WA bans gender terms from marriage certificates

[novasteve]

Binding contract my ass

 

[Luissa]

Rape and deadly force used to stop rape. Suddenly libs don't believe I. Self defense if a tranny rapes a man. If a man was clueless enough to have sex with a tranny and say was getting oral, realizes its a man then tells it to stop and it doesn't, you are justified in killing the tranny just like a woman would be justified in killing a man who refuses to stop. But libs will say its different

What are you even talking about?
Hitting the sauce early?

 

[Koios]

Binding contract my ass

Try breaking it, without a court order doing so, with provisions for any obligations still binding on the parties, upon exiting the BINDING CONTRACT.

 

[Luissa]

Binding contract my ass

Try breaking it, without a court order doing so, with provisions for any obligations still binding on the parties, upon exiting the BINDING CONTRACT.

Forgive him, he kind of falls apart once someone proves he has no clue what he is talking about.

 

[novasteve]

So why can a party cheat and then get spousal support and alimony? That's like having a contract to sell goods, the buyer breaches but can sue and get money from the seller? Binding my ass

 

[novasteve]

Rape and deadly force used to stop rape. Suddenly libs don't believe I. Self defense if a tranny rapes a man. If a man was clueless enough to have sex with a tranny and say was getting oral, realizes its a man then tells it to stop and it doesn't, you are justified in killing the tranny just like a woman would be justified in killing a man who refuses to stop. But libs will say its different

What are you even talking about?
Hitting the sauce early?

Do you support the right to use deadly force to stop rape?

 

[Koios]

So why can a party cheat and then get spousal support and alimony? That's like having a contract to sell goods, the buyer breaches but can sue and get money from the seller? Binding my ass

Because infidelity is not breach of the marriage contract, in no-fault divorce states.

 

[Koios]

Binding contract my ass

Try breaking it, without a court order doing so, with provisions for any obligations still binding on the parties, upon exiting the BINDING CONTRACT.

Forgive him, he kind of falls apart once someone proves he has no clue what he is talking about.

Must I school you on Family Law as well?

 

[Dreamy]

The state and government should not even be in the marriage business imo.

Hi Dreamy, long time no see.


Just wondering, could you be a little more specific about what you mean?


>>>>

Hi WorldWatcher.

Marriage is a legal contract and should be treated as such. Draw up the contracts and unite when ready.

I support the continued used of clergy or whatever spiritual aspect people want to attach to their particular unions of course.


I am hard pressed to think of a reason(s) as to why the state needs to be a party to a marriage in any form.

 

[Luissa]

Try breaking it, without a court order doing so, with provisions for any obligations still binding on the parties, upon exiting the BINDING CONTRACT.

Forgive him, he kind of falls apart once someone proves he has no clue what he is talking about.

Must I school you on Family Law as well?

Huh?

 

[Luissa]

Rape and deadly force used to stop rape. Suddenly libs don't believe I. Self defense if a tranny rapes a man. If a man was clueless enough to have sex with a tranny and say was getting oral, realizes its a man then tells it to stop and it doesn't, you are justified in killing the tranny just like a woman would be justified in killing a man who refuses to stop. But libs will say its different

What are you even talking about?
Hitting the sauce early?

Do you support the right to use deadly force to stop rape?

Is this thread about rape?

 

[Koios]

Forgive him, he kind of falls apart once someone proves he has no clue what he is talking about.

Must I school you on Family Law as well?

Huh?

Precisely.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The state and government should not even be in the marriage business imo.

Hi Dreamy, long time no see.


Just wondering, could you be a little more specific about what you mean?


>>>>

Hi WorldWatcher.

Marriage is a legal contract and should be treated as such. Draw up the contracts and unite when ready.

I support the continued used of clergy or whatever spiritual aspect people want to attach to their particular unions of course.


I am hard pressed to think of a reason(s) as to why the state needs to be a party to a marriage in any form.

Will there be one standard contract for use by everyone, or will each contract be different and up to the individuals.

Last count there were 1138 federal laws impacting rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage with probably hundreds (if not over a thousand) in each individual state, would this contract have to account for what action is to be take (or not) under each one of those conditions/laws? What happens if a law changes, will that clause in the contract then require an addendum for the change?

The purpose of a Civil Marriage license is to join two non-related, consenting adults into a family unit for a minimal cost (IIRC a marriage license runs about 50 bucks) without the need to spend thousands of dollars drawing up contracts with a lawyer, some of the things under the law "contracts" can touch anyway.



>>>>

 

[Dreamy]

Hi Dreamy, long time no see.


Just wondering, could you be a little more specific about what you mean?


>>>>

Hi WorldWatcher.

Marriage is a legal contract and should be treated as such. Draw up the contracts and unite when ready.

I support the continued used of clergy or whatever spiritual aspect people want to attach to their particular unions of course.


I am hard pressed to think of a reason(s) as to why the state needs to be a party to a marriage in any form.

Will there be one standard contract for use by everyone, or will each contract be different and up to the individuals.

Last count there were 1138 federal laws impacting rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage with probably hundreds (if not over a thousand) in each individual state, would this contract have to account for what action is to be take (or not) under each one of those conditions/laws? What happens if a law changes, will that clause in the contract then require an addendum for the change?

The purpose of a Civil Marriage license is to join two non-related, consenting adults into a family unit for a minimal cost (IIRC a marriage license runs about 50 bucks) without the need to spend thousands of dollars drawing up contracts with a lawyer, some of the things under the law "contracts" can touch anyway.



>>>>

I am of the belief that we sign contracts of our choosing all the time in business and real estate and there are some standard ones with all the usual legal jargon but we are always free to modify any contract to our chosen particulars. I would presume the contract would of course be bound by any laws that might apply to to said contract as is the case with real estate and business law.

