clownboy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 26,087
- Reaction score
- 10,860
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I don't think I understand how you get government out of marriage if you also want the couple to have full benefits, which includes survivorship, medical consent, joint ownership, insurance, and tax returns. Government is going to be involved as much of the benefit in marriage involves governmental interaction.
I married my wife 26 years ago infront of a federal judge, no church involved.
I am a married man, not a civil union one. I figure same sex folks consider themselves married not unioned, hell 'conservatives' can't stand the word union and southern folks still turn their heads and spit to get the taste out of their mouth when they say 'union'...
Marriage is what it is and we should call it by it's name...
With all due respect, your marriage will continue to be a "marriage" even if the government, in order to apply benefits, call it a civil union. Absolutely nothing changes for you, even the title. I'd be willing to bet you got a license first before that federal judge "married" you two. When you two signed that license and the county accepted it, you were legally married, what happened with the judge was ritual, unnecessary in the governments eyes where it comes to conferring benefits.
So, what is being discussed here is the possibility of separating the ritual, which many hold dear, from the licensing. Nothing needs to change with the licensing, the benefits, or even those who choose the ritual and the title.
However, my question is this -what assurances do we have that the polygamists won't be the next to assert their need to be legitimately licensed by the state?