WA bans gender terms from marriage certificates

[Dreamy]

Okay; I like marriage, and have done it frequently. Also, I tend not to worry about others, since my own need some work.

I am quite connected to longterm happy marriage myself but I was discussing the topic without interjecting my personal life into this thread because that is how I prefer to operate when on a forum. Why do you get the misguided impression I am worried about others? Not at all. Who would I be worried about exactly? lol

I gave a viewpoint. You disagree but did nothing to back your POV up except to take it to your own personal level. Whatever floats your boat.

You do realize this is a message board of strangers discussing various topics, right? The topic here is marriage certificates. *shrug

So it works for you? Terrific. Maybe it'll work for others, too. But even if not, they deserve the choice, regardless of whether or not you're keen on the state of OTHERS marriages.

Why do I feel like you are not getting me? Where did I ever propose taking marriage away from people? I am not an elected official and I certainly have bigger fish to fry than working on ending state sanctioned marriages. State sanctioned schools would get my attention first. lol

Once again the state of marriage in general is a mess. See divorce rate for further understanding. That is what I addressed and I gave my opinions. Stop taking everything down to a personal level. We are not discussing me or you. We give o-p-i-n-i-o-n-s here. I gave mine and the divorce rate backs up my viewpoint that marriage is a mess.

Damn remedial posting is annoying.

 

[AmyNation]

Who cares? Does it change marriage in any way? Do people now get less rights? Is anyone trying to force you not recognize your partner as husband/wife?

This isn't something I would advocate, but it's pretty stupid to get worked up over it.

In fact, it would accomplish just the opposite.

Marriage between men and women have a 50% fail rate and yet the homophobe haters say the marriages of others will threaten their own.

What a lot of to-do over nothing.

Why shouldn't all US citizens have the same rights?

I agree, however, did you know that they won't have to pay the marriage penalty the rest of us pay? I think that's unfair. Why should they be able to have all the benefits but none of the negatives?

What?

What penalities don't they pay?

 

[sfcalifornia]

I think you misunderstand me. I believe unions with contracts should be a choice not a requirement. That is why I stated "buyer beware".

What benefits do married people get that is so great?

The decision to have children is a separate matter contractually and legally because there is a separate person involved with their own legal rights.

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

You are perfectly welcome to go to any religious institution and have a religious marriage ceremony performed without filing that union with the government. No one is forcing you to do so. But if you do that and then later decide to separate, the government still needs to step in and sort out the financial separation as well as child custodial issues. No way around government involvement unless the separation is purely amicable.

Child welfare is always addressed with or without the legality of marriage. Separate issue. I addressed that earlier.

Perhaps I am not being clear on my personal views and stance. I want less government in my life. That would include schools and marriage.

Yes I know all about my rights and religious unions. Yes, we know those are always an option and yet again not what we are discussing.

I have entered into many a contract and all that marriage is a contract when we are referring to the legal aspect. Why the need for a marriage license sanctioned from the state? Why? Money. It all ends up being money in play when it is the government. The lawyers and the courts are who are really running the show in all contractual law so yes the government will always be involved if and when there is a contract.

Who's forcing you to tell the government you're getting married?? If you want less government in your life then don't register your marriage with the state. Go get your religious ceremony done and then forget about it. It's really that simple.

 

[Dreamy]

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

You are perfectly welcome to go to any religious institution and have a religious marriage ceremony performed without filing that union with the government. No one is forcing you to do so. But if you do that and then later decide to separate, the government still needs to step in and sort out the financial separation as well as child custodial issues. No way around government involvement unless the separation is purely amicable.

Child welfare is always addressed with or without the legality of marriage. Separate issue. I addressed that earlier.

Perhaps I am not being clear on my personal views and stance. I want less government in my life. That would include schools and marriage.

Yes I know all about my rights and religious unions. Yes, we know those are always an option and yet again not what we are discussing.

I have entered into many a contract and all that marriage is a contract when we are referring to the legal aspect. Why the need for a marriage license sanctioned from the state? Why? Money. It all ends up being money in play when it is the government. The lawyers and the courts are who are really running the show in all contractual law so yes the government will always be involved if and when there is a contract.

