paperwork, and throw a big party for our family, but it just seems like a hassle.
(Trying hard to continually de-lurk)
-
The only reasons I see to get married are for the gifts and so that I can pay for the SO's expenses with my Flex Spending account since her office doesn't offer that.
-
Why have marriage at all if you need only spend enough time with the same person to be able to call yourself married? Why have a state called 'married' that is different from "living together' or 'having hung out together for a long time' if all three cases basically result in the same thing?
Because they don't basically result in the same thing. Common-law marriage does not exist in all states -- it doesn't exist in mine, for instance. Marriage is a legal status, along with being a religious or moral status. Married people have rights to each others property and common children that unmarried people do not. Married people have different tax status. Married people can visit each other in the hospital and make healthcare decisions for each other.
I don't want to get into the whole gay marriage debate, but there are plainly legal as well as religious aspects to marriage. The question I have is how do we justify denying someone their legal rights based upon religious beliefs that they may not share, especially since our constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion?
-
Dang it, I just want to use my Flex Spending account to pay for my SO's birth control. I don't need no invisible man in the sky butting his nose in.
Yeah, fuckin' Hal Jordan can keep his free rubbers.
-
Why have marriage at all if you need only spend enough time with the same person to be able to call yourself married? Why have a state called 'married' that is different from "living together' or 'having hung out together for a long time' if all three cases basically result in the same thing?
Because they don't basically result in the same thing. Common-law marriage does not exist in all states -- it doesn't exist in mine, for instance. Marriage is a legal status, along with being a religious or moral status. Married people have rights to each others property and common children that unmarried people do not. Married people have different tax status. Married people can visit each other in the hospital and make healthcare decisions for each other.
I don't want to get into the whole gay marriage debate, but there are plainly legal as well as religious aspects to marriage. The question I have is how do we justify denying someone their legal rights based upon religious beliefs that they may not share, especially since our constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion?
We justify it with the will of the people. Regardless of what the Constitution is explicit about, if you give the populace the option of adopting Constitutionally allowable legislation that basically addresses a core values issue for the community as a whole, they make a decision. This also lets people with different views understand that if they want something that falls beyond the values of the people, that they may want to consider moving to a place where their values are more in line with the general values of the community. You can't really say you are denying anyone a 'legal' right if that right isn't defined, spelled out, or assumed by the majority. The issue requires clarification and that can be accomplished by activist judges, by rogue mayors, or by polling the people. And the most democratically sound method, I think, is by polling the poeple.
-
Hey, why don't we all take this discussion to PM. We can PM to multiple people at once, right? That way, we don't poop all over side_show's new house.
-
I don't see any need to create a quote pyramid, but this is in response to AD's last post.
So, if 51% of the people voted to make Christianity illegal, you'd be OK with that? The whole point of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is protection of individual rights. We try to limit the "tyranny of the majority" so that certain defined rights of minorities are not usurped.
Being a "free" nation means that people must be free to do some things that the majority doesn't like. Otherwise, what is the meaning of freedom?
The will of the people used to approve of slavery, racial and sexual discrimination and the extermination of Native Americans. What about the will of the German people in the '30s and '40s? (GODWIN'D!)
You suggest that there could be Constitutionally allowable laws that would prevent same-sex marriage. Without reference to religion or morality, please articulate what the state's interest is in preventing two people of the same sex from visiting each other in the hospital, hold property as tenants in the entirety or holding dower/curtesy rights?
-
Hey, why don't we all take this discussion to PM. We can PM to multiple people at once, right? That way, we don't poop all over side_show's new house.
Thanks Bozak.
I feel like, in my situation anyway, there is a clear distinction in my mind between being common law and being married. Being common law is something that just happens to couples after three years of cohabitation
(in my provence the "common law" rules are enforced whether you want them to be or not, there was a huge contraversy over this when it passed, but that's the way it is here now), where as marriage is a choice you make to build a life with another person, to build a sense of family (even if it's just the two of you, or you and your 13 kids) - the idea that as a partnership the couple is comitted to a future together.
-
We just wanted to be able to say to other people that we are married. We're non-religious, but we still just wanted that title. Thankfully, fanatics cannot at this point deny us that.
