marriage is a religious term not a legal term

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #307,193 by boxley 4/12/09 10:57:53 AM Reply	marriage is a religious term not a legal term the legal history all deals with inheritance and taxes not rights or abilities. With dna testing and civil unions the state gets out of the religion business remember that separation of church and state thingy?. Any one can claim they are married regardless of the state. I remember two guys from my youth that were married, introduced themselves as such. Were respected as such by people that knew them and that was in the late 1960's. They didnt need obama to walk them down the aisle to feel right. thanx, bill
Post #307,203 by drook 4/12/09 11:51:48 AM Reply	So they were covered on each other's insurance? They could visit in the hospital? They got the inheritance if someone died suddenly without a will? Yeah, that's the legal stuff, not the religious. And it's the stuff that the state hasn't (yet) decided to say can happen any other way than marriage. -- Drew
Post #307,208 by boxley 4/12/09 12:13:40 PM Reply	actually neither had insurance :-) they did discuss having wills, and general poa on each other so yes they were covered and it does cover the same things marriage does. A marriage license is similar to a general power of attorney confering many of the same rights and responsibilities

Mark Morford on the gay heathen hordes freaking out the - (Ashton) - (52) - April 10, 2009, 04:40:48 AM EDT

Wow...not too reactionary... - (beepster) - (2) - April 10, 2009, 08:21:21 AM EDT

well look at the bright side :-) - (boxley) - (1) - April 10, 2009, 08:45:45 AM EDT

:-) -NT - (beepster) - April 10, 2009, 10:07:07 AM EDT

Interesting point there - (drook) - (34) - April 10, 2009, 09:46:26 AM EDT

I have said that for years, the state has no business - (boxley) - (2) - April 10, 2009, 09:49:32 AM EDT

Is it? - (drook) - (1) - April 10, 2009, 10:45:27 AM EDT

Current law is the name on the birth certificate - (boxley) - April 10, 2009, 10:50:14 AM EDT

Re: Interesting point there - (jay) - (20) - April 10, 2009, 12:01:58 PM EDT

Words count - (drook) - (18) - April 10, 2009, 03:28:30 PM EDT

bing bing bing! - (beepster) - (8) - April 10, 2009, 04:26:55 PM EDT

I view it differently. - (Another Scott) - (7) - April 10, 2009, 07:13:23 PM EDT

You missed the implication of what I said - (drook) - (5) - April 10, 2009, 07:48:24 PM EDT

But the horse left the barn and is in the next county. - (Another Scott) - (4) - April 10, 2009, 09:00:25 PM EDT

Good idea, but DOA - (drook) - April 10, 2009, 09:17:55 PM EDT

marriage is a religious term not a legal term - (boxley) - (2) - April 12, 2009, 10:57:53 AM EDT

So they were covered on each other's insurance? - (drook) - (1) - April 12, 2009, 11:51:48 AM EDT

actually neither had insurance :-) - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 12:13:40 PM EDT

nope, my marriage was illegal in virginia - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 10:51:16 AM EDT

I don't think it would really work - (jay) - (8) - April 11, 2009, 12:47:49 PM EDT

People are lazy, I'm counting on that - (drook) - (7) - April 11, 2009, 06:52:43 PM EDT

There would be - (jay) - (6) - April 11, 2009, 11:32:44 PM EDT

I'm not trying to change the language people use - (drook) - (5) - April 12, 2009, 11:48:53 AM EDT

can we use a fade away shot - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 12:15:10 PM EDT

Which isn't enough - (jay) - (3) - April 12, 2009, 02:47:42 PM EDT

in the real world the fundie gets fired - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 03:14:26 PM EDT

actually a real world example link - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 03:22:44 PM EDT

What? - (beepster) - April 12, 2009, 03:39:28 PM EDT

bassackwards - (boxley) - April 12, 2009, 10:48:13 AM EDT

Interesting discussion. - (static) - (9) - April 11, 2009, 01:27:01 AM EDT

I think that where you stand depends on where you sit. - (Another Scott) - (4) - April 11, 2009, 09:12:03 AM EDT

Yep, I've 'committed marriage' upon 3 sets, so far -- - (Ashton) - April 11, 2009, 07:57:14 PM EDT

I had another thought. - (static) - April 12, 2009, 04:12:16 AM EDT

thanks for proving my point - (boxley) - (1) - April 12, 2009, 11:04:12 AM EDT

My point, too. - (static) - April 12, 2009, 07:56:27 PM EDT

Marriage probably predates religion - (jay) - (3) - April 11, 2009, 01:01:55 PM EDT

I seriously doubt . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - April 11, 2009, 02:06:48 PM EDT

Unanswerable question - (jay) - (1) - April 11, 2009, 11:36:55 PM EDT

Ummm . . . paper thin? - (Andrew Grygus) - April 12, 2009, 03:40:17 AM EDT

So this thread became about who gets to define language... - (CRConrad) - (13) - Sept. 30, 2010, 07:37:52 AM EDT

1. doesnt matter, - (boxley) - (1) - Sept. 30, 2010, 07:42:29 AM EDT

You're missing the point by a mile, as usual. - (CRConrad) - Oct. 1, 2010, 05:45:17 AM EDT

Define "married" - (drook) - (4) - Sept. 30, 2010, 10:02:54 AM EDT

Married=Living in a civil union(religious blessing optional) - (CRConrad) - (3) - Oct. 1, 2010, 06:10:50 AM EDT

Dammit, you're making a good point - (drook) - Oct. 1, 2010, 09:20:19 AM EDT

Well said. Here's an interesting summary. - (Another Scott) - Oct. 13, 2010, 01:33:24 PM EDT

Stuart Chase ceased revolving-in-grave upon this utterance - (Ashton) - Oct. 13, 2010, 07:41:02 PM EDT

Each religion can define it for themselves - (mhuber) - (5) - Oct. 1, 2010, 01:55:57 PM EDT

Sure-if they also name it for themselves.'Coz "marriage"... - (CRConrad) - (4) - Oct. 2, 2010, 07:14:39 PM EDT

FWIW, this Xian agrees with me - (drook) - (3) - Oct. 13, 2010, 11:31:02 AM EDT

I'm dealing with this right now - (crazy) - (2) - Oct. 13, 2010, 02:02:46 PM EDT

I can picture the joke now - (boxley) - (1) - Oct. 13, 2010, 02:44:56 PM EDT

It writes itself. - (crazy) - Oct. 14, 2010, 11:16:19 AM EDT

HA! THAT DON'T PAY THE RENT!
97 ms