Silly Mrs. Clinton

[martha]

Madelyn Iris, let the folks in this thread label you as hateful and a "dodger" of the issue. They will be running to the ballot box to cast a vote for Clinton or Obama, who have an opinion that is basically equivalent to yours.

Nice assumption.

I like Kucinich because he's the only one for actual marriage.

 

[MadelynIris]

Madelyn Iris, let the folks in this thread label you as hateful and a "dodger" of the issue. They will be running to the ballot box to cast a vote for Clinton or Obama, who have an opinion that is basically equivalent to yours.

Ah, nicely brought back on topic. Thanks!

 

[BVS]

Because it would be cheaper (in most cases) than him getting health insurance on his own, if he were unemployed. A benefit of marriage.

So I'm going to get "married" because my brother is temporarily unemployed?

See, I still don't see why?

 

[MadelynIris]

Seriously Martha, why should romantic involvment or sexual orientation have to come into play. Why shouldn't it be about a human partnership?

 

[martha]

Seriously Martha, why should romantic involvment or sexual orientation have to come into play. Why shouldn't it be about a human partnership?

Because the issue is romantic involvement. Two people want to be married. Let them.

 

[MadelynIris]

So I'm going to get "married" because my brother is temporarily unemployed?

See, I still don't see why?

They gain the rights and benefits bestowed upon married couples.

 

[BVS]

Madelyn Iris, let the folks in this thread label you as hateful and a "dodger" of the issue. They will be running to the ballot box to cast a vote for Clinton or Obama, who have an opinion that is basically equivalent to yours.

Poor assumption.

 

[MadelynIris]

Because the issue is romantic involvement. Two people want to be married. Let them.

I thought the issue is rights?

And what is the Jesus excuse?

 

[martha]

I thought the issue is rights?

The right to get married.

And what is the Jesus excuse?

It's what some frightened people use. You haven't used it yet.

 

[MadelynIris]

I'm ok with calling it 'marriage' instead of a union or partnership too. As long as it's not limited to romantic involvement about sexual orientation.

 

[BVS]

They gain the rights and benefits bestowed upon married couples.

So? You still haven't shown one instance where it would be nothing more than a temporary fix. I mean honestly who cares, there are other ways to fix these problems.

Show me a group that actually wants this.

 

[MadelynIris]

The right to get married.

Sounds more like a symantic/religious thing with you, not a legal rights issue. Fair enough. Go and fight the church. I'd like to neurtralize the religious aspect of it, and take it out of the argument. Let churches do whatever they want.

 

[MadelynIris]

So? You still haven't shown one instance where it would be nothing more than a temporary fix. I mean honestly who cares, there are other ways to fix these problems.

Show me a group that actually wants this.

BVS, what do 'they' want?

I'd say just about every gay couple that I know would want this if it were offered tomorrow. They want those rights.

 

[martha]

Sounds more like a symantic/religious thing with you, not a legal rights issue.

You've never heard of a wedding at the courthouse!

 

[martha]

As long as it's not limited to romantic involvement about sexual orientation.

And now you fear and bias comes out.

Why?

 

[MadelynIris]

You've never heard of a wedding at the courthouse!

and...? You've never heard of two farming brothers not having sex together who live together?

 

[MadelynIris]

And now you fear and bias comes out.

Why?

Exactly the opposite. I'm saying be 'inclusive' of all life partnerships, not limiting.

 

[BVS]

BVS, what do 'they' want?

I'd say just about every gay couple that I know would want this if it were offered tomorrow. They want those rights.

Not sure who 'they' is, there wasn't a single 'they' in that post.

No, I mean show me a group of brothers or sisters that want this? You know what we were talking about, don't talk around the subject.

And no, I'm pretty sure most gay couples wouldn't want this, just like you and your wife wouldn't really want this. Many actually want the right to marry, not JUST the rights that come with it.

 

[MadelynIris]

I really like this explanation on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_interdependent_relationship_in_Alberta

According to the Alberta Ministry of Justice, "The act covers a range of personal relationships that fall outside of marriage, including committed platonic relationships where two people agree to share emotional and economic responsibilities."[2] Under the terms of the law, couples in a mutually dependent relationship, conjugal or not, are deemed to be adult interdependent partners after three years of living together, even without signing a partnership agreement, as is the case with common-law marriage.

 

[MadelynIris]

And no, I'm pretty sure most gay couples wouldn't want this, just like you and you wife wouldn't really want this. Many actually want the right to marry, not JUST the rights that come with it.

Ok, if you say so. This is exactly what my wife and I have. I don't care what you call it. Seems odd that you would think that gay couples wouldn't want this.

What about it don't you think they would like, the name? I'm not worried about the name.

 

[BVS]

Ok, if you say so. This is exactly what my wife and I have. I don't care what you call it. Seems odd that you would think that gay couples wouldn't want this.

What about it don't you think they would like, the name? I'm not worried about the name.

Did you and your wife have a ceremony or did you just sign a contract? Really, that's all you and your wife have? Then why do you call her your wife, why not just your interdependent?

I don't know why you would rather dumb down the relationship rather than upgrade what homosexuals can do to be equal with what you have.