Who's forcing you to tell the government you're getting married?? If you want less government in your life then don't register your marriage with the state. Go get your religious ceremony done and then forget about it. It's really that simple.

I never stated I opposed contractual legal binding unions. I support them if you read my earlier posts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Who cares? Does it change marriage in any way? Do people now get less rights? Is anyone trying to force you not recognize your partner as husband/wife?

This isn't something I would advocate, but it's pretty stupid to get worked up over it.

In fact, it would accomplish just the opposite.

Marriage between men and women have a 50% fail rate and yet the homophobe haters say the marriages of others will threaten their own.

What a lot of to-do over nothing.

Why shouldn't all US citizens have the same rights?

I agree, however, did you know that they won't have to pay the marriage penalty the rest of us pay? I think that's unfair. Why should they be able to have all the benefits but none of the negatives?

The only reason they won't pay the "marriage penality" is because of DOMA.

So then can we assume you support the repeal of DOMA so that the Federal government recognizes all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law so that they have to pay the same as the rest of us.

Right?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What?

What penalities don't they pay?

She's talking about the federal marriage penalty that some Civilly Married couples get under Federal Tax law.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>>>>

 

[sfcalifornia]

Child welfare is always addressed with or without the legality of marriage. Separate issue. I addressed that earlier.

Perhaps I am not being clear on my personal views and stance. I want less government in my life. That would include schools and marriage.

Yes I know all about my rights and religious unions. Yes, we know those are always an option and yet again not what we are discussing.

I have entered into many a contract and all that marriage is a contract when we are referring to the legal aspect. Why the need for a marriage license sanctioned from the state? Why? Money. It all ends up being money in play when it is the government. The lawyers and the courts are who are really running the show in all contractual law so yes the government will always be involved if and when there is a contract.

Who's forcing you to tell the government you're getting married?? If you want less government in your life then don't register your marriage with the state. Go get your religious ceremony done and then forget about it. It's really that simple.

I never stated I opposed contractual legal binding unions. I support them if you read my earlier posts.

You just said you want less government in your life. The only reason why government is involved in marriage is because of the money aspect as you say. Government involvement exists in order to protect you. If you don't want government protections, then there is no need to involve the government as I have pointed out.

 

[Againsheila]

In fact, it would accomplish just the opposite.

Marriage between men and women have a 50% fail rate and yet the homophobe haters say the marriages of others will threaten their own.

What a lot of to-do over nothing.

Why shouldn't all US citizens have the same rights?

I agree, however, did you know that they won't have to pay the marriage penalty the rest of us pay? I think that's unfair. Why should they be able to have all the benefits but none of the negatives?

What?

What penalities don't they pay?

Two married people pay on the total of their income, not on each individual income. Even though WA state allows them to marry, the federal government doesn't recognize it so as far as their concerned, they will each be a separate person and so their income won't be combined and they won't pay a higher percentage of income tax. It's called the marriage tax penalty and it's been around for many years now, ever since the 70's when women went to work.

 

[Againsheila]

In fact, it would accomplish just the opposite.

Marriage between men and women have a 50% fail rate and yet the homophobe haters say the marriages of others will threaten their own.

What a lot of to-do over nothing.

Why shouldn't all US citizens have the same rights?

I agree, however, did you know that they won't have to pay the marriage penalty the rest of us pay? I think that's unfair. Why should they be able to have all the benefits but none of the negatives?

The only reason they won't pay the "marriage penality" is because of DOMA.

So then can we assume you support the repeal of DOMA so that the Federal government recognizes all legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law so that they have to pay the same as the rest of us.

Right?


>>>>

Seems fair to me.

 

[Koios]

I am quite connected to longterm happy marriage myself but I was discussing the topic without interjecting my personal life into this thread because that is how I prefer to operate when on a forum. Why do you get the misguided impression I am worried about others? Not at all. Who would I be worried about exactly? lol

I gave a viewpoint. You disagree but did nothing to back your POV up except to take it to your own personal level. Whatever floats your boat.

