Conquer Club

unriggable wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

unriggable wrote:But there are some rights that let husbands and wives be in more contact, for example the whole money issue, and how they can visit each other in hospitals.

You don't have to 'prove' you are the husband/wife, though...

You just say, "I'm family."

What about the people who do not take each others surname?

I mean, it really isn't necessary.

If you can jsut say 'I'm family' then people could do whatever they wanted. Imagine if somebody wanted to kill you, all they had to do is say 'I'm family'. Besides, right now you have a certificate to prove that you are indeed married

So to visit someone in the hospital you have to have your marriage license???

hahaha... I have seen many people in the hospital... You just have to go during visiting hours.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

XenHu wrote:Not if it's common-law.

-X

Common law has been outlawed in most states in the US.

not mine...

s.xkitten wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

XenHu wrote:Not if it's common-law.

-X

Common law has been outlawed in most states in the US.

not mine...

Hence the MOST.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

s.xkitten wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

XenHu wrote:Not if it's common-law.

-X

Common law has been outlawed in most states in the US.

not mine...

Hence the MOST.

well yeah, i got that...i just thought that i would pop in just to irritate you...

I'm undecided. But I think there's probably some way of granting parental rights, without the need for marriage...

qeee1 wrote:I'm undecided. But I think there's probably some way of granting parental rights, without the need for marriage...

They do it all the time... It's called adoption...

And parental rights are extended to both parents even if they aren't married... So that means nothing.

Health insurance plans are the only snag I think. I put my significant other and our kiddies in my health plan because of some form of legal partnership. If we can get that handled in your plan Meg it sounds good to me.

Common law is six months co-habiting here and I think the rest of Canada.

qeee1 wrote:I'm undecided. But I think there's probably some way of granting parental rights, without the need for marriage...

You can grant all the parental rights in the world you like, but it still leaves the real-life situation of a parent who sacrifices a good portion of their life and life chances to raise a child.

A free-for-all in the sexual realm would leave those people and their children vulnerable and undefended. In practice, anarchism in personal relationships (and, indeed, anarchy in just about every other sphere) is very definitely un-feminist, to say the least.

2dimes wrote:Health insurance plans are the only snag I think. I put my significant other and our kiddies in my health plan because of some form of legal partnership. If we can get that handled in your plan Meg it sounds good to me.

Common law is six months co-habiting here and I think the rest of Canada.

In Oklahoma, before it was abolished in '98, it was

1) six months cohabitation
2) one member had to use the other members last name in a formal document or on a piece of mail
3) you had to have bills in both peoples names... Which is easy with credit cards, tuition, cable bill, phone bills, etc...

Anarkistsdream wrote:

qeee1 wrote:I'm undecided. But I think there's probably some way of granting parental rights, without the need for marriage...

They do it all the time... It's called adoption...

And parental rights are extended to both parents even if they aren't married... So that means nothing.

errm, adoption is when you can't biologically be parents, not legally be parents.

It would be rather hard to deliberate in separation cases, marriage is nice and simple, it bundles all these legal connections into one: property, health insurance, certain visiting rights in hospitals, home ownership, child custody, etc. I think its fine as a legal institution, just whether or not to give legal benefits should be decided in a purely legal sense, as in allowing gay people to marry.

In France the legal and church marriage is seperate and you have two ceremonies.

There should be two different ceremonies:

1) You've got your religious marriage, the uniting of two souls within their religion and under the eyes of their god.

2) You've got your civil union (meaning here a 'marriage' officiated by the state rather than a church organzation), which comes with social security benefits, etc., etc.

That way the religious can exclude gays all they want and the state doesn't have to participate in federalized homophobia.

vtmarik wrote:There should be two different ceremonies:

1) You've got your religious marriage, the uniting of two souls within their religion and under the eyes of their god.

2) You've got your civil union (meaning here a 'marriage' officiated by the state rather than a church organzation), which comes with social security benefits, etc., etc.

That way the religious can exclude gays all they want and the state doesn't have to participate in federalized homophobia.

Then the problem arises when gays want to get married under the eyes of their god, but the church won't let them.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

XenHu wrote:Not if it's common-law.

-X

Common law has been outlawed in most states in the US.

Really!?

I'm starting to like Canada more and more..



It's perfectly legal over here. They even include it as an option in our census.

-X

hecter wrote:Then the problem arises when gays want to get married under the eyes of their god, but the church won't let them.

Yes, but at least they can get a government 'marriage' and get all of the tax breaks and survivor benefits whilst they seek to obtain a religious marriage.

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds really awesome.

Ok can we get a "vtmarik for president of the world" cheers?

Aegnor wrote:Ok can we get a "vtmarik for president of the world" cheers?

What makes you think that I'm not already in control?

vtmarik wrote:

Aegnor wrote:Ok can we get a "vtmarik for president of the world" cheers?

What makes you think that I'm not already in control?

No statues?

Oh and Bush.

You think Bush is in control?

Of Course not. But he IS there isn't he? It's offensive to anyone with a brain on this planet.

I'm a man, soon to be engaged to a woman, and we will be having a 'civil union'. Marriage has become a dirty word in my mind thanks to the anti-gay religious groups.

I do see the need for civil unions and the recognition, benefits and rights they bring. I don't think abolishing the whole thing altogether would work.

I say let churches carry out mariages but have the state only recognise civil unions LOL.

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:I say let churches carry out mariages but have the state only recognise civil unions LOL.

Hmm what's the LOL from, it doesn't fit your sentence..

"Yeah let's put him on the chair and see him fry until he turns into coal LOL"

btownmeggy wrote: Churches could choose to marry whom they please.

So your religion gets to decide who can marry? That has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've read here in a while.

Kid_A wrote:

btownmeggy wrote: Churches could choose to marry whom they please.

So your religion gets to decide who can marry? That has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've read here in a while.

Who better to decide who churches marry? The government? You? Big business?
Can you link to the most ignorant remark you read prior to this one?