Rent Party: PunGent: Rent Party: Teiritzamna: Welp looks like the rest of the fark lawyers brigade has this bad-boy well handled. I love it when all you guys are in one thread./Now i can go back to working on my Supreme Court Brief.//in 26 minutes?Fark Lawyers (including yourself) all have a specific favorite band, for exactly this reason.Ooh, what color are we?Chartreuse!Although you're not a member of the club yet. Are you a certified law talker, or holder of a JD from a Real College(tm)?
RobSeace: Theaetetus: In reality, what this all comes down to is the fact that you don't think that the government should use the term "marriage". And since you have no possible justification for that - not even the "confusion" justification that BMFPitt tried - then we must assume that it's bigotry.Guys, I think there's just miscommunication going on here... Did you miss this bit:RyansPrivates: You can have polyamorous marriages. You can have same-sex marriages. You can have opposite sex marriages. These are all kinds of marriages.You can have college room-mates in "civil relationship contracts". You can have two widowed friends In "civil relationship contracts"It's clear he's just talking about the "civil relationship contracts" applying to people who don't want to be called married for whatever reasons...
hubiestubert: Comes down to it: freedom of religion, equality under the law, and the right to privacy are all bound up in the issue of marriage equality.There are no good arguments, other than some folks' interpretations of texts, and essentially the ban on marriage equality, which then brings it into the realm of religious freedom. Then there's the equality under the law portion of the show, and sad fact, that the state, if it divorces itself from the religious ban, then it has no real vested interest in this sort of ban. In putting this ban up, it then looks to enforce some folks' interpretations of religious texts and beliefs, while denying others. The state is supporting a ban based on religious interpretation, and thus the ban NEEDS to be opposed on grounds of religious freedom. Unless someone can give us a good reason that marriage equality is somehow detrimental to folks. And please provide us with some examples of how Massachusetts and other states have fallen into anarchy, despair, and how the wedding industry has just imploded, and children are just left wallowing in their own filth. Not to mention how many kids are obviously going to become gay from their adopted parents' example, the same way that only straight couples produce straight children, and obviously it's about procreation only, since we forbid old folks and the infertile from marrying, and not to mention that kids can obviously never succeed without a male and female role model--which is why we immediately remove kids from single parent homes, right?This recockulousness needs to end. It's not about what you approve of, it's not about your comfort zone. If you're not comfortable marrying folks of the same sex in your churches, fine. Have at it. But maybe keep the Hells out of OTHER churches and denominations.Religious freedom, equality under the law, right to privacy. What other folks do in their churches, is none of your concern.
BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Nope, this is exactly what you're proposing: two institutions, one called marriage, and one called something different.Are you unaware that even right now, there are human relationships that exist that are not marriage? And that there ate terms that describe these relationships that cause purple to understand them without an org chart?Your proposal is coming across loud and clear: "civil unions" would be available to everyone, "marriage" would only be available to heterosexuals, but both would convey the same legal rights. If you disagree with this concise description of your proposal, then please enlighten me, because it's what you've been repeating over and over.[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]I agree that I have been repeating myself over and over. Yet you continue to insert this fantasy you have in your head where gay marriage would be somehow treated differently than other forms of marriage if we gave non-married people the ability to have the same rights as married people.You are a young-Earth creationist level of insane with this.
BMFPitt: I would also like to replace government sanctioned marriage with civil unions
Theaetetus: Yeah, why would I think you wanted to replace marriage with some other institution?
Theaetetus: RobSeace: Theaetetus: In reality, what this all comes down to is the fact that you don't think that the government should use the term "marriage". And since you have no possible justification for that - not even the "confusion" justification that BMFPitt tried - then we must assume that it's bigotry.Guys, I think there's just miscommunication going on here... Did you miss this bit:RyansPrivates: You can have polyamorous marriages. You can have same-sex marriages. You can have opposite sex marriages. These are all kinds of marriages.You can have college room-mates in "civil relationship contracts". You can have two widowed friends In "civil relationship contracts"It's clear he's just talking about the "civil relationship contracts" applying to people who don't want to be called married for whatever reasons...Except that he's also saying the government shouldn't use the term "marriage". There's no justification for that, except bigotry.
