RE: Toddler sings "Aint no homo gonna make it to heaven." Church crowd cheers
May 31, 2012 at 1:04 am
Ok I'm going to enter this into the record here and then I'll call it a day on the topic until the record is changed.
Marriage is a legally binding contract that gives certain entitlements under that law, whether they be financial (life insurance, bereavement benefits etc), property (who gets the house should the couple split up) or parental (who gets little Timmy). The ceremony, if you go formal, is all but window dressing; the only part that means anything is the bit where the vicar asks if there's an objection to the couple getting hitched. Other than that, the really important part from a legal standpoint is the signing of the register, which makes it officially recognised.
I don't know what the situation is overseas but here same-sex couples can enter into what are called 'civil partnerships', which is pretty much marriage by any other name, one calculated not to offend what are oxymoronically termed religious sensiblilties. It's a bit like a group of kids giving a toy to that one kid they don't want to play with, just to keep him out of their way. If that sounds offensive, it's because it is, and if I were homosexual I would feel the same way. That's what they and their supporters (like me) are fighting for - not special treatment, but the same treatment.
I can relate this to my own personal situation, if you'll indulge me. Over here, an unmarried couple who live together as though they are married are generally recognised and treated as a married couple. When my Sam was stolen from me, the Department for Social Security (DSS), who are in charge of such matters, walked me through all the paperwork for things like funeral payments and bereavement benefits. The details are hazy now but as I recall, for all aspects which involved my paying out, our 'living as though married' status applied and help was available. However, for anything that meant I might be in receipt of payment, such as Bereavement Benefit, that status did not apply and I wasn't therefore entitled. Civil partnerships are entitled, as are traditionally married couples, but I was not. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have my Sam back safe and sound than ever touch a penny of their money again. It just would have been nice to have it on record somewhere that we had a partnership stronger than most marriages.
So you see, I completely empathise with anyone being denied rights freely and arbitrarily given to others, and have done so even before all this happened.
Marriage is a legally binding contract that gives certain entitlements under that law, whether they be financial (life insurance, bereavement benefits etc), property (who gets the house should the couple split up) or parental (who gets little Timmy). The ceremony, if you go formal, is all but window dressing; the only part that means anything is the bit where the vicar asks if there's an objection to the couple getting hitched. Other than that, the really important part from a legal standpoint is the signing of the register, which makes it officially recognised.
I don't know what the situation is overseas but here same-sex couples can enter into what are called 'civil partnerships', which is pretty much marriage by any other name, one calculated not to offend what are oxymoronically termed religious sensiblilties. It's a bit like a group of kids giving a toy to that one kid they don't want to play with, just to keep him out of their way. If that sounds offensive, it's because it is, and if I were homosexual I would feel the same way. That's what they and their supporters (like me) are fighting for - not special treatment, but the same treatment.
I can relate this to my own personal situation, if you'll indulge me. Over here, an unmarried couple who live together as though they are married are generally recognised and treated as a married couple. When my Sam was stolen from me, the Department for Social Security (DSS), who are in charge of such matters, walked me through all the paperwork for things like funeral payments and bereavement benefits. The details are hazy now but as I recall, for all aspects which involved my paying out, our 'living as though married' status applied and help was available. However, for anything that meant I might be in receipt of payment, such as Bereavement Benefit, that status did not apply and I wasn't therefore entitled. Civil partnerships are entitled, as are traditionally married couples, but I was not. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have my Sam back safe and sound than ever touch a penny of their money again. It just would have been nice to have it on record somewhere that we had a partnership stronger than most marriages.
So you see, I completely empathise with anyone being denied rights freely and arbitrarily given to others, and have done so even before all this happened.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