This is not precisely the truth, but there are benefits at my place of employment that are either not possible without marriage or are hella difficult without marriage. I think they shouldn't tie all that stuff to marriage, or they should make it just as easy to get it without marriage, or everyone should be allowed to be married.
-
We just wanted to be able to say to other people that we are married. We're non-religious, but we still just wanted that title. Thankfully, fanatics cannot at this point deny us that.
This is not precisely the truth, but there are benefits at my place of employment that are either not possible without marriage or are hella difficult without marriage. I think they shouldn't tie all that stuff to marriage, or they should make it just as easy to get it without marriage, or everyone should be allowed to be married.
Exactly. My SO and I will marry because when we say "my partner" people assume we're gay. And so I can use my company's insurance and flex spending for her and vice versa. We couldn't care less about some silly ceremony/cake/dress/invisible man so we'll avoid those if at all possible.
-
Donut Shop!!! We didn't even invite anyone, other than our witnesses. Giant, multi-thousand dollar wedding? No thanks, just want the paper.
-
We couldn't care less about some silly ceremony/cake/dress/invisible man so we'll avoid those if at all possible.
There is nothing silly about cake. Some of the best cake I've had has been at weddings.
I'm on my way to Houston this weekend to attend a wedding, as a matter of fact. Neither my girlfriend nor I are religious, but we plan on having a fairly nice wedding. In our cases, it'll be a nice excuse to get all of our friends together, possibly for one last time since all our friends are scatterred about the country.
-
A coworker just got married and her cake was designed like a spiral pathway up a mountain with a little hoss-drawn carriage at the bottom. It said "fairy tales do come true" or something similar. It made me want to hurt people.
-
My parents got married in a friend's backyard and had a barbecue/alcohol reception. This is a practice I can get behind, personally. However, the few brief conversations I've had with the SO on the subject seem to indicate that the SO wants something a bit more... elaborate, perhaps regrettably.
-
So, if 51% of the people voted to make Christianity illegal, you'd be OK with that? The whole point of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is protection of individual rights. We try to limit the "tyranny of the majority" so that certain defined rights of minorities are not usurped.
This could happen, incidentally, but would require more than a simple 51% nationwide vote. The Constitution could be amended to allow the government to prohibit the practice of religion.
One of the negative fallouts of the liberal judicial activism of the mid 20th century is the loss of respect on both sides of the aisle for the Constitution. At least that's what I sometimes fear. To me, the medicinal marijuana case before the Supreme Court is a no brainer--restrictions on locally grown marijuana in any given state cannot be regulated by the federal government (as far as its use in state goes) because of the commerce clause. Though there is a lot of jurisprudence suggesting that it can be. Today, conservatives feel a lot less restrained by a strict reading of the Constitution--and that frightens the shit out of me.
Being a "free" nation means that people must be free to do some things that the majority doesn't like. Otherwise, what is the meaning of freedom?
Mill discusses this quite a bit. Being a Utilitarian, he of course had to discuss why such a thing is actually good, and not just something to be put up with.
The will of the people used to approve of slavery, racial and sexual discrimination and the extermination of Native Americans. What about the will of the German people in the '30s and '40s? (GODWIN'D!)
This is, of course, why the Bill of Rights is so important, and why it may be dangerous to make loose readings of it.
You suggest that there could be Constitutionally allowable laws that would prevent same-sex marriage. Without reference to religion or morality, please articulate what the state's interest is in preventing two people of the same sex from visiting each other in the hospital, hold property as tenants in the entirety or holding dower/curtesy rights?
I know this is for AD, but arguments are out there. Basically, marriage's historical purpose has always been to produce children. This is impossible in a same-sex marriage. The state has an interest in seeing that children are being born. But same-sex marriage is hardly a threat to this. Birth control, no-fault divorces, and the social acceptance of heterosexual couples who can't or refuse to have children are bigger threats. Marriage as a coming together by choice of two people who love each other but can leave at any time is a new thing, relatively anyway. This fuck*ng stupid same-sex marriage debate sidesteps that entire issue. Fact is the concept of marriage and family has changed radically, and the fact that same-sex couples want to get married only reflects this change, but is not a cause of it.
