Westside Steve Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/california-gov-brown-signs-bill-deleting-husband-w/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBC mike Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 Fucking California. It is getting so fucking liberal makes you want to puke when you wake up in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 I don't see how this actually affects anyone that isn't gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 Why is this an outrage exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 Why is this an outrage exactly? Because it defies common sense you fucking dumbass. It's another PC play on words to control the language, you can be suspended at Berkley for saying the words "illegal immigrant" If you can't see the Liberal attack on language, then you are, uh, mentally fucking Retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 damn, i was hoping this was about a complete elimination of state involvement in marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 damn, i was hoping this was about a complete elimination of state involvement in marriage. I'd be fine with that. The state could just recognize civil unions for tax and other reasons. Then you can go wherever you want to get married Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 Because it defies common sense you fucking dumbass. It's another PC play on words to control the language, you can be suspended at Berkley for saying the words "illegal immigrant" If you can't see the Liberal attack on language, then you are, uh, mentally fucking Retarded. You're freaking out because it says "spouse" and not husband or wife? Man. I feel sorry for you. I have no idea what it would be like fucking fragile. Change must be your biggest nightmare... This makes no difference. Run down your "gay liberal agenda" slippery slope all you want... That doesn't make it true. That doesn't mean it "defies common sense". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted July 15, 2014 Report Share Posted July 15, 2014 You're freaking out because it says "spouse" and not husband or wife? Man. I feel sorry for you. I have no idea what it would be like fucking fragile. Change must be your biggest nightmare... This makes no difference. Run down your "gay liberal agenda" slippery slope all you want... That doesn't make it true. That doesn't mean it "defies common sense". You are absolute shit for brains who missed the point you. The STATE should have 0 say in marriage or the language used in it terms of it. People should be left the fuck alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Which is basically what I said in a post above, and basically what this is getting at. Just call everything a "civil union" and call two people "spouses". Just have the govt. create this union for tax reasons and the like. Then, if your super jesus loving god fearing church wants to say gays can't get "married", go for it. There will be plenty of other locations, churches included, that will allow gays to be married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 You are absolute shit for brains who missed the point you. The STATE should have 0 say in marriage or the language used in it terms of it. People should be left the fuck alone. EXACTLLY. The Gov't should have NO say in what marriage is. Marriage is a defined union between 2 people. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!! If marriage is defined as 2 people of the opposite sex, then it is a RELIGIOUS belief And the Gov't shouldn't be allowed to dictate religious belief's Just ask Hobby Lobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 I sort of agree with that. I still think it is in the govt's best interests to designate "civil unions" though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXDawg Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 business contracts, yes. blind outcome legal arrangements where you're at the mercy of the govt's feelings? no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 The government will always be involved in marriage because of children's rights, etc. Also they want to make sure the husband gets fucked in the divorce settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 If marriage is defined as 2 people of the opposite sex, then it is a RELIGIOUS belief And the Gov't shouldn't be allowed to dictate religious belief's B ******************************************** no. Marriage IS between 2 people of the opposite sex. That is a NATURAL belief. It is human, as in normal. The government IS involved, because of the benefits of marriage, etc. I've never had a problem with civil unions. It's intimidating 97% of the rest of America into redefining "marriage", and "normal", and trying to force "abnormal" out of all language used.... is the problem. Obamao et all make a living off of the tyranny of the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 It depends what you define marriage as, really. If you look at it as a legal contract, with prenups and the rest, which is used for tax purposes and determining who gets what in the event of a break up, then yeah, between any two people. If you look at it as a solemn vow before god (or gods) to love each other for eternity, then it's up to the people in charge of those religions to decide whether they want to administer a religious ceremony or not. If not, the new Mrs and Mrs can go down to the registry office (or american equivalent), sign a piece of paper, even say some vows if they want, then throw a big party. Of course, if you believe marriage is solely a religious institution, why are atheists allowed to get married in churches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Well if equity was the actual goal then the civil union would be the perfect solution. Anybody could sign the papers and have at it. Others could sign the papers then go to a church and call themselves husband and wife. I suppose gay people, if that was really their choice, could go to some gay friendly church, possibly Our Lady of Gomorrah, and call it whatever they like. But as we all know though few will admit the purpose is actually to put a thumb in the eye of traditional Americans. Really what fun is progress unless you can offend or hurt someone? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 I think the problem is that in legal terms, a civil partnership doesn't necessarily cover the same legal rights as marriage. For example, pensions - if one of a married couple dies, the spouse get the pension to some degree. In a civil partnership, this isn't necessarily the case, and when it is, the proportion of the pension they get is lower. Looking at the wiki-page on it, you get this general theme: Washington offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Oregon offers domestic partnerships which grant nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Nevada - The bill allows registered domestic partners, whether they are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple, to have most of the state level rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples. Maine's domestic partnership registry only provides limited rights, most of which are geared toward protecting couples' security in emergency situations. What they're looking for is just the same kind of recognition you get from marriage, which for heterosexual couples is above and beyond what you get in civil partnerships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Oh for fucks sake Chris, a legal document can be drawn up to include anything the attorneys want it to say. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 I also assume that anything having to do with Children must be removed any agreement, correct? Which would open up another can of worms which is forcing fathers to pay for their children. If no biological connection is to be considered or included... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 It's not about what the document itself says, it's about how others treat the relationship - like the first example of a pension scheme only extending full posthumous payments if the couple were married. Come on, I know you can read better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 And I know that you are smart enough to realize that the civil union can be written any way it needs to be written. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 and just to be clear you used the qualifier word necessarily twice in the first paragraph or so. Great. Then make it necessarily the case. Problem solved. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 and just to be clear you used the qualifier word necessarily twice in the first paragraph or so. Great. Then make it necessarily the case. Problem solved. WSS That's what they're trying to do, and what people are resisting. The terms of the civil union between any two people don't matter so much to the way the relationship is treating by third parties. It'll state who gets what in the event of breakups etc, but when it comes to things like pensions, life insurance or whatever, that third party decides how to treat civil partnerships, and if they want to treat it differently from marriage. For example, your health insurance plan from work might extend to other members of the family, but the terms be worded such that it only applies to married couples, not those in civil partnerships. Of course, then Hobby Lobby gets to refuse to extend health insurance to parters of gay employees, but that's a different conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 For example, if you work for the federal government, you get health insurance benefits for your partner if married, but not if in a civil union, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 I love the idea that the "gay agenda" exists and gay people are only doing this the fuck shit up. Their only purpose is to spit in the face of "normal" people. You'd have to be a self centered idiot to think that. Also, the definition of marriage has changed many times before, we should see just as big of an outrage over divorce, and the idea that marriage is now "natural" and homosexuality isn't.... Riiiight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 I'm sure some people in the demographic take a certain amount of satisfaction at seeing 'the man' getting all uncomfortable at the thought, to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 For example, if you work for the federal government, you get health insurance benefits for your partner if married, but not if in a civil union, apparently.Stroke of a pen Chris.I'd wager that given the chance to vote Americans with overwhelmingly support civil unions. Of course hatred of the other side is always going to be a problem whether it's people like bunker or woody. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 You really just compared me to bunker... ... Fuck off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Temper tantrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.