?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

question 8 results

If I were a California legislator right now, I'd be drafting a bill to get California out of the "marriage" business, and convert all California marriages into "mawwiages." While marriage is defined consitutionally as between a man and a woman, the government should have no hand in this discriminatory practice.

And imagine the floor speech. "Mawwiage... is what bwings us togethew... today..."

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
shaggy_man
Nov. 5th, 2008 03:13 pm (UTC)
Thanks for giving me something to smile about, at least for a moment. It's a shame to feel so good about the presidential race and still not feel like celebrating.
binkbink
Nov. 5th, 2008 03:17 pm (UTC)
A word is just a noise we assigned a meaning to.
You put the finger on it. The issue isn't about contracting a partnership but about who gets to own a word. Make the word go away and the problem should go with it.
navrins
Nov. 5th, 2008 03:57 pm (UTC)
Re: A word is just a noise we assigned a meaning to.
Um, to be brief: no.

To be a little less brief: There are a lot of people who are very uncomfortable with the idea of being asked to extend the same personal, social recognition to two men or two women that they do to a married man and woman. The word and the law are easier to put your finger on, but changing the word and the law is not going to change that some people just don't feel the same way about Mary-and-Jane that they do about Jack-and-Jill.

I would be even less brief, but should be working.
dcltdw
Nov. 5th, 2008 06:43 pm (UTC)
Re: A word is just a noise we assigned a meaning to.
For me (I don't wish to presume to speak for crs or bink), that's not at all the point.

Would I like to wave my magic wand and make individuals okay with the concept of homosexual marriage? Sure. I'd also like a pony.

Would I like to see the CA legislature abolish the concept of legal marriage and add a new concept of civil unions, available to all, thereby bypassing Prop 8? Sure. Do I think that this legal jumping-through-hoops will change anyone's mind? No, of course not.

But in my "do I get a pony?" land, what I'd like to see the CA do *first* is to amend their stupid Constitution to require a supermajority, sustained by sucessive ratifications, to amend it. I mean, c'mon people. :)
soong
Nov. 5th, 2008 04:45 pm (UTC)
get CA out of the marriage business, civil unions for all!
marriage (or Mawwiage) is what happens in a church and is separate from the state.
alaria_lyon
Nov. 5th, 2008 05:37 pm (UTC)
marriage (or Mawwiage) is what happens in a church and is separate from the state.

This is incorrect, if you look in the dictionary. Matrimony is what happens in a church. Marriage can happen between many different entities, including businesses.
tallou
Nov. 6th, 2008 07:09 pm (UTC)
But marriage doesn't have to be religious. People get married with a justice of the peace, or a friend, or a family member. It means something, and has the weight of history. That's a big deal. Words matter. And it should be available to people who consent to it. I don't like plans that decide to invalidate *anyone's* marriage, even if, and perhaps especially if, it's trying to point out the unfairness of the system. The answer to unfairness is to fix the unfairness, not to make it worse.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )