[Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy] What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defence

Then you think wrong, frequently so.

 

Okay, but you're wrong.

This is the same as you trying to tell me that 1+2 is 829109. You have the right to believe that, but if you and your goons try to enforce that on the rest of the population, I'm afraid I'd have to label you insane.

 

Well the law currently disagrees with you. Couples are married all the time in civil non religious ceremonies. Yet they have a legal marriage.

So you want to change the current law for something different, that still doesn't include equal rights for homosexuals. As has been pointed out separate but equal isn't really equal.

I think that it would fine for you to have a religious ceremony that wouldn't include same sex couples. But there's no reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to be married.

 

Even without a religious ceremony, live together enough with an unwed spouse and the state considers you married by common law.

 

Not exactly. Common law marriage is more involved than just cohabitation. You have to actually hold yourself out as married.

 

GAY AND STRAIGHT HOUSTONIANS REJOICE!!! THE ROCKETS CLINCHED THE PLAYOFFS!!!

 

Because civil unions don't come with the same legal rights as marriage. They don't get all the benefits that marriage gets.

It's basically saying, why can't blacks use the other water fountain and not the white kids' water fountain.

So it's basically separate but equal. Less benefits.

 

Instead of creating a whole new thing, why not just make them part of marriage? Marriage existed long before any current religion and has existed in non-religious states and communities. Despite the fact that religion uses marriage, it's not a religious concept.

 

How about we just rename your union? You can have 'religious unions' and everyone else can get married. Case closed.

 

This really seems to be about Christians not only trying to claim ownership of the term marriage but also the legality of it. It's not your term to define for others. That's the height of arrogance. Secondly, we have a system that provides equal protection of the laws. There's no logical reason nor any compelling evidence that calls for marriage as an exclusive domain of heterosexuals.

 

not to hijack, but do you mean one has to present the partner as "my wife" before it kicks in?

 

Depends on the state, but in Texas, yes.

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp

Q: What makes a common law marriage?

A: Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.

First, you must have "agreed to be married."
Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return.
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.

 

Don't lump this chump with every other Christian. He's an extremist.

 

Yeah, certainly not all. I was referring to those making the case.

 

In addition to this, some counties even have a common marriage registry you can sign.

 

I didn't get married in a religious ceremony, does that mean by bob's standards that I am not really married?

already a bunch of well made points above....so a question, no one is forcing you to marry a gay person, why do you care so much if other people want to? It isnt hurting you...why do you insist on not allowing others the rights that you have bob?

btw...Bob Marley would definitely be against denying others the right to do as they please.

 

I stand corrected. I assumed palimony was associated with common law marriages, but they're different altogether.