 

[martha]

and...? You've never heard of two farming brothers not having sex together who live together?

 

[MadelynIris]

I don't know why you would rather dumb down the relationship rather than upgrade what homosexuals can do to be equal with what you have.

Why do you only want to limit it to 'xxxxxsexuals'?

Are you saying that people can't have a ceremony for unions/partnerships?

I have no problem calling our legal realationship a union or partnership or interdependent partnership. I have no problem calling my SO my partner. I like it better actually than wife.

 

[Bluer White]

Nice assumption.

I like Kucinich because he's the only one for actual marriage.

My "assumption" is that you will be voting in the national election.

And Kucinich won't be a nominee. Neither will Ron Paul....or Mickey Mouse. I have no idea where Mickey stands on gay marriage. But I imagine he supports civil unions, many American do.

 

[BVS]

Why do you only want to limit it to 'xxxxxsexuals'?

People like to express their love.

Are you saying that people can't have a ceremony for unions/partnerships?

I have no problem calling our legal realationship a union or partnership or interdependent partnership. I have no problem calling my SO my partner. I like it better actually than wife.

You still haven't shown me anyone who wants this. I don't see any brothers and sisters lining up for this.

 

[BVS]

I have no idea where Mickey stands on gay marriage. But I imagine he supports civil unions, many American do.

Actually Mickey is pretty gay friendly.

 

[MadelynIris]

You still haven't shown me anyone who wants this. I don't see any brothers and sisters lining up for this

Apparently the people in Alberta Canada want it. I don't really feel like going through every other country right now, but just might someday!

 

[yolland]

As long as it's not limited to romantic involvement about sexual orientation.

I'd like to neurtralize the religious aspect of it, and take it out of the argument.

You seem to be suggesting the 'romantic' and 'religious' aspects are one and the same. But civil marriage presumes a longterm romantic relationship just as clearly as religious marriage does. Why does broadening that definition to include gay couples (a type of romantic relationship) call for dismantling the whole premise altogether? I think this is why you're attracting suspicion--it's hard not to see it as a way to avoid legitimizing gay relationships as 'real' romantic relationships worthy of founding a household deserving of government benefits upon. Because that, of course, is what all the controversy out there ultimately boils down to. It's not about whether adults with dependent relatives or friends deserve certain special legal benefits to assist them in that effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_interdependent_relationship_in_Alberta

Since 2003, Adult interdependent relationships have been available to both same-sex and different-sex couples in the Canadian province of Alberta, providing some but not all the rights and benefits of marriage.
......................................................
Furthermore, "Non-conjugal friends living together in a relationship of interdependence for a continuous period of not less than three years will become adult interdependent partners, whether or not they intend to. While it may be possible to contract out of some of the statutes amended by the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act," it is not possible to contract out of the Dependants Relief Act. Thus, if two elderly friends, same-sex or different-sex, live together in a platonic relationship for several years, when one dies, the other may be able to claim a larger share of the deceased's estate than any surviving children, even if the two friends never signed an adult interdependent partnership agreement.

Sounds like Alberta (which also recognizes same-sex marriage, so this isn't an 'alternative' to that) had quite a different set of interests in mind in implementing this act.

 

[MadelynIris]

You seem to be suggesting the 'romantic' and 'religious' aspects are one and the same. But civil marriage presumes a longterm romantic relationship just as clearly as religious marriage does. Why does broadening that definition to include gay couples (a type of romantic relationship) call for dismantling the whole premise altogether? I think this is why you're attracting suspicion--it's hard not to see it as a way to avoid legitimizing gay relationships as 'real' romantic relationships worthy of founding a household deserving of government benefits upon. Because that, of course, is what all the controversy out there ultimately boils down to. It's not about whether adults with dependent relatives or friends deserve certain special legal benefits to assist them in that effort.

Good points Yolland. I'm not for dismantling the premise. Just including platonic relationships. I don't care what the institution is called.

 

[BVS]

Apparently the people in Alberta Canada want it. I don't really feel like going through every other country right now, but just might someday!

Yes people will settle if they have to, that's no suprise.


"In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its landmark ruling in the case of M. v. H., which essentially required all provinces to extend the benefits of common-law marriage to same-sex couples, under the equality provisions of Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[3] Owing to the conservative political climate in the province, the government of Alberta was slow to respond, but in 2000 Alberta did amend the provincial Marriage Act to specifically limit marriage to different-sex couples.

In January 2002, the Alberta Law Reform Institute, funded in part by the provincial government, published its recommendations in a report, Recognition of Rights and Obligations in Same-Sex Relationships.[4] Subsequently, Bill 30, establishing adult interdependent relationships, was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in the spring session of 2002 but was not passed at that time. In the fall session, the bill was re-introduced as 30-2 and was passed with amendments as the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act (S.A. 2002, c. A-4.5) on December 4, 2002. The act was proclaimed in force on June 1, 2003.[5]

The act did not amend the Marriage Act, but did amend 69 other Alberta laws, including:[6]"


This wasn't implemented because some brothers wanted "some but not all the rights and benefits of marriage", it was a settling to at least get some rights for gay couples.