-
I don't like the whole common-law thing; it just seems like another way of eroding institutions that began as important parts of life lived within a faith.
A genealogy of the institution of marriage needs to be done. I'm sure there is one out there. Something like it exists in The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz I understand, though I've yet to read it. I heard her interviewed though. Marriage has meant many things at many times, but I don't know that it necessarily began as an institution of faith. I mean, today it obviously has that function. But common-law marriages aren't new, are they? Maybe AugustWest will know. In the past (up until the 17th century?) marriages didn't even require licenses in the colonies, I've heard, and I imagine that some kind of common-law institution existed.
-
I know this is for AD, but arguments are out there. Basically, marriage's historical purpose has always been to produce children. This is impossible in a same-sex marriage. The state has an interest in seeing that children are being born. But same-sex marriage is hardly a threat to this.
Exactly. First off, the birth-rate doesn't seem to be suffering much. Secondly, homosexuals weren't going to be producing children anyway.
And I don't know anything about the history of common-law marriage. Sorry.
-
I know this is for AD, but arguments are out there. Basically, marriage's historical purpose has always been to produce children. This is impossible in a same-sex marriage. The state has an interest in seeing that children are being born. But same-sex marriage is hardly a threat to this.
Exactly. First off, the birth-rate doesn't seem to be suffering much. Secondly, homosexuals weren't going to be producing children anyway.
And I don't know anything about the history of common-law marriage. Sorry.
I would say that the birthrate isn't suffering enough. We no longer live in a world where it's necessary to have 5 kids per couple. In fact we live in a world where that's a pretty bad idea. If some couples are still going to have 3 or more children then we need others to not breed in order to balance things out.
-
I would say that the birthrate isn't suffering enough. We no longer live in a world where it's necessary to have 5 kids per couple. In fact we live in a world where that's a pretty bad idea. If some couples are still going to have 3 or more children then we need others to not breed in order to balance things out.
Low birthrate is definitely an issue. Not so much here right now, but it is in certain European countries. High birthrate is also an issue in parts of the world, don't get me wrong, but very low birthrates would obviously be a concern. It's just that homosexual marriage would have little to do with it, unless it could be shown that somehow children of homosexual couples turn out to be homosexual at higher rates than children of heterosexual couples. Then it could possibly be argued that years down the line...blah blah blah you get the picture.
-
Birthrates have been dropping almost everywhere, some places faster than others. Last I checked, world population was expected to level off and start declining in 2060, at 9 or 10 billion.
Malthus was a boob.
-
I don't see any need to create a quote pyramid, but this is in response to AD's last post.
So, if 51% of the people voted to make Christianity illegal, you'd be OK with that? The whole point of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is protection of individual rights. We try to limit the "tyranny of the majority" so that certain defined rights of minorities are not usurped.
Being a "free" nation means that people must be free to do some things that the majority doesn't like. Otherwise, what is the meaning of freedom?
The will of the people used to approve of slavery, racial and sexual discrimination and the extermination of Native Americans. What about the will of the German people in the '30s and '40s? (GODWIN'D!)
You suggest that there could be Constitutionally allowable laws that would prevent same-sex marriage. Without reference to religion or morality, please articulate what the state's interest is in preventing two people of the same sex from visiting each other in the hospital, hold property as tenants in the entirety or holding dower/curtesy rights?
Since I got back to this late, I'll place the dreaded quote pyramid here.
I have nothing to add to this discussion that wasn't said in the other one, so I'm just leaving this one be. I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others and this is articulated as well as I can articulate it (obviously not as well as Aug, what with his dower/curtesy and his 'tenants in the entirety') in the other thread.
-
I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others
Flex Spending. I specifically asked and the IRS will only allow use of flex spending accounts for children or spouses. Partners are not allowed.
-
I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others
Hell of seconded.
I say the government needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business. On the civil side, marriage is just a living arrangement and people are more than capeable of designing contracts that meet their needs for the disposal of communal property, power of attorney, custody of children, etc. The idea that everyone should have the exact same contract is totally unjustified. Not only is a one-size-fits-none government solution to this "problem" not needed, it's actively harmful in that it stifles choice and infantilizes adults, just like almost everything else the government does. Plus it's just one more thing to make fuck*ng taxes even more fuck*ng complicated. FUCK!
