Spike ,'Conversations with Dead People'
[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.
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.
At my wedding we (the bride and groom) paid for most things, the groom's parents paid for some things and my Dad picked up the enormous bar tab.
everyone else has domestic partnership
Depends on what state you live in. Most states don't have anything at all for the rest of us.
And for the record, I certainly wouldn't mind the churches handling something called "marriage" and the government handling something called "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or the like.
that seems like an even harder change to make than expanding who has the right to marry.
that's the crux of the biscuit for me.
Marriage provides more rights than domestic partnership's, which are very fuzzy, particularly if you've moved to a place that doesn't have domestic partnership. Marriage gives you uncontested right to things like your spouse's pension and specific inheritance rights.