Same-sex marriage banned in Maine

[Farrowlesparrow]

I put "ownership" like this "ownership", because of course they don't own it, but they feel entitled to it, and by taking your stance, you're only going to make them feel more righteous and fight harder. Compromise is not evil.

What right is it to say you're married? The right here isn't that people can't say they're married, but that they can't have a partnership under the law that is equal to a marriage between a man and a woman.

If everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals all have Civil Partnerships, according to the law, then it becomes equal. You can call it whatever you want. It takes it out of the hands of the church entirely. It wouldn't be called a "marriage" in the law books anymore. It would just be a Civil Partnership, and the word marriage would essentially become the colloquial term for it and that's it.

 

[Maestro]

I've been reading this thread and more and more replies from the Gay Rights side seem to boil down to "I'm right, and democracy should bow down to my ideas of what's right."

So what I'm hearing is we should disregard the majority rule in favor of the right rule? What is this, the Middle Ages?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Liberty is more important than the opinion of the majority. If slavery was popular with the majority it would still be unacceptable IMO due to it's infringments on personal freedom.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

No-one is suggesting that we do away with democracy. But I think there are a couple of things in play here.

The majority has been grossly mislead about a lot of things.

The system we have gives privileges to some and not to others, based on something the individual has no control over; sex and sexual preference. Democracy isn't about awarding everyone equal privileges (apart from, I suppose, a way to voice opinions), but we don't live in a true democracy anyway, and I don't think one even exists. The point is, we shouldn't just arbitrarily let these things happen because "majority says so". It's just absurd to let this happen, when one way leaves a minority of people disadvantaged, and the other only hurts some people's sensibilities.

The majority, as I said, was mislead anyway.

 

[Maestro]

Analogies are slippery things, no?

Since in this case the majority would be those against gay marriage (or didn't you know, the majority of the US voted for Lincoln?).

That means the secessionists would be the homosexuals.

Please don't insult me with analogy, it's a refuge for those without solid ground to stand on.

As to my views on gay marriage? I don't give a ****. It's not a threat to me either way. Then again I'm apathetic on any issue that does not affect me directly.

As to "voting to exterminate Jews"? That's idiotic. That analogy magnifies the importance of gay marriage several orders of magnitude above its actual importance. Not only that but few people in 1940 actually knew what the Nazis were doing with the Jews as well as the fact that the threat of force was brought against those that objected.

None of that is the case here.

In short: please provide me a solid reason as to why we should disregard the majority of the people and established governmental practice for one issue which, in reality, is a red herring to bigger issues (economy, national policy, the shit that actually effects the world at large).

Of course I don't expect that, I just expect to be called a gay-hating rightwing son-of-a-bitch without an ounce of gray matter between his ears. This is the internet after all.

 

[Mr Stabby]

People should be free to do what they want unless there actions interfere with the rights of others. Gays getting married doesn't affect anyone. Therefore there is no good reason why they should be forbidden to do so.

The purpose of the bill of rights in the US constitution is to ensure that people have certain rights that can't be altered by a democratically elected government.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

The majority simply shouldn't be allowed to vote to take away a minorities freedom, just because they don't like it. If this were a matter of speedy driving or something, then it would make more sense; speeding can put others at risk.

There's no sense to there being any inequality here, or allowing this to become the law just because they happened to rally more support this time.


As for it being a red herring. I disagree. I'm not sure how you measure importance. I couldn't really say what issue is more important to humanity or just the US. But I think this issue is important as far as liberty in the US goes.

 

[Maestro]

The majority simply shouldn't be allowed to vote to take away a minorities freedom, just because they don't like it. If this were a matter of speedy driving or something, then it would make more sense; speeding can put others at risk.

There's no sense to there being any inequality here, or allowing this to become the law just because they happened to rally more support this time.


As for it being a red herring. I disagree. I'm not sure how you measure importance. I couldn't really say what issue is more important to humanity or just the US. But I think this issue is important as far as liberty in the US goes.

You make a semisolid point at the end, but your beginning is marred by a warped perception.

What you're saying is that we should disregard democratic process in deciding the definition of civil liberty. That didn't happen with the 1770s, the 1860s, or the 1960s. Why should we disregard majority rule now? Especially when those directly effected by the change are such a tiny minority.

People should be free to do what they want unless there actions interfere with the rights of others. Gays getting married doesn't affect anyone. Therefore there is no good reason why they should be forbidden to do so.

