Cordelia ,'Lessons'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
A friend of mine, who's over 40 and getting married for the first time, is having a fancy wedding. She's having it in Florida, on the beach at sunset, with a reception on the hotel terrace afterwards.
Her logic is that, since she's paid up for showers, wedding presents, bridesmaid dresses, and emotional support for the brides for many years and many weddings, now that it's her turn she's going to do it up right.
If I ever got married again I don't think I'd have a big to-do unless my fiance(e)(s) were really into it.
If I ever get married, I'd want something low-key and inexpensive. I mean, why spend $10k or $20k when that money could be used for a down-payment for a house or something?
Wait, which parents are supposed to pay for the wedding?
"This person who wasn't part of my family before IS, now." for all sorts of legal reasons, and I can't see calling that anything but marriage.
See, I'm of the radical thought that all marriages between same sex, different sex, box turtle and vulcan etc etc should be made into domestic partnerships in the eyes of the government. If folks want some kind of religious or spiritual wedding beyond that, then it is their deal, and it's between them and their church, or synagogue, or spaghetti monster, or whatever.
The legal domestic partnership is about the legal rights afforded. The marriage is about whatever spirituality the couple may, or may not want to add onto that.
As an atheist it bugs the crap out of me that religion gets into the middle of a legal partnership.
Wait, which parents are supposed to pay for the wedding?
Traditionally, the bride's parents. I think it might be more common these days to spilt the bill.
all marriages between same sex, different sex, box turtle and vulcan etc etc should be made into domestic partnerships in the eyes of the government. If folks want some kind of religious or spiritual wedding beyond that, then it is their deal, and it's between them and their church, or synagogue, or spaghetti monster, or whatever.
I don't really see how that's different from what we have now. To get married, you need a license. You can have a religious representative officiate or not.
Right now straights have marriage and everyone else has domestic partnership. That sounds like "separate but equal" to me and it must not stand.
Traditionally, the bride's parents.
Huh. My parents lucked out then, as their one daughter cannot currently marry her partner (and last time I talked to them, they had no interest in getting married. They are registered as Domestic Partners in the City of Madison, however.)
That's the thing, it's pretty much what we have now, but since it's called Marriage all kinds of church and religious issues get caught up into it. The idea of just having a legal contract seems to be okay for some people for gay marriage, and my take is that, well if it's that good, and it is truly equal, then all marriages become a simple legal contract called a domestic partnership and we remove the term marriage from it.
If folks want the term marriage applied to their union, then it is something they can do but that has no legal impact on the domestic partnership.
Gotcha. I can see that argument, but in some ways that seems like an even harder change to make than expanding who has the right to marry.