|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Dec 21, 2009 0:14:36 GMT -5
 Something I have never see before locally. Two families setting a precedence in the OD today by announcing the up coming marriage between their daughters. Naturally, the marriage in October is taking place in MA where the couple will reside. I believe in "to each their own," but I have to admit I did do a double take when I saw the marriage announcement with two girls in the picture. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Dec 21, 2009 1:14:47 GMT -5
Okie dokie!  |
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Dec 21, 2009 1:22:14 GMT -5
Hopefully we'll see many more in the years to come. The day the State starts issuing Civil Union Agreements instead of "marriage licenses" will be a cause for celebration. Let people be truly free and call their unions whatever they want instead of allowing the State to participate in a religious ceremony.
*I get smited, for this? Heh.
*Ah, that's better. Now I can really be the devil incarnate.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 21, 2009 1:26:41 GMT -5
Amen! Uh ... I mean, Right On!
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Dec 21, 2009 8:04:25 GMT -5
Hopefully we'll see many more in the years to come. The day the State starts issuing Civil Union Agreements instead of "marriage licenses" will be a cause for celebration. Let people be truly free and call their unions whatever they want instead of allowing the State to participate in a religious ceremony. *I get smited, for this? Heh. *Ah, that's better. Now I can really be the devil incarnate. I agree, z. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 21, 2009 8:53:44 GMT -5
I suppose at one time someone could have drawn an argument for the state's involvement in such personal business as marriage among its citizens. And that would have been about children, no doubt. And probably wives, come to think of it, when they occupied a totally dependent role in the last centuries. But today the state has other ways to control what they feel deserves it. When everyone and everything is taxed, it's a small matter for those in charge to fine tune society by adjusting a tax knob here and a tax button there.
I've been married a very long time. It wasn't the state that kept us together. While it's true every couple needs someone or something to keep them together through the tough times, in our case it was the advice and support from our family and friends, not our town council.
At any rate, I'm neither in favor of state sanctioned marriage nor civil unions. A free society sleeps where it wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 21, 2009 9:58:50 GMT -5
Whoa! Hey, Gear~~You'd better work on your Karma or you'll be getting nuttin' for Christmas... ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Dec 28, 2009 7:27:30 GMT -5
I suppose at one time someone could have drawn an argument for the state's involvement in such personal business as marriage among its citizens. And that would have been about children, no doubt. And probably wives, come to think of it, when they occupied a totally dependent role in the last centuries. But today the state has other ways to control what they feel deserves it. When everyone and everything is taxed, it's a small matter for those in charge to fine tune society by adjusting a tax knob here and a tax button there. I've been married a very long time. It wasn't the state that kept us together. While it's true every couple needs someone or something to keep them together through the tough times, in our case it was the advice and support from our family and friends, not our town council. At any rate, I'm neither in favor of state sanctioned marriage nor civil unions. A free society sleeps where it wants.Would you be in favor of eliminating the financial benefits of being married then?] |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 28, 2009 14:56:14 GMT -5
Yes, I would always be in favor of equal treatment. Why should married people get tax favors?
I'm happy I have SOME tax favor, being married, of course. But I don't think it is fair.
I am also in favor of not treating corporations like citizens. I think we should not tax them, nor
give them the legal status of humans. In a perfect world, corporations would have a special status, and by "special" I don't necessarily mean corporations would like their status.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Dec 28, 2009 20:38:02 GMT -5
I don't think corporations have the legal status of humans. For example, in the Eron scandal, the ceo and other board members were not allowed to plead the fifth for certain questions and documents because the information belonged to the corporation and the corporation could not be prosecuted for criminal actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 28, 2009 20:51:24 GMT -5
You're the expert, Swimmy. My intention was to say that corporations should be far less than human. I don't know the law. I think anyone should be able to make money and do business without government interference, as long as the people are somehow benefited as well and are not victimized. I think government should favor business only insofar as it represents the will of the people, which is supposed to be what the government is.
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Dec 31, 2009 9:21:26 GMT -5
I saw that pic also. I was wondering what if the other girl was a tranny. Could they then be legally married.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Dec 31, 2009 11:43:12 GMT -5
However strange it may seem, I would imagine that if the "tranny" had a birth certificate that listed he/she as a male/female and he/she wanted to marry a member of the opposite gender, there would be no legal reason to prohibit the marriage as long as the birth certificates documented two persons of opposite gender.
|
|
Something I have never see before locally. Two families setting a precedence in the OD today by announcing the up coming marriage between their daughters.