The purpose of the bill of rights in the US constitution is to ensure that people have certain rights that can't be altered by a democratically elected government.

I agree, but disregarding due process of law for it is idiotic. Change takes time, and expecting an enormous lurch in a different direction for a minority of people is not something you can expect. The next public poll will probably be in favor.

P.S.

This is not something to be proud of

Did I say it was? I'm a cynic in every sense of the word, and I see no point in exercising influence when an issue holds no sway over me.

In closing for this post:

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

 

[Mr Stabby]

Out of interest, what's your view on the US constitution?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Look, I'm not saying we should disregard the democratic process. I'm saying that, by default, we should all have the same liberties. The majority shouldn't be allowed to take them away, just because they want to. If it's a matter of protecting the public, then that's different. But that is not what this is.

The majority could say "We don't think Maestro should be allowed to eat his favourite food anymore, because he eats with his fingers and we just think that's wrong". It's ridiculous, and so is this issue.

 

[Maestro]

Look, I'm not saying we should disregard the democratic process. I'm saying that, by default, we should all have the same liberties. The majority shouldn't be allowed to take them away, just because they want to. If it's a matter of protecting the public, then that's different. But that is not what this is.

The majority could say "We don't think Maestro should be allowed to eat his favourite food anymore, because he eats with his fingers and we just think that's wrong". It's ridiculous, and so is this issue.

You are saying we should disregard democratic process. You're saying that your view is the right one (and not that I disagree). That concept at its very core is undemocratic. Orwell had it down when he said truth is subjective to the majority's viewpoint. I could also go into how that analogy doesn't hold up, but I'd prefer to avoid more dirty-fighting to prove my point.

Also, to draw historical perspective, civil liberties never came about when the minority wanted it. Only when the majority did. Sit tight, another ten years and the majority will be your side. Keep promoting and such, but don't expect people to say "Oh man! You're right we should let gays marry!" and immediately change their vote.

And Toaster, your view is satirical, but you raise an extremely valid point. If you want change, make yourself heard. I personally don't give a shit about gay rights (as I said before, it doesn't effect me) but I do advocate writing your appointed delegate and participating in a demonstration if it matters enough for you. That's why the 1960s civil rights movement was successful, the minority influenced the majority's opinion just enough to shift things into a favorable balance.

I will PM you my views on the Constitution, I would prefer to keep that out of this debate.

 

[lord_raken]

You are saying we should disregard democratic process. You're saying that your view is the right one (and not that I disagree). That concept at its very core is undemocratic. Orwell had it down when he said truth is subjective to the majority's viewpoint. I could also go into how that analogy doesn't hold up, but I'd prefer to avoid more dirty-fighting to prove my point.

Also, to draw historical perspective, civil liberties never came about when the minority wanted it. Only when the majority did. Sit tight, another ten years and the majority will be your side. Keep promoting and such, but don't expect people to say "Oh man! You're right we should let gays marry!" and immediately change their vote.

And Toaster, your view is satirical, but you raise an extremely valid point. If you want change, make yourself heard. I personally don't give a shit about gay rights (as I said before, it doesn't effect me) but I do advocate writing your appointed delegate and participating in a demonstration if it matters enough for you. That's why the 1960s civil rights movement was successful, the minority influenced the majority's opinion just enough to shift things into a favorable balance.

I will PM you my views on the Constitution, I would prefer to keep that out of this debate.

What is happening here is that there is a disconnect between your arguments. In general majority rule is the way our country is run ans should not be overturned, but there are previsions in the constitution that prevent the majority from violating the rights or taking unfair advantage of the minorities.

The disconnect here is that Sparrow considers the right of same sex couples to join in a union that unites them under the law should not be withheld from them. I think that this is a reasonable position. If two people want to enter into a Civil Union for all the reasons (insurance, hospital visitation, shared property exe.) then I think that should be allowed and protected... its all paperwork to the government and makes no difference when tax season comes.. so why should the Government care? A same sex couple has not practical difference in the eyes of the government from a heterosexual couple there for denying one type of couple the rights another type has free access to would be considered unconstitutional. But is matter very much to the couples who don't have these rights.

Maestro: It does not affect you, and only captain stern thinks democracy should be overthrown. Now if they were suggesting that the majority vote be discounted then I would be arguing against them, but I don't think that is what they are saying.