Lawyers retained with knowledge of the applicable state laws might be advisable but aas always are not required. A buyer beware caveat in play for those going it alone of course.

 

[Koios]

Hi WorldWatcher.

Marriage is a legal contract and should be treated as such. Draw up the contracts and unite when ready.

I support the continued used of clergy or whatever spiritual aspect people want to attach to their particular unions of course.


I am hard pressed to think of a reason(s) as to why the state needs to be a party to a marriage in any form.

Will there be one standard contract for use by everyone, or will each contract be different and up to the individuals.

Last count there were 1138 federal laws impacting rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage with probably hundreds (if not over a thousand) in each individual state, would this contract have to account for what action is to be take (or not) under each one of those conditions/laws? What happens if a law changes, will that clause in the contract then require an addendum for the change?

The purpose of a Civil Marriage license is to join two non-related, consenting adults into a family unit for a minimal cost (IIRC a marriage license runs about 50 bucks) without the need to spend thousands of dollars drawing up contracts with a lawyer, some of the things under the law "contracts" can touch anyway.



>>>>

I am of the belief that we sign contracts of our choosing all the time in business and real estate and there are some standard ones with all the usual legal jargon but we are always free to modify any contract to our chosen particulars. I would presume the contract would of course be bound by any laws that might apply to to said contract as is the case with real estate and business law.

Lawyers retained with knowledge of the applicable state laws might be advisable but aas always are not required. A buyer beware caveat in play for those going it alone of course.

Caveat emptor is a dying component in markets, increasingly, and never applies to Family Law.

Generally speaking, Family Law Courts are most concerned with women and children, hopefully keeping them off public assistance. Or as a good attorney might advise you: "Look in your pants. If you see a dick, you're fucked."

 

[Dreamy]

Will there be one standard contract for use by everyone, or will each contract be different and up to the individuals.

Last count there were 1138 federal laws impacting rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage with probably hundreds (if not over a thousand) in each individual state, would this contract have to account for what action is to be take (or not) under each one of those conditions/laws? What happens if a law changes, will that clause in the contract then require an addendum for the change?

The purpose of a Civil Marriage license is to join two non-related, consenting adults into a family unit for a minimal cost (IIRC a marriage license runs about 50 bucks) without the need to spend thousands of dollars drawing up contracts with a lawyer, some of the things under the law "contracts" can touch anyway.



>>>>

I am of the belief that we sign contracts of our choosing all the time in business and real estate and there are some standard ones with all the usual legal jargon but we are always free to modify any contract to our chosen particulars. I would presume the contract would of course be bound by any laws that might apply to to said contract as is the case with real estate and business law.

Lawyers retained with knowledge of the applicable state laws might be advisable but aas always are not required. A buyer beware caveat in play for those going it alone of course.

Caveat emptor is a dying component in markets, increasingly, and never applies to Family Law.

Generally speaking, Family Law Courts are most concerned with women and children, hopefully keeping them off public assistance. Or as a good attorney might advise you: "Look in your pants. If you see a dick, you're fucked."

True enough but state sanctioned marriage has not always protected the children. In my opinion when you make babies(man or woman) you make a separate contract with the children and that is where I do support child protection laws but that is apart from the union of marriage. They kick in even where marriage is not a factor and that is quite often these days with so many children being born out of wedlock.

 

[Koios]

I am of the belief that we sign contracts of our choosing all the time in business and real estate and there are some standard ones with all the usual legal jargon but we are always free to modify any contract to our chosen particulars. I would presume the contract would of course be bound by any laws that might apply to to said contract as is the case with real estate and business law.

Lawyers retained with knowledge of the applicable state laws might be advisable but aas always are not required. A buyer beware caveat in play for those going it alone of course.

Caveat emptor is a dying component in markets, increasingly, and never applies to Family Law.

Generally speaking, Family Law Courts are most concerned with women and children, hopefully keeping them off public assistance. Or as a good attorney might advise you: "Look in your pants. If you see a dick, you're fucked."

True enough but state sanctioned marriage has not always protected the children. In my opinion when you make babies(man or woman) you make a separate contract with the children and that is where I do support child protection laws but that is apart from the union of marriage. They kick in even where marriage is not a factor and that is quite often these days with so many children being born out of wedlock.

It's difficult to usurp parental rights, and of course, not all help is a 100% solution. It's just help, such as Child Support Enforcement, working across state lines, often.

So indeed a substantial effort is made, even if all problems are not entirely mitigated.

 

[Dreamy]

Caveat emptor is a dying component in markets, increasingly, and never applies to Family Law.

Generally speaking, Family Law Courts are most concerned with women and children, hopefully keeping them off public assistance. Or as a good attorney might advise you: "Look in your pants. If you see a dick, you're fucked."

True enough but state sanctioned marriage has not always protected the children. In my opinion when you make babies(man or woman) you make a separate contract with the children and that is where I do support child protection laws but that is apart from the union of marriage. They kick in even where marriage is not a factor and that is quite often these days with so many children being born out of wedlock.

It's difficult to usurp parental rights, and of course, not all help is a 100% solution. It's just help, such as Child Support Enforcement, working across state lines, often.

So indeed a substantial effort is made, even if all problems are not entirely mitigated.

But the needs of the children are legally separate from the state sanctioned marriage as proven over and over in family courts dealing with unwed parents. I believe the only time state sanctioned marriage interjects is in the determination of parentage of the children born within the framework of a marriage; they are presumed to be the husband's offspring. The use of DNA testing has likely made this less of an issue however.

 

[Luissa]

Must I school you on Family Law as well?

Huh?

Precisely.

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

 

[Koios]

Huh?

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?