Page 3 of 3
Re: Fags can marry
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:35 am
by MSMITH
Crankmas wrote:Great news- pole smokers in Californication have been given the right to marry-
A damn good opener.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:29 am
by rhunt
I think what Shamis was trying to say is that marriage should be taken out of the hands of church and religious systems. It should be a civil union first then if you want your religion or church to bless it than you go and have a union ceremony. I totally agree with that concept, I believe it is that way in some european countries. Its never going to happen here though.
What's interesting about this California ruling, is that it was a religious system that helped get the law over turned. There was two couples from MCC (Metropolitan Community Churches), one of which was the founder of that church, that got married in Canada then filed suit for Californa to recognise their marriage. Its interesting to me that the media doesn't tell this side of the story...
Now you can return to your regluar scheduled gay hating homophobia.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:10 pm
by Shamis
Exactly rhunt.
From a legal standpoint, marriage shouldn't exist. But a legal union between 2 or more people typically involving the sharing of assets, hospital visitation rights, inheritance claims etc etc should be recognized by the state. The churches can do whatever they want after that.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:54 pm
by Crankmas
I agree rhunt, it certainly doesn't wash that one's civil rights to have a will, living will, trust or whatever legalize you want throw out there should be over ridden by private matters the state has no business being involved with.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:57 pm
by anticlmber
don't live in sin and you won't have these problems.
besides denial is sooo cool.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:40 pm
by heidiramma
But a legal union between 2 or more people typically involving the sharing of assets, hospital visitation rights, inheritance claims etc etc should be recognized by the state.
That's it. Union of people in this fashion recognized legally - fair and right for all intents and purposes mentioned plus (assets, taxes, insurance etc). Therefore, what should it matter, LEGALLY what the gender of said people are? Religiously, yeah, it would be viewed wrong, but legally it shouldn't matter.
But in many places it still does. Separation of church and state, eh? Way to mess that one up, good job retards. Even if politicians/public don't agree with it, their justification for preventing due rights is unfounded.
I'm gonna go make out with a cat now.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:56 am
by Crankmas
really- I try to bring up a little current event topic and all you get is the fag bashing card played- hell with no one in the climbing community consuming beef, pork or chicken I thought it would be a little early for a dead horse joke.