If the religious people (all religions, which are allowed to preform marriages) want Marriage only to apply to people joined in a union preformed by a priest that's fine. Let them, there will be many churches will to preform same sex marriages. Let them keep their values, let them keep their freedom to believe what they want.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Distinguishing 'liberty' from 'democracy' is an interesting move to make and a good debate to have. But there is a way to short circuit it here.

That is to say that as far as I can see the right to marriage for gay people would be necessarily extended under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. And without going through the due process of changing that document, even the sovereign people can't just vote in an unconstitutional measure without it being removed by a judge (we hope). That is a specific and legalistic issue, so not that interesting, but I believe it stands up.

 

[Shyam]

Good, the thought of same sex marriage sickens me.

Folks, this guy does not speak for every New Zealander.

 

[Maestro]

Distinguishing 'liberty' from 'democracy' is an interesting move to make and a good debate to have. But there is a way to short circuit it here.

That is to say that as far as I can see the right to marriage for gay people would be necessarily extended under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. And without going through the due process of changing that document, even the sovereign people can't just vote in an unconstitutional measure without it being removed by a judge (we hope). That is a specific and legalistic issue, so not that interesting, but I believe it stands up.

Fine by me. So long as due process of law is preserved.

 

[Saturos]

What do you tell them when you see a man and a woman french kissing intimately?

All I'm asking is that they keep their sex lives private, just as heterosexual couples are supposed to do. I'm not for taking away their rights just because they are different or anything so long as they don't hurt or step on anyone else's toes in the process then there's nothing wrong with legalizing gay marriage imo. That's not for anybody to judge if it's right or wrong.

Yes, let us bow to the whims of stupidity and ignorance - after all, it is the majority.

Yes, let the mass majority be stupid if they want to, then let the senate majority with degrees decide. ammirite?

Feel free to quote my sig if you want, I know you want to Salmon.

 

[Shyam]

Fine by me. So long as due process of law is preserved.

Due Process can mean many things. When Saudi Arabian government passes new legislation to restrict more of women's rights they are said to be following due process according to Sharia law.

 

[Maestro]

Due Process can mean many things. When Saudi Arabian government passes new legislation to restrict more of women's rights they are said to be following due process according to Sharia law.

That's great.

Saudis aren't a democracy.

Due process of law here in the USA (which is the area of discussion) means the majority votes on it or the courts decide on it. That's how a constitutional democracy works: due process of law, the definition of which is clearly spelled out in a constitution.

Please refrain from insulting our intelligence with baseless analogy. I've already shot it down twice and I shouldn't have to keep doing it.

 

[Captain M4d]

Just an FYI, a 1917 people's veto repealed women's suffrage in Maine. Granted, the right was given back two years later, but I just want to show everyone that this isn't the first time people's rights have been voted on in Maine.

Also, I completely disagree with the granting homosexuals civil unions, because it supports the idea that gays are "separate, but equal." Marriage is both a religious and civil term. The Maine bill allowed any religious group the right to refuse to perform any of these marriages, so it shouldn't have been a problem, but Stand for Marriage Maine's major talking point was that if same-sex marriage is legalized, it will be taught in schools, and anal sex will be taught to third graders. I'm not kidding. This is how they won.

 

[Wanted Bob]

All I'm asking is that they keep their sex lives private, just as heterosexual couples are supposed to do. I'm not for taking away their rights just because they are different or anything so long as they don't hurt or step on anyone else's toes in the process then there's nothing wrong with legalizing gay marriage imo. That's not for anybody to judge if it's right or wrong.

Well, I dont know about you, but homosexual couples I have seen are no more openly intimate than heterosexual couples, maybe even less so (but that could be do to the fact that there are more heterosexual couples in general).

 

[Captain M4d]

That's actually very similar to what happened in California with Proposition 8 in the 2008 election. The ads were nothing about same sex marriage at all; they were about children coming home with storybooks called The Two Princes. It's pretty disgusting.

Well, would you be surprised to hear that the same people were behind most of the Maine campaign?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7BTtw5kqE

And the same people are going to hit Iowa next.

 

[unozero]

In other other words: I'm my afraid my child will turn in to a ****** if someone mentions gay marriage around him/her.


Some people just should not have children jeez.

