2) This is odd, but neither of my representatives from the House or the Senate appear to be on the summary of the bill or the summary of their positions webpage. What gives, Virginia? Maybe my reading comp is sucktacular :P
Even my father, who while not at all prejudiced, is nowhere near concerned about equality/human rights, says it's total and complete BULLSHIT for the government to have absolutely anything to do with marriage.
english: creative writing major / minor in gender studies (lol and posts like these are the result!)
it SHOULD be that simple, really... but it's connected to so many other things that people take so personally =/ but i dont see why other people's behavior should be so damned personal to others...
I love your enthusiastic writing on these things! :)
For me, the entire issue is what you wrote for "B". Shouldn't be any further argument necessary and anything else is extraneous to the key issue.
That said, the "other" obstacle that I see is that if you redefine the civil institution, there are legal ramifications in terms of wills, estates, insurance, etc. Basically, it makes things a lot clearer, but could there be a hesistancy to redefine such unions on the part of insurance companies, etc, whose cost goes up as a result of the number of dependents suddenly increasing? The answer should be that we change the law to avoid any form of discrimination, regardless of the cost, but the truth is that we often delay change by making up other reasons.
"Shouldn't be any further argument necessary and anything else is extraneous to the key issue."
*nods*
whoa, I didn't think about how it would affect insurance in that way and the possible discrimination that could arise... i feel that marriage equality does pass, a law that would prevent discrimination would take several years to pass =/
Comments 10
2) This is odd, but neither of my representatives from the House or the Senate appear to be on the summary of the bill or the summary of their positions webpage. What gives, Virginia? Maybe my reading comp is sucktacular :P
Reply
this is a new york bill for state law, so they probably wouldn't show up
hopefully your state will eventually join the bandwagon! XD
Reply
I'm stupid :| lol
Reply
Reply
Reply
its so fucking true. i really dont understand the regulations.
in some states you even have to take a blood test before they give you a marriage license... WTF.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
it SHOULD be that simple, really... but it's connected to so many other things that people take so personally =/
but i dont see why other people's behavior should be so damned personal to others...
Reply
For me, the entire issue is what you wrote for "B". Shouldn't be any further argument necessary and anything else is extraneous to the key issue.
That said, the "other" obstacle that I see is that if you redefine the civil institution, there are legal ramifications in terms of wills, estates, insurance, etc. Basically, it makes things a lot clearer, but could there be a hesistancy to redefine such unions on the part of insurance companies, etc, whose cost goes up as a result of the number of dependents suddenly increasing? The answer should be that we change the law to avoid any form of discrimination, regardless of the cost, but the truth is that we often delay change by making up other reasons.
Reply
*nods*
whoa, I didn't think about how it would affect insurance in that way and the possible discrimination that could arise... i feel that marriage equality does pass, a law that would prevent discrimination would take several years to pass =/
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment