- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON — One bride wore a knee-length lace dress and pearls. The other bride wore a yellow shirt and white suit. And when a pastor pronounced them "partners in life this day and for always" Tuesday, they hugged and smiled in front of wedding guests and nearly a dozen TV cameras and reporters.
On the first day same-sex couples could marry in Washington, brides Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend were the first of three couples taking the plunge in morning ceremonies at the offices of the Human Rights Campaign, which does advocacy work on gay, lesbian and transgender issues. Other ceremonies were planned throughout the day.
There's nothing that prevents gays from getting married. Civil unions have been around a long time, and the commitment shouldn't be any different if they're serious about it.
They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.
could we all please just realize that any union outside a church is only a civil union, and not a marriage?It's about fairness. Would you say that for a certain type of heterosexual couple? How about old couples? Interracial couples? Old man/young woman or vice versa couple? Sterile couple? Non-religious couple? They can get a civil union, so what's the problem? So what if they aren't recognized by the federal government with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities of those that go to a legally married couple? :roll: Same old argument.
If you don't like what's going on in those parades, don't watch them.
They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.
could we all please just realize that any union outside a church is only a civil union, and not a marriage?
could we all please just realize that any union outside a church is only a civil union, and not a marriage?
marriage is the word everybody is hung up on........and i don't think a "marriage" at a jp is any more than a civil union.Only if you want to change the legal definition of marriage, and change all the laws involving marriage.
marriage is the word everybody is hung up on........and i don't think a "marriage" at a jp is any more than a civil union.
it's certainly not a religious union.
marriage is the word everybody is hung up on........and i don't think a "marriage" at a jp is any more than a civil union.
it's certainly not a religious union.
When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses.
i'm not. i'm saying define everything that is civil as civil, and grant rights to those unions the way rights are granted to marriages now.Marriage has in this country certain legal rights and responsibilities. It's a legal term. You can't discount that.
i'm not. i'm saying define everything that is civil as civil, and grant rights to those unions the way rights are granted to marriages now.
let marriage be in the religious realm.
i'm not. i'm saying define everything that is civil as civil, and grant rights to those unions the way rights are granted to marriages now.
let marriage be in the religious realm.
I freaking love you, man. Thanks for really distilling down exactly why the whole government interference in this subject thing is so offensive to me. It is NONE OF THE GUMMINT's BUSINESS who I marry. The only thing that matters is that I file my taxes and that I don't break any laws.You know, I am really torn on this. Why? Because when was who got married any of the government's damn business anyways? When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses. If my wife and I had to get married again, we would just do it, and give the government a big, fat, middle finger, by not registering and getting their damn license. We would be married, whether or not the government approved of it. It's not their domain, and they have absolutely no say in it.
I remember reading something once about something called 'Banns of Marriage'.
Then every marriage recognized by the government should actually be called a civil union then.
That's exactly what should happen.
I'm all for it. But I think it will be much more likely that the government will eventually just call them all marriages.
A declaration implies something very different than a licence. The former says "Hey everybody, guess what?" while the latter says "Hey everybody, is it okay if we.."I think written licenses go back about 200 years but 'licenses' as the forefathers and earlier people would have interpreted them were usually public declarations of marriage.
Government recognition is an option, not a requirement. The government could care less if you want to give it a "big, fat, middle finger."You know, I am really torn on this. Why? Because when was who got married any of the government's damn business anyways? When our forefathers got married, they just did it, and didn't need a license. It was only racism in the south and eugenics in the north that brought about marriage licenses. If my wife and I had to get married again, we would just do it, and give the government a big, fat, middle finger, by not registering and getting their damn license. We would be married, whether or not the government approved of it. It's not their domain, and they have absolutely no say in it.
it's still all semantics, really.Which will not happen any time soon in this country. Dealing with the country as it is now, marriage is a particular thing, and gays want a part of that thing, which seems reasonable to me.
it's still all semantics, really.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?