Worst Annulment Ever......

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:27 pm

Letters to the editor. At least two cartoonists in the Chronicle have taken stabs at him. Okay, it's not Mayor Jordan in the shower, but I've heard more negative than positive. Maybe I exageratted.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:16 pm

Bump in honor of the fact that this is back in court.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:28 am

You love who you love and you should be allowed to marry your love if that is your wish. Fuckabuncha political bullshit. I think marriage should be defined as a unioun between beings of the same species, though I am sure someone would argue that.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:40 am

Here's the rub: Marriage is a religious institution, and therefore has no place as a government-sanctioned (and even encouraged) institution. The government does not have the power to grant or deny marriage to anyone. The solution (in my opinion) is to take marriage away from heterosexuals, and make civil union the only option for anyone. Without a religious implication, that's all a marriage really is anyway...a convenient financial contract.

Irrespective of whether sexuality is a protected class under the constitution, the fact of the matter is that the Gov't is here discriminating against those RELIGIONS which choose to allow same-sex couples to be married under their religious principles. A marriage alllowed by the catholic, baptist, or even mormon doctrine is allowed by law, but not one allowed by UU or the ULC.

SilkenTofu · Post by **SilkenTofu** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:00 am

Ranger Genius, you ARE 10 ninjas.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:06 am

Crikey... don't confuse "marriage" with "Matrimony".

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:30 am

I'm basically with Genius on this one. All "legal" marrages are "civil unions." All churches can perform what they call "marrages." That way you don't have the state defining what the church can do or the church defining what the state can do.

Or maybe as a pro-gay marraige fish, I'm splitting hairs to make the world how I believe it should be.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:46 am

Also disturbed by the arguement that the purpose of marraige is children and that het couples are somehow more suited for raising them.

That doesn't fly in Alabama--why should it fly here?

gigglesnort · Post by **gigglesnort** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:52 am

This is one subject the beau and I go around on......and makes me seriously question why I'm even bothering (but then he gets close, and those phermones of his tickle my nose, and then I turn into a hot mindless quivering puddle and forget what we were talking about......uh, what were we talking about?)

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:04 am

your new lipstick.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:15 am

a few thoughts RG

Marriage is a religious institution

a convenient financial contract

well, historically and contemporarily it is actually neither.

and then this

take marriage away from heterosexuals

How about we don't take anything away from anyone.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:10 pm

stuart wrote:a few thoughts RG

Marriage is a religious institution

a convenient financial contract
well, historically and contemporarily it is actually neither.

NOt sure what you're trying to say, Stuart, but certainly at times marragie has been more about a contract between families, a contract with financial ramifications (bride pride, dowery), than just individuals. At times (roman empire and after) marraige was more upper class than peasent class because there was no money in the later.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:52 pm

correct fishy, but it sure isn't what I would call overly convenient

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:57 pm

aha. Well, it may have been the most convienient way available to sealing a deal.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:03 pm

not convenient perhaps, but certainly perhaps the most binding

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:49 pm

No, it's convenient, compared to the alternative. You can get most of the financial benefits of a marriage with legal paperwork, but the stack of forms required is quite thick, and the filing and drafting fees rather dear.

Ask one of the people who opposes gay marriage why they do, and then ask them why two or three more times. You'll almost always come down to the divine nature of marriage.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:10 pm

A marriage is an inconvenient financial contract. Being unmarried allows for so many more fun tax dodges between couples. Also, if you decide to split it is a lot less of a hassle because the govt is not involved.