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.
Yes, there's that third-party problem. A third-party problem could also arise in the form of children's protective services, or a hospital not recognizing a partner's right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person, or a debt collector trying to determine liability, etc.
I only meant that if a couple had been living together, and needed the help of a court to settle a problem, the court would take into account the couple's original intentions, along with any other relevant factors. But the court would not be *bound* by those intentions.
I don't understand why two people who have mutual intent to do something with their own stuff, and where there is no 3rd party expressing an interest in the stuff, would ever be in court to begin with.
I don't understand why two people who have mutual intent to do something with their own stuff, and where there is not 3rd party expressing an interest in the stuff, would ever be in court to begin with.
They wouldn't, obviously.
Unfortunately, though, most of us are really bad at predicting the future, and third-parties can pop up completely unexpectedly.
Or one of the original parties changes his/her mind. Of course, this almost never happens!
Sorry, but I haven't found a "right of marriage" anywhere in the Constitution or laws. A lot of laws involve the recognition of a marriage, but none I've found cite any right of marriage.
Sorry, but I haven't found a "right of marriage" anywhere in the Constitution or laws. A lot of laws involve the recognition of a marriage, but none I've found cite any right of marriage.
Sorry, but I haven't found a "right of marriage" anywhere in the Constitution or laws. A lot of laws involve the recognition of a marriage, but none I've found cite any right of marriage.
As well all know, the only rights the People have are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Fine with me. Give gay people equal access to marriage law today, and tomorrow I'll support your effort to change the name of the law.
But our Constitution guarantees equal protection for all people under all laws. It doesn't matter that you have a hypersensitive attachment to a word - that's not a reason to deny people Constitutional rights.
please do not say that. after all, it was democrats that pushed no interracial marriages between whites and blacks for so long. heck democrats even made it a crime to have a marriage between white and black persons.
Then the Democratic Party saw the error of their ways, the bigots left in droves, and the Republican Party came up with the Southern Strategy to attract the bigots and gobble up all these lovely, lovely votes. We know the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
according to the state you would be correct, but according to my church I still had those same responsibilities.
Why? No one owns the word marriage, and no one can make other people stop using the word marriage. Even if the legal title was blurrtghat people would still call it marriage. In effect you would change the name on paper, but not in everyday use.
Churches have "holy matrimony" why do they need two words for their exclusive use?
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.