Marriage and Civil Partnerships: what is the ideal situation?

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by chalsall

That doesn't seem to reconcile with the words printed on just about every US of A bill and coin....

The 1st amendment predates that by ~170 years.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by chalsall

That doesn't seem to reconcile with the words printed on just about every US of A bill and coin....

That's been discussed. Atheists organizations hate it. Just because the SCOTUS says it, doesn't make it true for the sake of debate. I dont even know if that one was ruled on.


But forget that. If you're talking about money, those FRNs are no constitutional. The congress has the power to coin and create money.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by xilman

That may be AP's approach but it remains to be seen whether they will change in the light of public usage.

A married couple I know in Boston (Mass., not Lincs.) refer to each other as their husband.

Isn't it time you wheeled out SWMBO again?

x

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by chalsall

A moment ago you were asking for advice for programming.

Now you have the audacity to advise for morality.

WTF???

It's diffiicult to construct an example of a "non sequitur" as good as this one.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Isn't it time you wheeled out SWMBO again?

x

Quite possibly, if you mean the word rather than the person. And HWMBO of course

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Marriage is an establishment of religion. The state's got no business.

Is that how you think marriage originally arose (through religion), or what you think marriage ought to be?

There's no question that the religions of the world immerse themselves in the marriage institution and define it for themselves with considerable success. But I don't see why that makes marriage a sole prerogative of religion.

I do appreciate your point of view that the state should not concern itself with people's partnerships as a response to this thread's poll, and I had this view in the back of my mind when I included the last option.

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I do appreciate your point of view that the state should not concern itself with people's partnerships as a response to this thread's poll, and I had this view in the back of my mind when I included the last option.

That is also my view, which is why I chose that last option.

But as long as the state does concern itself with people's partnerships, it should not discriminate.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by xilman

Quite possibly, if you mean the word rather than the person. And HWMBO of course

I would say "acronym" rather than "word".
Having never visited Brno, I wouldn't have a clue how to pronounce it anyway.

D

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

The 1st amendment predates that by ~170 years.

What I find very interesting is it somehow seems fine (to the religious right) to change the 1st amendment, but the 2nd amendment is somehow sacred.

BTW, Dubslow et al... I have realized, as I've gotten older, that law is little more than software. Unfortunately, it runs on "wetware" rather than "hardware", so it tends to be much more flaky....

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by chalsall

What I find very interesting is it somehow seems fine (to the religious right) to change the 1st amendment, but the 2nd amendment is somehow sacred.

:shrug: Don't ask me.

Originally Posted by chalsall

BTW, Dubslow et al... I have realized, as I've gotten older, that law is little more than software. Unfortunately, it runs on "wetware" rather than "hardware", so it tends to be much more flaky....

Heh

[aketilander]

"Civil partnerships and marriage, both options available to all couples"

This is the present situation in Sweden. To clarify this counts for both civil and religious (in church) marriges.

Cohabitation gives certain legal rights very similar to marriage but is only open (when rights are concerned) for a couple.

One of the political parties in government (Centerpartiet) has recently suggested that polygami should be legal.