redefining marriage

[Remster 30]

Quote

People in marriages tend to have children (dependents), which is what the tax breaks are for.

Then give tax breaks for having dependents, regardless of marital status. There are many maried people with no kids, and many unmarried long term couple with kids.

Remster

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

That's just fine with me. A word that has a certain meaning dating back centuries should not be redefined just to suit a minority. As long as the civil rights of same sex couples are not infringed, why should they corrupt the meaning of a perfectly good word that has a precise definition already?***

your question was answered above:

***Yes, but marriage has important implications that extend into the government, namely regarding taxation. Thus, the government needs to have a say in what is a legal marriage and what isn't.

What about 5th amendment protection for spouses? Again, the government needs to be able to determine what is and is not a legal marriage should you want to take the 5th to avoid incriminating them.

Among other things, of course...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

People in marriages tend to have children (dependents), which is what the tax breaks are for. That would make raising a child harder. Consequently, this is one of the arguments against gay 'marriage': they can't have children, so why give them the benefit?

I've yet to fill out a tax form which had a section like

11. Total children:
12. Bastards born out of wedlock:
13. Dependants for tax purposes (subtract line 12 from 11):
14. Dependant deduction (multiply line 13 by $3300):

Instead, they just list dependants without regard for marital status or relationships.

[CMiller 1]

What about the issue of Spousal protection under the 5th amendment? If you leave marriage up to people's personal definition, then a group of criminals can say they are gay polygamists, marry each other, then have the privilege to not incriminate each other. Obviously flawed.

Government needs a say.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So a local (bakersfield) news channel just interviewed S.F.'s mayor whatshisname and he states that those recently married gay folks marriages will remain legal?

That is the position of the Attorney General (Jerry Brown), but is not clear. I don't know which side has to sue to get their desired result.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The way Prop 8 was presented confused a lot of people. Many thought voting yes gave gays the right to marry, not the other way around. I believe that was a large contributing factor as to why it passed.

honestly, I don't think this was significant. Prop 22 won 60-40 eight years ago and it was even clearer. Now it's 52-48.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

We then reserve the term "marriage" for those with religious beliefs, thus allowing each religion to define that word as they choose and follow whatever traditions they have established.

You know, to some people, eating crackers and drinking wine is a religious thing, and the fact that some of us atheists also eat crackers and drink wine doesn't take anything away from others' religious beliefs. Just like the fact that some of us atheists are married, and that doesn't take anything away from people who consider their marriage to be a religious thing.

Marriage is a legal thing for _everyone_ who is married. It's only a religious thing for those who want it to be. So my personal opinion is that it's time for the Supreme Court of the U.S. to step in and declare that it is unconstitutional to ban marriage for anyone based on sexual orientation. It's just flat-out discrimination, and using "religious beliefs" for it is BS.

And to anyone who voted yes on Prop 8: I am absolutely fucking disgusted.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

That's just fine with me. A word that has a certain meaning dating back centuries should not be redefined just to suit a minority. As long as the civil rights of same sex couples are not infringed, why should they corrupt the meaning of a perfectly good word that has a precise definition already?***

your question was answered above:

***Yes, but marriage has important implications that extend into the government, namely regarding taxation. Thus, the government needs to have a say in what is a legal marriage and what isn't.

What about 5th amendment protection for spouses? Again, the government needs to be able to determine what is and is not a legal marriage should you want to take the 5th to avoid incriminating them.

Among other things, of course...

All those rights can and should be extended to same sex couples without corrupting a word with a long established meaning that doesn't include same sex couples. Just choose a different noun/verb/adjective than marriage/marry/married.

I find it equally annoying that the word "gay", with a well defined meaning, was co-opted by the same minority group, rendering its original meaning useless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[klingeme 1]

Quote

That's just fine with me. A word that has a certain meaning dating back centuries should not be redefined just to suit a minority. As long as the civil rights of same sex couples are not infringed, why should they corrupt the meaning of a perfectly good word that has a precise definition already?

I think the word Divorce does much more to corrupt the "perfectly good word" than letting gays get married.

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

The way Prop 8 was presented confused a lot of people. Many thought voting yes gave gays the right to marry, not the other way around. I believe that was a large contributing factor as to why it passed.

honestly, I don't think this was significant. Prop 22 won 60-40 eight years ago and it was even clearer. Now it's 52-48.

It's hard to say, really. There were definitely people who voted the opposite of what they wanted. I just spoke to a non-Californian who would have voted yes when he really wanted no. I have no doubt there were many people who voted the same way.
Doesn't really matter now, though, the votes are in - and it's a shame.

[Casurf1978 0]

On the purely legal side what is the next step? Wether 8 passed or was defeated I'm sure each side had a plan b. Can you file a lawsuit on a something like this. If so where would you go to. Prop 8 trumps what the Cali Supreme court ruled last year, so would they go to the US Supreme Court. I'm just really curious as to what the next legal steps are, if there are any.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

That's just fine with me. A word that has a certain meaning dating back centuries should not be redefined just to suit a minority. As long as the civil rights of same sex couples are not infringed, why should they corrupt the meaning of a perfectly good word that has a precise definition already?

I think the word Divorce does much more to corrupt the "perfectly good word" than letting gays get married.

I think there's value in having different words to describe different things. Contronyms are so confusing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

People in marriages tend to have children (dependents), which is what the tax breaks are for. That would make raising a child harder. Consequently, this is one of the arguments against gay 'marriage': they can't have children, so why give them the benefit?

I've yet to fill out a tax form which had a section like

11. Total children:
12. Bastards born out of wedlock:
13. Dependants for tax purposes (subtract line 12 from 11):
14. Dependant deduction (multiply line 13 by $3300):

Instead, they just list dependants without regard for marital status or relationships.

As a single adult I sponsored a child from another country, who then came and lived with me. I filed the appropriate paperwork and she was my dependent on my tax forms. Perfectly legal and an option anyone could value from if they fulfill the obligation.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

All those rights can and should be extended to same sex couples without corrupting a word with a long established meaning that doesn't include same sex couples. Just choose a different noun/verb/adjective than marriage/marry/married.

I find it equally annoying that the word "gay", with a well defined meaning, was co-opted by the same minority group, rendering its original meaning useless.

I suspect that words will continue to evolve whether it annoys you or not.

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

That's just fine with me. A word that has a certain meaning dating back centuries should not be redefined just to suit a minority. As long as the civil rights of same sex couples are not infringed, why should they corrupt the meaning of a perfectly good word that has a precise definition already?

I think the word Divorce does much more to corrupt the "perfectly good word" than letting gays get married.

I wonder how the religious folk would vote if there was a prop to ban divorce?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

All those rights can and should be extended to same sex couples without corrupting a word with a long established meaning that doesn't include same sex couples. Just choose a different noun/verb/adjective than marriage/marry/married.

I find it equally annoying that the word "gay", with a well defined meaning, was co-opted by the same minority group, rendering its original meaning useless.

I suspect that words will continue to evolve whether it annoys you or not.

That isn't evolution. This is an enforced change.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

All those rights can and should be extended to same sex couples without corrupting a word with a long established meaning that doesn't include same sex couples. Just choose a different noun/verb/adjective than marriage/marry/married.

I find it equally annoying that the word "gay", with a well defined meaning, was co-opted by the same minority group, rendering its original meaning useless.

I suspect that words will continue to evolve whether it annoys you or not.

Hey... If people dont like languages that evolve, they can start using Latin and Ancient Greek in casual conversation.

Remster

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

will continue to evolve whether it annoys you or not.

"Hijack" is the more appropriate description in this case.

. . =(_8^(1)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

On the purely legal side what is the next step? Wether 8 passed or was defeated I'm sure each side had a plan b. Can you file a lawsuit on a something like this. If so where would you go to. Prop 8 trumps what the Cali Supreme court ruled last year, so would they go to the US Supreme Court. I'm just really curious as to what the next legal steps are, if there are any.

The next step is to challenge Prop 8 in federal court to have it overturned as violating the US Constitution. I can seriously see it going there by, oh, 2013 or so.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

All those rights can and should be extended to same sex couples without corrupting a word with a long established meaning that doesn't include same sex couples. Just choose a different noun/verb/adjective than marriage/marry/married.

No one has been able to explain to me exactly how Joe and Bob getting married "corrupts" the word marriage without referring to ancient religious documents. Can you?

Because something is long established does not make it right.

Separate but equal is anything but equal. Equal protection under the law should by definition apply to every person and in every area of the law.

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

No one has been able to explain to me exactly how Joe and Bob getting married "corrupts" the word marriage without referring to ancient religious documents. Can you?

My friend said the minister of her church could be sued for refusing to marry a gay couple if prop 8 didn't pass and that her church would have to close.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Quote

No one has been able to explain to me exactly how Joe and Bob getting married "corrupts" the word marriage without referring to ancient religious documents. Can you?

My friend said the minister of her church could be sued for refusing to marry a gay couple if prop 8 didn't pass and that her church would have to close.

There would already be a lot of closed churches, since any church, at any time, may refuse to marry ANYONE. it's always been that way. My husband used to attend a church that refused to marry anyone who was not a member of said church. Sorry to say your friend was grossly misinformed, and it sounds like a typical scare tactic the "yes on 8" people would use. Just like the "they'll be forced to teach our kids about gay marriage in schools" crap.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

All those rights can and should be extended to same sex couples without corrupting a word with a long established meaning that doesn't include same sex couples. Just choose a different noun/verb/adjective than marriage/marry/married.

No one has been able to explain to me exactly how Joe and Bob getting married "corrupts" the word marriage without referring to ancient religious documents. Can you?

What does "right" (in the sense of "correct") have anything to do with the long established meaning of a word. It means what it means, and now it has been hijacked (along with "gay") by a special interest group.

Quote

Because something is long established does not make it right.

Separate but equal is anything but equal. Equal protection under the law should by definition apply to every person and in every area of the law.

Having equal protection under the law is perfectly possible without hijacking a word with a well defined meaning.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

[reply
Having equal protection under the law is perfectly possible without hijacking a word with a well defined meaning.

Language, as a learned Professor like yourself should understand, is a dynamic, not static thing. Language changes and evolves over time to suit it's users.
I would have thought someone of your academic stature would be well aware of this and not look for stagnation in language

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

No one has been able to explain to me exactly how Joe and Bob getting married "corrupts" the word marriage without referring to ancient religious documents. Can you?

My friend said the minister of her church could be sued for refusing to marry a gay couple if prop 8 didn't pass and that her church would have to close.

Obviously your friend doesn't know any Mormons.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)