 

[Darkside55]

That's actually very similar to what happened in California with Proposition 8 in the 2008 election. The ads were nothing about same sex marriage at all; they were about children coming home with storybooks called The Two Princes. It's pretty disgusting.

I don't know about you, but I'd totally read a book called The Two Princes. Instead of a valiant prince saving a helpless princess from a dragon, two awesome princes would ride up on their majestic steeds (or maybe even UNICORNS!) and slay that fucker with expertly-executed swordsmanship!

And then they'd make out.

God that book would be so manly.

 

[15357]

I don't know about you, but I'd totally read a book called The Two Princes. Instead of a valiant prince saving a helpless princess from a dragon, two awesome princes would ride up on their majestic steeds (or maybe even UNICORNS!) and slay that fucker with expertly-executed swordsmanship!

And then they'd make out.

God that book would be so manly.

Which reminds me of a book (or rather, a collection of stories) that I once read.

The princess rides up in a dragon, slays the giant horse-monster, saves the prince, and rapes him.

 

[Darkside55]

Please tell me you remember what that book was called.

 

[15357]

'Tis unfortunate, but no. It was Korean anyway. Something like Hero... Legend something.

 

[Darkside55]

Dang. That book almost sounded as cool as The Two Princes.

 

[15357]

Well, not as much, I suppose. But still... It had a story in which Superman is a white supremacist and Batman is his gay enforcer who ... "has intimate knowledge" of Robin in front of the UN. Don't remember the ending though.


I need to go find it. It should be around here somewhere. Too many books around.

 

[CptStern]

I put "ownership" like this "ownership", because of course they don't own it, but they feel entitled to it, and by taking your stance, you're only going to make them feel more righteous and fight harder. Compromise is not evil.

despite appearances I'm not out to convince the religious that what they believe in is funamentally wrong. nor do I believe that someone's opinion hinges entirely on what other people say

What right is it to say you're married? The right here isn't that people can't say they're married, but that they can't have a partnership under the law that is equal to a marriage between a man and a woman.

If everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals all have Civil Partnerships, according to the law, then it becomes equal. You can call it whatever you want. It takes it out of the hands of the church entirely. It wouldn't be called a "marriage" in the law books anymore. It would just be a Civil Partnership, and the word marriage would essentially become the colloquial term for it and that's it.

I dont agree that conceding to the demands of religious groups is the right thing to do. You're asking that we should completely overhaul an insittution based on the demands of small but vocal group who want to deny the same rights and freedoms of another group based entirely on gender. this doesnt sit right with me. More importantly this will also affect those who are already married. their certificate clearly says "marriage license". you're asking that regardless of circumstance, current titles should be made null and void and impose a government sanctioned title in it's place. all on the wishes of a small segment of the popullation who would not ion any way shape or form be affected by giving them the same rights they currently enjoy. it's basically institutionalizing bigotry


why not just allow the same rights/titles afforded to heterosexual couples? that seems to be the simplest solution


I dont see why it HAS to be changed entirely so that it's equal for all. why not just include everyone in an already established tradition and instittution: marriage. this is what it is in canada. there is no "civil union" "civil partnership" there's "marriage" and that's all. the government issues you a license and you have whatever ceremony you want so long as it's officiated by someone who's qualified. no one is forced to perform anything or change their religious rules to be inslusive of gays. this is really the simplest solution.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The idea of making marriage an act of law and government in isolation, and of church ceremonies being 'icing on the cake', so to speak, with nothing to do with your legal status, is a sound one as far as I can see. But the term 'civil union' or 'civil partnership' is problematic. It doesn't have the same meaning and history for people as the word 'marriage' and, being different and euphemistic, it looks pretty exclusionary. This may seem to be a matter of mere terminology, but terminology is important.

Let's remember that 'marriage' not a purely Christian or even religious term. Marriage rituals exist in pretty much all human societies. So why not call a legally binding marriage a marriage, and then, if in addition you want to have a specifically Christian marriage (or indeed an Islamic or a Pagan one, or one of a specific Christian denomination), you can. Which is what Stern says the situation is in Canada.

 

[lord_raken]

Does the government really need to have its hand in the spiritual and emotional aspects, though? Personally I think that for any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, the government should only be concerned with the formalities and legal aspects of the event, and I've no problem with just receiving a "civil partnership" certificate. I think by separating marriage from the piece of paper you get from the government, you strengthen the act rather than cheapen it. Marriage goes from being a legal act with emotional connotations to an entirely personal or spiritual act. Consider how many homosexual couples will state without hesitating that they know they're married without having a piece of paper telling them as much; the deeper meaning of marriage can't be taken way just by removing the government from the affair.

