On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.

You don't have to. The government already does.

> If there are particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make
> "marriages" beneficial and same --- unions feel they deserve these
> benefits, then change the law, or have the law ruled unconstitutional.

That is exactly the process that's underway now.

DS

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.

You don't have to. The government already does.

> If there are particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make
> "marriages" beneficial and same --- unions feel they deserve these
> benefits, then change the law, or have the law ruled unconstitutional.

That is exactly the process that's underway now.

DS

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.

You don't have to. The government already does.

> If there are particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make
> "marriages" beneficial and same --- unions feel they deserve these
> benefits, then change the law, or have the law ruled unconstitutional.

That is exactly the process that's underway now.

DS

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same --- unions is not
> discrimination.

Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same---- couples from getting
married that is discrimination.

DS

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same --- unions is not
> discrimination.

Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same---- couples from getting
married that is discrimination.

DS

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same --- unions is not
> discrimination.

Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same---- couples from getting
married that is discrimination.

DS

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
divorced
> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> > >
> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
discrimination. Marriage
> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
there are
> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
law, or
> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
process by
> > >redefining the word.
> >
> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
laws to
> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
redefining an
> establishment that has long been in place.
>
> Ed
>

Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.

The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
married". Hmmph.

Larry

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
divorced
> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> > >
> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
discrimination. Marriage
> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
there are
> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
law, or
> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
process by
> > >redefining the word.
> >
> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
laws to
> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
redefining an
> establishment that has long been in place.
>
> Ed
>

Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.

The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
married". Hmmph.

Larry

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
divorced
> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> > >
> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
discrimination. Marriage
> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same --- union. If
there are
> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
> > >and same --- unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
law, or
> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
process by
> > >redefining the word.
> >
> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same --- entering
into a
> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same --- couple
feel they
> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
laws to
> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
redefining an
> establishment that has long been in place.
>
> Ed
>

Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
allows partners OF THE SAME --- to register their relationship. In most
"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.

The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE --- partners do not
get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
married". Hmmph.

Larry

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
> 4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
> 4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
> 3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 2> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> > It is not a marriage.
>
> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
> opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
>

Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
that make it a dog? The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
doesn't make it right.

Ed