I don't care what it's called....but why can't all relationships fall under the same definition for a civil marriage contract. That's what you said it's all about anyways, to gain the same rights and privileges under law.
Here we find the bottom line. I guess another way at looking at my concern was that one group would use their new-found freedom to immediately begin the suppression of another group. What I really care about is "equal, and equal", which then reduces to simply "equal".
can you please elaborate further. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about how the "new group" is going to "suppress" another group. How and what exactly do you think will happen?
I don't care what it's called....but why can't all relationships fall under the same definition for a civil marriage contract. That's what you said it's all about anyways, to gain the same rights and privileges under law.
Here we find the bottom line. I guess another way at looking at my concern was that one group would use their new-found freedom to immediately begin the suppression of another group. What I really care about is "equal, and equal", which then reduces to simply "equal".
can you please elaborate further. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about how the "new group" is going to "suppress" another group. How and what exactly do you think will happen?
Not a new group, old group with new freedom. The supression was the removal of the traditional language. What's been good about this discussion has been that it has helped me realize my initial reaction boiled down to a knee jerk response. I am sure I amnot alone, just the guy who is willing to talk openly about it.
I suppose another look at the same kind of phenomenon I was referring to, changing cultural norms that result in a previously suppressed group then turning and suppressing a formerly accepted group, could be seen in the changing views of cannabis vs. tobacco. Cannabis is finally regaining acceptance, and many tobacco users were quite prejudiced against this, while being a socially accepted group for many years. This never made sense to me. I always felt the two groups should be supporting each other. Instead of freedom for all, there are now instances of role reversal. For example, a travel nurse I worked with a couple years ago had been on a recent assignment in California, went to a restaurant that had ashtrays and matches on every table. After his meal, he lit a cigarette. Soon, a State Trooper came in, walked over to his table and told him if he didn't extinguish the cigarette he'd be arrested. Confused, my friend pointed out the ashtrays, etc. "That's for people who need cannabis to stimulate their appetite".
People are often like that. We clamor for what we want, but deny others without a thought. As I've said before, all too often the average Americans functional definition of freedom seems to be "I get to do what I want, and you have to do what I say". I object to this in all forms, whether they affect me directly or not. However, I am a product of my environment as well, and I'm old enough to remember a time when local police would cheerfully remove people of color from the wrong seat, wrong diner, etc., and when having "other" sexual orientation could get a person beat to death, and half the folks hearing about it would think it was funny. I objected then, too.
So, again, to the bottom line, freedom and equality for everybody is what I support and believe in, and humans often tend to drift to role-reversal, rather than mutual acceptance. Any clearer? I hope so.
I don't see how it's suppression to remove religious language from a legal document. It had no business there in the first place. It should also come off our money and everywhere else it shouldn't be.
I don't see how it's suppression to remove religious language from a legal document. It had no business there in the first place. It should also come off our money and everywhere else it shouldn't be.
I didn't think the terms husband and wife were religious terminology.
Clearer, yes.
But I guess I'm still struggling to see how this is an issue.
You said:
Amos Umwhat:
freedom and equality for everybody is what I support and believe in
I searched around the web and found a couple articles about this....and as far as I can tell, no one is outlawing the term "husband" and "wife".
They're updating the language of a civil contract/legal documents to be inclusive to everyone.
"Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, put his signature on Senate Bill No. 1306, authored by State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), that redefines marriage in the Family Code of the California Constitution as a contract between two persons regardless of sex.
"The bill would delete references to 'husband' or 'wife' in the Family Code and would instead refer to a 'spouse,' and would make other related changes," the bill said.
"This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender," Leno said Monday about securing Brown's signature on the bill."
Clearer, yes.
But I guess I'm still struggling to see how this is an issue.
You said:
Amos Umwhat:
freedom and equality for everybody is what I support and believe in
I searched around the web and found a couple articles about this....and as far as I can tell, no one is outlawing the term "husband" and "wife".
They're updating the language of a civil contract/legal documents to be inclusive to everyone.
"Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, put his signature on Senate Bill No. 1306, authored by State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), that redefines marriage in the Family Code of the California Constitution as a contract between two persons regardless of sex.
"The bill would delete references to 'husband' or 'wife' in the Family Code and would instead refer to a 'spouse,' and would make other related changes," the bill said.
"This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender," Leno said Monday about securing Brown's signature on the bill."
Yes, Perkinke made this point in a different way several pages back. I said, basically, that I saw thr point, agreed to the logic, and appreciated a new perspectove. At this point I begin to wonder why you continue to beat this dead horse? Feels like I'm being browbeaten bt political correctness, which sadly serves to justify the original fear expressed, which I thought had been debunked during the course of this friendly conversation. Reading your first posts, I appreciated your viepoint and contribution, although I had to wonder if you had read the thread, since you questioned aspects that I thought had been settled. Now this seems that you are either baiting, or bullying. I hope that I'm wrong.
At this point I begin to wonder why you continue to beat this dead horse? Feels like I'm being browbeaten bt political correctness, which sadly serves to justify the original fear expressed, which I thought had been debunked during the course of this friendly conversation. Reading your first posts, I appreciated your viepoint and contribution, although I had to wonder if you had read the thread, since you questioned aspects that I thought had been settled. Now this seems that you are either baiting, or bullying.
Not trying to do either. Was just "bolding" and "underlining" for emphasis.
I will re-read this thread and see where your concern/fear was debunked.
**EDIT: I found the part I missed.**
I am glad all qualifying couples will be afforded the same rights and privileges under the law and it seems like the natural progression of things to change the language on legal/state documents & forms to be all inclusive.
I suppose check boxes saying "husband/wife" for each party would have worked too, but "spouse", by definition, just seems easier IMO.
So no offense intended and I was not trying to "beat you down" ... just trying to understand your original fear/concern as I obviously missed or mis-read something somewhere along the way.
This will be my last post in the thread as I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse.
At this point I begin to wonder why you continue to beat this dead horse? Feels like I'm being browbeaten bt political correctness, which sadly serves to justify the original fear expressed, which I thought had been debunked during the course of this friendly conversation. Reading your first posts, I appreciated your viepoint and contribution, although I had to wonder if you had read the thread, since you questioned aspects that I thought had been settled. Now this seems that you are either baiting, or bullying.
Not trying to do either. Was just "bolding" and "underlining" for emphasis.
I will re-read this thread and see where your concern/fear was debunked.
I am glad all qualifying couples will be afforded the same rights and privileges under the law and it seems like the natural progression of things to change the language on legal/state documents & forms to be all inclusive.
I suppose check boxes saying "husband/wife" for each party would have worked too, but "spouse", by definition, just seems easier IMO.
I wasjust trying to understand it as well, it felt out of character for me. One of my sisters once gave me a T-shirt with Don Quixote on it, shesaid " because you are always fighting for the underdog".
So no offense intended and I was not trying to "beat you down" ... just trying to understand your original fear/concern as I obviously missed or mis-read something somewhere along the way.
This will be my last post in the thread as I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse.
I don't see how it's suppression to remove religious language from a legal document. It had no business there in the first place. It should also come off our money and everywhere else it shouldn't be.
I didn't think the terms husband and wife were religious terminology.
Not that the terms are religious, per se, but they belong on something that would document the religious pact, not the legal one. I'm leaning towards "legal partner" as the government contract term.
At this point I begin to wonder why you continue to beat this dead horse? Feels like I'm being browbeaten bt political correctness, which sadly serves to justify the original fear expressed, which I thought had been debunked during the course of this friendly conversation. Reading your first posts, I appreciated your viepoint and contribution, although I had to wonder if you had read the thread, since you questioned aspects that I thought had been settled. Now this seems that you are either baiting, or bullying.
Not trying to do either. Was just "bolding" and "underlining" for emphasis.
I will re-read this thread and see where your concern/fear was debunked.
I am glad all qualifying couples will be afforded the same rights and privileges under the law and it seems like the natural progression of things to change the language on legal/state documents & forms to be all inclusive.