You do realize this is a message board of strangers discussing various topics, right? The topic here is marriage certificates. *shrug

So it works for you? Terrific. Maybe it'll work for others, too. But even if not, they deserve the choice, regardless of whether or not you're keen on the state of OTHERS marriages.

Why do I feel like you are not getting me? Where did I ever propose taking marriage away from people? I am not an elected official and I certainly have bigger fish to fry than working on ending state sanctioned marriages. State sanctioned schools would get my attention first. lol

Once again the state of marriage in general is a mess. See divorce rate for further understanding. That is what I addressed and I gave my opinions. Stop taking everything down to a personal level. We are not discussing me or you. We give o-p-i-n-i-o-n-s here. I gave mine and the divorce rate backs up my viewpoint that marriage is a mess.

Damn remedial posting is annoying.

I don't know. Do you?

 

[AmyNation]

That is easily solved with the repeal of DOMA

 

[Koios]

That is easily solved with the repeal of DOMA

It's on life support, at best. The Obama Admin isn't fighting for it; and suits to knock it down on constitution grounds are moving toward the Supremes, who I suspect will kill it once and for all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Child welfare is always addressed with or without the legality of marriage. Separate issue. I addressed that earlier.

Perhaps I am not being clear on my personal views and stance. I want less government in my life. That would include schools and marriage.

Yes I know all about my rights and religious unions. Yes, we know those are always an option and yet again not what we are discussing.

I have entered into many a contract and all that marriage is a contract when we are referring to the legal aspect. Why the need for a marriage license sanctioned from the state? Why? Money. It all ends up being money in play when it is the government. The lawyers and the courts are who are really running the show in all contractual law so yes the government will always be involved if and when there is a contract.

Who's forcing you to tell the government you're getting married?? If you want less government in your life then don't register your marriage with the state. Go get your religious ceremony done and then forget about it. It's really that simple.

I never stated I opposed contractual legal binding unions. I support them if you read my earlier posts.

Affording this type of bad faith legal contrivance to same-sex couples only is just as invalid as prohibiting them from a state’s marriage law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Seems fair to me.

Great.


>>>>

 

[Unkotare]

 

[Unkotare]

As Two-Income Family Model Matures, Divorce Rate Falls

 

[Luissa]

Precisely.

I said huh because I made no comment about family law.

Actually it (Family Law stuff) was what was being discussed, which went right over your head, obviously.

Thus I responded, "Precisely," which is shorthand for "Indeed; you're clueless."

Does that clarify it for ya?

I will say huh again, because I was not involved a family law discussion.I was involved in a discussion about the Marriage license in Washington and the fact Steve was derailing the thread by discussing rape.
So in fact I think you are the one who is clueless and obviously can't follow threads.
For one you asked me if I needed a lesson on family in regards to a post where I said nothing about family law.
I never even brought the subject up because this thread was not about family law.
So If you want you can take your condescending attitude and shove it.... Well you get the picture.

 

[Luissa]

Plus there is the whole fact I think you have assumed I am right winger all day because I am from Spokane and commented on Seattle people.
You kind of proven that you yourself fit the stereotype for westside people today.

 

[Koios]

I said huh because I made no comment about family law.

Actually it (Family Law stuff) was what was being discussed, which went right over your head, obviously.

Thus I responded, "Precisely," which is shorthand for "Indeed; you're clueless."

Does that clarify it for ya?

I will say huh again, because I was not involved a family law discussion.I was involved in a discussion about the Marriage license in Washington and the fact Steve was derailing the thread by discussing rape.
So in fact I think you are the one who is clueless and obviously can't follow threads.
For one you asked me if I needed a lesson on family in regards to a post where I said nothing about family law.
I never even brought the subject up because this thread was not about family law.
So If you want you can take your condescending attitude and shove it.... Well you get the picture.

Tip: marriage licenses are governed by Family Law.

So once again: Precisely! You're clueless. "Huh?" is thus quite an apt reply. Well done; knowing what we do not understand is the first step in understanding shit. You're on the right path.

 

[Koios]

Plus there is the whole fact I think you have assumed I am right winger all day because I am from Spokane and commented on Seattle people.
You kind of proven that you yourself fit the stereotype for westside people today.

No argument. We're snobs, me among them.