Darth Wong wrote:
Well, duh. That's true everywhere. However, the fact that there are two ways to get married does not mean that they are separate "levels of marital status". Am I speaking slowly enough for you? There are countless ways to get killed; does this mean there are different levels of death?
Okay then, we'll call it two levels. I don't see the need for three, but then you were the one to first mention such a third level.
Wrong, dumb-ass. You are saying that a civil union should not be referred to as marriage, while a religious one should.
No, I'm saying that I'd just change the word in the laws, then if need be define it to be exactly the same as marriage. I don't give a flying fuck what people call it.
Under the current system, the two are legally equivalent. Under your scheme, only one of them qualifies for the use of the word "marriage", hence they do not share the same "marital status". Do you know what "marital status" means?
If you want to play semantics, then we can play semantics.
Gee, the wording would be different in LAW. Perhaps no one has ever explained to you that the law is all about fucking words?
No, apparently not. If a statute is exactly the same save for one word being exchanged for a synonym, does that mean the statute has a whole new meaning?
Maybe if you'd actually gotten married instead of just shooting your mouth off like an idiot, you'd know that you have to sign the legal contract regardless of whether there's a ceremony.
I am quite aware of that already, thanks.
The important part of the marriage is the legal contract, not the ceremony, dumb-ass.
Earth to Mike: I know. I already said that. I said that you could get married where I live independant of any ceremony. You sign the contract, the judge signs the contract, and poof! You're married.
If anyone wants to redefine terms to create another level, it should be the religious bigots. Perhaps they can make up a new term called "godly union". But the term "marriage" is not property of Christianity, so they have no right to demand exclusive use of it, particularly when it has been used as a legal term for longer than any of us have been alive.
If they can just call it a "godly union" or a "happy free-sex act" or whatever the fuck they're going to call it, then its okay? Yet if you change the specific word in the statute, that is evil and forbidden? I'm not trying to play dumb here: I really don't see what the fuck it matters whether the law says "marriage" or, say, "legal union".
I guess my position boils down to this. If it doesn't actually affect life, and if it prevents antagonism so we can all move on to something more important than petty bickering about legal semantics, then I'm all for it.
