|
Whole country goes forwards and California goes backwards... (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Basically, the idea is to separate the religious/cultural concept of marriage from the legal/contractual concept. People could hold whatever sort of ceremony they wish, call themselves "married," and so on -- all in accordance with whatever faith (or the lack thereof) to which they adhere, and none of it would have any legal recognition, nor would anyone else be compelled to recognize the legitimacy of anyone's claim of "marriage." Ideally the word "marriage" would nowhere appear in the entire legal doctrine.
And those who wanted the legal status currently associated with marriage (e.g. to be considered "family" for legal purposes) would have to separately apply for that status (calling it a civil union is fine with me.)
This would doubtless require some adjustments to areas of law that currently include or relate to marriage (particularly family law, but also some issues in tax and wills/estates, among others.) But I think it is better than trying to extend what has (in our culture at least) traditionally been a religious matter into law. This is problematic because of the diversity of religious views: it is difficult to legislate matters of marriage without appearing to favor some of those views over others (which seems to me to be a 1st amendment issue.) Better to avoid it entirely by keeping the spiritual and legal as separate as possible... |
Would we be limited to one civil union per person? (bringing polygamy into the game). |
|
|
| FallingMoon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
cleavage |
that's all I saw :)
hi Moral! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Basically, the idea is to separate the religious/cultural concept of marriage from the legal/contractual concept. People could hold whatever sort of ceremony they wish, call themselves "married," and so on -- all in accordance with whatever faith (or the lack thereof) to which they adhere, and none of it would have any legal recognition, nor would anyone else be compelled to recognize the legitimacy of anyone's claim of "marriage." Ideally the word "marriage" would nowhere appear in the entire legal doctrine.
And those who wanted the legal status currently associated with marriage (e.g. to be considered "family" for legal purposes) would have to separately apply for that status (calling it a civil union is fine with me.)
This would doubtless require some adjustments to areas of law that currently include or relate to marriage (particularly family law, but also some issues in tax and wills/estates, among others.) But I think it is better than trying to extend what has (in our culture at least) traditionally been a religious matter into law. This is problematic because of the diversity of religious views: it is difficult to legislate matters of marriage without appearing to favor some of those views over others (which seems to me to be a 1st amendment issue.) Better to avoid it entirely by keeping the spiritual and legal as separate as possible... |
Okay, so your position is what I thought. I like your position, I think it is a well thought out and reasoned position, and if people were entirely rational it would work. Unfortunately, there are connotations to the word marriage that people value and will not be willing to give up. Additionally, while people could deem their union whatever they wish that would not be enough to satisfy... they would want it recognized in law as marriage with all the applicable connotations in tact. That's just the reality, unless there is a massive shift in how people view marriage and it's status under law there are very few that would accept your proposal. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by FallingMoon
that's all I saw :)
hi Moral! |
I wish I got to see some too.
Long time no talk, Liz
send cleavage pics:gsmile: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
Would we be limited to one civil union per person? (bringing polygamy into the game). |
I wouldn't limit it to one per person, but that issue may depend on how exactly we adjust related law (we wouldn't want people to have some monetary benefit from having lots of civil unions, for example.)
The real question is: do we allow civil unions between corporations? :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The real question is: do we allow civil unions between corporations? :p |
They are legal entities... |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I wouldn't limit it to one per person, but that issue may depend on how exactly we adjust related law (we wouldn't want people to have some monetary benefit from having lots of civil unions, for example.)
The real question is: do we allow civil unions between corporations? :p |
Better question yet, do we allow civil unions with unicorns?
I mean... look at that big bright white ass...
 |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Okay, so your position is what I thought. I like your position, I think it is a well thought out and reasoned position, and if people were entirely rational it would work. Unfortunately, there are connotations to the word marriage that people value and will not be willing to give up. Additionally, while people could deem their union whatever they wish that would not be enough to satisfy... they would want it recognized in law as marriage with all the applicable connotations in tact. That's just the reality, unless there is a massive shift in how people view marriage and it's status under law there are very few that would accept your proposal. |
I don't disagree... I think it would leave many people on both sides of the issue unsatisfied. I don't see it happening -- at least not through the democratic process. |
|
|
| MeLLyMeL |
Not sure if it's been said.
Florida already banned gay marriage but now it will be written as part of the states constitution.
For good.
Which is even sad for those who want to be together without actually getting married |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| All of these laws will be overturned. They are unconstitutional. |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
| Wouldn't this be overturned in 5 minutes if taken up to the Supreme Court on the basis of discrimination? |
|
|
|
|