Exactly! To most people Marriage is a spiritual bonding between two people... holy even. To the government its just combining two people in to one financial identity that they tax. I think these two SHOULD be separate see how they have NOTHING to do with the other. Just have it so that the government will grant the same rights to both types of unions.

I agree. Terminology IS important. So lets call Marriage preformed by a judge or someone of a position not associated with a religion a Civil Marriage and those that are preformed by a religions priest just call them Marriage. I know there are people who DON'T want to get married in a church on account of them being Atheist but would still call is marriage.

Also, for those who would still have the government define Marriage. If you give the government the power to forbid churches from preforming Marriage ceremonies for homosexual couple then they can also FORCE you to marry homosexual couples. Do you really want the Government dictating your religious practices? Giving this power to the government is a double edged sword... it can cut against you. Not to mention this clearly violates the Constitution.

 

[CptStern]

Does the government really need to have its hand in the spiritual and emotional aspects, though?

so we'll just let couples determine whether they should get married despite being blood relatives? how about minors? what about when the couple get divorced? who's entitled to what? if they're not legally married there's no way of knowing who's entitled to what. the government has to be in there somewhere

Personally I think that for any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, the government should only be concerned with the formalities and legal aspects of the event, and I've no problem with just receiving a "civil partnership" certificate.

you're not currently married so it's not a big deal. however even if it's a title there's no way I'm changing it to appease anyone. it's the principle of the thing. I'm not giving it up on the say of someone else. they have no right over what I do with my life

I think by separating marriage from the piece of paper you get from the government, you strengthen the act rather than cheapen it.

Marriage goes from being a legal act with emotional connotations to an entirely personal or spiritual act.

it's been a legal act since the middle ages, much for the reasons I listed above. this legal "tradition" is just as valid as a religious tradition.

Consider how many homosexual couples will state without hesitating that they know they're married without having a piece of paper telling them as much;

they're just not called that because that's reserved for straight couples because some group said so ....how is this not discrimination? and it's easy for you to simply give away someone elses riughts. I bet if your rights were threatened you wouldnt want someone deciding for you as you are doing

the deeper meaning of marriage can't be taken way just by removing the government from the affair.

I still dont see why it would have to be removed. there is no good reason why it should be removed

 

[CptStern]

Exactly! To most people Marriage is a spiritual bonding between two people... holy even.

how can you possibly know this? I'm married and so are many of my friends and relatives. not a single on eof them think their marriage is "holy".

To the government its just combining two people in to one financial identity that they tax.

nope. their involvement starts with issuing a license; so that minors, blood relatives etc do not get married ..would you rather it was in the hands of the religious organisations? for example; orthodox jewish men like their wives to be very young so that they can push out the maximum amount of kids before age makes them infertile. without the government sanctioned marriage license who says the rabbi would look the other way when he notices the bride may be a minor. it's certainly happened before

I think these two SHOULD be separate see how they have NOTHING to do with the other. Just have it so that the government will grant the same rights to both types of unions.

seperate but equal is NOT equal

I agree. Terminology IS important. So lets call Marriage preformed by a judge or someone of a position not associated with a religion a Civil Marriage and those that are preformed by a religions priest just call them Marriage.

why? why should I allow you to change what I and so many already take for granted? why should you or anyone like you decide what I do with my life? you'd take away the title of hundreds of thousands of peopel just because some christian somewhere doesnt like gays? this is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion and I cant so many of you are ok with this! **** reigious groups. NO CONCESSIONS

I know there are people who DON'T want to get married in a church on account of them being Atheist but would still call is marriage.

how can they call it a marriage when you just said it's not a marriage it's a civil union?

Also, for those who would still have the government define Marriage.

government does not define marriage, they put limits on who can be married. that is all. it's up to the churches and institutions of marriage to define marriage. in christianity gays cant get married but in the united church (a christian religion) they CAN get married. so it's not the government who is defining marriage it's individual groups

If you give the government the power to forbid churches from preforming Marriage ceremonies for homosexual couple then they can also FORCE you to marry homosexual couples.

