jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (7 posts)

getting government out of the wedding biz,... the domestic partnership

  1. stclairjack profile image79
    stclairjackposted 4 years ago

    i wonder if getting government out of the marrige biz might be the answer to the gay marrige question,... if christian fundies cant share the word "marrige" then take it away from every one,.. and re-name it "domestic partnership contract" instead of a marrige licence.

    just the use of the word "licence" has implications that have never been fully realized. i mean realy,.... every other licence applied for and recieved in the world was achieved after passing some kind of test,.... should we give a class with an exam for all those wishing to be married?.....

    ok,.... yea,.... i can see the hilarity in that,.... 90% of us would fail misserably!

    but as i remember this arguement for the last 30 years,... same sex couples have been lamenting the tax breaks and other legal protection that "marrige" grants,.... give all the same rights and priveledges to domestic partnerships and leave the word marrige out of it.

    if you want a marrige,.... find a church that will perform one for you and give you the blasted piece of paper that testifies to your commitment on a spiritual level,... and leave the legals out of it.

    that would be TRUE seperation of church and state.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      DPC....I like it. "I got DPC'd yesterday". Has a nice ring to it.

      1. stclairjack profile image79
        stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        yea,.... does take some of the romance out of it,.... but then,... so does waking up next to a fat girl in a vegas hotel room with a wedding dress on the floor and a half drank bottle of champaigne on the night stand next to the bolted down tv remote,.... we removed the true romance and meaning from marrige a long tima ago! ha!

    2. ib radmasters profile image59
      ib radmastersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that the government should get out of the marriage business.
      The federal income tax is one of the places where it should be removed as irrelevant.

      A partnership agreement between people gives far more protection than the vague terms of a marriage contract.

      1. stclairjack profile image79
        stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        wow,... finaly some one got it!, thanks.

  2. Cagsil profile image83
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Marriage is marriage.

    Those who think or believe it is sanctified by a G/god shouldn't matter with regards to other people's life.

    Marriage doesn't have one specific definition or application. Period.

    Those who claim it does have no true worldview, nor do they have any idea about personal happiness, nor do they have any clue about having compassion, because they apparently don't love themselves and rather take it out on other people.

    This entire topic is getting ridiculous. I would rather the Federal government have nothing to do with this subject matter because it's not the Federal government's concern nor is it their job.

    State governments should be handling any and all legality with regards to marriage. The state receives money from regulating policy. The "legal" ramifications are in place for things such as divorce, which is always an option. Divorce is a choice granted to people who no longer want to be with the person they are in a relationship with.

    Is marriage a right? Sure, it's a choice of each person and that choice shouldn't be impeded by anyone including state or federal government. It isn't a choice government should be allowed to make. It has nothing to do with them, as individuals or as a collective. It's a personal choice.

    1. stclairjack profile image79
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      the right wing fundies will NEVER let go of the word,.. its an arguement over a word,... love you big and agree with you for the most part,.. but i think you missed my point.