IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Thank you. I was going to trot that out.
But you beat me to it.

A Civil Union being seen equivalent to a Marriage... that means a Marriage *IS* a Civil Union... but a Civil Union is not necessarily a Marriage and can be separated out from that. As soon as they are asking if the two in the Union are Male/Male, Male/Female, Female/Female... they are necessarily leaving out transgendered or eunics and are going to be marking the License as a Union and not a Marriage. The form doesn't need to ask for the sake of the Marriage.

Again, Separate but Equal was tried in Segregation days (and still is) and it is/was a horrible flop and failure. Insurance companies from Auto-Home-Life-Health types will deselect based on that status. Even if it is illegal... What stops them now from doing illegal things... nothing.

Its not just Insurance. Its everything being geared towards a Man and Woman being married, everything. Things you wouldn't normally think about kinds of things. Like being allowed into a "couples" (non-religious) retreat. Or perhaps things as simple as Airlines seating Married Couples priority seating. Honeymoon planning... think of just how many Resorts are setup for Man/Woman couples. Think of the impact a "Civil Union" would have on those kinds of things.

What about the requirements for Married Couples to be able to adopt Children... Same Sex "civil-union" couples are being denied the ability to do that. Where as Single Parents aren't, what?

It goes much further... Marriage is ingrained into people as something special. Civil Union just doesn't cut it with me. It won't be enough for Governmental Agencies (Federal or other wise). It won't be enough for Insurance companies. It won't be enough for places like Hobby Lobby, I'd argue that Hobby Lobby would deselect Employment based on the fact.

Think about a Gay or Lesbian Cop, being a member of a Civil Union, being "Killed in the Line of Duty"... Do you actually think the Police organization would do a payout to widow(er) Civil Union member? the Union would fight for it, but in the end more than likely "Legally Married" is probably in the wording of the contracts... it means legally *NO Payout*. Just one example where this is serious.

Sorry, it is about the Redefinition of the term Marriage. It means more because its been given more. Civil Union just doesn't cut it.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New Just at a semantic level
To say that we shouldn't change it because it's "just a label" ... If that's the case, then why not change it, since it's "just a label"?
--

Drew
New Excellent point!
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
     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)

I miss the old days when we used to talk about chocolate.
68 ms