IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 2 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Well, sometimes we do
(for certain values of "we")

When I got married in the Catholic church, I did have to vow to "accept children lovingly from God" and if we were known to be an infertile couple, we would have needed special permission from the Bishop to get married. It was made clear that we were expected/required to have unprotected sex. It was also made clear by the marriage class instructors that birth control is very much against the rules but nobody expects parents of a kid or two to follow that rule and failure to break that rule leads to more kids than a couple can responsibly raise.

Not missing the ex-church or the ex-wife.
In the desert, you can't remember your name
New I was best man in a Catholic marriage.
Yeah, they make you promise to do lots of things (raise your kids Catholic, etc., etc.). That's why I wanted to be sure I talked about civil marriage.

But, of course, the Church ran things for a long time, and even when they didn't, they had a lot of influence on the civil law and customs, so it gets messy.

Things are changing rapidly in our society. I hope the courts (and the Neanderthals in Congress and those running several of the states) don't keep thinks static (or in reverse) for so long that the backlash destroys good things along with making the necessary changes...


New I forgot to make my point
The clearly out-of-culture requirements for Catholic marriage point out that the whole sanctity of marriage argument is ridiculous. Churches will not be forced to marry pairs of men or pairs of women any more than the Catholic church is forced to marry infertile couples.

There isn't an explicit legal protection for this category, but consider this scenario:

"No, you can't add her on to your insurance plan because you knew you were infertile at the time you got 'married' and you didn't get permission from the Bishop, so we don't consider you married."

Yeah, that's going to go over real well in court.
In the desert, you can't remember your name
     ScotusBlog: USSC to punt on Prop 8 case. - (Another Scott) - (61)
         no standing sounds like the correct legal ruling -NT - (boxley)
         What century? - (mmoffitt) - (35)
             Ok, it was a slight exaggeration. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 whats wrong with first cousins? looks around nervously -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                     I figured someone would question that... - (Another Scott)
                 Well, sometimes we do - (mhuber) - (2)
                     I was best man in a Catholic marriage. - (Another Scott)
                     I forgot to make my point - (mhuber)
             Fundamental changes in the definition of marriage are good - (drook) - (27)
                 :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                 + 11teen; almost forgot about TT! Thanx for reminder.. -NT - (Ashton)
                 You're entitled to that view. - (mmoffitt) - (24)
                     Its truly about "spousal" benefits. - (folkert) - (23)
                         What rights does California deny same-sex couples? - (mmoffitt) - (22)
                             Separate But Equal is not equal justice under law. - (Another Scott) - (21)
                                 Thank you. I was going to trot that out. - (folkert) - (2)
                                     Just at a semantic level - (drook) - (1)
                                         Excellent point! -NT - (folkert)
                                 Red Herring. - (mmoffitt) - (17)
                                     Uhh ... no - (drook) - (6)
                                         Actually, I do agree with your second sentence. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                             Yes, but ... - (drook) - (3)
                                                 It's really not that difficult. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     Theory vs. practice - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Lawyers - and I - would like that. - (mmoffitt)
                                             Cool, I agree with you - (crazy)
                                     Misinformed - (boxley) - (7)
                                         There are corner cases where DNA is problematic. - (Another Scott)
                                         If procreation isn't involved, why blood tests? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                             I'm not your lawyer - (crazy) - (4)
                                                 A typically non-responsive response. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                     kiss kiss - (crazy)
                                                     And YOU responded it is not an issue in above post - (crazy) - (1)
                                                         Heh. 2 more posts and still no answer to the question. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                     WTF???? Eugenics boards next? - (crazy) - (1)
                                         Haven't you heard? - (mmoffitt)
             maybe not to the euros normal in other cultures -NT - (boxley)
         Mann at AngryBear says Goldstein at ScotusBlog is wrong. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             interesting read - (boxley)
         Tom Levenson's take at Balloon-Juice. - (Another Scott) - (21)
             I hope that wasn't directed at me. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                 so she has to pay 350k because she was banging another chick - (boxley) - (3)
                     I see a "wrong" compounded. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         nope, you are not a racist, I get that - (boxley) - (1)
                             s/stealing from rich/recovering stolen from/ -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 Unfortunate fact of our legal system - (drook) - (10)
                     Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     You're almost too easy. Your link is sufficient. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                         Your "tradition" goes back ... three generations? - (drook) - (7)
                             Ya lost me. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                 Repeat after me: syphilis - (drook) - (5)
                                     Marriage is because syphillis? kewl :-) -NT - (boxley)
                                     Okay. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                         Another slice off the shifting platform - (crazy)
                                         Marriage leads to children != marriage is *for* children -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                             Yup - (crazy)
                 It was part of the discussion. - (Another Scott)
                 I stopped reading at this point - (crazy) - (2)
                     Zing. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                         Yup, thanks where he corrects you. AGAIN. - (crazy)
             As to Why Marry? and ... it's All about the cheeldrun? - (Ashton)

Improvise, hack, adapt, copy, code bloat, modify, morph, contract, cancel contract, stall, prevaricate, codify, vaporware, abandon, do, undo, rollout and beta the user.
66 ms