Do I hear toys being thrown out of prams?
What I always wondered, (and I'll try my best to not cross into forbidden topics) if the 'purity' of the word is such a big deal, and the (incorrect) opinion that it's a 'religious union', the bible was written in Hebrew so shouldn't the religious union 'version' be called "Kiddushin"? Straight from the divine horses mouth right?
Is there a limit on how many times something can be shot down? Seems like this is an annual event
So while normally your analysis would be spot on, I think it all goes out the window given the context of the case and the environment it's decided in. I think we're going to see a very strong decision for Marriage Equality here, for those reasons.
I'm a little confused why would gay people's union not be called "marriage" but straight people's union be called "marriage".
I don't think it's right to go by Christian bible's definition, because frankly there's something called 'separation of state and church'.
If we go by other religions definition of marriage, than polygamy should be legal, and that's not happening in US.
So how about we leave 'marriage' the word for union of two people, which has benefits (or opposite) for federal taxes, laws applying to distributing common wealth in case of divorces, etc.
If certain religions want to have their own word for marriage, let them invent one or maybe there's already one. But "marriage" is something people of all religions and atheists have, and lets just keep it for all legal unions of two people, including gays.
I am curious what mmoc'ers would consider as an alternative word then for "marriage" for same-sex individuals?
My first thought was "bondage," but I think there's enough stigma attached to the topic already before throwing that word into the mix as well.
Two hetero people joining together in union shall be... a legalized union. Two gay people joining together in a union shall be... a legalized union.
Then, churches can call their unions marriage if they want.
I am a filmmaker! ✔ me out! I am a filmmaker!
And don't forget that there are plenty of churches that are willing to perform gay marriages.
I have a couple of questions for those who know more than me about these things.
1 - How good are the chances that this ruling will actually go for anti-bigotry? From what I understood the SCOTUS is almost evenly divided.
2 - What would striking down DOMA actually mean? Would it give people married in an equality state marriage benefits in a bigoted state? Or would it simply recognise same-sex marriages on the federal level? Would marriage equality laws still need to be passed in the 40-odd remaining states individually?
Last edited by JonTargaryen; 2012-12-07 at 11:05 PM.
Higgledy-piggledy Lord Wyman Manderly
Sups with his foes, leaving Nary a crumb.
Wolvering wolverenes Incontrovertibly
Tell all who hearken that Winter is come.
Homosexual couples should incorporate rather then get married, then the republicans would be fighting to expand their rights rather then suppress them.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
Imagine him getting into such a "civil union"
Imagine having to every time say he is in a registered partnership, civil union, domestic union or whatever the heck else might be thrown at it
Do you really think that is a good thing?
Because it bugs me, not being right [when] calling a marriage a marriage.
Last edited by Xarkan; 2012-12-07 at 10:55 PM.
Also reminds me of this passage (which I think is a paraphrasing, I've read the whole thing before and it's quite moving):
Their conversation turns to voting rights, and East tells a joke about a man who goes to register to vote. In order to test his reading, he is shown a newspaper in Chinese. “I can read the headline,” the man says, “It says this is one Negro in Mississippi who’s not going to vote this year.”