Do you really want the Government dictating your religious practices? Giving this power to the government is a double edged sword... it can cut against you. Not to mention this clearly violates the Constitution.

[/quote]

you're talking slippery slope nonsense. no church can be forced to do anything. in canada where same sex marriage is legal, the government does not force muslims or christians or pastafarians to marry everyone. this is just misinformation pushed by the alarmists who would fearmonger people into a set position. this has never been true so stop propagating it as if it's fact when it's not

 

[Sulkdodds]

If the government names them anything at all then it has its hand in the emotional resonance of the words. And to me the words 'civil partnership' are a little insulting. They suggest something which is not a true or ordinary marriage. instead it is of a different class, mostly the same but just a little bit different. This only plays into the hands of the Christian "definition of marriage" argument; apparently marriage is between a man and a woman and something with a different name is required for Adam and Steve (or Amy and Eve).

The point is that gay people shouldn't have to use an additional legal structure grafted onto marriage law (the 'civil partnership'). They should be holistically included in a marriage law which regards a secular marriage at a town hall to be exactly as legitimate as a religious marriage, or even one which demands a secular marriage before a religious marriage happens (people would be free to regard that one as the 'real' one).

Or, if what you say about the independence of marriage from government is true*, then terminology should go in the opposite direction. 'Marriage' should be legally referred to as Identity Algamation for Tax Purposes (IATP). But none of this civil partnership stuff, I think.

*Dunno if it is. Seems pretty significant to me to render yourself up to all the coercive power of the modern State and say "yes, we are one person for material money purposes".

 

[CptStern]

sulky you have a knack for cutting through the chaff and getting right to the heart of the matter. nicely put

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Too many quotes for me to bother replying to everything individually.

You're right, Dodds, that terminology is important. I didn't actually consider "Civil partnership" to be insulting at all, but perhaps it is to some.

Stern, I'm not suggesting that you have your marriage certificate amended or taken away. That would be stupid. I'm saying that I think it would be reasonable to, in the law books, change title from "Marriage". We don't have to have it as "Civil Partnership". That just happens to the the common term I hear for these unions.

This would not be one rule for some, and another rule for others. This would make the legalistic side of marriage equal for everyone, it just wouldn't be called marriage. I'm not offended by this idea, but apparently you are. This wouldn't stop anyone from being married. You don't need a government certificate to tell you that.

 

[VirusType2]

I think it should be called the 'Agree to Get Divorced One Day, Or Die Trying' Certificate.

 

[CptStern]

yes you do. you are not married unless you can produce a marriage license. the government would have to go through the trouble of changing every single document that contains the word "marriage" with "civil union" just to placate a minority of the population. this is like using a nuke to blow up an ant hill. it's much easier, it' makes much more sense to just grant EVERYONE a marriage license and let individuals decide what ceremony they want. that way government washes it's hands of responsibility as to who should be allowed to get married within each community. a blanket law for ALL is much more prudent that sepcial considerations for certain segments of the poulation. and yes you dont have a problem with it because you're not married. you dont know how it is to lose something if you never had it in the first place

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Stern brings out the "I know what I'm talking about and you don't" routine. It's old. Come on.
But you know, no, I'm not attached to the word like you are. I'm young and open to new ideas.

Still, once again, I did not say that you would have your marriage taken away, or your license amended.
Governments quite routine change the language in documents.

 

[CptStern]

Stern brings out the "I know what I'm talking about and you don't" routine. It's old. Come on.

only because you see it that way. you're far too defensive imho. I could easily point to the fact that you're commenting more on my character than the contents of my post because my reply was anything but "shuddup youngling, I know what I'm talking about"

But you know, no, I'm not attached to the word like you are. I'm young and open to new ideas.

because it doest affect you in any way. so what's to be upset about? ask your parents if they're ok with recinding their marriage title. also you managed to slip in an insult as to my age. you're not the only one who can say "a routine, it's old, come on"

Still, once again, I did not say that you would have your marriage taken away, or your license amended.
Governments quite routine change the language in documents.

yes you are because I didnt get married in a church so by your definition I'm in a civil union. which is bullshit because there is no such thing in canada. I'm married. period. there is no distinction

and you say it's no big deal for governments to change documents. but why should they have to? I have yet to hear any convincing argument that supports separating civil union from marriage that doesnt involve some form of discrimination. it's based on gender, this alone is ample proof of it being discriminatory