Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religions have "holy matrimony" Why should a church get to dictate what the government calls a contract?
Exactly. And who in the world would police the use of the term anyway? People are going to call themselves married no matter what the legal term is....they certainly won't go around telling people that they are "civil unioned".
The definitions of words change all the time, so I just don't get those who insist that redefining the word is the biggest issue. Clearly, it is not just the word that bothers them.
Exactly. And who in the world would police the use of the term anyway? People are going to call themselves married no matter what the legal term is....they certainly won't go around telling people that they are "civil unioned".
The definitions of words change all the time, so I just don't get those who insist that redefining the word is the biggest issue. Clearly, it is not just the word that bothers them.
Especially since all legally married couples *are* in a civil union, which requires a license from a civil authority. The church part is optional - and, in the us, always has been.
I think it will be the opposite. States do not have to recognize all marriages from other states. (example - states do not have to recognize first cousin marriages from other states)
Application of the Fourteenth Amendment has never been applied to that issue at the federal level. Most states do recognize first cousin marriages solemnized in other states and all state-level appellate cases over the last thirty years have been decided in favor of recognition, so there has been no need to test the Fourteenth Amendment on that matter in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrop101
And who in the world would police the use of the term anyway?
Isn't that precisely what opponents of marriage equality want: The foundation on which to discriminate against same-sex couples with impunity? I can readily see such people filing suit against same-sex couples for misrepresentation. Imagine the Masterpiece Cakeshop incident with a small twist, with the mother of one of the grooms making the arrangements herself instead of with the grooms present. I don't underestimate how low some folks will stoop on this issue.
Only true if your perspective, held now by a minority of Americans, is thereby deviant, and therefore worthy of being marginalized. You're in a catch-22 even if you're unwilling to admit it: Now that you are in the minority, the lame excuse you have for your abject intolerance no longer provides any support for your cause.
Left handed scissors offended you so much you pulled your kid out of school?
It was a joke. Once upon a time, that would have been obvious. See "Poe's Law".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
