Conquer Club

If Referendum 74 passes in the State of Washington next month, allowing gay marriage, everyone who had previously registered a domestic partnership will be automatically declared married whether they wanted it or not. Official estimates say that 10% of domestic partnership in the state are between two heterosexuals.

Seattle TV station KING, interviewed a pair of angry old lesbians who don't want to get married -

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/If-R ... 96201.html

I thought this was going to be about something fun, like randomized marriage to someone you've never met before.

Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

Dukasaur wrote:Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

It's a good thing the ConquerClub apartment is in California then (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=178779&hilit).

Actually, what we call "living together" pretty much was considered "common law marriage" in the past. For one thing, to cohabitat and NOT be married was often illegal. So, if you wanted to stay together and no clergy was near.. "common law marriage".

Dukasaur wrote:Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

Since you seem to have insight into the subjective valuation of many people, please explain how your statement is true.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

Since you seem to have insight into the subjective valuation of many people, please explain how your statement is true.

Or, could we say (gasp!) "Simply not becoming married to someone who you're already living with should not upset anyone." But if we say that wouldn't we be denigrating the marriage rights that most in the gay community want? Double gasp!

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

Since you seem to have insight into the subjective valuation of many people, please explain how your statement is true.

Or, could we say (gasp!) "Simply not becoming married to someone who you're already living with should not upset anyone." But if we say that wouldn't we be denigrating the marriage rights that most in the gay community want? Double gasp!

The only solution is to legislate the problem away because people cannot form their own laws! Otherwise, it would be chaos! People would be inserting their private members into the wrong holes! "NO!!" We must 'choose' the top-down approach and justify it any way we can.

BigBallinStalin wrote:People would be inserting their private members into the wrong holes!

It happens. Like if you turn around quickly or someone stops in front of you suddenly.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:People would be inserting their private members into the wrong holes!

It happens. Like if you turn around quickly or someone stops in front of you suddenly.

Then this Referendum 74 must become law. Before things get worse!

PLAYER57832 wrote:Actually, what we call "living together" pretty much was considered "common law marriage" in the past. For one thing, to cohabitat and NOT be married was often illegal. So, if you wanted to stay together and no clergy was near.. "common law marriage".

Right, but given that Washingtonians have by and large accepted unmarried domestic partnership as a socially acceptable living situation, the laws should reflect that reality.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

Since you seem to have insight into the subjective valuation of many people, please explain how your statement is true.

I didn't realize this thread was going to turn political. Like I said, I thought it was going to be a lighthearted romp, and I wouldn't have bothered posting if I knew that I was entering a political arena. It brought to mind stuff like those embarrassing moments in university, when you take a little too much PCP, and you wake up two days later with some postmenopausal biker bitch that has more facial hair than you do, and next thing you know your friends are there with cameras laughing at you and taking pictures and yelling "throw the bouquet!"

But since I'm here, I may as well answer your question. I live in the Province of Ontario, where under the Family Law Reform Act of 1981 all legal distinctions between "legal" and "common law" marriage were abolished. If you're living with someone common law for six months or more, your rights and obligations are exactly identical as if you had the walk down the aisle and the whole ball of wax. This is the legal environment I've lived in almost all of my adult life, and so naturally it's what I think of as normal.

But I realize that there are many jurisdictions around the world where differences between formal and common law marriage are preserved. If you live in one of those, and especially if formal marriage burdens you with responsibilities that common law marriage doesn't, then I can certainly see that you would be irritated about unexpectedly finding yourself legally married.

Is there any legal difference between a domestic partnership and marriage?

I can't fucking stand how there's an arbitrary distinction between the two. The only difference between being married and not being married is that people who aren't married didn't have to waste a shit-ton of money on a wedding.

Dukasaur wrote:I thought this was going to be about something fun, like randomized marriage to someone you've never met before.

Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

Ditto.
If it were as the title and poll options would imply, I'd be terrified. The lack of choice would greatly upset me.

Maugena wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I thought this was going to be about something fun, like randomized marriage to someone you've never met before.

Simply becoming married to someone you're already living with should not upset anyone.

Ditto.
If it were as the title and poll options would imply, I'd be terrified. The lack of choice would greatly upset me.

It would upset me greatly if it was imposed on me,that's the objection.What right does anyone have to impose marriage on me?And this is happening in the land of the free?..

Army of GOD wrote:Is there any legal difference between a domestic partnership and marriage?

I can't fucking stand how there's an arbitrary distinction between the two. The only difference between being married and not being married is that people who aren't married didn't have to waste a shit-ton of money on a wedding.

You forget that marriage is more of a legal contract than a romantic concept. There are a lot of things that spouses can/have to do for each other that unmarried couples don't/can't.

spurgistan wrote:You forget that marriage is more of a legal contract than a romantic concept. There are a lot of things that spouses can/have to do for each other that unmarried couples don't/can't.

Like take off my socks?

Well if there's nothing you can do about it you may as well embrace it.