I suppose check boxes saying "husband/wife" for each party would have worked too, but "spouse", by definition, just seems easier IMO.
Amos Umwhat:
I wasjust trying to understand it as well, it felt out of character for me. One of my sisters once gave me a T-shirt with Don Quixote on it, shesaid " because you are always fighting for the underdog".
So no offense intended and I was not trying to "beat you down" ... just trying to understand your original fear/concern as I obviously missed or mis-read something somewhere along the way.
This will be my last post in the thread as I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse.
I've thought this through for a couple days now, and I owe an apology to jgibv. There was obviously a misunderstanding, a lack of communication that I should have tried harder to clear up. Instead, I got frustrated and reacted emotionally, rather than think or talk it through. To all who had to witness this, please accept my apologies. PM to jgbiv.
I've thought this through for a couple days now, and I owe an apology to jgibv. There was obviously a misunderstanding, a lack of communication that I should have tried harder to clear up. Instead, I got frustrated and reacted emotionally, rather than think or talk it through. To all who had to witness this, please accept my apologies. PM to jgbiv.
Likewise, Amos. Sorry for the confusion --- both directions.
But this ain't my first NCR rodeo; this kind of thing happens
So IMO, no need for an apology because it's all good in my mind.
Comments
I suppose another look at the same kind of phenomenon I was referring to, changing cultural norms that result in a previously suppressed group then turning and suppressing a formerly accepted group, could be seen in the changing views of cannabis vs. tobacco. Cannabis is finally regaining acceptance, and many tobacco users were quite prejudiced against this, while being a socially accepted group for many years. This never made sense to me. I always felt the two groups should be supporting each other. Instead of freedom for all, there are now instances of role reversal. For example, a travel nurse I worked with a couple years ago had been on a recent assignment in California, went to a restaurant that had ashtrays and matches on every table. After his meal, he lit a cigarette. Soon, a State Trooper came in, walked over to his table and told him if he didn't extinguish the cigarette he'd be arrested. Confused, my friend pointed out the ashtrays, etc. "That's for people who need cannabis to stimulate their appetite".
People are often like that. We clamor for what we want, but deny others without a thought. As I've said before, all too often the average Americans functional definition of freedom seems to be "I get to do what I want, and you have to do what I say". I object to this in all forms, whether they affect me directly or not. However, I am a product of my environment as well, and I'm old enough to remember a time when local police would cheerfully remove people of color from the wrong seat, wrong diner, etc., and when having "other" sexual orientation could get a person beat to death, and half the folks hearing about it would think it was funny. I objected then, too.
So, again, to the bottom line, freedom and equality for everybody is what I support and believe in, and humans often tend to drift to role-reversal, rather than mutual acceptance. Any clearer? I hope so.
But I guess I'm still struggling to see how this is an issue.
You said:
I searched around the web and found a couple articles about this....and as far as I can tell, no one is outlawing the term "husband" and "wife".
They're updating the language of a civil contract/legal documents to be inclusive to everyone.
"Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, put his signature on Senate Bill No. 1306, authored by State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), that redefines marriage in the Family Code of the California Constitution as a contract between two persons regardless of sex.
"The bill would delete references to 'husband' or 'wife' in the Family Code and would instead refer to a 'spouse,' and would make other related changes," the bill said.
"This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender," Leno said Monday about securing Brown's signature on the bill."
Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/calif-governor-signs-law-formalizing-gay-marriage-article-1.1858795
I will re-read this thread and see where your concern/fear was debunked.
**EDIT: I found the part I missed.**
I am glad all qualifying couples will be afforded the same rights and privileges under the law and it seems like the natural progression of things to change the language on legal/state documents & forms to be all inclusive.
I suppose check boxes saying "husband/wife" for each party would have worked too, but "spouse", by definition, just seems easier IMO.
So no offense intended and I was not trying to "beat you down" ... just trying to understand your original fear/concern as I obviously missed or mis-read something somewhere along the way.
This will be my last post in the thread as I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse.
PM to jgbiv.
But this ain't my first NCR rodeo; this kind of thing happens
So IMO, no need for an apology because it's all good in my mind.