RyansPrivates: Benjimin_Dover: RyansPrivates: BMFPitt: RyansPrivates: Open to any 2 consenting adults.Why limit it to 2?I don't inherently have a problem with more than 2. But as some point a number needs to be settled on, for administrative purposes. Here is what i said upthread:RyansPrivates: As I said, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for a simplified contract between 2 consenting adults. Some might say "why just 2", but that is really a detail to be ironed out. My (non-legally informed) opinion is that you could say that the least complicated version of this contract and least burdensome for medical and legal authorities is just 2 people. Like I said, the goal should be a simple form that you can go and get in 15 minutes. Getting out of it should be just as easy, provided both partners consent to dissolution of the contract. The messy divorce system would remain intact for those who want to fight it out in civil litigation.A number doesn't have to be agreed upon. If fifty people want to enter into a contract with each other and let them. If two people get hitched, then they each hold fifty percent of the power/assets/whatever. If three want to get hitched, then they each get a third. If fifty want it, then they each get 1/50th. I think it would be self limiting. Somebody gets tired of the other's shiat and wants out, then they can dissolve out of it and take his/her portion and be gone. I think not many people would want that hassle.Yeah, I can see that; I was only thinking about from an administrative point of view. If the appropriate costs can be factored in, not really a problem. So, you could say 2 people would cost (warning: anally extracted estimate) $50 dollars, and maybe each additional party is $50, maybe as the numbers get higher, the contracts goes up. I dunno. I think you make a good point about it being pretty much self-limiting. The main thing is that the institution itself shouldn't become onerous to enforce/allow, whi ...
EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.
BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Yeah, why would I think you wanted to replace marriage with some other institution?Because you have some strange pathological need to invent bigotry where none exists, and you don't understand the English language or the concept of supersets?
rosekolodny: Sounds more complicated than just allowing everybody to use the system that's already in place.
rosekolodny: Oh, hey! I'm too lazy to sift through all your posts.
BMFPitt: rosekolodny: Oh, hey! I'm too lazy to sift through all your posts.I'm too lazy to provide you an answer you could have easily obtained by reading a few of them in the time it took you to pay that.I guess the other way to organize all this nonsense would be to make Marriage a subset of a totally inclusive Civil Union Thingie (CUT), in which CUT is governed by law, and Marriage is a romantic and/or religious ceremony (requiring filing of CUT) provided by whoever you want. So all adults of all genders could go down to the courthouse, get the CUT contract, and then depending on the nature of the relationship, either have a wedding or not.Sounds more complicated than just allowing everybody to use the system that's already in place.That is the system already in place. For people who want to get married, absolutely nothing would change except the title of the form, which would also allow for more than two people.
Farking Canuck: I think they are trying to concern-troll this into something much more than simple marriage so they can then say "look how gay marriage is destroying traditional marriage!!!"
rosekolodny: OK, I shall simplify for you. Are you a proponent of an institution called marriage which is available only to people of opposite genders?
BMFPitt: rosekolodny: OK, I shall simplify for you. Are you a proponent of an institution called marriage which is available only to people of opposite genders?See my previous response in bolded and oversized text for a question that has been answered dozens of times
sprgrss: ciberido: sprgrss: I was talking about weddings, not marriage. As I said, a wedding is a ceremony. A marriage is not a ceremony. The difference between the two is key.The two go hand in hand. You cannot be married without a wedding (yes, even the ceremony conducted by a magistrate are weddings). You are attempting to split a hair that cannot be split.
serial_crusher: Theaetetus: AmbassadorBooze: It should be replaced with contracts, eg. two people have a contract to support each other money wise, or that lets them visit each other in the hospital.Hospital Administrator: "Who are you? GTFO, noob."AmbassadorBooze: "But I have a contract that lets me visit my significant other, who is in your emergency room!"Hospital Administrator: "WTF are you talking about? I never signed any such contract."AmbassadorBooze: "No, but my significant other and I did..."Hospital Administrator: "And WTF should I care? If I didn't sign any contract with you, then why are you coming to me to enforce your contract? Get out of here before I call security."And scene.Or, if you disagree and think that contracts can be used to bind third parties, in the absence of any statute granting particular rights or placing obligations on the third parties, then I just signed this contract with my spouse giving me your car. So, I'll need your- er, my keys, thank you very much.I think it's implicit that there would be a similar law requiring a certified health care provider to honor such a class of contracts.
Suckmaster Burstingfoam: rosekolodny: Sorry to break this to you, but many white women are married to blah men. What you propose would effectively nullify most WASP unions.Sure, yet interracial marriage was once illegal in the US. If the state has the right to define marriage by gender, why doesn't it have the right to define it by race?Does this really go over American heads?
rosekolodny: Look, I think I get you. But your refusal to use words like "gender" or even "sex" makes it seem like you are choosing to not be explicit in your language. Your arguments are tautological, and direct questions remain unanswered. I think this is just your conversational style and not intentional evasion, but for some of us it is frustrating.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 28 2017 16:40:56
Runtime: 0.377 sec (377 ms)