Quote:
Originally Posted by BluPhire
And thus my reason for legal entity civil unions. Marriage should be defined by whatever legal or moral persuassion you choose to ally yourself with. You should be able to have the choice of having a religious marriage without having government recognition of that marriage.
By government standards if you choose to have your marriage recognized by the government, it should be looked at in same equivalent of if you own a business and choose to add a partner (minus the ability to have an LLC or S-Corp marriage. LOL). Therefore it comes with all the benefits of entering said partnerships as well as all the consequences of entering said partnership. And since we are entering this as a partnership the penalties will be stricter if said partnership is entered not in good faith (the equivalent of setting up a dummy corporation in order to get tax breaks/hide money, etc pretty much fraud) or if you choose to dissolve said partnership (thus pre-nups will no longer be considered this piece of paper you present to your spouse because you think you ain't gonna make it, but as a legitimate business document to protect not just yourself, but any other outside financial penalties that occur from dissolution.)
|
Isn't that what it is now? It feels to me that you are just arguing semantics. You're saying "lets stop calling it marriage and call it a civil union instead" because everything you're saying that it should be IS what is right now.
So, a man will get down on one knee, present an engagement ring and say "Will you enter a civil union with me?" And, what is the verb then? "We are civil unioned?" "We invite you to celebrate the civil union of ... "
Sounds like the difference between rush and recruitment and pledge or new member to me. They are one and the same. It's just terminology that nobody is going to adopt. "I will never get unioned again" LOL
ETA: I was writing while Drole was, apparently. We are on the same page, Drole!
Threaded Mode