As for the religious side of the question (which is not relevant to many people, myself included) the government should stay even further away from that.
Hubby and I got married down at the courthouse by a probate judge, and we could not make him understand that we did not want him to say anything about Jesus or any gods when he married us. It should have been very simple--he showed us what he usually said when he conducted a marriage (it was very short) and we were like "Yeah, that's fine just leave out this Jesus part here," and he's like "What, I don't understand," and we're like "Just don't say the Jesus part, that's all, otherwise it's fine." He still said the Jesus part. Hubby's mom looked smug. I swear she slipped him a $20 to "misunderstand" us.
-
If it were me, I would've said "who?" right in the middle of the ceremony.
-
"Sorry, Jesus couldn't make it."
-
Donut Shop!!! We didn't even invite anyone, other than our witnesses. Giant, multi-thousand dollar wedding? No thanks, just want the paper.
Wait, did you seriously get married in donut shop? That sounds so ...Canadian! The idea of getting married at a Tim Horton's amuses me to no end!
-
"Sorry, Jesus couldn't make it."
Hey-zeus had to work tonight man.
-
I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others
Hell of seconded.
I say the government needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business. On the civil side, marriage is just a living arrangement and people are more than capeable of designing contracts that meet their needs for the disposal of communal property, power of attorney, custody of children, etc. The idea that everyone should have the exact same contract is totally unjustified. Not only is a one-size-fits-none government solution to this "problem" not needed, it's actively harmful in that it stifles choice and infantilizes adults, just like almost everything else the government does. Plus it's just one more thing to make fuck*ng taxes even more fuck*ng complicated. FUCK!
As for the religious side of the question (which is not relevant to many people, myself included) the government should stay even further away from that.
Hubby and I got married down at the courthouse by a probate judge, and we could not make him understand that we did not want him to say anything about Jesus or any gods when he married us. It should have been very simple--he showed us what he usually said when he conducted a marriage (it was very short) and we were like "Yeah, that's fine just leave out this Jesus part here," and he's like "What, I don't understand," and we're like "Just don't say the Jesus part, that's all, otherwise it's fine." He still said the Jesus part. Hubby's mom looked smug. I swear she slipped him a $20 to "misunderstand" us.
I would agree that a civil ceremony in a courthouse should not include Jesus.
As for the pigpile on me this past week, one point I made several times was that it would be OK to call it something else, just not 'marriage'. If there were a civil union and Cort, you did that rather than get married, then you should be allowed to use your flex spending accouint on your partner. That's pre-tax income to your household.
The government isn't worried about your marital status, it's worried about the abuse of what would be TAX DOLLARS. Since that program costs tax dollars, the IRS has an interest in their use and rightly so since it's a benefit that comes at a cost to the government (and everyone, eventually).
Feel free to use your taxed income any way you like. The untaxed portion in your flexible spending account is basically granted to you by the IRS and the opportunity is costly to the government when you consider everyone who participates. That the money is spent with restrictions placed by the agency that basically funds the program makes perfect sense.
-
I would agree that a civil ceremony in a courthouse should not include Jesus.
As for the pigpile on me this past week, one point I made several times was that it would be OK to call it something else, just not 'marriage'. If there were a civil union and Cort, you did that rather than get married, then you should be allowed to use your flex spending accouint on your partner. That's pre-tax income to your household.
Should anything that takes place in a courthouse not include Jesus?
I'd be fine with "civil union" but only if the government used it exclusively. Recognizing "marriage" as the crazy-werido version of civil unions instead of the other way around.
-
Should anything that takes place in a courthouse not include Jesus?
Absolutely not.
I'd be fine with "civil union" but only if the government used it exclusively. Recognizing "marriage" as the heterosexual way to mate for like permanence is just legislating morality.
Agreed?
-
I'd be fine with "civil union" but only if the government used it exclusively. Recognizing "marriage" as the heterosexual way to mate for like permanence is just legislating morality.
Agreed?
I'm not sure I follow. What I'm saying is the the government should recognize only one state and use one term, that being "civil union" regardless of the genders of the parties involved. Should some people wish to add religion to this state they could have some kind of ceremony and call it a marriage. But the government could not use this religious term.
-
I still disagree with the basic notion that married people have magical rights unavailable to others
Hell of seconded.
I say the government needs to get the fuck out of the marriage business. On the civil side, marriage is just a living arrangement and people are more than capeable of designing contracts that meet their needs for the disposal of communal property, power of attorney, custody of children, etc. The idea that everyone should have the exact same contract is totally unjustified. Not only is a one-size-fits-none government solution to this "problem" not needed, it's actively harmful in that it stifles choice and infantilizes adults, just like almost everything else the government does. Plus it's just one more thing to make fuck*ng taxes even more fuck*ng complicated. FUCK!
As for the religious side of the question (which is not relevant to many people, myself included) the government should stay even further away from that.
Hubby and I got married down at the courthouse by a probate judge, and we could not make him understand that we did not want him to say anything about Jesus or any gods when he married us. It should have been very simple--he showed us what he usually said when he conducted a marriage (it was very short) and we were like "Yeah, that's fine just leave out this Jesus part here," and he's like "What, I don't understand," and we're like "Just don't say the Jesus part, that's all, otherwise it's fine." He still said the Jesus part. Hubby's mom looked smug. I swear she slipped him a $20 to "misunderstand" us.
I would agree that a civil ceremony in a courthouse should not include Jesus.
As for the pigpile on me this past week, one point I made several times was that it would be OK to call it something else, just not 'marriage'. If there were a civil union and Cort, you did that rather than get married, then you should be allowed to use your flex spending accouint on your partner. That's pre-tax income to your household.
The government isn't worried about your marital status, it's worried about the abuse of what would be TAX DOLLARS. Since that program costs tax dollars, the IRS has an interest in their use and rightly so since it's a benefit that comes at a cost to the government (and everyone, eventually).
Feel free to use your taxed income any way you like. The untaxed portion in your flexible spending account is basically granted to you by the IRS and the opportunity is costly to the government when you consider everyone who participates. That the money is spent with restrictions placed by the agency that basically funds the program makes perfect sense.
Well damn, why didn't you say so? I think we actually agree completely. To the extent "marriage" is a religion ceremony/sacrament/rite/concept/whatever, government has no business determining who can be married. Conversely, to the extent marriage is a civil, legal status which can effect one's property and other rights, religion has no place determining who can hold that civil status. It sounds as if we agree completely.
Very sorry you feel piled on. I'm probably most guilty of it, but I swear such was never my intent. You have my respect and affection plus we need a conservative around here.
-
I agree with you. Heterosexuality is, in our society, a mandate of religion and the people who follow and broker it.
While I don't have many close friends who ..."live alternative lifestyles," I appreciate the freedom of the choice to do so, and I'll write until I can't buy a new keyboard to defend their rights to the same legal and fiscal protections in which I and my wife rejoice. (this new keyboard i have is wierd: its home/end/pgup&dn keys are shifted down close to the arrows)
The first amendment reads (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- an issuance that when read narrowly may mean that the whole country can't be made into Baptists by force, or when read loosley, that the government can't legislate morality -- either way, beliefs cannot be outlawed by our government.
Bear in mind that our government was founded, as was our Constitution written, with stability in mind. The founding fathers wished no more on us than stability in peace. They laid the foundation on which we (next to every other citizen of the world) have been abused over the last several months. It is the people of the original colonies whom we have to thank for protecting our freedoms of choice in any regard, on any issue. Our Constitution, when read strictly, is meant to provide for quite a rigid, orderly culture. When read loosely, it means to imply the possibility of Bacchanalia. Its framers intended from the start its ambiguity of interpretation, so as not to influence future readers, among whom a balance of sorts exists.
I hope I haven't sounded like I've been reciting a lecture I heard thrice. I have a degree in political science, which is why I decided to be a programmer. It's a terrible field today, what with Crossfire and Fox News Channel on the air.
-
Our Constitution, when read strictly, is meant to provide for quite a rigid, orderly culture. When read loosely, it means to imply the possibility of Bacchanalia. Its framers intended from the start its ambiguity of interpretation, so as not to influence future readers, among whom a balance of sorts exists.
I agree with your third sentence -- so has SCOTUS since Marbury vs. Madison. I'm not so sure about the first two. Care to elaborate? I have trouble following how the Constitution was meant to provide for a "rigid" culture.
-
I meant for the first and second sentences to balance each other into the third. Read stricly: rigidity. Read loosely: Hedonism. Possibilty of both: balance of liberty with structure, and structure with liberty.
I try to compose with a balance among sentences and paragraphs with my conclusions.* Does that help?
* The search for balance and lack of bias led me toward programming, which is more a science than most disciplines, especially politics. Plus, I have a knack for it: logic reigns supreme in my field; in politics, emotion reigns.
-
No it doesn't help me understand what you mean by the Constitution's "rigidity". I'm not trying to be obtuse or contradictory, I'm just not sure what you mean.
logic reigns supreme in my field; in politics, emotion reigns.
Ah, you've hit upon the heartbreak of the government lawyer. If only they'd listen to us we could tell them how to run things logically. Damn politicians.
-
No it doesn't help me understand what you mean by the Constitution's "rigidity". I'm not trying to be obtuse or contradictory, I'm just not sure what you mean.
The Constitution, read in one mindset, can be everything the framers meant exactly as they meant it. The beliefs, the temporal balances, the vision that each had, can be considered to have been set in stone when instead they were set in print not hours before Hancock signed the declaration.
I choose to believe that the Founding Fathers were a bit more liberal than their British oppressors, or the conervatives ruling the government at every branch today. They recognized the need for interpretation, because they themselves couldn't agree:
Washington: a great General.
Jefferson: a great writer.
Hancock: a great statesman.
Adams: a great politician.
Paine: a great philosopher.
Franklin: a great mind, too great perhaps to settle into one field.
How can these men have agreed, with many others on everything? I firmly believe in a strict adherence to the loose reading of our Constitution. Have you ever compared the first amendment to the, say, twentieth? Law itself has changed to include provisions for dealing with contingencies. a big difference between the third and fifteenth (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html) amendments.
Shit, it's time for bed. I haven't looked at what I've typed for half an hour. Hopefully, it's all made sense and, via composition, demonstrated my meaning of intended ambiguity. G'night.
-
Donut Shop!!! We didn't even invite anyone, other than our witnesses. Giant, multi-thousand dollar wedding? No thanks, just want the paper.
Wait, did you seriously get married in donut shop? That sounds so ...Canadian! The idea of getting married at a Tim Horton's amuses me to no end!
Yes, yes we did.
-
Well damn, why didn't you say so? I think we actually agree completely. To the extent "marriage" is a religion ceremony/sacrament/rite/concept/whatever, government has no business determining who can be married. Conversely, to the extent marriage is a civil, legal status which can effect one's property and other rights, religion has no place determining who can hold that civil status. It sounds as if we agree completely.
Very sorry you feel piled on. I'm probably most guilty of it, but I swear such was never my intent. You have my respect and affection plus we need a conservative around here.
See, in re-reading this thread I think I see how it is that we agree on this.
I'm conservative but I draw a distinction between political and moral conservatism. I don't want to publicly judge whether it's OK to be gay or not (and of course I have an opinion) but I do think that a democratic nation has a responsibility to offer fair and equal treatment to all people under the law in the least restrictive way possible.
Muddling the necessarily objective thought needed for governance to be fair with the necessarily subjective questions of Faith is not a good thing to do when the populace is spread across a continuum from atheistic to fundamental and within that, a broad spectrum of beliefs.
The problem with our Democracy is that (A) not enough people participate in it, and (B) Monied interests participate from pure self-interest and with an automatic advantage. That is why so many things counterintuitive to what I think government should be happen and its unfortunate.
-
I'm conservative but I draw a distinction between political and moral conservatism.
I wish more people did. I wish more people could distinguish between what is "moral" and what is "legal". If we claim to have a free society (which is what we purport to be fighting for,) we have to accept that people may be free to do some things that we personally do not think are moral.