eyesroll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 01:52 PM
Original message |
Punctuation lesson: It is not same-sex "marriage." It is same-sex marriage. Or just marriage. |
|
Unless someone would like to explain to me why it is necessary on DU to use the scare quotes, which I have seen here today (and before).
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 01:55 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I agree about the punctuation. But if it's same-anything, it should be... |
|
...same-gender marriage. Don't think of an elephant.
NGU.
|
eyesroll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I don't think "same gender" works either, anyway... A female-identified biological male and a female-identified biological female have always been able to get married. So long as the genitalia looks right, gender is irrelevant.
If anything, sex is more binary than gender.
(I've used gender-blind marriage before, which I think may be closer.)
|
Marnieworld
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I prefer the phrase "marriage for everyone" |
|
It sounds more democratic dontcha think?
|
unpossibles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. I just call it Equal Marriage Rights as much as possible :) |
Perry Logan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message |
4. How about "same-genital marriage"? |
flamin lib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Separate but equal is not equal. I know, I grew up with Separate |
|
but equal. Being white, male and straight I'm just lucky enough to be born on the right side of equal and I recognize it as nothing more than dumb luck.
It isn't about special rights, it's about human rights.
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 02:06 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I think we need to seperate a government based civil union from |
|
a religion based marriage. Sorry if I offended by putting marriage into quotes.
|
TechBear_Seattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. That has ALWAYS been the case |
|
The fact that civil law and religious ceremony both use the word marriage is irrelevant.
The only legal act that an officiant does is take the jurat of the couple being married and countersigns the signatures of the principles and two witnesses to the jurat. This is a notarial act, and the states of Maine, South Carolina and Florida already allow notaries public to officiate at weddings. I say, remove clergy from the list of legal officiants and add notaries. End of confusion without having to rewrite centuries of statutes and case law.
|
eyesroll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-10-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. That's cool--I've seen it before, though, too. n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 08:39 PM
Response to Original message |