PDA

View Full Version : What is the CA govenor thinking??



garhkal
07-22-2014, 08:00 PM
Saw this on GOP USA, but its also on fox news, where the CA govenor signed into law a new bill removing all references to "Husband and wife" from marriage laws, birth certificates etc.

What the heck is wrong with this picture??????????


http://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/cal.-governor-signs-bill-to-remove-husband-and-wife-from-state-laws-on-fami

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/california-bill-replacing-words-husband-wife-in-marriage-law-signed-by-gov/

Least its not as bad as some other places removing 'father and mother' from birth certificates, and replacing them with Progenitor a and Progenitor B.

hustonj
07-22-2014, 09:36 PM
He's probably wondering why the California Legislature wasted their time to create and pass the bill in the first place, but figuring he's going to get less negative press for sgning the stupid thing than for sitting on it or trying to send it back.

Don't blame the Executive for Legislative decisions.

Measure Man
07-22-2014, 11:10 PM
What the heck is wrong with this picture??????????

I give up...what is wrong with changing the language in state documents to have them make sense for now legal same-sex marriage?

LogDog
07-23-2014, 12:11 AM
Saw this on GOP USA, but its also on fox news, where the CA govenor signed into law a new bill removing all references to "Husband and wife" from marriage laws, birth certificates etc.

What the heck is wrong with this picture??????????


http://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/cal.-governor-signs-bill-to-remove-husband-and-wife-from-state-laws-on-fami

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/california-bill-replacing-words-husband-wife-in-marriage-law-signed-by-gov/

Least its not as bad as some other places removing 'father and mother' from birth certificates, and replacing them with Progenitor a and Progenitor B.
What's wrong with this picture? Why don't you tell us your opinion since you started this thread.

I have no problem with this and I live in California. With Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional by the SC the question is how do you identify the individuals on a marriage certificate if the couple is gay? Since marriage in California is no longer limited to just a man and a woman, the terms "husband" and "wife" are only applicable for heterosexual marriages and discriminates against gay marriages. The change only notes who the spouses are and not their gender.

Also, consider this scenario, a county clerk, who believes only in heterosexual marriage, could cause a gay couple more problems by refusing to list one of the gay couples as being listed as a husband or wife since the gender for a husband is male and female for the wife. If you had another marriage certificate for gays that lists just spouses then that same clerk could cause problems by not ordering the marriage forms that list spouse instead of husband and wife. The clerk could use the bureaucracy to impose their beliefs upon others.

Max Power
07-23-2014, 04:19 AM
Oh no! A completely unbiased website called GOP USA says that the left is to blame for all of the bad things in our country.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcNwwjz3S1PolA3T4wBA-Ss7jfctIAs_zgpR9_v_OuKagMGirp

garhkal
07-23-2014, 07:44 AM
I give up...what is wrong with changing the language in state documents to have them make sense for now legal same-sex marriage?

Then why not ammend it to INCLUDE same sex partner speech, not do away with regular speech (man-wife) for those still doing regular marriages?


What's wrong with this picture? Why don't you tell us your opinion since you started this thread.

To me its the rule of the minority, over the majority. Around 2% of the pop are gay, so why is it that the majority have to cater to them? THAT is what i hate about crap like this.
Also it is telling the populous, it doesn't matter what YOU think or vote.

Stalwart
07-23-2014, 10:33 AM
To me its the rule of the minority, over the majority. Around 2% of the pop are gay, so why is it that the majority have to cater to them?

Yes and no. I think the majority of people in the U.S. are heterosexual. I don't know if the majority of people in the U.S. really care about the verbiage on a marriage or birth certificate.


Also it is telling the populous, it doesn't matter what YOU think or vote.

I think if the people spoke with their vote they could always vote the governor out of office.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 12:26 PM
I think if the people spoke with their vote they could always vote the governor out of office.It is California. We voted on many laws and resolutions and several of the "big" ones were overturned by the courts.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 12:28 PM
Then why not ammend it to INCLUDE same sex partner speech, not do away with regular speech (man-wife) for those still doing regular marriages?



Exactly. And, again, I'll repeat a point I've made several times. There wouldn't be an issue like this if government wasn't involved in marriage in the first place. To have anyone determine what is a legal and illegal marriage is the dumbest thing ever. And for people to care if their marriage is "recognized" or not is the second dumbest thing ever.

Stalwart
07-23-2014, 01:24 PM
It is California. We voted on many laws and resolutions and several of the "big" ones were overturned by the courts.

Laws still have to be Constitutional.

I won't argue that a court in CA is likely to interpret the law differently than a court in MS or LA.

Stalwart
07-23-2014, 01:28 PM
Exactly. And, again, I'll repeat a point I've made several times. There wouldn't be an issue like this if government wasn't involved in marriage in the first place. To have anyone determine what is a legal and illegal marriage is the dumbest thing ever. And for people to care if their marriage is "recognized" or not is the second dumbest thing ever.

I agree with you that really ... IF government was not involved a lot of conflict would be avoided. The reality is that government IS involved and that is unlikely to change.

socal1200r
07-23-2014, 02:15 PM
CA is one screwed up state, and I was born there. 'Course the LGBT mafia is very strong out there in the land of fruits and nuts, and they were able to find a sympathetic gay judge who overturned Prop 8, which was approved by a majority of CA voters. So much for the will of the people. And you know darn well that if this situation was reversed, in that Prop 8 approved same-sex marriage, and a judge overturned it, the LGBT mafia would be screeching and having hissy fits to no end. And of course they have a Gov and Attorney General who refuse to defend the laws of the state, and instead interpret said laws to suit their own agendas. Very sad state of affairs on the left coast...

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 04:00 PM
Then why not ammend it to INCLUDE same sex partner speech, not do away with regular speech (man-wife) for those still doing regular marriages?

The term "spouse" includes everyone, does it not?

Are you really offended by the term Spouse...or are you just mad that same-sex couples are going to be less awkward?

Are you offended that Military Wife of the Year is now Spouse of the Year? Or that the Wives Club became the Spouses Club to include male spouses?

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 04:00 PM
the LGBT mafia would be screeching and having hissy fits to no end...

You mean like you guys are doing now?

LogDog
07-23-2014, 06:27 PM
To me its the rule of the minority, over the majority. Around 2% of the pop are gay, so why is it that the majority have to cater to them? THAT is what i hate about crap like this.
The marriage certificate is one of the few contracts that requires listing of the genders of the parties to the contract. As I stated previously, husband referred to males and wife referred to females since marriage was limited to heterosexual couples. People have evolved in their thinking and recognition of marriage to include same sex couples. Because of this, gay marriage is now legal in California and the government forms listing "husband" and "wife" doesn't fit into the traditional concept of "husband" and "wife." The change to "spouse" doesn't devalue the meaning of the marriage certificate (contract) for either heterosexual or same sex couples because it treats both as equals.



Also it is telling the populous, it doesn't matter what YOU think or vote.
You're still upset that Prop 8, which was approved by the voters, was overturned. It doesn't matter what the voters want if what they voted for was unconstitutional. The Constitution is there to protect the individual from both the whims of the majority and the minority when those actions are discriminator and in conflict with the Constitutional. In the case of Prop 8, the Supreme Court found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution and unjustly discriminated against a portion of the population.

socal1200r
07-23-2014, 06:49 PM
You mean like you guys are doing now?

I know you are, but what am I...infinity...lol...you need to come up with some new material...

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 07:36 PM
Laws still have to be Constitutional.

I won't argue that a court in CA is likely to interpret the law differently than a court in MS or LA.That's why, before wasting time and money on such things, they should determine if they are "Constitutional" or not.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 07:39 PM
The term "spouse" includes everyone, does it not?

Are you really offended by the term Spouse...or are you just mad that same-sex couples are going to be less awkward?

Are you offended that Military Wife of the Year is now Spouse of the Year? Or that the Wives Club became the Spouses Club to include male spouses?If I want mine to say Husband and Wife it should be up to me. Why does it have to be legislated? With my religious beliefs, the term "wife" comes with certain obligations, as does the term "husband". Nowhere in my religion is the term "spouse" used. To force me to use the term "spouse" on official government documents (that shouldn't play any part in it anyway) is taking away my freedom of religion.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 07:43 PM
If I want mine to say Husband and Wife it should be up to me. Why does it have to be legislated? With my religious beliefs, the term "wife" comes with certain obligations, as does the term "husband". Nowhere in my religion is the term "spouse" used. To force me to use the term "spouse" on official government documents (that shouldn't play any part in it anyway) is taking away my freedom of religion.

Holy cow.

Your freedom of religion is hampered by the terms you are forced to use on state forms?

If a house purchase contract says "purchaser" do you insist it say "Purchaser husband" and "purchaser wife"?

Sorry...a little too politically correct for me.

Yes, we need a form for spouses...another form for husband and wife...maybe another that says both husband...and another that says wife and wife....oh, then we can get one that says mistress and mister...maybe one that says dom and sub...

I hope you're just being passive aggressive or something and not really serious.

hustonj
07-23-2014, 07:54 PM
That's why, before wasting time and money on such things, they should determine if they are "Constitutional" or not.

Not how the system is designed.

The system assumes that all laws are Constitutional UNTIL CHALLANGED by someone whose COnstitutional rights are being violated under the enforcement of that law.

ONLY THEN does the system consider whether the law is Constitutional or not.

garhkal
07-23-2014, 08:04 PM
Yes and no. I think the majority of people in the U.S. are heterosexual. I don't know if the majority of people in the U.S. really care about the verbiage on a marriage or birth certificate.

So you are saying you would have no problem, being listed as "doner A" rather than Father" on your son or daughter's birth certificate?


It is California. We voted on many laws and resolutions and several of the "big" ones were overturned by the courts.

Which makes me wonder, why even have the vote, if its going to get overturned by the courts?
Why make people go through the rigamarole of a vote if you know its going to get challenged and overturned?


The term "spouse" includes everyone, does it not?

What i am offended at is that a very small minority, is getting to dictate to the majority what is right.

What's the purpose of having a democracy, when we are letting the Minority decide what is or is not going to be right? Is that not the OPPOSITE of what a democracy is supposed to be?


Holy cow.

Your freedom of religion is hampered by the terms you are forced to use on state forms?

Sorry...a little too politically correct for me.

I hope you're just being passive aggressive or something and not really serious.

Measure, to ME (and it seems sandjames too), it is too PC that we are being forced to have our religious beliefs ignored (husband and wife), to appease a small minority of people (the lgbt community).

Are you really offended by the term Spouse...or are you just mad that same-sex couples are going to be less awkward?

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 08:07 PM
Holy cow.

Your freedom of religion is hampered by the terms you are forced to use on state forms?

If a house purchase contract says "purchaser" do you insist it say "Purchaser husband" and "purchaser wife"?

Sorry...a little too politically correct for me.

Yes, we need a form for spouses...another form for husband and wife...maybe another that says both husband...and another that says wife and wife....oh, then we can get one that says mistress and mister...maybe one that says dom and sub...

I hope you're just being passive aggressive or something and not really serious. If the government insists on being part of marriages then they should have to respect my wishes on what I want on my marriage license/certificate, whether it say partner, spouse, husband, etc. Yes, the religious comment I made was sattire...

I know it's difficult to have a couple different forms on a computer when they print these things out. Wouldn't want to stress out the courthouse when I file for the documents.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 08:10 PM
Not how the system is designed.

The system assumes that all laws are Constitutional UNTIL CHALLANGED by someone whose COnstitutional rights are being violated under the enforcement of that law.

ONLY THEN does the system consider whether the law is Constitutional or not.

I know how it DOES work. I'm saying how it SHOULD work. Why waste all that damn time and money on campainging, ads, voting ballots, etc...months and months, when it's not going to be allowed. Raise a resolution or law, have it be determined whether it's constitutional or not, then go ahead with the voting.

I know that we don't want common sense to come into play in this situation...change is bad...bad!!!!

LogDog
07-23-2014, 08:11 PM
If I want mine to say Husband and Wife it should be up to me. Why does it have to be legislated? With my religious beliefs, the term "wife" comes with certain obligations, as does the term "husband". Nowhere in my religion is the term "spouse" used. To force me to use the term "spouse" on official government documents (that shouldn't play any part in it anyway) is taking away my freedom of religion.
At what point did your religion become the standard by which the state of California has to operate under?

As has been pointed out before when the topic of gay marriage was discussed, marriage is a usually a two-part event. One part religious (for those choosing a religious ceremony) and one part civil. It is the state (civil) that issues the marriage certificate, not the religious affiliation, and they can amend anything on the certificate as they seem fit. Any certificate from your church legitimizes the marriage only in the eyes of your church.

The marriage certificate from the state legalizes the marriage between the two individuals in the eyes of the civil authorities. Not all churches, just like the states, are in agreement with gay marriage. However, California does recognize gay marriage and that the marriage is equal to that of heterosexual marriages. To have one member of the marriage identified as "husband" or "wife" with the gender connotation that goes with it would be discriminatory and degrading to the same sex couple. To remove that stigma, the use of the term "spouse" imposes no gender connotation and makes both parties in the marriage "equals" on the marriage certificate.

Now, if your religion has a problem with recognizing people as being equals then you should be asking why you belong to that religion.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 08:15 PM
At what point did your religion become the standard by which the state of California has to operate under? The state doesn't have to operate under my religion. I don't think that wanting the word "Husband" used is forcing them to do so.


As has been pointed out before when the topic of gay marriage was discussed, marriage is a usually a two-part event. One part religious (for those choosing a religious ceremony) and one part civil. It is the state (civil) that issues the marriage certificate, not the religious affiliation, and they can amend anything on the certificate as they seem fit. Any certificate from your church legitimizes the marriage only in the eyes of your church.Thanks for the lesson...and it's not the certificate from the church...it's the ceremony and the vows. The certificate is strictly for "legal" reasons.


The marriage certificate from the state legalizes the marriage between the two individuals in the eyes of the civil authorities. Not all churches, just like the states, are in agreement with gay marriage. However, California does recognize gay marriage and that the marriage is equal to that of heterosexual marriages. To have one member of the marriage identified as "husband" or "wife" with the gender connotation that goes with it would be discriminatory and degrading to the same sex couple. To remove that stigma, the use of the term "spouse" imposes no gender connotation and makes both parties in the marriage "equals" on the marriage certificate.

Now, if your religion has a problem with recognizing people as being equals then you should be asking why you belong to that religion.I agree...they do recognize gay marriage. That's fine. It's a shame they don't want to recognize straight marriage, though, by getting rid of terms that "traditional" couples may want...even though I don't mind if people use the term "spouse" or whatever, it's not what I want on mine.

Also...I'd like to say that I think the term "spouse" is highly offensive. It sounds to me like a word used for a business deal. It's a word that takes any gender out of the relationship. That's my opinion. If others want to use the word spouse..that's great. I'm not going to try to stop it...or even care.


What's sad is that many people are considered "anti-gay" marriage when in fact they are only "pro-traditional" marriage. Two separate things completely. Why is it that I'm no longer allowed to consider myself "pro-traditional" without being labeled "anti-gay".

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 08:19 PM
Now, if your religion has a problem with recognizing people as being equals then you should be asking why you belong to that religion.I think it's funny that anybody considers anyone equally. Should we be treated the same, yes...but no two people are equal.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 08:21 PM
Yes, the religious comment I made was sattire...

Okay...then I won't drag this out any longer :D

LogDog
07-23-2014, 08:22 PM
If the government insists on being part of marriages then they should have to respect my wishes on what I want on my marriage license/certificate, whether it say partner, spouse, husband, etc. Yes, the religious comment I made was sattire...

I know it's difficult to have a couple different forms on a computer when they print these things out. Wouldn't want to stress out the courthouse when I file for the documents.
The government has an interest in that they are the ones who recognize what a marriage is in terms of what legal rights the individuals are granted under the marriage. The state is simply trying to simplify the designation of who was married. You may want to have your spouse listed as "wife" because of your religious beliefs but then what happens when someone else wants their spouse listed as "Property" because their religion looks upon a wife as property?

You've been in the military long enough and if you find the word "spouse" objectionable on a marriage certificate then tells us what action you've taken when filling out military forms which asks the name of your "spouse' instead of wife.

LogDog
07-23-2014, 08:25 PM
If the government insists on being part of marriages then they should have to respect my wishes on what I want on my marriage license/certificate, whether it say partner, spouse, husband, etc. Yes, the religious comment I made was sattire...

I know it's difficult to have a couple different forms on a computer when they print these things out. Wouldn't want to stress out the courthouse when I file for the documents.


I think it's funny that anybody considers anyone equally. Should we be treated the same, yes...but no two people are equal.
We're talking marriage, not sports or drinking beer. In marriage, the state looks upon the two parties as equals in the marriage just as they now do in California with heterosexual and gay marriages.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 08:30 PM
What i am offended at is that a very small minority, is getting to dictate to the majority what is right.

What's the purpose of having a democracy, when we are letting the Minority decide what is or is not going to be right? Is that not the OPPOSITE of what a democracy is supposed to be?

What are you talking about...what is right?

No one is telling you or anyone else that a husband being married to a wife is wrong.

They are simply modifying forms to make it apply to all legal marriages...no one is asking you are demanding you to entere into a same-sex marriage...nor are they telling you what is right or wrong.

...you are so easily offended.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 08:32 PM
You've been in the military long enough and if you find the word "spouse" objectionable on a marriage certificate then tells us what action you've taken when filling out military forms which asks the name of your "spouse' instead of wife.I don't find the word "spouse" objectionable on someone else's certificate if that's what they want. It's just not what I'd want on mine. Is that so bad? Bad enough to have a law about it?

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 08:33 PM
We're talking marriage, not sports or drinking beer. In marriage, the state looks upon the two parties as equals in the marriage just as they now do in California with heterosexual and gay marriages.And I have no problem with what they recognize. Just don't tell me that I have to give up how I recognize it on "official" documents related to my marriage. Give others the option of something else. Don't take options away.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 08:35 PM
What are you talking about...what is right?

No one is telling you or anyone else that a husband being married to a wife is wrong.

They are simply modifying forms to make it apply to all legal marriages...no one is asking you are demanding you to entere into a same-sex marriage...nor are they telling you what is right or wrong.

Why modify forms? Why not just add a new one? Or bring up the one they currently have...hit backspace...and replace "husband and wife" with "spouse" if one chooses...or replace it with "husband and husband" if one chooses. If all marriage are equal and legal, then it shouldn't matter to the state what it says.

LogDog
07-23-2014, 08:36 PM
If the government insists on being part of marriages then they should have to respect my wishes on what I want on my marriage license/certificate, whether it say partner, spouse, husband, etc. Yes, the religious comment I made was sattire...

I know it's difficult to have a couple different forms on a computer when they print these things out. Wouldn't want to stress out the courthouse when I file for the documents.


I don't find the word "spouse" objectionable on someone else's certificate if that's what they want. It's just not what I'd want on mine. Is that so bad? Bad enough to have a law about it?
Not everyone gets everything they want in life. Is it really that important for you to be listed as "husband" and her as "wife"? There are more important things to worry about in life than that.

You didn't answer my question concerning military forms. How about the military forms you've had to fill out with the word "spouse" instead of 'wife'? What complaining did you do and what was the result?

LogDog
07-23-2014, 08:41 PM
And I have no problem with what they recognize. Just don't tell me that I have to give up how I recognize it on "official" documents related to my marriage. Give others the option of something else. Don't take options away.
Until gay marriage came up you didn't have a choice of how you were listed and now all of a sudden because the state is going to be gender neutral on their forms you have a problem. Sorry, but I have neither sympathy or empathy for your problem. It just isn't that big of a deal.

Stalwart
07-23-2014, 08:45 PM
So you are saying you would have no problem, being listed as "doner A" rather than Father" on your son or daughter's birth certificate?

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't bother me on my marriage certificate (from the state) if it said "participant 1" and "participant 2".

The wording on a form doesn't change my relationship to my daughter or to my wife.

LogDog
07-23-2014, 08:50 PM
No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't bother me on my marriage certificate (from the state) if it said "participant 1" and "participant 2".

The wording on a form doesn't change my relationship to my daughter or to my wife.
Exactly! Your relationship hasn't change.

garhkal
07-23-2014, 09:45 PM
Not everyone gets everything they want in life. Is it really that important for you to be listed as "husband" and her as "wife"? There are more important things to worry about in life than that.


If not everyone gets what they want, why are we changing these forms/this law, to give these people what THEY Want?

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:23 PM
Not everyone gets everything they want in life. Is it really that important for you to be listed as "husband" and her as "wife"?[ Yes...it is that important [/QUOTE] There are more important things to worry about in life than that.[/QUOTE]There are more important things for the government to worry about than how they list ME on MY marriage certificate.


You didn't answer my question concerning military forms. How about the military forms you've had to fill out with the word "spouse" instead of 'wife'? What complaining did you do and what was the result? Huge difference. When listing "relationship" on ANY form, I listed "wife" when referring to my wife...not "spouse". Any time given the option I listed wife. Is it that hard to get through your head that I should be able to have the word "husband" on a marriage certificate? I cannot, for the life of me, see the upside of passing a law to remove it. Please give me the upside, other than it placating those who don't like the use of traditional gender titles.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:26 PM
Until gay marriage came up you didn't have a choice of how you were listed and now all of a sudden because the state is going to be gender neutral on their forms you have a problem. Sorry, but I have neither sympathy or empathy for your problem. It just isn't that big of a deal. Didn't need a choice because there was no other option and the way it was listed was the way I wanted it. If they kept that same option and added other options it wouldn't be an issue. I don't want to use gender neutral terms when it relates to me because I'm not gender neutral.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 10:26 PM
Why modify forms? Why not just add a new one? Or bring up the one they currently have...hit backspace...and replace "husband and wife" with "spouse" if one chooses...or replace it with "husband and husband" if one chooses.

Fine, fine and fine...I would have no problem with any of that.

Then again, I had no idea it violated someone freedom of religion to refer to their "spouse"...is there an outrage over the Enlisted Spouses Club somewhere also?


If all marriage are equal and legal, then it shouldn't matter to the state what it says.

Precisely.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:27 PM
The wording on a form doesn't change my relationship to my daughter or to my wife.Nope...it sure doesn't...no more than it changes the relationship of gay partners if things aren't changed from what they currently are.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 10:29 PM
I don't want to use gender neutral terms when it relates to me because I'm not gender neutral.

LOL...now that's funny right there!

:whoo:

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:29 PM
Fine, fine and fine...I would have no problem with any of that.

Then again, I had no idea it violated someone freedom of religion to refer to their "spouse"...is there an outrage over the Enlisted Spouses Club somewhere also? Didn't I already tell you that the religious reference was satire? It is a violation of freedoms to not be given the choice. I guess choice is only a privilege for non-traditionalists.

Rainmaker
07-23-2014, 10:31 PM
If not everyone gets what they want, why are we changing these forms/this law, to give these people what THEY Want?

Bread and Circuses....Californication....Governor Moonbeam style....meanwhile in other news from the Golden state.... SWAT Ninjas dressed in black are hunting for banditos that are offing Landscapers and Soccer Moms..
..
http://www.dailysocal.com/2014/07/22/breaking-woman-killed-deputy-shot-landscaper-injured-armed-assailants-large-ar-15/#imageclose-1

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:34 PM
is there an outrage over the Enlisted Spouses Club somewhere also? Two completely different things, and you know it

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:34 PM
LOL...now that's funny right there!

:whoo:Funny how?

efmbman
07-23-2014, 10:36 PM
This entire argument is silly. Any reasonable person would realize that when it comes to governments and laws, all aspects must be clearly spelled out. In terms of marriage there are benefits, status, taxes, all sorts of aspects that are tied to the legal definition of marriage. Why else would DOMA have been so important? That was the keystone to everything. In order to clearly and accurately define what a spouse is and what constitutes a legal marriage, these little administrative tasks must be done. To say that all marriages are equal means nothing until the words of the laws are changed to reflect the change. To do otherwise wold be just like the separate but equal crap of the Jim Crowe days.

And yes, make no mistake - this is a little administrative task. Outrage related to it does not make it more important. Just because you are offended does not mean you are right.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:42 PM
This entire argument is silly. Any reasonable person would realize that when it comes to governments and laws, all aspects must be clearly spelled out. In terms of marriage there are benefits, status, taxes, all sorts of aspects that are tied to the legal definition of marriage. Why else would DOMA have been so important? That was the keystone to everything. In order to clearly and accurately define what a spouse is and what constitutes a legal marriage, these little administrative tasks must be done. To say that all marriages are equal means nothing until the words of the laws are changed to reflect the change. To do otherwise wold be just like the separate but equal crap of the Jim Crowe days.

And yes, make no mistake - this is a little administrative task. Outrage related to it does not make it more important. Just because you are offended does not mean you are right.

Are you fucking serious? I cannot grasp how people can be so hypocritical on this sort of topic. Leaving "Husband and Wife" if that's what a couple once does NOT make anything more ore less legal (again, none of this should be a legal issue as related to all the BS you mentioned about status, tax, etc, but it is).

"I now pronounce you Spouse and Spouse...you may kiss the homo sapien with female sex organs." We wouldn't want to force a Justice of the Peace to use terms that might not make the marriage legally binding.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 10:50 PM
Didn't I already tell you that the religious reference was satire?

Yes.


It is a violation of freedoms to not be given the choice.

You can't please everyone.


I guess choice is only a privilege for non-traditionalists.

What choice do they have that you don't?

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 10:54 PM
Funny how?

What, Tommy?...you know, the way you tell the story...what?
You're a funny guy.

43

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 10:57 PM
You can't please everyone. Nope...just non-traditionalists.




What choice do they have that you don't?Oh dear god...are you really going to play semantics and pretend you don't get my point????? But if you really want me to answer, they have the choice of being intolerant of my beliefs under the guise of progressivism without being labeled as phobic.

But the truth is that their choice has also been taken away in this case. Maybe they don't want spouse...maybe they want partner...maybe they want husband and husband, wife and wife...either way, should be up to everyone how they are legally recognized when it comes to the most important experience in ones life.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 11:04 PM
Oh dear god...are you really going to play semantics and pretend you don't get my point????? But if you really want me to answer, they have the choice of being intolerant of my beliefs under the guise of progressivism without being labeled as phobic.

But the truth is that their choice has also been taken away in this case. Maybe they don't want spouse...maybe they want partner...maybe they want husband and husband, wife and wife...either way, should be up to everyone how they are legally recognized when it comes to the most important experience in ones life.

Well, you've made my point now. So every document, form, regulation, etc. in the state that refers to a married couple has to do it 10 or 20 different ways? Oh wait, can I use the term married couple or do I have to use 20 different terms for that? Maybe you don't want to be referred to as a married couple...maybe you want to be referred to as a bonded couple.

Prior to the law: same-sex couples had to identify a husband and a wife...some had two husbands and two wives making it somewhat awkward.

After the law...let's just call them all spouses.

Carry on...I'm 82% sure you're only trolling, so I'm not going to continue this nonsese...."but, if this form doesn't refer to me by the term I prefer be it man, woman, husband, wife, Mr. Dr. Sergeant...then that limits my freedoms"....you've made some horrible arguments before, but this one ranks right up there...LOL

Good day, Sir.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 11:07 PM
Well, you've made my point now. So every document, form, regulation, etc. in the state that refers to a married couple has to do it 10 or 20 different ways? Oh wait, can I use the term married couple or do I have to use 20 different terms for that? Maybe you don't want to be referred to as a married couple...maybe you want to be referred to as a bonded couple. You can use whatever you want.


Prior to the law: same-sex couples had to identify a husband and a wife...some had two husbands and two wives making it somewhat awkward. They shouldn't have to do so, unless they want to.


After the law...let's just call them all spouses. Ok...let's...fuck it...


Carry on...I'm 82% sure you're only trolling, so I'm not going to continue this nonsese...."but, if this form doesn't refer to me by the term I prefer be it man, woman, husband, wife, Mr. Dr. Sergeant...then that limits my freedoms"....you've made some horrible arguments before, but this one ranks right up there...LOL

Good day, Sir.I'm not trolling at all. I haven't been this frustrated with a topic since Joe Bonham got the boot.

Measure Man
07-23-2014, 11:14 PM
You can use whatever you want.

Just to be clear...this isn't just talking about what you put on marriage certificates...it's talking about use the terms throughout the law and regulations:


In case you weren’t clear on California Governor Jerry Brown’s position on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples (HINT: he’s for it), he just signed a law defining marriage as a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between 2 persons.”

Previously, the state defined marriage as a “personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.”

The bill will also remove the words “husband” and “wife” from the state’s family code, to be replaced with the gender-neutral “spouse.” California’s family code is the portion of state law that defines legal marriage and outlines the responsibilities and privileges that come with it. The new law will take effect on January 1, 2015.


They shouldn't have to do so, unless they want to.

Okay...call yourself north and south pole....plug and receptacle...inny and outty...I like you're idea...just leave it blank and if you want to type a title in there, go ahead.

I haven't read the law...but it sounds like the whole idea is that where it does say Husband or Wife...to just say spouse. Otherwise same-sex marriages might become legal quandaries, I suppose.


Ok...let's...fuck it...

I'm not trolling at all. I haven't been this frustrated with a topic since Joe Bonham got the boot.[/QUOTE]

If you say so.

efmbman
07-23-2014, 11:20 PM
Are you fucking serious? I cannot grasp how people can be so hypocritical on this sort of topic. Leaving "Husband and Wife" if that's what a couple once does NOT make anything more ore less legal (again, none of this should be a legal issue as related to all the BS you mentioned about status, tax, etc, but it is).

"I now pronounce you Spouse and Spouse...you may kiss the homo sapien with female sex organs." We wouldn't want to force a Justice of the Peace to use terms that might not make the marriage legally binding.

Of course I am serious. It does not matter if you feel the government should not be involved in the institution of marriage (I don't think they should either) but the fact of the matter is that they are. Your opinion, while you are certainly allowed to express it, does not change that. Spousal benefits and entitlements are tied to the legal definition of marriage. As a retire military person and now as a GS civil servant, you should know that more than anyone. I'm starting to think you are trolling now. If you are that's fine - I have smiled often at this thread.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 11:25 PM
Of course I am serious. It does not matter if you feel the government should not be involved in the institution of marriage (I don't think they should either) but the fact of the matter is that they are. Your opinion, while you are certainly allowed to express it, does not change that. Spousal benefits and entitlements are tied to the legal definition of marriage. As a retire military person and now as a GS civil servant, you should know that more than anyone. I'm starting to think you are trolling now. If you are that's fine - I have smiled often at this thread.

Ok...continue to think I'm trolling. And I'm not sure what being in the military...or a GS...has to do with what is placed on my marriage certificate. Let's relate it to military, if you want. You want to know who was listed as my beneficiary on my SGLI? Sure as shit wasn't my spouse. It was my wife.

efmbman
07-24-2014, 12:00 AM
Ok...continue to think I'm trolling. And I'm not sure what being in the military...or a GS...has to do with what is placed on my marriage certificate. Let's relate it to military, if you want. You want to know who was listed as my beneficiary on my SGLI? Sure as shit wasn't my spouse. It was my wife.

C'mon... you know damn well that DOMA identified marriage as a man married to a woman. Because of that, no one that was applying for survivor or any other benefit from the federal government (that's where the military comes in to play) qualified unless that condition was met. I know you are intelligent - were you honestly not aware of that?

Let's try another one. Let's say a certain AFSC was ineligible for a certain duty assignment - embassy duty for example. Now, the USAF will allow that AFSC to perform embassy duty. Would you expect that a regulation (or at least some official publication) to reflect this change? Perhaps a form must be revised. The process for application, acceptance, assignment, and release from the current assignment must be revised. This is the same administrative procedure that is happening in CA. Nothing more, nothing less. To conform to the new requirements (the law), systems in place must be adapted. Happens every day all over the country.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 12:07 AM
C'mon... you know damn well that DOMA identified marriage as a man married to a woman. Because of that, no one that was applying for survivor or any other benefit from the federal government (that's where the military comes in to play) qualified unless that condition was met. I know you are intelligent - were you honestly not aware of that?

Let's try another one. Let's say a certain AFSC was ineligible for a certain duty assignment - embassy duty for example. Now, the USAF will allow that AFSC to perform embassy duty. Would you expect that a regulation (or at least some official publication) to reflect this change? Perhaps a form must be revised. The process for application, acceptance, assignment, and release from the current assignment must be revised. This is the same administrative procedure that is happening in CA. Nothing more, nothing less. To conform to the new requirements (the law), systems in place must be adapted. Happens every day all over the country.

This has nothing to do with how marriage is defined. This has to do with me wanting my marriage certificate to say Husband and Wife. What's so wrong with that? Who does that hurt?

efmbman
07-24-2014, 12:13 AM
This has nothing to do with how marriage is defined. This has to do with me wanting my marriage certificate to say Husband and Wife. What's so wrong with that? Who does that hurt?

Hurt's no one as far as I can tell. But I am not a lawmaker (neither are you). I would imagine that those in the business of making laws are very aware of the proper wording of laws, regulations, and statues so that they accurately and efficiently provide the desired service to the citizens. Does changing the wording on the certificate make you any less married? Seems to me that this action is expanding the definition without taking anything away from those that already enjoyed inclusion in the definition.

Beating a dead horse at this point I think.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 12:37 AM
Hurt's no one as far as I can tell. But I am not a lawmaker (neither are you). I would imagine that those in the business of making laws are very aware of the proper wording of laws, regulations, and statues so that they accurately and efficiently provide the desired service to the citizens. Does changing the wording on the certificate make you any less married? Seems to me that this action is expanding the definition without taking anything away from those that already enjoyed inclusion in the definition.

Beating a dead horse at this point I think.It does take away from inclusion of those who don't want to be gender neutral.

And yes, the horse is thoroughly dead. I do find it ironic, however, that are saying this is ok are the same ones who will argue that the sex on a drivers license is up to the driver. If they identify as a female then it should be allowed, on a legal document. I guess we'll have to change the law that identifies a male as one who has a penis and a female as one who has a vagina.

Stalwart
07-24-2014, 12:39 AM
Nope...it sure doesn't...no more than it changes the relationship of gay partners if things aren't changed from what they currently are.

With the exception that neither of them may identify as the 'husband' or the 'wife' ... they may be husband & husband, or wife & wife.

I guess I look at it as when we got our marriage certificate, that is a legal document that recognizes our legal status as a couple. When we were actually married, it was the officiator (in this case a representative of our religion) that pronounced us husband and wife.

CA listing entrants into marriage as 'spouse' doesn't really change what the officiator of your marriage joins you to your spouse as ie. husband and wife, wife and wife, goddess and slave -- whatever floats your boat. In a way, changing the term on the form to spouse is kind of the government backing away from defining the religious or emotional 'conditions' of your marriage and just recognizing the legal union you make.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 12:44 AM
With the exception that neither of them may identify as the 'husband' or the 'wife' ... they may be husband & husband, or wife & wife.

I guess I look at it as when we got our marriage certificate, that is a legal document that recognizes our legal status as a couple. When we were actually married, it was the officiator (in this case a representative of our religion) that pronounced us husband and wife.

CA listing entrants into marriage as 'spouse' doesn't really change what the officiator of your marriage joins you to your spouse as ie. husband and wife, wife and wife, goddess and slave -- whatever floats your boat. In a way, changing the term on the form to spouse is kind of the government backing away from defining the religious or emotional 'conditions' of your marriage and just recognizing the legal union you make.

Exactly...and my argument is that they should honor my personal preference or belief, and the personal preference or belief of everyone else who gets married, if they are going to be involved.

Again...dead horse...beaten...over and over.

Of course MM mentioned that people could start putting silly stuff on there. This also has irony as the people who argue this are generally the same people that laugh at the slippery slope theory when it comes to letting gays marry. Just this slope goes the other way, so I guess it's ok to use it to support the argument.

garhkal
07-24-2014, 03:46 AM
You can't please everyone.

Exactly. Since not everyone can be pleased, usually we go with pleasing the Majority. So why in this instance, are we flipping it around and pleasing the MINORITY?

TJMAC77SP
07-24-2014, 03:08 PM
I gotta say on this one that although I do agree that this is a case of catering to the wishes of a minority over the majority I don't see the real harm being done by the state. As Stalwart said it is the person who actually performs the ceremony who declares the union of husband and wife (or the various alternatives now legal).

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 03:35 PM
Exactly. Since not everyone can be pleased, usually we go with pleasing the Majority. So why in this instance, are we flipping it around and pleasing the MINORITY?

I think the majority is just fine with the term "spouse"

hustonj
07-24-2014, 03:37 PM
Exactly. Since not everyone can be pleased, usually we go with pleasing the Majority. So why in this instance, are we flipping it around and pleasing the MINORITY?

Tell that to the well-armed sheep surrounded by wolves.

Part of the design of our government is to TRY to protect the minority from being oppressed by the majoirty, not to encourage such oppression.

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 03:41 PM
Exactly...and my argument is that they should honor my personal preference or belief, and the personal preference or belief of everyone else who gets married, if they are going to be involved.

Again...dead horse...beaten...over and over.

Of course MM mentioned that people could start putting silly stuff on there. This also has irony as the people who argue this are generally the same people that laugh at the slippery slope theory when it comes to letting gays marry. Just this slope goes the other way, so I guess it's ok to use it to support the argument.

True...slippery slope is actually shorthand for "slippery slope fallacy"...and is generally considered a logic failure.

I take back all my silly suggestions.

I agree that any form, law or regulation that says "spouse" could just as easily say "husband or wife"...and cost only a few letters.

I will admit that I don't get the outrage here, but there are obviously some people very put off by the term "spouse"...I had no idea.

I wonder if there was any actual opposition to this law...or is it just on the forums and interwebs?

Stalwart
07-24-2014, 03:54 PM
I think the majority is just fine with the term "spouse"

Yes, it is pretty obvious that the majority of Americans are heterosexual, but I think the majority of people -- if asked -- would be okay with the term "spouse" on a legal form.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 04:04 PM
I will admit that I don't get the outrage here, but there are obviously some people very put off by the term "spouse"...I had no idea.

I'm not put off by the term spouse...I'm just put off by the removal of the terms "husband" or "wife".

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 04:05 PM
I gotta say on this one that although I do agree that this is a case of catering to the wishes of a minority over the majority I don't see the real harm being done by the state.

Not sure I would call it "catering to the wishes"...I see it more as changing the language to align with the overarching law.

If a group was once exlusively male and referred to as a "North Essex Men's Club"...and they change their rules to allow women, it would seem to make sense to change the name referred to...maybe "North Essex Member's Club" or something. I don't think that's "catering to women" as much as "including women"....I don't think the term "spouse" caters to homosexuals, just includes them.

But....YMCA hasn't changed their name...and as far I know you don't have to be young, male or Christian to join.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 04:05 PM
Yes, it is pretty obvious that the majority of Americans are heterosexual, but I think the majority of people -- if asked -- would be okay with the term "spouse" on a legal form.Good, that puts me in the minority then...maybe I'll actually get what I want.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 04:06 PM
If a group was once exlusively male and referred to as a "Men's Club"...and they change their rules to allow women, it would seem to make sense to change the name referred to...maybe "Member's club" or something. No problem with them changing the name to "Member's club" at all. Just allow me to, on my application form, mark down that I'm a man.

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 04:08 PM
No problem with them changing the name to "Member's club" at all. Just allow me to, on my application form, mark down that I'm a man.

So if under the rules of the club, it no longer matters what gender yo uare, so they delete the question...then you are put off, offended or whatever this is?

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 04:18 PM
So if under the rules of the club, it no longer matters what gender yo uare, so they delete the question...then you are put off, offended or whatever this is?I am not in favor, for me, of anything that removes gender. I am pretty big on gender roles, whatever they may be. Part of the issue, in my opinion, in this country right now isn't the "traditional" straights or the gays, it's the metrosexuals. It's the loss of an identity that's taking over. It doesn't offend me, but it makes me sad...really. It's seems that eveyone wants everything to be "neutral". I don't like it. Maybe it's just me. I have no problem with "progression" as long as it doesn't exclude "traditionalism".

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 04:32 PM
It's the loss of an identity that's taking over. It doesn't offend me, but it makes me sad...really. It's seems that eveyone wants everything to be "neutral".

You know...this is interesting. I was just talking about something similar with a friend the other day...and I don't disagree with you. We were sort of talking about some of these prominent politicians, athletes, actors, etc. who get into hot water publicly...for basically just being a man.

Anyway, so this was a book idea I've had for a few years, basically a "recovery from public shame for regular guys"...whether that be military types that get taken down for having an affair, or for enjoying a drink and getting an "ARI"...something like that...or just guys who lose a job for something like that, get arrested, or whatever. With social media nowadays, anyone can be publicly shamed nationally in a matter of a day...this privilege used to be reserved for celebrities, but no longer is.

My step 1 would be something like "You do not need to apologize for being a man and enjoying men things."

It goes on for more than that in my head...but, I might write this one day so don't wanna give the whole thing away...lol.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 04:53 PM
You know...this is interesting. I was just talking about something similar with a friend the other day...and I don't disagree with you. We were sort of talking about some of these prominent politicians, athletes, actors, etc. who get into hot water publicly...for basically just being a man.

Anyway, so this was a book idea I've had for a few years, basically a "recovery from public shame for regular guys"...whether that be military types that get taken down for having an affair, or for enjoying a drink and getting an "ARI"...something like that...or just guys who lose a job for something like that, get arrested, or whatever. With social media nowadays, anyone can be publicly shamed nationally in a matter of a day...this privilege used to be reserved for celebrities, but no longer is.

My step 1 would be something like "You do not need to apologize for being a man and enjoying men things."

It goes on for more than that in my head...but, I might write this one day so don't wanna give the whole thing away...lol.

I'll read it...or...if you keep posting 1 chapter at a time on this site, I'll take care of putting it all together and taking the credit (and money) for it.

Stalwart
07-24-2014, 05:18 PM
For my part, I can see why a state would want to use the term "spouse", it is just a legal term on a legal document, it is not a term of endearment or one that assigns a role in the relationship ... I can see where they would not want to a form for a M/F marriage, a form for F/F marriage and another form for M/M marriage. I can see that having a blank that could be filled in would be one way to satisfy everyone, but some bean-counter somewhere figuring that it takes an extra 10-seconds to type it in multiplied by the number of marriage certificates in a year equals [x] number of extra man-hours per year.

My totally subjective opinion is that the state found the path of least resistance.


the loss of an identity that's taking over. It doesn't offend me, but it makes me sad...really. It's seems that eveyone wants everything to be "neutral".

You have a very good point. I like my gender role in my marriage, I am the man of the house, and I think my wife defers to me on decisions at times because she looks at me that way. I am the primary income maker, I am the one that does the lawn, fixes the sink and takes out the trash, splits firewood etc. (damn, I do a lot of chores); she tends to cook more -- even though I enjoy it and have considered going to culinary school when I retire, she does more laundry than I do etc. In many ways I am and do consider myself a very traditional person. I am far from effeminized or metrosexual but my mother in law lived with us for about 6 months last year and often talked about how much input my wife had in our marriage and how it seemed that my wife was not subordinate to me. It was foreign to her after having been married to my father in law for almost 30 years ... it is just what is normal for our marriage. At the same time, I know that society is one that is constantly in progression and the societal norms from when I was raised and forming my opinions are very different than those from 30 years before and now 30 years later, probably how many parents of teens and those in their 20's felt in the 60's during that social revolution.

Since this is MTF, what about gender roles in the military? I think "if someone can do the job, let them do it regardless of their plumbing." Let's face it, in many sections of our military if you are a "war-fighter" you stand a better chance at promotion -- especially to the pinnacle positions. I was a Marine infantryman for 12 years, the better part of that in the Reconnaissance (Special Operations) community, and every now and then the subject of women in the infantry came up. Most of us didn't really care. If a woman could hike with the same ruck, shoot with the same accuracy, climb the same wall etc. we would not have cared if she was a GRUNT or not. I had a discussion years ago with a large group of NSW (SeAL) friends and they had the same opinion, they really cared less; but it seems that the people who are the most fervently opposed to the idea are those that don't actually do the job. I am IN NO WAY in favor of making the standards easier -- that will cost lives, but if a female could do it, I wouldn't care. I knoew a couple of women who were in incredible shape and likely could have gotten through the School of Infantry, but they did not want to do it -- look at Shannon Faulkner from the Citadel in the early 90's ... she spent 3 years fighting in court to get in and was not physically prepared for the rigors of the student indoc.


Now, as idealistic as we can be, we have to be realistic; men and women are physically different. Thos differences may limit the vast majority of women from being able to do that kind of job. It isn't like assigning women to a ship or a sub, which if they can get through the academic school means they can do the job. Is the expense of creating new body armor that fits their body shape, creating new barracks or barracks rooms etc. worth it for the (probable) handful that would be able to make it ... probably not.

USN - Retired
07-24-2014, 05:19 PM
I am pretty big on gender roles, whatever they may be.


I have no problem with "progression" as long as it doesn't exclude "traditionalism".

So,... is the engagement ring tradition a good example of those gender roles that you value? Just askin'.

You may not want to respond to my question. Discussing the engagement ring tradition may get you banned from this forum.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 05:29 PM
So,... is the engagement ring tradition a good example of those gender roles that you value? Just askin'.

You may not want to respond to my question. Discussing the engagement ring tradition may get you banned from this forum.Yes, it is a good example of gender roles in a TRADITIONAL relationship and it's something I value.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 05:33 PM
Since this is MTF, what about gender roles in the military? I think "if someone can do the job, let them do it regardless of their plumbing." Let's face it, in many sections of our military if you are a "war-fighter" you stand a better chance at promotion -- especially to the pinnacle positions. I was a Marine infantryman for 12 years, the better part of that in the Reconnaissance (Special Operations) community, and every now and then the subject of women in the infantry came up. Most of us didn't really care. If a woman could hike with the same ruck, shoot with the same accuracy, climb the same wall etc. we would not have cared if she was a GRUNT or not. I had a discussion years ago with a large group of NSW (SeAL) friends and they had the same opinion, they really cared less; but it seems that the people who are the most fervently opposed to the idea are those that don't actually do the job. I am IN NO WAY in favor of making the standards easier -- that will cost lives, but if a female could do it, I wouldn't care. I knoew a couple of women who were in incredible shape and likely could have gotten through the School of Infantry, but they did not want to do it -- look at Shannon Faulkner from the Citadel in the early 90's ... she spent 3 years fighting in court to get in and was not physically prepared for the rigors of the student indoc.When I talk about gender roles, I'm speaking specifically for my marriage and my situation. It's not right for everyone, nor is it wrong for others to have the roles they desire. So I can't really speak to the military portion of it other than to say that if someone is hired to do the same job as someone else, is getting paid the same, and has the same opportunity at promotion, then the requirements should be the same.

USN - Retired
07-24-2014, 05:58 PM
Yes, it is a good example of gender roles in a TRADITIONAL relationship and it's something I value.

So, it appears to me that you are saying that a traditional (heterosexual) relationship involves a man earning money and spending lots of that money on a woman, but the traditional relationship does not necessarily include a woman earning money and spending lots of that money on a man.

Is it fair and accurate to say that a traditional relationship means that the man is the breadwinner and the woman is financially supported by that man?

Let's say that a husband and wife have reversed the traditional roles, and the woman is the sole breadwinner and the husband is the primary caretaker of their children. Is that type of relationship still "traditional" even though the roles have been reversed? Is that type of relationship problematic for you personally?

Just askin'.

USN - Retired
07-24-2014, 06:40 PM
I like my gender role in my marriage, I am the man of the house, and I think my wife defers to me on decisions at times because she looks at me that way.

Let's look at reality for a moment. If your wife "defers" to your decision, then she is doing it for one of three reasons: (a) she likes your decision, (b) she doesn't care about your decision, or (c) she is spineless and afraid of you. It is one of those three choices. While you are legally obligated to financially support your wife, you have no legal authority whatsoever over her. She is under no legal obligation to "defer" to you. During my career in the Navy, I had to deal with numerous subordinates who were arrested on DV charges. The DV incidents almost always began the same way - a wife deciding that she no longer desired to "defer" to the decisions of her husband.

Your authority as "the man of the house" is nothing more than a fantasy in your mind. I'm sure that you disagree with me. Most men do. If you ever have the misfortune to find yourself getting a divorce, then you'll understand just how little authority you really have in your family. I saw many Sailors who learned that lesson the hard way.

Stalwart
07-24-2014, 06:52 PM
Let's look at reality for a moment. If your wife "defers" to your decision, then she is doing it for one of three reasons: (a) she likes your decision, (b) she doesn't care about your decision, or (c) she is spineless and afraid of you. It is one of those three choices. While you are legally obligated to financially support your wife, you have no legal authority whatsoever over her. She is under no legal obligation to "defer" to you. During my career in the Navy, I had to deal with numerous subordinates who were arrested on DV charges. The DV incidents almost always began the same way - a wife deciding that she no longer desired to "defer" to the decisions of her husband.

Your authority as "the man of the house" is nothing more than a fantasy in your mind. I'm sure that you disagree with me. Most men do. If you ever have the misfortune to find yourself getting a divorce, then you'll understand just how little authority you really have in your family. I saw many Sailors who learned that lesson the hard way.

I am not saying I have any authority, just that as far as gender roles go in our house, it is fairly traditional. When I say she defers to me, I would gather it is usually out of indifference: paint the shed red or green, take kid to the park or beach. When we got stationed in GA I picked a house to buy that she had never seen. However when we bought our current home (one we are likely to be in for 15 to 18 years, she overruled my preference and we got the one she wanted.

I brought up my mother in law and her comments because she was raised, lived for 30 years in a marriage and still thinks she (women on general) should be subservient and (to quote) "submit to her husband", a concept that doesn't really fly in the Stalwart household.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 06:53 PM
So, it appears to me that you are saying that a traditional (heterosexual) relationship involves a man earning money and spending lots of that money on a woman, but the traditional relationship does not necessarily include a woman earning money and spending lots of that money on a man. I don't spend a lot of money on her. I take care of her, financially. And her role is to care for me emotionally and take care of the house things. It's something we both enjoy and we wouldn't have it any other way.


Is it fair and accurate to say that a traditional relationship means that the man is the breadwinner and the woman is financially supported by that man? Yes...it is fair to say since traditionally most jobs were very labor intensive and men are much better equipped for the labor intensive tasks.


Let's say that a husband and wife have reversed the traditional roles, and the woman is the sole breadwinner and the husband is the primary caretaker of their children. Is that type of relationship still "traditional" even though the roles have been reversed? Is that type of relationship problematic for you personally? It's traditional in the sense that there is one parent at home to care for the children and another bringing home the financial support, yes. It is non-traditional based on the gender roles. It's not problematic for me, personally...other than I wouldn't feel much like a man if that was happening. I don't think less of others who choose this route. Just for me and my wife it's what works best and what we both prefer.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 07:36 PM
Now, as idealistic as we can be, we have to be realistic; men and women are physically different. Thos differences may limit the vast majority of women from being able to do that kind of job. It isn't like assigning women to a ship or a sub, which if they can get through the academic school means they can do the job. Is the expense of creating new body armor that fits their body shape, creating new barracks or barracks rooms etc. worth it for the (probable) handful that would be able to make it ... probably not.

Exactly. Men and women haven't changed on a large scale in their physical capabilities to do certain jobs. What has changed is the nature of the jobs that have taken the physicallity out of most things. If you look at the more physical blue collar jobs the vast majority of people doing them are men.

garhkal
07-24-2014, 09:38 PM
I think the majority is just fine with the term "spouse"

Based on what? A poll, or just your experience?


I'm not put off by the term spouse...I'm just put off by the removal of the terms "husband" or "wife".

Especially when its being mandated with no vote of the public to show that they want it.


I am not in favor, for me, of anything that removes gender. I am pretty big on gender roles, whatever they may be. Part of the issue, in my opinion, in this country right now isn't the "traditional" straights or the gays, it's the metrosexuals. It's the loss of an identity that's taking over. It doesn't offend me, but it makes me sad...really. It's seems that eveyone wants everything to be "neutral". I don't like it. Maybe it's just me. I have no problem with "progression" as long as it doesn't exclude "traditionalism".

I am closer to being offended, than being irked like you SJ, but i do agree, it does seem like they are wanting to erase the traditional roles of genders to make 'everyone equal'.



Since this is MTF, what about gender roles in the military? I think "if someone can do the job, let them do it regardless of their plumbing." Let's face it, in many sections of our military if you are a "war-fighter" you stand a better chance at promotion -- especially to the pinnacle positions. I was a Marine infantryman for 12 years, the better part of that in the Reconnaissance (Special Operations) community, and every now and then the subject of women in the infantry came up. Most of us didn't really care. If a woman could hike with the same ruck, shoot with the same accuracy, climb the same wall etc. we would not have cared if she was a GRUNT or not. I had a discussion years ago with a large group of NSW (SeAL) friends and they had the same opinion, they really cared less; but it seems that the people who are the most fervently opposed to the idea are those that don't actually do the job. I am IN NO WAY in favor of making the standards easier -- that will cost lives, but if a female could do it, I wouldn't care. I knoew a couple of women who were in incredible shape and likely could have gotten through the School of Infantry, but they did not want to do it -- look at Shannon Faulkner from the Citadel in the early 90's ... she spent 3 years fighting in court to get in and was not physically prepared for the rigors of the student indoc.


Now, as idealistic as we can be, we have to be realistic; men and women are physically different. Thos differences may limit the vast majority of women from being able to do that kind of job. It isn't like assigning women to a ship or a sub, which if they can get through the academic school means they can do the job. Is the expense of creating new body armor that fits their body shape, creating new barracks or barracks rooms etc. worth it for the (probable) handful that would be able to make it ... probably not.


Stalwart. That was a very well wrote post. I agree, we should be looking at all aspects of things. But usually (in my experience) when you raise issues such as cost effectiveness, and such in regards to putting women in the same as men jobs, people get all antsy that you are trying to stop women being the equal of men. Or if you point out that women ARE weaker than men, you must be misogynistic etc.

I don't hate women, i love them. BUT does that mean i am all for being in combat? No. Not until men get it out of their head that they HAVE to save women first, and women get it out of their head, that they 'need lessened' requirements to join in.


So,... is the engagement ring tradition a good example of those gender roles that you value? Just askin'.

You may not want to respond to my question. Discussing the engagement ring tradition may get you banned from this forum.

I honestly can't remember seeing that thread before it got locked, and people got banned for it. It is imo surprising that such an issue would cause that much discord people got punished for it.
BUT my 2 pence. If women want more equal gender roles, part of that to me, should mean THEY need to start stepping up and sharing the practice of making proposals (which means getting a ring etc)..

PS when WAS that thread/banning issue?

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 09:44 PM
Based on what? A poll, or just your experience?

It's just what I think. I've never heard of anyone being offended by the term spouse...so, I guess that's based on my experience.

I would add I haven't seen or heard anything about this in the local area/news/commentary...less interest in this than in the "Sip and Spit" bill that Gov. Brown just signed.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 09:49 PM
It's just what I think. I've never heard of anyone being offended by the term spouse...so, I guess that's based on my experience.

I would add I haven't seen or heard anything about this in the local area/news/commentary...less interest in this than in the "Sip and Spit" bill that Gov. Brown just signed.

Again, you dwell on being offended with the term "spouse". It's just not true. The offense is at the removal of Husband/Wife.

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 09:58 PM
Again, you dwell on being offended with the term "spouse". It's just not true. The offense is at the removal of Husband/Wife.

Okay, whatever. I still think, based on my experience, that the majority of people are not offended by the removal of husband/wife on laws, regulations and forms in a state where same-sex marriage is legal.

No, I did not take a poll...as I'm sure no one else here took a poll to find out whether or not the majority of people opposed Gov. Brown signing this law.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 10:12 PM
Okay, whatever. I still think, based on my experience, that the majority of people are not offended by the removal of husband/wife on laws, regulations and forms in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. Based on your experience? This happened 2 days ago. How much experience do you have with the issue?


No, I did not take a poll...as I'm sure no one else here took a poll to find out whether or not the majority of people opposed Gov. Brown signing this law.Honestly, I bet most people haven't even heard about it yet, other than forum type people. Just talked to my parents on the phone last night (thy live in California) and mentioned it and they had no idea. And all I've seen was the one article online about it. Let's give it a couple weeks and see what happens.

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 10:15 PM
Based on your experience? This happened 2 days ago. How much experience do you have with the issue?

Based on my experience of never having seen anyone bothered by such a thing....do you really think this is the first time husband and wife was replaced by spouse somewhere?


Honestly, I bet most people haven't even heard about it yet, other than forum type people.

Yes, reported by websites who pay their bills by dreaming up things to be outraged over...


Just talked to my parents on the phone last night (thy live in California) and mentioned it and they had no idea. And all I've seen was the one article online about it. Let's give it a couple weeks and see what happens.

Okay...

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 10:24 PM
Based on my experience of never having seen anyone bothered by such a thing....do you really think this is the first time husband and wife was replaced by spouse somewhere? Because there has never been a ban on using other terms, until now.

It's not surprising though, and I'd bet that you are right that most people will be fine with the term spouse. Marriage is viewed as a business transaction now which is why the majority of marriages end in divorce, which is why the majority of marriages begin with a contract to ensure everyone gets their fair share when they do get a divorce, etc. I suppose that since marriage is no longer marriage then it doesn't really matter.

However, for me, who went in to my marriage knowing it will be for life, with no plan on what might happen if we split up...no safety net...I'd prefer not to have current references to my marriage being banned by the state I grew up in.

USN - Retired
07-24-2014, 10:37 PM
I brought up my mother in law and her comments because she was raised, lived for 30 years in a marriage and still thinks she (women on general) should be subservient and (to quote) "submit to her husband", a concept that doesn't really fly in the Stalwart household.

Was your mother-in-law married to Warren Jeffs?


I don't spend a lot of money on her. .

Somewhat hard to believe, but okay.


I take care of her, financially. And her role is to care for me emotionally and take care of the house things.

So is she a wife or a sugar baby?


It's traditional in the sense that there is one parent at home to care for the children and another bringing home the financial support, yes. It is non-traditional based on the gender roles. It's not problematic for me, personally...other than I wouldn't feel much like a man if that was happening. I don't think less of others who choose this route. Just for me and my wife it's what works best and what we both prefer.

Most men in our society think that way. It is disturbing to think that a man in our society is measured and judged primarily by his income.

If the idea of being a stay-at-home parent is so unappealing to you, then why would you even want to have kids?

Would you not feel like "much like a man" if you had no children?

Who here has seen the TV show Sister Wives? That show documents the life of a polygamist family, which includes patriarch Kody Brown, his four wives, and their seventeen children. Since Kody Brown has four wives and seventeen children, is he more of a man that we are? If not, then why not?

Just askin'.


Exactly. Men and women haven't changed on a large scale in their physical capabilities to do certain jobs. What has changed is the nature of the jobs that have taken the physicallity out of most things. If you look at the more physical blue collar jobs the vast majority of people doing them are men.

Interesting point. Women could do many of those jobs; however most women just are not interested in those jobs (because those jobs are usually not fun). Feminists often complain about the lack of women in the Senate and the lack of women CEOS. Of course, garbage collection and coal mining are male dominated fields. Have you ever known a feminist to complain about the lack of female garbage collectors or the lack of female coal miners?


I honestly can't remember seeing that thread before it got locked, and people got banned for it. It is imo surprising that such an issue would cause that much discord people got punished for it.

BUT my 2 pence. If women want more equal gender roles, part of that to me, should mean THEY need to start stepping up and sharing the practice of making proposals (which means getting a ring etc)..

PS when WAS that thread/banning issue?

It was a few months ago. I was publicly berated and then banned for a week because I questioned the tradition of engagement rings.

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 10:38 PM
Because there has never been a ban on using other terms, until now.

I think referring to this as a "ban on use husband and wife"...is a little silly, personally.

It is minor administrative change to make the laws align with the fact that California now recognizes same-sex marriage. Nothing more.

I respect your right to be upset about it...but I won't be upset about it.


It's not surprising though, and I'd bet that you are right that most people will be fine with the term spouse.

Okay, so you agree that this is not a case of the minority overruling the majority. I would say this change is important to only a minority...but the majority probably don't have an issue wiht it...while another minority have a problem with it.


Marriage is viewed as a business transaction now which is why the majority of marriages end in divorce,

I think the majority of marriages today end in divorce because it has become a socially acceptable and viable option. 100 years ago women did not divorce their abusive cheating husbands, or vice versa, because there was a social stigma and it was less financially viable for women.

That's not to say some people don't get divorced "too easily"...I'm just not sure the alternative was any better. Life is too short to live in misery, IMO.


which is why the majority of marriages begin with a contract to ensure everyone gets their fair share when they do get a divorce, etc. I suppose that since marriage is no longer marriage then it doesn't really matter.

I don't know if more marriages get pre-nups or not. Another way of looking at it is, all marriages have a pre-nup. If you don't draft your own, you are agreeing to go by whatever the prevailing laws are in the event of your divorce or death....yes, pre-nups often affect transfer of assets in death.


However, for me, who went in to my marriage knowing it will be for life, with no plan on what might happen if we split up...no safety net...I'd prefer not to have current references to my marriage being banned by the state I grew up in.

I sincerely wish you the best in your marriage...I also know that it takes two...and we don't always know someone as well as we think we do, and we can really only control our own thoughts and actions..

Again..I think "banned" isn't quite the right word here...and is being lobbed about to induce outrage.

But, I respect your choice to be upset about it.

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 11:00 PM
Text of the law for anyone interested:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1306

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 11:12 PM
Somewhat hard to believe, but okay. Believe what you will. She's not into expensive crap. The engagement ring was $900. Plus, I'm not spending money on her. It's our money so if she buys something she's not spending MY money.




So is she a wife or a sugar baby? Not sure I get the reference.




Most men in our society think that way. It is disturbing to think that a man in our society is measured and judged primarily by his income. I don't care how people judge me. My income has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I feel like a man.


If the idea of being a stay-at-home parent is so unappealing to you, then why would you even want to have kids? We don't have kids. And it's not unappealing.


Would you not feel like "much like a man" if you had no children? We don't have children.


Who here has seen the TV show Sister Wives? That show documents the life of a polygamist family, which includes patriarch Kody Brown, his four wives, and their seventeen children. Since Kody Brown has four wives and seventeen children, is he more of a man that we are? If not, then why not?I'm not telling you how I define a man. I'm telling you how I define myself as a man. Never seen the show but if everyone involved in the relationship is fine with it then good on 'em.






Interesting point. Women could do many of those jobs; however most women just are not interested in those jobs (because those jobs are usually not fun). Feminists often complain about the lack of women in the Senate and the lack of women CEOS. Of course, garbage collection and coal mining are male dominated fields. Have you ever known a feminist to complain about the lack of female garbage collectors or the lack of female coal miners?Nope

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 11:18 PM
I think referring to this as a "ban on use husband and wife"...is a little silly, personally. They no longer allow it to be used. Not sure what else to call it.


It is minor administrative change to make the laws align with the fact that California now recognizes same-sex marriage. Nothing more. It is another law/step to ensure the progression of marriage from a union to a business deal. And they can't recognize same sex marriage by using "Husband/husband" and "Wife/wife"? I'm sure they could, but some gays might not want to be called a husband or a wife so the law will cater to that.







I sincerely wish you the best in your marriage...I also know that it takes two...and we don't always know someone as well as we think we do, and we can really only control our own thoughts and actions.. And this is the line of thought that leads to people jumping into marriage and ending in a divorce. If one believes they can never truly know their partner then, in my opinion, they shouldn't get married.

I remember the first time I deployed after we were married and I gave my wife a general power of attorney. The guy at the legal office was shocked and seemed almost upset at my decision. I'm sorry he was in such an unhappy, untrusting relationship.

Measure Man
07-24-2014, 11:36 PM
They no longer allow it to be used. Not sure what else to call it.

nowhere in the law does it say the terms can not be used...it only says, we replace this term with another one.


It is another law/step to ensure the progression of marriage from a union to a business deal. And they can't recognize same sex marriage by using "Husband/husband" and "Wife/wife"? I'm sure they could, but some gays might not want to be called a husband or a wife so the law will cater to that.

I suppose they could...but let's look at an example from the law I linked


The law prior to this change:



500. When an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, not minors, have
been living together as husband and wife, they may be married
pursuant to this chapter by a person authorized to solemnize a
marriage under Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 400) of Part 3,
without the necessity of first obtaining health certificates.

So, it would appear the purpose of this section is to do away with health certificate requirements for couples that are already common-law married.

Okay...so clearly, now that that not all legal marriages have a husband and wife, or a man and woman, this had to change....am I correct you would like the law to say..

"When and unmarried man and unmarried woman, or unmarried man and unmaried man, or unmarried woman and unmarried woman, not minors, having been living together as husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife, or spouses, they may be..."

Is that correct? Or how would you reword the above to include same-sex marriages?

Another way would be to that one in place and add sub-paragraph A. for two men, B. that is two women...and C. that is gender neutral?

The new law simply says



500. When two unmarried people, not minors, have been living together as spouses, they may be married pursuant to this chapter by a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 400) of Part 3, without the necessity of first obtaining health certificates.


And this is the line of thought that leads to people jumping into marriage and ending in a divorce. If one believes they can never truly know their partner then, in my opinion, they shouldn't get married.

nice theory. So, if they shouldn't have gotten married, but did...? Should they live with it forever?


I remember the first time I deployed after we were married and I gave my wife a general power of attorney. The guy at the legal office was shocked and seemed almost upset at my decision. I'm sorry he was in such an unhappy, untrusting relationship.

I've done that several times and would still do the same today...

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 11:46 PM
So, it would appear to purpose of this section is to do away with health certificate requirements for couples that are already common-law married.

Okay...so clearly, now that that not all legal marriages have a husband and wife, or a man and woman, this had to change....am I correct you would like the law to say..

"When and unmarried man and unmarried woman, or unmarried man and unmaried man, or unmarried woman and unmarried woman, not minors, having been living together as husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife, or spouses, they may be..." Nope...it could easily say "two people". The law can use whatever terminology it wants to describe marriage. I'm merely saying, over and over, that if I want my certificate to say "Husband and Wife" then it shouldn't be a big deal.





nice theory. Yep...just a theory...based on evidence that I've worked with who has a separate bank account "just in case" or a pre-nup or "his money" and "her money" has ended in divorce. So it may be just my personal experience but when it's up near 80% it's a pretty good sample.




I've done that several times and would still do the same today...But you still don't think that you know your significant other spouse type humanoid partner? You think that some day she could just pack up and leave you?

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 12:01 AM
Nope...it could easily say "two people".

Humpf...gender neutral terminology.


The law can use whatever terminology it wants to describe marriage. I'm merely saying, over and over, that if I want my certificate to say "Husband and Wife" then it shouldn't be a big deal.

Okay..then you have nothing to worry about.

I'm looking online at the CA application for marriage license...and each person has the option to check "bride" "Groom" or "none"...so I think you're okay with it now?

www.lavote.net/RECORDER/PDFS/confMarriageApp.pdf

...at least that's LA County...I guess each county can do it how they want...the state law does not prescribe a form.


I didn't see anywhere in the law I linked that it changed anything about the licenses or certificates...so you might be getting upset for nothing if you don't mind the terminology in the laws changing.


Yep...just a theory...based on evidence that I've worked with who has a separate bank account "just in case" or a pre-nup or "his money" and "her money" has ended in divorce. So it may be just my personal experience but when it's up near 80% it's a pretty good sample.

But you still don't think that you know your significant other spouse type humanoid partner? You think that some day she could just pack up and leave you?

I don't think so...It would be real shocker, that's for sure. I've never had that kind of shock, but I know people who have. Maybe WJ5 could weigh in on this...as I don't have a lot of personal experience. I feel like I know my wife very very well and I feel confident saying she wouldn't do this.

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 12:18 AM
Humpf...gender neutral terminology. Yes...because the law itself is not referring to me personally. It is relating to any two people. My certificate, however, is referring to my wife and I.





I'm looking online at the CA application for marriage license...and each person has the option to check "bride" "Groom" or "none"...so I think you're okay with it now? I'm ok with any form that let's people refer to themselves as they wish. I'm not ok with the law saying that it will say "spouse".





I didn't see anywhere in the law I linked that it changed anything about the licenses or certificates...so you might be getting upset for nothing if you don't mind the terminology in the laws changing. Maybe they've changed it since I started complaining about it on here.




I don't think so...It would be real shocker, that's for sure. I've never had that kind of shock, but I know people who have. Maybe WJ5 could weigh in on this...as I don't have a lot of personal experience. I feel like I know my wife very very well and I feel confident saying she wouldn't do this.That's a good thing. And you are still married. So now you have an example of people marrying someone they trust actually having a marriage that works. Now take some time and look at the people you know who have been divorced and I'm sure that in the majority of those cases the person had a back-up plan going in.


edit: After reviewing the law, I see nothing stating what certificates must say. Merely changes the words within the law. I'm fine with that.

Let it be known that if, in the future, it changes, I will resume my outrage.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 12:23 AM
Yes...because the law itself is not referring to me personally. It is relating to any two people. My certificate, however, is referring to my wife and I.

I'm ok with any form that let's people refer to themselves as they wish. I'm not ok with the law saying that it will say "spouse".

The law does not mandate a form...that's at the county level as far as I can tell.


Maybe they've changed it since I started complaining about it on here.

Yeah, that's the ticket...we fixed it.


That's a good thing. And you are still married. So now you have an example of people marrying someone they trust actually having a marriage that works. Now take some time and look at the people you know who have been divorced and I'm sure that in the majority of those cases the person had a back-up plan going in.

I'm actually on my second marriage.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 12:27 AM
Yes...because the law itself is not referring to me personally. It is relating to any two people. My certificate, however, is referring to my wife and I.

From Santa Barbara County:

"•Effective October 27, 2008, marriage applicants may identify themselves as Groom, Bride or neither as each party wishes. The parties to marriage will be required to inform the County Clerk at the time they apply for their marriage license whether they would like to be identified as Groom, Bride, or neither."

USN - Retired
07-25-2014, 12:31 AM
Now take some time and look at the people you know who have been divorced and I'm sure that in the majority of those cases the person had a back-up plan going in..

Men usually never see it coming. [Embedded Link Removed]

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 12:38 AM
From Santa Barbara County:

"•Effective October 27, 2008, marriage applicants may identify themselves as Groom, Bride or neither as each party wishes. The parties to marriage will be required to inform the County Clerk at the time they apply for their marriage license whether they would like to be identified as Groom, Bride, or neither."I edited above before you posted these last 2 that I'm ok with the law.

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 12:48 AM
Men usually never see it coming. [Embedded Link Removed]I'm not denying that it happens. What I'm saying is that many young people these days marry for reasons such as looks, sex, money, the excitement of going out together all the time clubbing, etc. These things change down the road and if those things were the starting point of the marriage then the marriage isn't going to last.

My wife is a fair bit older than I am. We are now well into the "comfortable point" of our marriage. When I'm not at work, I'm with her. If we go somewhere, we do it together. I don't go out drinking with the guys...she doesn't go out shopping with the girls. We enjoy each other's company. We don't fight. We rarely...very rarely...argue about anything. It's simple. You find someone you love. You make a commitment. You don't let the little things get to you and you don't put yourself in situations that could cause issues.

For instance, I'd never cheat on my wife. In addition to that, I'd never put my self in a situation that could give the impression that I would cheat on my wife. We go out together. I come home after work, etc...It's simple. It's about respect and knowing that the two of you are no longer individuals. You still have individual interests. You don't give up the things you enjoy. You just do the things you enjoy with the person you enjoy being with.

Many people aren't willing to make sacrifices. The excuse of "We grew apart" is a bunch of crap. What that means is that the initial excitement, the lust, the cute habits has worn off and now those habits are annoying and the other stuff is "comfortable". Too many people use that to jump away. Someone who is looking for constant excitement is not someone who should get married. Marriage is work. If your too lazy to work on it then it's going to fail. And working on it is an everyday thing, not something that just pops up when there are problems.

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 12:49 AM
From Santa Barbara County:

"•Effective October 27, 2008, marriage applicants may identify themselves as Groom, Bride or neither as each party wishes. The parties to marriage will be required to inform the County Clerk at the time they apply for their marriage license whether they would like to be identified as Groom, Bride, or neither."
I would say those terms should be broadened in case someone wants to be identified otherwise.

Mjölnir
07-25-2014, 01:39 AM
It was a few months ago. I was publicly berated and then banned for a week because I questioned the tradition of engagement rings.

It was said before, it was not because of the questioning, but the overly rude manner in which you did it.

Stalwart
07-25-2014, 02:19 AM
Was your mother-in-law married to Warren Jeffs?

No. She is/we are LDS, not FLDS or RLDS.

Stalwart
07-25-2014, 04:06 AM
I remember the first time I deployed after we were married and I gave my wife a general power of attorney. The guy at the legal office was shocked and seemed almost upset at my decision. I'm sorry he was in such an unhappy, untrusting relationship.

I got the same reaction, still do when I deploy. Same thing about our finances, which are 100% pooled, there is not "my money" or "her money" & I am actually surprised that I know so many people that almost seem to be planning for their marriage to eventually fail.

I implicitly trust my wife, I have no reason not to ... If I did she would not be my wife.

Rainmaker
07-25-2014, 05:20 AM
For my part, I can see why a state would want to use the term "spouse", it is just a legal term on a legal document, it is not a term of endearment or one that assigns a role in the relationship ... I can see where they would not want to a form for a M/F marriage, a form for F/F marriage and another form for M/M marriage. I can see that having a blank that could be filled in would be one way to satisfy everyone, but some bean-counter somewhere figuring that it takes an extra 10-seconds to type it in multiplied by the number of marriage certificates in a year equals [x] number of extra man-hours per year.

My totally subjective opinion is that the state found the path of least resistance.



You have a very good point. I like my gender role in my marriage, I am the man of the house, and I think my wife defers to me on decisions at times because she looks at me that way. I am the primary income maker, I am the one that does the lawn, fixes the sink and takes out the trash, splits firewood etc. (damn, I do a lot of chores); she tends to cook more -- even though I enjoy it and have considered going to culinary school when I retire, she does more laundry than I do etc. In many ways I am and do consider myself a very traditional person. I am far from effeminized or metrosexual but my mother in law lived with us for about 6 months last year and often talked about how much input my wife had in our marriage and how it seemed that my wife was not subordinate to me. It was foreign to her after having been married to my father in law for almost 30 years ... it is just what is normal for our marriage. At the same time, I know that society is one that is constantly in progression and the societal norms from when I was raised and forming my opinions are very different than those from 30 years before and now 30 years later, probably how many parents of teens and those in their 20's felt in the 60's during that social revolution.

Since this is MTF, what about gender roles in the military? I think "if someone can do the job, let them do it regardless of their plumbing." Let's face it, in many sections of our military if you are a "war-fighter" you stand a better chance at promotion -- especially to the pinnacle positions. I was a Marine infantryman for 12 years, the better part of that in the Reconnaissance (Special Operations) community, and every now and then the subject of women in the infantry came up. Most of us didn't really care. If a woman could hike with the same ruck, shoot with the same accuracy, climb the same wall etc. we would not have cared if she was a GRUNT or not. I had a discussion years ago with a large group of NSW (SeAL) friends and they had the same opinion, they really cared less; but it seems that the people who are the most fervently opposed to the idea are those that don't actually do the job. I am IN NO WAY in favor of making the standards easier -- that will cost lives, but if a female could do it, I wouldn't care. I knoew a couple of women who were in incredible shape and likely could have gotten through the School of Infantry, but they did not want to do it -- look at Shannon Faulkner from the Citadel in the early 90's ... she spent 3 years fighting in court to get in and was not physically prepared for the rigors of the student indoc.


Now, as idealistic as we can be, we have to be realistic; men and women are physically different. Thos differences may limit the vast majority of women from being able to do that kind of job. It isn't like assigning women to a ship or a sub, which if they can get through the academic school means they can do the job. Is the expense of creating new body armor that fits their body shape, creating new barracks or barracks rooms etc. worth it for the (probable) handful that would be able to make it ... probably not.

While we agree in theory. In actual practice it doesn't matter what you (or any other operator) are in favor of. The writing is already on the wall...

"If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”- General Dempsey

What this means in 'DC mouth full o' dicks speak is that once the first couple of gals with hairy nipples get through training and the numbers inevitably decline thereafter, the Diversity cult will demand that the selection standards be lowered or heads will roll. So, they'll have no choice really. Genetics and common sense don't matter to these ideologues. No one is watching the store.

Stalwart
07-25-2014, 09:19 AM
While we agree in theory. In actual practice it doesn't matter what you (or any other operator) are in favor of. The writing is already on the wall...


Trust me, I know that the policy makers are the ones that will make the decision ultimately. Congress is charged with oversight as part of their Article I responsibilities, we just are the kinetic part of that policy. I find it ironic though that the people who are the most vocal opponents of a female operator are people who never had what it took to actually be an operator themselves.



"If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”- General Dempsey


And the burden should be on the service to explain why the standards are what they are and not just say "trust us". After all, "trust us" was the argument that women on combat ships and in combat aircraft was wrong, and the people who argued against the repeal of DADT using "trust us", as opposed to the GEN Ham study that found the impact would be minimal were wrong. The Marine Corps has had a couple of females who have made it through the School of Infantry, and a few females who have attempted Infantry Officers School (none have made it) and has so far laid out a very plain language and successful defense of the high physical standards that are precluding so many women from passing.



What this means in 'DC mouth full o' dicks speak is that once the first couple of gals with hairy nipples get through training and the numbers inevitably decline thereafter, the Diversity cult will demand that the selection standards be lowered or heads will roll. So, they'll have no choice really. Genetics and common sense don't matter to these ideologues. No one is watching the store.


The 18 months I spent in the Senate showed me that the one issue that is less partisan (note: I am not saying non-partisan) than anything else is the military -- specifically readiness. I worked on a very liberal staff and on this issue their viewpoint was pretty close to mine, no one wants to be the one that forces a change that gets a bunch of people killed.

efmbman
07-25-2014, 12:31 PM
I got the same reaction, still do when I deploy. Same thing about our finances, which are 100% pooled, there is not "my money" or "her money" & I am actually surprised that I know so many people that almost seem to be planning for their marriage to eventually fail.

I implicitly trust my wife, I have no reason not to ... If I did she would not be my wife.

That always struck me as indicitive of the typical reaction by the military in general. I'm sure the command(s) have seen many times how a deployed troop is bent over by what was thought to be a trusting spouse back home. The command has to deal with picking up the pieces and all the other drama associated with that. Therefore, the legal office folks are directed to advise against the general POA. Basically, it just another diaper we all get to wear (or at least sniff).

TJMAC77SP
07-25-2014, 01:04 PM
Not sure I would call it "catering to the wishes"...I see it more as changing the language to align with the overarching law.

If a group was once exlusively male and referred to as a "North Essex Men's Club"...and they change their rules to allow women, it would seem to make sense to change the name referred to...maybe "North Essex Member's Club" or something. I don't think that's "catering to women" as much as "including women"....I don't think the term "spouse" caters to homosexuals, just includes them.

But....YMCA hasn't changed their name...and as far I know you don't have to be young, male or Christian to join.

Which is why it is my post that used the term 'catering to the wishes'..........my opinion. If you choose to believe that this was merely an administrative adjustment so be it.

BTW: Just to clarify....since the law calls out the specific term to be used is spouse then that, in effect is a ban on the use of any other term, to include husband and wife, which is also specifically cited as not to be used.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 02:56 PM
Which is why it is my post that used the term 'catering to the wishes'..........my opinion. If you choose to believe that this was merely an administrative adjustment so be it.

BTW: Just to clarify....since the law calls out the specific term to be used is spouse then that, in effect is a ban on the use of any other term,

Well, the law doesn't say "this specific term must be used"

It says..."we amend existing to law to read (insert term)"


to include husband and wife, which is also specifically cited as not to be used.

Where does it say this?

If you go back and edit your post, and change the word "clarify" to "be clear"...does this mean you have banned use of the word clarify?, or just thought there was a better term to be used in this instance?

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2014, 03:23 PM
Laws still have to be Constitutional.

I won't argue that a court in CA is likely to interpret the law differently than a court in MS or LA.

Its why most states want to secede, because the federal government, especially the SCOTUS, has been stepping over their limits of constitutional powers and striking down the 10th amendment to benefit their own ideological beliefs.

efmbman
07-25-2014, 04:22 PM
Its why most states want to secede, because the federal government, especially the SCOTUS, has been stepping over their limits of constitutional powers and striking down the 10th amendment to benefit their own ideological beliefs.

Most states want to secede? Which ones, please?

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2014, 04:43 PM
Most states want to secede? Which ones, please?

Joining Louisiana now are Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, California, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

All right winger states, I know right? Those were the petitions from 2012. This is from 2013.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/20/this-is-what-the-people-in-your-state-want-according-to-google-autocomplete/

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 05:16 PM
Joining Louisiana now are Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, California, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

All right winger states, I know right? Those were the petitions from 2012. This is from 2013.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/20/this-is-what-the-people-in-your-state-want-according-to-google-autocomplete/

That is poor, poor proof that the states want to secede. Autocomplete from google? Really? Perhaps I'm just curious about how California feels so I type it in...that is used as a count in this "survey" that I want to secede.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2014, 05:52 PM
That is poor, poor proof that the states want to secede. Autocomplete from google? Really? Perhaps I'm just curious about how California feels so I type it in...that is used as a count in this "survey" that I want to secede.

True, but the petitions arent from google. Those states that I named actually had petitions. Even Cali wants to break up into 5 different states itself. Colorado wants to break up as well.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 06:09 PM
True, but the petitions arent from google. Those states that I named actually had petitions. Even Cali wants to break up into 5 different states itself. Colorado wants to break up as well.

The states don't want to...some people within the state want to.

There's a big difference there.

I'm sure you can find some people within most states that want to do just about anything...

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2014, 06:10 PM
The states don't want to...some people within the state want to.

There's a big difference there.

I'm sure you can find some people within most states that want to do just about anything...

25,000 people is "some"?

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 06:15 PM
25,000 people is "some"?

Yes.

Is 0.06% of the state of California "The state"?

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2014, 06:23 PM
Yes.

Is 0.06% of the state of California "The state"?

So in your mind, 2% of a population is enough to get state wide official documents changed, does that mean the 4% of Wyoming is justified to secede from the union? Or the 2% of Deleware?

Whats the threshold to make it an "important" matter?

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 06:24 PM
So in your mind, 2% of a population is enough to get state wide official documents changed

I never said that.


, does that mean the 4% of Wyoming is justified to secede from the union? Or the 2% of Deleware?

Of course not...this is your claim.

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 06:25 PM
Even Cali wants to break up into 5 different states itself. Colorado wants to break up as well.The latest report was they want to break up into 6 states. I lived in California for most of my life. My family is still there. I've been hearing that California wants to break up into different states (initially it was just Northern and Southern) for the past 30 years.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 06:33 PM
So in your mind, 2% of a population is enough to get state wide official documents changed, does that mean the 4% of Wyoming is justified to secede from the union? Or the 2% of Deleware?

Whats the threshold to make it an "important" matter?

It can be "important"....I think the whole point is that it is disengenuous to say "Most states want..."

If I were to use your faulty math and logic, I could say things like:

"Every state in the U.S. wants same-sex marriage"...
"Everry state in the union favors Obamacare", or
"Every state in the Union wants single payer health care"
"Every state in the U.S. believes the Tea Party is bad for America"

since I'm confident at least 25,000 people in every state would agree with these.

As for secession...I don't know the number...but 25,000 ain't it...as you mention, even in the least populous state it amounts to less than 5% of the population...in the most populous it is less than 0.1%

TJMAC77SP
07-25-2014, 06:42 PM
Well, the law doesn't say "this specific term must be used"

It says..."we amend existing to law to read (insert term)"



Where does it say this?

If you go back and edit your post, and change the word "clarify" to "be clear"...does this mean you have banned use of the word clarify?, or just thought there was a better term to be used in this instance?

This is why I chuckle every time someone accuses ME of nitpicking and splitting hairs (and dirverting discussions).

The summary of the law says...."The bill would delete references to “husband” or “wife” in the Family Code and would instead refer to a “spouse,” and would make other related changes."

How do you interpret the law's instruction on the use of any term but spouse by officials of the state of California?

I will leave my post as is.

Let me propose a hypothetical situation. The county clerk (or whatever county official handles such matters) in Modoc County does not change the forms used in that county and instead keeps the husband/wife terminology.

A same sex couple sues the county to change the form. What law do you think they will cite in their suite?

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 06:56 PM
This is why I chuckle every time someone accuses ME of nitpicking and splitting hairs (and dirverting discussions).

The summary of the law says...."The bill would delete references to “husband” or “wife” in the Family Code and would instead refer to a “spouse,” and would make other related changes."

How do you interpret the law's instruction on the use of any term but spouse by officials of the state of California?

I find no such instruction in the law.


I will leave my post as is.

Okay.


Let me propose a hypothetical situation. The county clerk (or whatever county official handles such matters) in Modoc County does not change the forms used in that county and instead keeps the husband/wife terminology.

A same sex couple sues the county to change the form. What law do you think they will cite in their suite?

Perhaps they will...but, I don't see why this is a bad thing.

You think a county clerk should be able to insist a couple use husband/wife when they are a same-sex couple?

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2014, 07:06 PM
It can be "important"....I think the whole point is that it is disengenuous to say "Most states want..."

If I were to use your faulty math and logic, I could say things like:

"Every state in the U.S. wants same-sex marriage"...
"Everry state in the union favors Obamacare", or
"Every state in the Union wants single payer health care"
"Every state in the U.S. believes the Tea Party is bad for America"

since I'm confident at least 25,000 people in every state would agree with these.

As for secession...I don't know the number...but 25,000 ain't it...as you mention, even in the least populous state it amounts to less than 5% of the population...in the most populous it is less than 0.1%

Actually, your wording doesnt match your claim.

"Everry state in the union favors Obamacare" would need to show the justifier for "favors". I could live with "wants..." though.

"Every state in the U.S. believes the Tea Party is bad for America" would be disproven by the states electing senate representation and govenors to run several states.

My wording is a tad off. If I had said "Most states have petitions to secede started", that would have been completely acurate. I never said "every" either.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 07:13 PM
Actually, your wording doesnt match your claim.

Of course it doesn't, that was my point...to illustrate to you how your wording does not match your claim, either.


"Everry state in the union favors Obamacare" would need to show the justifier for "favors". I could live with "wants..." though.

What if I just find 25,000 people to say "I favor Obamacare"?


"Every state in the U.S. believes the Tea Party is bad for America" would be disproven by the states electing senate representation and govenors to run several states.

...as your claim is by not a single state in the union voting to secede.


My wording is a tad off. If I had said "Most states have petitions to secede started", that would have been completely acurate.

Yes, that would have been more accurate...but amounts to nothing. Most states probably have a petition for a lot of crazy things.


I never said "every" either.

I know...I did to strenghten my point. You make this statement about what "Most states want..." portraying it as some kind of enormous movement afoot...and the truth of it, is the effort for any state to secede is exceedingly weak.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2014, 07:24 PM
Perhaps they will...but, I don't see why this is a bad thing.

You think a county clerk should be able to insist a couple use husband/wife when they are a same-sex couple?

I find it just so silly to want to be everything like a marriage but to use none of the same terminology. Wasnt it homosexuals that said "civil union" was a kin to "seperate but equal"? If they want to call it a marriage, then designate who the "wife" and who the "husband" is and be on the same page as traditional marriages or dont complain about the BS "seperate but equal" qualifier.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 07:36 PM
I find it just so silly to want to be everything like a marriage but to use none of the same terminology.

That is an interesting point.


Wasnt it homosexuals that said "civil union" was a kin to "seperate but equal"?

I'm sure a lot of homosexuals said that.


If they want to call it a marriage, then designate who the "wife" and who the "husband" is and be on the same page as traditional marriages or dont complain about the BS "seperate but equal" qualifier.

I admit, this post made me pause a moment.

I did look up the definitions of "husband" and it specifies that it is a male...and I admit to not being familiar enough with the family dynamics of same-sex relationships to really comment on this part of it. I would assume that a woman married to another woman does not think of herself as a man, necessarily. Though, sure there are some that identify as husband and wife, I bet. So, check Bride, Groom, or None as one prefers.

So, I don't know. I still maintain it was just an administrative change to be inclusive and not any attack on anything...now that it is legal and recognized in the state, it is only logical, in my mind, to make the other laws reflect that.

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 08:15 PM
So, I don't know. I still maintain it was just an administrative change to be inclusive and not any attack on anything...now that it is legal and recognized in the state, it is only logical, in my mind, to make the other laws reflect that.Seems like it would be easier to change one law to allow multiple terms than to change ALL laws to match one single law...for administrative purposes, of course.

TJMAC77SP
07-25-2014, 08:43 PM
I find no such instruction in the law.

Yeah you do but I get it.



Perhaps they will...but, I don't see why this is a bad thing.

You think a county clerk should be able to insist a couple use husband/wife when they are a same-sex couple?

Completely irrelevant to the point I made and merely reinforces what I wrote above.

Just to be clear (not that I think this will get an agreement but let’s save the readers some trouble).

You said……………………………….

I think referring to this as a "ban on use husband and wife"...is a little silly, personally………..
………………….Again..I think "banned" isn't quite the right word here...and is being lobbed about to induce outrage………………..


I made a rebuttal to that assertion…………………….

……………..BTW: Just to clarify....since the law calls out the specific term to be used is spouse then that, in effect is a ban on the use of any other term, to include husband and wife, which is also specifically cited as not to be used.

And here we are with you continuing to insist that the law does not ‘ban’ the use of any term but ‘spouse’ in official use within CA.

As a further note, the link to the form you provide pertains to LA County only and is from 2010. Let’s check back in a month or so and see if it remains the same.

Truth is that I do agree with your point that this issue is not worth getting all worked up about. It is also not worth misstating facts.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 08:55 PM
Seems like it would be easier to change one law to allow multiple terms than to change ALL laws to match one single law...for administrative purposes, of course.

I don't understand what you mean.

So, say there are 20+ existing laws that referred to "husband and wife, or male and female partner"...then the overarching state law on marriage says "okay, same-sex partners can marry"

How does changing the overarching law to "allow multiple terms" make the other 20+ laws work for same-sex couples?

Are you saying just make them choose a husband and wife?

Just to reiterate, I don't the law actually prohibits, bans, disallows, use of the terms husband and wife...just changes existing laws that do use husband and wife, to use a more inclusive "spouse"

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 09:06 PM
Yeah you do but I get it.

Perhaps you can quote from the link I provided?


Completely irrelevant to the point I made and merely reinforces what I wrote above.

LOL...what? This was your example of something bad about this law...I say "what's so bad about that?" and now it is irrelevant? LOL.


Just to be clear (not that I think this will get an agreement but let’s save the readers some trouble).

You said……………………………….

Yes, i stand by that.


I made a rebuttal to that assertion…………………….

Which I still think is flawed. Because they chose to use one word does not mean the other words are banned for everything else.


And here we are with you continuing to insist that the law does not ‘ban’ the use of any term but ‘spouse’ in official use within CA.

I am insisting that the law does not mandate use of "spouse" in all official capacities in the state. I am insisting is that all the law does is change existing law to use that term because they find more appropriate in light of the legalization of same-sex marriage.


As a further note, the link to the form you provide pertains to LA County only and is from 2010. Let’s check back in a month or so and see if it remains the same.

As far as I can tell, the link is still current...it directly from the county.

Okay...I guess if the law or someone comes back and says "You may NOT use the terms bride and groom"...then you win. How long do we have to wait?


Truth is that I do agree with your point that this issue is not worth getting all worked up about. It is also not worth misstating facts.

Yes...i agree with this. Much ado about nothing...the outrage-creating blogosphere does it again.

garhkal
07-25-2014, 09:19 PM
It's just what I think. I've never heard of anyone being offended by the term spouse...so, I guess that's based on my experience.

I would add I haven't seen or heard anything about this in the local area/news/commentary...less interest in this than in the "Sip and Spit" bill that Gov. Brown just signed.

Just looked that bill up, and i am surprised i have heard little about it.


It was a few months ago. I was publicly berated and then banned for a week because I questioned the tradition of engagement rings.

Wow. Guess i missed that thread, if it was that recent.
Which of the 'sub forums' was it in?
Does the thread still exist so people can read it, or was it deleted?


From Santa Barbara County:

"•Effective October 27, 2008, marriage applicants may identify themselves as Groom, Bride or neither as each party wishes. The parties to marriage will be required to inform the County Clerk at the time they apply for their marriage license whether they would like to be identified as Groom, Bride, or neither."

In that case i change my stance. Since bride/groom are NOT being removed, just Neither is being added, i have no complaints.


I got the same reaction, still do when I deploy. Same thing about our finances, which are 100% pooled, there is not "my money" or "her money" & I am actually surprised that I know so many people that almost seem to be planning for their marriage to eventually fail.

One of the Chaplains i worked with for a few months (he was assigned to our shop as our interim division officer while our new one was en-route), had a saying. If you go into the relationship with a plan of what to do if it fails, it WILL fail.


Trust me, I know that the policy makers are the ones that will make the decision ultimately. Congress is charged with oversight as part of their Article I responsibilities, we just are the kinetic part of that policy. I find it ironic though that the people who are the most vocal opponents of a female operator are people who never had what it took to actually be an operator themselves.


What i find ironic/stupid, is that we have people (congress)< many of which have never served, making rulings on what the mil has to have for requirements for OTHERS to serve.


And the burden should be on the service to explain why the standards are what they are and not just say "trust us".

Shouldn't it be the other way around? In a criminal court, the burden of proof lays with those charging you did a crime. So using that logic, since the womens lib groups are the ones pushing for these laws to change, shouldn't the burden of proof that the requirements are to high be on THEM to prove, and NOT on the military to prove they are where they should be?


So in your mind, 2% of a population is enough to get state wide official documents changed, does that mean the 4% of Wyoming is justified to secede from the union? Or the 2% of Deleware?

Whats the threshold to make it an "important" matter?

That's a valid point. If 2% of the population is gay, and that is sufficient to push to get a law changed, then where DOES the cut off line lay for what counts as being sufficient for making it happen? 2%, 1%? 0.1%?

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 09:39 PM
Just looked that bill up, and i am surprised i have heard little about it.

I wouldn't call it "big news" here, but there's been some interest...especially considering a few local colleges have wine-making degrees and courses. Makes sense to me.

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 09:59 PM
I don't understand what you mean.

So, say there are 20+ existing laws that referred to "husband and wife, or male and female partner"...then the overarching state law on marriage says "okay, same-sex partners can marry"

How does changing the overarching law to "allow multiple terms" make the other 20+ laws work for same-sex couples?

Are you saying just make them choose a husband and wife? Nope...I'm simply saying that if the ONE law that was recently passed simply said "XXX Term" or "term of the applicants preference" then there wouldn't need to be a change to any other laws.


Just to reiterate, I don't the law actually prohibits, bans, disallows, use of the terms husband and wife...just changes existing laws that do use husband and wife, to use a more inclusive "spouse"

You are only allowed to go see PG movies. You aren't banned from R movies, but you can only go see the PG ones.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 10:10 PM
Nope...I'm simply saying that if the ONE law that was recently passed simply said "XXX Term" or "term of the applicants preference" then there wouldn't need to be a change to any other laws.

i think you're missing the point. These other laws already existed...and they already specified things like "husband and wife"...or "man and woman"

All THIS law did was change "husband and wife" in those laws to "spouse" so that they would also apply to same-sex couples.

For example, the old law might have said "A husband and wife can not be forced to testify against one another"

Does this law apply to same-sex married couples? By a literal reading, it does not, so, it was changed to "spouses can not be forced to testify against one another"


You are only allowed to go see PG movies. You aren't banned from R movies, but you can only go see the PG ones.

Yeah, the law doesn't say this.

It says something more like, Previously only PG movies were allowed...so we had laws that said "when watching PG movies, popcorn may be eaten..."...but we're now allowing R movies to be watched, so we're changing those laws from "PG movies" to "movies"

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 10:20 PM
i think you're missing the point. These other laws already existed...and they already specified things like "husband and wife"...or "man and woman"

All THIS law did was change "husband and wife" in those laws to "spouse" so that they would also apply to same-sex couples. Right...could have added "spouse" without removing the others.




It says something more like, Previously only PG movies were allowed...so we had laws that said "when watching PG movies, popcorn may be eaten..."...but we're now allowing R movies to be watched, so we're changing those laws from "PG movies" to "movies"Actually, you're kind of on the right track. It's more like saying that movies can't be identified in he description as drama, comedy, action, etc. They can ONLY be identified as movies. So, they aren't banning drama, comedy and action movies, but they are banning the use of the terms that describe the genre.

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 10:50 PM
Right...could have added "spouse" without removing the others.


Actually, you're kind of on the right track. It's more like saying that movies can't be identified in he description as drama, comedy, action, etc. They can ONLY be identified as movies. So, they aren't banning drama, comedy and action movies, but they are banning the use of the terms that describe the genre.

Again with the "banning"...I'm still waiting for someone to quote where in the law it says this.

Is there anywhere in there that says, "For now on, California documents can ONLY use the word "spouse" to describe one or either partner in a marriage"???

But we are on the right track....this law replaces "dramas" with "movies"...but, I can't find out where it says "the term "dramas" may no longer be used"

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 11:08 PM
I found a piece in there that I think @USN-Retired would appreciate:



Existing law establishes, except as specified, a rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex.

This bill would make that rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support applicable if the supported party is cohabitating with a “nonmarital partner.”


So, before this...if your wife leaves you and moves in with another man, it was presumed she would need less spousal support. But, if she left you for a woman, you didn't get that presumption.

Now, if your wife leaves you and moves in with another woman, you have the same presumption of reduced support as if she left you for a man.

garhkal
07-25-2014, 11:27 PM
I wouldn't call it "big news" here, but there's been some interest...especially considering a few local colleges have wine-making degrees and courses. Makes sense to me.

Or they could shift those courses to needing the students to be 21 to take it..

Measure Man
07-25-2014, 11:50 PM
Or they could shift those courses to needing the students to be 21 to take it..

Yes, they could have done that.

They also could have allowed them to fully taste...

Or, to just drop the drinking age to 18.

I personally, believe the drinking age should be 18 anyway...and if not that, I think full tasting in a controlled environment like a college program is fairly sensible....and if not that, sip and spit is an okay compromise, too.

Stalwart
07-25-2014, 11:52 PM
One of the Chaplains i worked with for a few months (he was assigned to our shop as our interim division officer while our new one was en-route), had a saying. If you go into the relationship with a plan of what to do if it fails, it WILL fail.

Good saying.




What i find ironic/stupid, is that we have people (congress)< many of which have never served, making rulings on what the mil has to have for requirements for OTHERS to serve.

One one level, I would agree with you. An admin officer telling a SeAL or Recon Marine, Ranger etc. the best way to clear a room would not make much sense.

On another level, Whether or not they have served ... they get that authority once elected, the President does as well as the Commander in Chief. Once elected they fill a unique place in our system ... they also pretty instantly get access to classified info that they otherwise would not based on some specific individual's backgrounds, perk of Article I. Congress does have a Constitutional role in the oversight and policy of the military ... plain and simple. Their oversight is implied in Congress’s array of enumerated powers being is authorized to appropriate funds; raise and support armies; provide for and maintain a navy; declare war; provide for organizing and calling forth the national guard.

Something I learned very quickly in my time on the Hill is that the military can be very straight with members and their staffs, but Congress authorizes the programs and writes the checks via public law and we are the servants of that law. Gen Amos (USMC) is a pretty good example on that ... he was the only service chief who when asked his personal opinion on the repeal of DADT said he thought it was a bad idea (what do you know, he didn't get fired.) But, once DADT was repealed, he 'saluted, about-faced and executed the plan' ... the Marines assigned the most senior of the services (they have fewer generals than any other service ... less stars to go around) to oversee the transition phase and completed the transition phase & training well ahead of the congressional requirement.




Shouldn't it be the other way around? In a criminal court, the burden of proof lays with those charging you did a crime. So using that logic, since the womens lib groups are the ones pushing for these laws to change, shouldn't the burden of proof that the requirements are to high be on THEM to prove, and NOT on the military to prove they are where they should be?

Yes and no. I can see that if they want it so bad they should go out and fight for it. USN's point about women in the sanitation & mining industry was a great point. I can also see that a women's organization with no exposure to combat roles in the military would not know why the requirements are what they are. ALso, they are not empowered to direct the services to conduct a feasibility study ... nor do they have funding lines to fund such studies and plug the money into the DoD accounts ... Congress does.

As I said, in a few cases, the military has made their case that some of the requirements are based on the job and not on gender discrimination. The Marine Corps made a really simple point that the Army later jumped on to that the hardest requirement they saw for female introduction into the infantry was the average individual combat load that an infantryman carries ... roughly 120 pounds. This is more than some females weigh, and their muscle and bone structure is different. The Marine Corps did point out that the weight of water and food cannot be altered but if Congress was willing to fund approx $5 billion in research to develop lighter-weight body armor, packs, weapons, ammunition, communications equipment and such to reduce the individual load then it was just a matter of physical conditioning which they felt could be adjusted to enable women to complete the physical aspects of the infantry mission.

I don't think money should be the SOLE factor in this decision, but it is A factor. The Navy spent tons of money altering surface ships to berth women. Submarines are doing the same thing. Service in the Fleet, while hard ... is something that any woman can feasibly do, serving in direct combat roles with the requirements as they are is a different matter, and if (based on those requirements) only 5 or so a year are going to be able to do it, that probably doesn't justify the expense.




That's a valid point. If 2% of the population is gay, and that is sufficient to push to get a law changed, then where DOES the cut off line lay for what counts as being sufficient for making it happen? 2%, 1%? 0.1%?

What percent of the population needs to be disabled to force a business to comply with the Americans with Disability Act?

sandsjames
07-25-2014, 11:54 PM
Again with the "banning"...I'm still waiting for someone to quote where in the law it says this.

Is there anywhere in there that says, "For now on, California documents can ONLY use the word "spouse" to describe one or either partner in a marriage"???

But we are on the right track....this law replaces "dramas" with "movies"...but, I can't find out where it says "the term "dramas" may no longer be used"Nope, doesn't say it can't be used...just isn't an option for it to be used. Your argument against the word "ban" is like my argument about the word "right" I guess.

Measure Man
07-26-2014, 12:00 AM
Nope, doesn't say it can't be used...just isn't an option for it to be used. Your argument against the word "ban" is like my argument about the word "right" I guess.

You still have the right to watch dramas, but the law will address things affecting "movies", since those same laws will apply to people watching documentaries.

Rainmaker
07-26-2014, 12:02 AM
Trust me, I know that the policy makers are the ones that will make the decision ultimately. Congress is charged with oversight as part of their Article I responsibilities, we just are the kinetic part of that policy. I find it ironic though that the people who are the most vocal opponents of a female operator are people who never had what it took to actually be an operator themselves.


And the burden should be on the service to explain why the standards are what they are and not just say "trust us". After all, "trust us" was the argument that women on combat ships and in combat aircraft was wrong, and the people who argued against the repeal of DADT using "trust us", as opposed to the GEN Ham study that found the impact would be minimal were wrong. The Marine Corps has had a couple of females who have made it through the School of Infantry, and a few females who have attempted Infantry Officers School (none have made it) and has so far laid out a very plain language and successful defense of the high physical standards that are precluding so many women from passing.



The 18 months I spent in the Senate showed me that the one issue that is less partisan (note: I am not saying non-partisan) than anything else is the military -- specifically readiness. I worked on a very liberal staff and on this issue their viewpoint was pretty close to mine, no one wants to be the one that forces a change that gets a bunch of people killed.


Rainmaker worked with and around SOF for the better part of a generation and has had this conversation with MANY friends in and around the community and overwhelmingly they don't share this egalitarian view. Not with him anyways. As for your constant point that those screaming the loudest being non-hackers. IF the fall guy for Benghazi, did have a different opinion or the data shows otherwise. we'd never hear of it because, it would be career suicide to bring it forth and let's face it... At that level these guys are pretty much political appointees anyway. The whole idea that the military should have to justify high selection standards to DC bureaucrats and social engineers bent on using the Military as a tool to push their utopian social agendas (rather than win wars) is disgusting and dangerous and WE run the risk of finding out the hard way when it doesn't work against an enemy that may not be just a bunch of determined goat herders in man jammys with cell phones and AK 47s.

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 12:26 AM
Rainmaker worked with and around SOF for the better part of a generation and has had this conversation with MANY friends in and around the community and overwhelmingly they don't share this egalitarian view. Not with him anyways.

You and I probably run in different circles of the community ... I assume you are USAF which is the one section of the community I had little exposure to. For openness I was a Marine, completed USMC Amplibious Reconnaissance School. Completed basic airbone, combatant dive, HALO as well as Army Ranger and Pathfinder. While in the Marines I deployed with 4 MEUs as part of the Maritime Special Purpose Force (composed of USMC Recon and NSW) four times. I spent 10 1/2 of my 12 years in the Marines as an operator and around 8 of my 11 1/2 in the Navy working with them ... so almost 24 years total and around 20 of that with the community. I will admit again, AFSOF is not a group I have worked with that much nor do I know what the overwhelming majority of them feel about it.



As for your constant point that those screaming the loudest being non-hackers.

Yes, that is my observation.



IF the fall guy for Benghazi, did have a different opinion or the data shows otherwise. we'd never hear of it because, it would be career suicide to bring it forth and let's face it... At that level these guys are pretty much political appointees anyway. The whole idea that the military should have to justify high selection standards to DC bureaucrats and social engineers bent on using the Military as a tool to push their utopian social agendas (rather than win wars) is disgusting and dangerous ....

I don't know what brought Benghazi into this (other than GEN Ham being involved in both), GEN Ham led a study on DADT and which said that the impact of the repeal of DADT would be minimal ... even though:

"But when asked Tuesday by lawmakers in a closed briefing, Ham reportedly said he is personally opposed to homosexuality. Asked later by reporters about the comments, Ham did not deny making them and said military leaders are obligated to express their personal views when asked by lawmakers. Johnson, who did not share his opinion, said it was the first time he had heard Ham's personal views on the matter."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113002654.html



and WE run the risk of finding out the hard way when it doesn't work against an enemy that may not be just a bunch of determined goat herders in man jammys with cell phones and AK 47s.

I won't disagree that blinding making a decision for the sake of a political point is a terrible idea. But once you study the issue and see that 3/4 of the military (refer back to the Ham study) didn't care one way or the other and study that the demographics show it was mostly the older generation that had the issue, not the junior troops) ... it is hard to argue that the majority is getting shafted. DADT was repealed over 3 1/2 years ago (H.R. 2965, S. 4023) and there were very few cases of issues and no mass exodus from the military of people either.

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 12:37 AM
You still have the right to watch dramas, but the law will address things affecting "movies", since those same laws will apply to people watching documentaries.

Analogies are great.

Let's say the law changes to where real estate listings can only use the word "room" instead of distinguishing between the rooms.

So it's no longer listed as a 3 bedroom, 2 bath with a Kitchen and living room. It's now a 7 room house in the listing. Is it 2 bedrooms? 4 bedrooms? Who knows?

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 12:41 AM
You and I probably run in different circles of the community ... I assume you are USAF which is the one section of the community I had little exposure to. For openness I was a Marine, completed USMC Amplibious Reconnaissance School. Completed basic airbone, combatant dive, HALO as well as Army Ranger and Pathfinder. While in the Marines I deployed with 4 MEUs as part of the Maritime Special Purpose Force (composed of USMC Recon and NSW) four times. I spent 10 1/2 of my 12 years in the Marines as an operator and around 8 of my 11 1/2 in the Navy working with them ... so almost 24 years total. I will admit again, AFSOF is not a group I have work with that much nor do I know what the overwhelming majority of them feel about it.




Yes, that is my observation.




I don't know what brought Benghazi into this, GEN Ham led a study on DADT and which said that the impact of the repeal of DADT would be minimal ... even though:

"But when asked Tuesday by lawmakers in a closed briefing, Ham reportedly said he is personally opposed to homosexuality. Asked later by reporters about the comments, Ham did not deny making them and said military leaders are obligated to express their personal views when asked by lawmakers. Johnson, who did not share his opinion, said it was the first time he had heard Ham's personal views on the matter."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113002654.html




I won't disagree that blinding making a decision for the sake of a political point is a terrible idea. But once you study the issue and see that 3/4 of the military (refer back to the Ham study) didn't care one way or the other and study that the demographics show it was mostly the older generation that had the issue, not the junior troops) ... it is hard to argue that the majority is getting shafted. DADT was repealed over 3 1/2 years ago (H.R. 2965, S. 4023) and there were very few cases of issues and no mass exodus from the military of people either.

I'll say this. As a tech school instructor, I get many students through my classes. Young troops. As part of our classes and continued military education we discuss AF/DoD policies. The rate of people who agree with DADT repeal is nowhere near 3/4. More like 1/4, if that. Now, in a setting where they fear retribution they have different answers but in a non-retribution environment it's pretty clear how most people feel.

Measure Man
07-26-2014, 01:13 AM
Analogies are great.

Let's say the law changes to where real estate listings can only use the word "room" instead of distinguishing between the rooms.

So it's no longer listed as a 3 bedroom, 2 bath with a Kitchen and living room. It's now a 7 room house in the listing. Is it 2 bedrooms? 4 bedrooms? Who knows?

Yeah...that would be dumb...but, I don't think that's an effective analogy.

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 01:18 AM
Yeah...that would be dumb...but, I don't think that's an effective analogy.
Other than it's exactly the same situation, just replace "room" with "spouse" and "bedroom" with "husband/wife". And I think we should change to that because the term "kitchen" feels that it has a negative, sexist history.

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 01:20 AM
I'll say this. As a tech school instructor, I get many students through my classes. Young troops. As part of our classes and continued military education we discuss AF/DoD policies. The rate of people who agree with DADT repeal is nowhere near 3/4. More like 1/4, if that. Now, in a setting where they fear retribution they have different answers but in a non-retribution environment it's pretty clear how most people feel.

EDIT: I don't think the report said that 3/4 of respondents AGREED, but that 3/4 would not have issue with it. It is a subtle difference but I would not think 3/4 of military folks would be jumping for joy ... but were kind of like "meh" and went about their business. And since you are talking about tech school students, probably the majority are entry-level to the military ... so they joined anyone even though the policy is what it is?

I am just going off what I read in the report, which of course did not ask everyone in the military, but asked around 120k from what I remember. The survey was anonymous, so I would assume non-attributional.

I am not saying the numbers are absolute, and that there was no effects anywhere, for anyone either. But it does seem based on the absence of mass exodus, fairly steady retention (coupled with a bad economy sure), and lack of incidents ... that the vast majority of the force is complying with the policy, acting professional etc.

I will caveat this, my professional view on the issue and my personal views are different. I am a huge fan of my traditional heterosexual marriage to one woman (more than that would be way too complicated.) On a personal level, I am not a fan of discriminating against anyone, whether for something they choose or a circumstance of their birth. I view the military as much more than a job (I would have been gone 4 years ago otherwise) but if we are talking about whether or not someone being homosexual makes them less capable to do the job than a heterosexual ... the answer is probably not.


EDIT: For the situation with this bill in CA, I get your point; I also think it is in someways the argument is a mountain being made out of a molehill. Based on the law as described even IF a homosexual wanted to have "wife" on the document, it isn't there either. It seems that the state took the route that satisfied the legal necessity and left out the term of endearment or affection ... which was probably the easiest thing for them to do.

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 01:35 AM
Other than it's exactly the same situation, just replace "room" with "spouse" and "bedroom" with "husband/wife". And I think we should change to that because the term "kitchen" feels that it has a negative, sexist history.

I rarely make jokes, but ... would "man-cave" be banned too? :)

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 01:41 AM
I am just going off what I read in the report, which of course did not ask everyone in the military, but asked around 120k from what I remember. The survey was anonymous, so I would assume non-attributional. I've taken plenty of those types of surveys...on my work computer...with my CAC login. Haven't always been completely honest.


I am not saying the numbers are absolute, and that there was no effects anywhere, for anyone either. But it does seem based on the absence of mass exodus, fairly steady retention (coupled with a bad economy sure), and lack of incidents ... that the vast majority of the force is complying with the policy, acting professional etc. Yes, complying. The same way they comply with the sexual harassment policies while there are still "inappropriate" jokes and comments being made all the time.


I will caveat this, my professional view on the issue and my personal views are different. I am a huge fan of my traditional heterosexual marriage to one woman (more than that would be way too complicated.) On a personal level, I am not a fan of discriminating against anyone, whether for something they choose or a circumstance of their birth. I view the military as much more than a job (I would have been gone 4 years ago otherwise) but if we are talking about whether or not someone being homosexual makes them less capable to do the job than a heterosexual ... the answer is probably not. I agree...I just don't think everyone is as ok with it as they try to make out.



EDIT: For the situation with this bill in CA, I get your point; I also think it is in someways the argument is a mountain being made out of a molehill. Based on the law as described even IF a homosexual wanted to have "wife" on the document, it isn't there either. Right...and they should have the option.
It seems that the state took the route that satisfied the legal necessity and left out the term of endearment or affection ... which was probably the easiest thing for them to do.Because the easiest option is ALWAYS the best.

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 01:41 AM
I rarely make jokes, but ... would "man-cave" be banned too? :)Indeed it would. Would just be referred to as a cave. Some people don't self identify as male or female. So it's gotta go.

Measure Man
07-26-2014, 01:45 AM
Other than it's exactly the same situation, just replace "room" with "spouse" and "bedroom" with "husband/wife". And I think we should change to that because the term "kitchen" feels that it has a negative, sexist history.

Exactly the same is a stretch...but, I'll run with it.

Okay...let's say there are rules that apply to rooms in your house whether or not they are bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms or kitchens.

Wouldn't it be silly to say...

"Bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens and bathrooms must have backerboard under any tile"

When you could change the law to say

"Rooms must have backerboard under any tile"

You want to to change the law to say

"Rooms and/or Bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms, and living rooms must have backerboard under any tile"

Now, if this law told those people placing newspaper ads or making invitations that they can not use the terms "husband and wife" in their ads and invitations...then your analogy would make more sense...and then I would agree that the law is problematic.

Measure Man
07-26-2014, 01:48 AM
I rarely make jokes, but ... would "man-cave" be banned too? :)

I can see why :)

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 01:53 AM
I've taken plenty of those types of surveys...on my work computer...with my CAC login. Haven't always been completely honest.


I have never thought there was a secret system of 'the man' monitoring me on those. Not being a smart-ass, but I really don't think that is the case.


[QUOTE=sandsjames;345287]Yes, complying. The same way they comply with the sexual harassment policies while there are still "inappropriate" jokes and comments being made all the time.


Yeah, as I said, I don't think 3/4 of people were campaigning for it. But acted professionally when it happened.



I agree...I just don't think everyone is as ok with it as they try to make out.

Maybe/probably not. But I didn't see huge amounts of unit SITREPs reporting waves of gay-bashing, assaults or other issues either. A few isolated incidents but nothing pandemic.



Right...and they should have the option. Because the easiest option is ALWAYS the best.

They probably should have, I don't disagree. And the easiest option isn't always the best, far from it; I can definitely see why the state would go the route they did though.

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 01:55 AM
Indeed it would. Would just be referred to as a cave. Some people don't self identify as male or female. So it's gotta go.

If I read cave in the listing I would be expecting something with stucco-walls, painting of mammoths on the walls and likely a campfire on the floor. Mrs. Stalwart won't let me do that for sure.

Rainmaker
07-26-2014, 03:28 AM
You and I probably run in different circles of the community ... I assume you are USAF which is the one section of the community I had little exposure to. For openness I was a Marine, completed USMC Amplibious Reconnaissance School. Completed basic airbone, combatant dive, HALO as well as Army Ranger and Pathfinder. While in the Marines I deployed with 4 MEUs as part of the Maritime Special Purpose Force (composed of USMC Recon and NSW) four times. I spent 10 1/2 of my 12 years in the Marines as an operator and around 8 of my 11 1/2 in the Navy working with them ... so almost 24 years total and around 20 of that with the community. I will admit again, AFSOF is not a group I have worked with that much nor do I know what the overwhelming majority of them feel about it.




Yes, that is my observation.




I don't know what brought Benghazi into this (other than GEN Ham being involved in both), GEN Ham led a study on DADT and which said that the impact of the repeal of DADT would be minimal ... even though:

"But when asked Tuesday by lawmakers in a closed briefing, Ham reportedly said he is personally opposed to homosexuality. Asked later by reporters about the comments, Ham did not deny making them and said military leaders are obligated to express their personal views when asked by lawmakers. Johnson, who did not share his opinion, said it was the first time he had heard Ham's personal views on the matter."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113002654.html




I won't disagree that blinding making a decision for the sake of a political point is a terrible idea. But once you study the issue and see that 3/4 of the military (refer back to the Ham study) didn't care one way or the other and study that the demographics show it was mostly the older generation that had the issue, not the junior troops) ... it is hard to argue that the majority is getting shafted. DADT was repealed over 3 1/2 years ago (H.R. 2965, S. 4023) and there were very few cases of issues and no mass exodus from the military of people either.

DADT was fine the way it was. Rainmaker never encountered nor ever heard of a witch hunt being done and someone being booted for keeping their private life...well private. We don't know the impact because, #1 it's too soon after repeal, #2 morale is difficult to measure, and #3 no one would publicly say otherwise. It was completely political move designed to separate the military from its historical recruiting base (i.e. my boy ain't no queer) . anyhow, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. appreciate the opinion. Rainmaker don't know anyone in MARSOC really. don't misunderstand. Rainmaker was not an operator or pilot, though He did do some badge finding as well in his day (long time ago, another time, another life) However,Rainmaker was raised by an old brown boot, Airborne Infantryman that laments the day they stopped training you to be a paratrooper and started training you to jump out of planes. if you catch Pop's meaning. Not, that it matters, he was by today's PC standard supposedly just racist. You make an articulate argument (based on personal experience), and Rainmaker have much respect for the Mormons who he personally observed turn around his brother that was plagued by demons of addiction. so He'll think it over some more and get back wiff you. NomSayin?

TJMAC77SP
07-26-2014, 04:59 AM
Again with the "banning"...I'm still waiting for someone to quote where in the law it says this.

Is there anywhere in there that says, "For now on, California documents can ONLY use the word "spouse" to describe one or either partner in a marriage"???

But we are on the right track....this law replaces "dramas" with "movies"...but, I can't find out where it says "the term "dramas" may no longer be used"

Keep plugging that line, some are bound to believe it.

And country music fans are all inbred idiots.

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 05:17 AM
DADT was fine the way it was. Rainmaker never encountered nor ever heard of a witch hunt being done and someone being booted for keeping their private life...well private.

No, there wasn't. At the same time, it was perfectly okay for me to have a photo of my wife on my desk or in my locker, to bring her to a command picnic or the Marine Corps or Navy Ball, homosexuals really couldn't do that under DADT. Even if I don't agree with that lifestyle, I am not the one to judge and all of us are probably on some level guilty of coming into work and talking about our girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband ... something we did over the weekend or a significant event. Why should I deny someone the ability to do it just because it isn't my chosen path?



We don't know the impact because, #1 it's too soon after, #2 morale is difficult to measure, and #3 no one would publicly say otherwise.

It is too soon really make a scientific or statistical analysis. But I do regularly look at all Navy SITREPs and while on the Hill looks at all DoD Incident Reports to Congress at least every other week to see if there was anything of interest to the boss and incidents attributable to the repeal of DADT were few ... mostly DUIs, DV and th



It was completely political move designed to separate the military from it's historical recruiting base (i.e. my boy ain't no queer)

I don't follow you.



anyhow, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. appreciate the opinion.

And I yours.


We may not agree on the issue, but we probably do agree that we need to be able to do our jobs, win wars, train our replacements for the day we take off the uniform. So even if in some ways I disagree with people I am reminded ... "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire (but maybe his biographer Evelyn Hall)

garhkal
07-26-2014, 05:29 AM
Yes, they could have done that.

They also could have allowed them to fully taste...

Or, to just drop the drinking age to 18.

I personally, believe the drinking age should be 18 anyway...and if not that, I think full tasting in a controlled environment like a college program is fairly sensible....and if not that, sip and spit is an okay compromise, too.

I do find it strange we allow driving, as young as 15 in some areas (drivers ed) 16 in most places, 18 for military and smoking, but you gotta be 21 to drink. So i agree it could do with being lowered.


Good saying.

That it was. But the reality is that i have met/heard of too many who did get shafted by someone they 'loved and trusted', to feel NOT having that safety net of the prenup etc, is a stupid idea.


On another level, Whether or not they have served ... they get that authority once elected, the President does as well as the Commander in Chief.

That they do. My concern is maybe the requirements to become a senator/president should be changed to where they DO need to have some mil experience. Even if only ROTC, Air national guard, civil air corps etc.


I rarely make jokes, but ... would "man-cave" be banned too?

Yea, it's sexually discriminatory, why is there no woman-cave! EQUALITY RULES!


I've taken plenty of those types of surveys...on my work computer...with my CAC login. Haven't always been completely honest.


Good point SJ. How can anything being done on a computer you need to use your CAC to log in with, ever really be considered anonymous?


I have never thought there was a secret system of 'the man' monitoring me on those. Not being a smart-ass, but I really don't think that is the case.

Since you use your CAC to log in, we can track when you were on, which terminal etc. So there IS watching being done.

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 05:35 AM
Since you use your CAC to log in, we can track when you were on, which terminal etc. So there IS watching being done.

Oh I know that. I just don't think they are keeping track of my responses to a survey.

Measure Man
07-26-2014, 05:38 AM
Keep plugging that line, some are bound to believe it.

...and you can keep saying it does, but...

Yes, we have noticed you've yet to quote anything in the bill that says this.

What part of:

In section 500 of the Family code, we change "husband and wife" to "spouses"...implies that the terms husband and wife are heretofore banned throughout the state?


And country music fans are all inbred idiots.

I don't get the reference...you may have me confused with someone else

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 11:39 AM
Yea, it's sexually discriminatory, why is there no woman-cave! EQUALITY RULES! They do...most people call it a kitchen.




Since you use your CAC to log in, we can track when you were on, which terminal etc. So there IS watching being done.I love the "anonymous" unit climate surveys, and most other surveys, where you list you base, unit, AFSC, rank, but you don't have to list your name. That makes it extremely anonymous.

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 11:44 AM
What part of:

In section 500 of the Family code, we change "husband and wife" to "spouses"...implies that the terms husband and wife are heretofore banned throughout the state? I get it now. Can't believe it took so long. You accused me of trolling in order to deflect the fact that you are the one doing the trolling. At first I thought someone could actually believe that allowing only one term wasn't the same as banning all others. You had me going good.

TJMAC77SP
07-26-2014, 01:58 PM
...and you can keep saying it does, but...

Yes, we have noticed you've yet to quote anything in the bill that says this.

What part of:

In section 500 of the Family code, we change "husband and wife" to "spouses"...implies that the terms husband and wife are heretofore banned throughout the state?



I don't get the reference...you may have me confused with someone else

Not sure what you mean by 'throughout the state' but if you mean in official CA publications, forms, etc that is exactly what it means. You have sunk a hook into the word 'ban' which you are smart enough to know that although that word doesn't appear the new law's language had the same effect so what exactly is your point here? Could it be (once again) to water down the positions taken in opposition to this new law? Why isn't the reasonable statement "it just isn't that big of a deal to me" enough?

As to the country music thing, I could be confusing you with AA..........I wonder why that is?

garhkal
07-26-2014, 09:05 PM
Oh I know that. I just don't think they are keeping track of my responses to a survey.

Many are worried it COULD be used to track back to responses.


I love the "anonymous" unit climate surveys, and most other surveys, where you list you base, unit, AFSC, rank, but you don't have to list your name. That makes it extremely anonymous.

Add in the using your CAC to log in, and it is seen by many as NOT being anonymous.

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 10:28 PM
Many are worried it COULD be used to track back to responses.



Add in the using your CAC to log in, and it is seen by many as NOT being anonymous.I was in a shop where I was the only SSgt. Needless to say I wasn't willing to give an answer anywhere near as honest as I would have without having to let the Commander know exactly who I was.

Stalwart
07-26-2014, 10:44 PM
Many are worried it COULD be used to track back to responses.

A lot of things COULD be done to track back, I just don't think anyone is expending the time nor effort to do it.



I was in a shop where I was the only SSgt. Needless to say I wasn't willing to give an answer anywhere near as honest as I would have without having to let the Commander know exactly who I was.

I can understand that, but assuming someone was actually taking the time to back track a survey to your CAC or computer, isn't standing up and providing unfiltered (but tactful) input to the commander part of what an NCO or SNCO should be doing? From about the time I was a Sgt, that is kind of the mentality I have taken and I really don't think it has hurt me. Even when I get a paper course critique or feedback form, I write my name on it. I have been blazingly honest in some of them, once or twice got some follow up questions but have yet to have been reprimanded for it.

sandsjames
07-26-2014, 11:58 PM
A lot of things COULD be done to track back, I just don't think anyone is expending the time nor effort to do it.
Neither do I...but that doesn't mean people won't be a little safer. You've been around the military long enough. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of conspiracy theorists




I can understand that, but assuming someone was actually taking the time to back track a survey to your CAC or computer, isn't standing up and providing unfiltered (but tactful) input to the commander part of what an NCO or SNCO should be doing? From about the time I was a Sgt, that is kind of the mentality I have taken and I really don't think it has hurt me. Even when I get a paper course critique or feedback form, I write my name on it. I have been blazingly honest in some of them, once or twice got some follow up questions but have yet to have been reprimanded for it.Doesn't take long to back track a survey when I'm in a squadron of 120 people, a shop of 13, and the only 1 of that rank.

And I don't think anyone has been reprimanded for it, either...not that I know of at least. Doesn't mean that if something came down to a choice of two people for an opportunity it's pretty simple to use something like that and not have it seem like it's related to anything.

garhkal
07-27-2014, 05:09 AM
I was in a shop where I was the only SSgt. Needless to say I wasn't willing to give an answer anywhere near as honest as I would have without having to let the Commander know exactly who I was.

Hence why lots willingly lie on those surveys.. cause they fear (whether rightly or not) repercussions coming back on them, cause even though they say they are anonymous, its easy to track who it was.



And I don't think anyone has been reprimanded for it, either...not that I know of at least. Doesn't mean that if something came down to a choice of two people for an opportunity it's pretty simple to use something like that and not have it seem like it's related to anything.

Very true. Repercussions can take many forms.
Imagine having 3 sailors (or airmen) all going up for say this quarters Airmen (or sailor) of the quarter. All 3 have stellar reviews on their evals, 2 have community service (the other doesn't) 2 have college (the one with no community service and one of those who do), but that one who hits both wickets. Recently responded on his survey which got back to the command, he does NOT support xyz EO policy cause he feels how it is implemented, rather than making things equal, makes it just out of whak the OTHER way. I can easily see HIM (or her) being overlooked (or down marked) in favor of one of the others.
That's even if he got nominated.

Measure Man
07-27-2014, 06:02 PM
I get it now. Can't believe it took so long. You accused me of trolling in order to deflect the fact that you are the one doing the trolling. At first I thought someone could actually believe that allowing only one term wasn't the same as banning all others. You had me going good.

Okay, guys...whatever. We'll just pretend the law says "the terms husband and wife will no longer be used."

Whatever...these laws no longer apply only to husband and wife couples....

How long do we have to wait to see if the marriage licenses delete the terms bride an groom?



Not sure what you mean by 'throughout the state' but if you mean in official CA publications, forms, etc that is exactly what it means.

So when the previous law chose to use the words "husband and wife"...did that also mean prior to this the term spouse was banned?


You have sunk a hook into the word 'ban' which you are smart enough to know that although that word doesn't appear the new law's language had the same effect so what exactly is your point here? Could it be (once again) to water down the positions taken in opposition to this new law? Why isn't the reasonable statement "it just isn't that big of a deal to me" enough?

I guess my "issue" here is that these internet articles that are only trying to stir up outrage, where there should be none, actually achieve it with you guys.

The silliness of it all amazes me...and that you all jump in with the mob.

TJMAC77SP
07-27-2014, 08:43 PM
Okay, guys...whatever. We'll just pretend the law says "the terms husband and wife will no longer be used."

Whatever...these laws no longer apply only to husband and wife couples....

How long do we have to wait to see if the marriage licenses delete the terms bride an groom?




So when the previous law chose to use the words "husband and wife"...did that also mean prior to this the term spouse was banned?



I guess my "issue" here is that these internet articles that are only trying to stir up outrage, where there should be none, actually achieve it with you guys.

The silliness of it all amazes me...and that you all jump in with the mob.

I have jumped in with no mob. You took exception with the tone of the reaction and chose to react in a similar manner by denying any change in required terminology (in effect a ban) was mandated by the law. You should have stuck with what you truly have issue with.

Is there really an issue if the terms husband and wife are 'banned'? THAT is the issue.

You are guilty of the same type of behavior as those you rail against. The fact that you have lumped me in with anyone and attribute their beliefs and attitudes to me despite my own words to the contrary merely reinforces my opinion.

BTW: To answer your question, the term husband and wife was not mandated as a substitute for the term spouse in the previous law (as is true of the opposite In the new law) so the answer is no it doesn't mean that. You also knew that so what was the purpose of asking the question?

efmbman
07-27-2014, 10:21 PM
I guess my "issue" here is that these internet articles that are only trying to stir up outrage, where there should be none...

And that, in my opinion, is the observation of the month award winner.

Most new stories from the media these days are smoke screens from valid issues. This is worse if you limit your new viewing to obvious left-wing or right-wing "news" organizations. Their only goal is to get the reader fired up not to subscribe to their agenda, but to vehemently oppose the other agenda. It is the same as a candidate speaking about the faults of their opponent instead of their own qualities.

The results are, nevertheless, amusing at times and very enlightening in many ways. My two cents - no references to back this up - simply an observation. I am confident many of you disagree.

Stalwart
07-28-2014, 12:06 AM
Neither do I...but that doesn't mean people won't be a little safer. You've been around the military long enough. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of conspiracy theorists


Yeah, I have seen many. Some of it seems really unfounded ... almost paranoid.



Hence why lots willingly lie on those surveys.. cause they fear (whether rightly or not) repercussions coming back on them, cause even though they say they are anonymous, its easy to track who it was.

Very true. Repercussions can take many forms.
Imagine having 3 sailors (or airmen) all going up for say this quarters Airmen (or sailor) of the quarter. All 3 have stellar reviews on their evals, 2 have community service (the other doesn't) 2 have college (the one with no community service and one of those who do), but that one who hits both wickets. Recently responded on his survey which got back to the command, he does NOT support xyz EO policy cause he feels how it is implemented, rather than making things equal, makes it just out of whak the OTHER way. I can easily see HIM (or her) being overlooked (or down marked) in favor of one of the others.
That's even if he got nominated.

I see the point, I just don't see anyone taking the time to backtrack on a survey to try to figure out what someone may have answered ... it sounds a bit conspiratorial to me, but that is my opinion.

That said, I do know that repercussions can take many forms, I have just always been outspoken with my opinion when it was warranted ... which is probably a result of the Marine Corps culture I was 'raised' in for the first 12 years. In non-combat or operations situations I have just had the same mentality, on EO, Sexual Harassment, Leadership etc. It has usually served me well and it has almost always never been an issue, and when it was I was still okay with my position.

Where a lot of people fail in this regard is how they choose to address something, there are some times that public dissent with a senior is not okay. I can say, that in almost 24 years the vast majority of people I have worked with (juniors, peers and seniors) have been really good people, who handled things (to include tactful dissent)well. Only once have I worked for what I would call a 'toxic leader' who did not take disagreement well (viewed it as disloyalty). This was in a joint environment and it was an Air Force O6. The problem was that the specific things she was directing people to do violated various ethical and security manuals and while I was not the senior person with concerns, I was the only one willing to address them with her. When the issues were brought up, her stance was it was what it was and I could take it to the IG. I did, and the IG validated my complaint and addressed the issues with the commander. Granted ... I wasn't really on her A-Team after that and had to use the system to ensure that any repercussions (perceived or otherwise) were dealt with.

The big problem is that most people are not willing to use the system and would rather go along quietly than rock the boat, probably because the system is fallible and may have failed them or a comrade at some point. The system has failed me in the past too, but I have faith in it since most of the time it does work if used properly. I can say that while many people argue against going beyond 20 years of service, there is an incredible sense of liberation when you realize that short of committing an offense worthy of a court-martial you can fall on your sword and take your retirement and go.

Ultimately we have to be comfortable with our decisions, and I would not be comfortable with myself in not being honest and upfront, one day it may end my career and I would be okay with that. In the end, it is probably cliche to say, but I believe in my oath and in the institution that is the military. My experiences are different than some and I have stuck around longer than I 'had' to because of the people and a belief in what I do.

Measure Man
07-28-2014, 05:15 AM
I have jumped in with no mob. You took exception with the tone of the reaction and chose to react in a similar manner by denying any change in required terminology (in effect a ban) was mandated by the law. You should have stuck with what you truly have issue with.

Yes, because the OP posted his "outrage" about what is wrong with the governor, based on some questionable reporting...and you jumped on with him...but, not a single one of you has quoted a single thing from the law that is worthy of your outrage.


Is there really an issue if the terms husband and wife are 'banned'? THAT is the issue.

There might be, but those terms are not banned.


You are guilty of the same type of behavior as those you rail against. The fact that you have lumped me in with anyone and attribute their beliefs and attitudes to me despite my own words to the contrary merely reinforces my opinion.

...because you are joining in their argument without quoting a single thing from the law.


BTW: To answer your question, the term husband and wife was not mandated as a substitute for the term spouse in the previous law (as is true of the opposite In the new law) so the answer is no it doesn't mean that.

this current law does nothing more than change the previous term to a new one. If those laws were written today, spouse would have just been the appropriate term to use. At the time they were written, husband and wife were appropriate, they no longer are the proper term since same-sex marriage is now legal, so it only makes sense to change it.


You also knew that so what was the purpose of asking the question?

To show your inconsistency.

So, until you can quote something specific in the law that you have a problem with...I'm done here. You can keep posting that .... "we are using the word "spouse" means that husband and wife are banned everywhere else...just tell me how long we have to wait until i can prove to you that terms are still allowed on CA paperwork? 1 month? 1 year? 2 years? name it.

garhkal
07-28-2014, 07:17 AM
And that, in my opinion, is the observation of the month award winner.

Most new stories from the media these days are smoke screens from valid issues. This is worse if you limit your new viewing to obvious left-wing or right-wing "news" organizations. Their only goal is to get the reader fired up not to subscribe to their agenda, but to vehemently oppose the other agenda. It is the same as a candidate speaking about the faults of their opponent instead of their own qualities.

The results are, nevertheless, amusing at times and very enlightening in many ways. My two cents - no references to back this up - simply an observation. I am confident many of you disagree.


Very true.. Though to find a news source that is NOT clouded by ideology, whether leftists or right, is so slim, its better to hit 2 sources, one of each side..

WILDJOKER5
07-28-2014, 02:18 PM
That is an interesting point.



I'm sure a lot of homosexuals said that.



I admit, this post made me pause a moment.

I did look up the definitions of "husband" and it specifies that it is a male...and I admit to not being familiar enough with the family dynamics of same-sex relationships to really comment on this part of it. I would assume that a woman married to another woman does not think of herself as a man, necessarily. Though, sure there are some that identify as husband and wife, I bet. So, check Bride, Groom, or None as one prefers.

So, I don't know. I still maintain it was just an administrative change to be inclusive and not any attack on anything...now that it is legal and recognized in the state, it is only logical, in my mind, to make the other laws reflect that.

Why thank you MM. It actually means I was kind of on target with that statement when you somewhat agree with me. I still cant figure out how to give "likes" and "thanks" on this new site, but I appreciate the acknowledgement.

TJMAC77SP
07-28-2014, 04:10 PM
Yes, because the OP posted his "outrage" about what is wrong with the governor, based on some questionable reporting...and you jumped on with him...but, not a single one of you has quoted a single thing from the law that is worthy of your outrage.



There might be, but those terms are not banned.



...because you are joining in their argument without quoting a single thing from the law.



this current law does nothing more than change the previous term to a new one. If those laws were written today, spouse would have just been the appropriate term to use. At the time they were written, husband and wife were appropriate, they no longer are the proper term since same-sex marriage is now legal, so it only makes sense to change it.



To show your inconsistency.

So, until you can quote something specific in the law that you have a problem with...I'm done here. You can keep posting that .... "we are using the word "spouse" means that husband and wife are banned everywhere else...just tell me how long we have to wait until i can prove to you that terms are still allowed on CA paperwork? 1 month? 1 year? 2 years? name it.

Despite you being 'done here' the only part........repeat the only part of the argument I joined was your dismissal of the fact that mandating a change in terminology in effect bans the use of other terms.

Again, I know you are smart enough to realize this and I am smart enough to know (as I imagine other readers are as well)you made this claim to attempt to water down the OP's argument.....and were wrong. As I said, you should have stuck with the on point and true facts.........there is no real harm being done here......despite the rhetoric.......yours and others.

BTW: I am sincerely confused.......where exactly is my inconstancy? I could have sworn that my message on this thread has been the same since the beginning.

Measure Man
07-28-2014, 04:49 PM
BTW: I am sincerely confused.......where exactly is my inconstancy? I could have sworn that my message on this thread has been the same since the beginning.

Okay, here it is.

If a law is written that says;

"A husband and wife can not be compelled to testify against one another in criminal court."

Nothing about this sentence implies or suggests that the word "spouses" is banned elsewhere. On this we agree.

If a law was orginally written that said:

"Spouses can not be compelled to testify against one another in a criminal court."

Likewise, there is nothing in this particular word choice to imply or suggest that the terms Husband and Wife are banned anywhere else.

Yet...your contention that a change from law 1 to law 2 implies that the terms husband and wife are banned elsewhere. It is inconsistent and doesn't make sense.

If you read the link I posted, you will see that this is all the law does, a series of seemingly innocuous word changes like this, change the words in already existing laws to spouse so they apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex marriages...it does not instruct anything about anything in the future, any forms used (in fact it specifically says no particular form or ceremony is prescribed by state law), etc.

sandsjames
07-28-2014, 06:19 PM
Okay, here it is.

If a law is written that says;

"A husband and wife can not be compelled to testify against one another in criminal court."

Nothing about this sentence implies or suggests that the word "spouses" is banned elsewhere. On this we agree.

If a law was orginally written that said:

"Spouses can not be compelled to testify against one another in a criminal court."

Likewise, there is nothing in this particular word choice to imply or suggest that the terms Husband and Wife are banned anywhere else.

Yet...your contention that a change from law 1 to law 2 implies that the terms husband and wife are banned elsewhere. It is inconsistent and doesn't make sense.

If you read the link I posted, you will see that this is all the law does, a series of seemingly innocuous word changes like this, change the words in already existing laws to spouse so they apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex marriages...it does not instruct anything about anything in the future, any forms used (in fact it specifically says no particular form or ceremony is prescribed by state law), etc.I agree in all these instances. Again, the only thing I would disagree with is if it was determined that "Husband and Wife" could not be used on a marriage license/certificate.

TJMAC77SP
07-28-2014, 06:52 PM
Okay, here it is.

If a law is written that says;

"A husband and wife can not be compelled to testify against one another in criminal court."

Nothing about this sentence implies or suggests that the word "spouses" is banned elsewhere. On this we agree.

If a law was orginally written that said:

"Spouses can not be compelled to testify against one another in a criminal court."

Likewise, there is nothing in this particular word choice to imply or suggest that the terms Husband and Wife are banned anywhere else.

Yet...your contention that a change from law 1 to law 2 implies that the terms husband and wife are banned elsewhere. It is inconsistent and doesn't make sense.

If you read the link I posted, you will see that this is all the law does, a series of seemingly innocuous word changes like this, change the words in already existing laws to spouse so they apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex marriages...it does not instruct anything about anything in the future, any forms used (in fact it specifically says no particular form or ceremony is prescribed by state law), etc.


Your analogy is flawed.

If law 2 made reference to a specific word change as the CA law does it would be more on point. The CA law SPECIFICALLY calls out the change in terminology. As to the future I guess we will both have to wait. Given the propensity of the parties involved to rush to court over exactly this kind of thing I am pretty comfortable with my prediction.

Measure Man
07-28-2014, 06:54 PM
As to the future I guess we will both have to wait. Given the propensity of the parties involved to rush to court over exactly this kind of thing I am pretty comfortable with my prediction.

How long???

TJMAC77SP
07-28-2014, 07:06 PM
How long???

'till the first court case........sooner rather than later would be my guess.

Alameda County would also be my first guess on where.

EDIT: Interesting news.....The UK is doing the same thing, removing the terms husband and wife from official documents and replacing it with spouse.

EDIT 2: CA State Senator Mark Leno who sponsored this bill said the following...."I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California, This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”

Wonder if he would agree that husband and wife has not been, in effect, banned from 'state codes'?

sandsjames
07-28-2014, 07:58 PM
Your analogy is flawed.

If law 2 made reference to a specific word change as the CA law does it would be more on point. The CA law SPECIFICALLY calls out the change in terminology. As to the future I guess we will both have to wait. Given the propensity of the parties involved to rush to court over exactly this kind of thing I am pretty comfortable with my prediction.Exactly. It could have said "The terms 'husband' and 'wife' are no longer required. 'Spouse' is a suitable substitute."

TJMAC77SP
07-28-2014, 08:43 PM
Exactly. It could have said "The terms 'husband' and 'wife' are no longer required. 'Spouse' is a suitable substitute."

That language would indicate that either is acceptable. Is that what you are saying?

sandsjames
07-28-2014, 08:49 PM
That language would indicate that either is acceptable. Is that what you are saying?Yes...not in those words exactly, but along those lines.

edit: Maybe "In addition to the traditional terms..."

TJMAC77SP
07-29-2014, 02:18 PM
Yes...not in those words exactly, but along those lines.

edit: Maybe "In addition to the traditional terms..."

Ok got it.

Measure Man
07-29-2014, 03:56 PM
Your analogy is flawed.

If law 2 made reference to a specific word change as the CA law does it would be more on point. The CA law SPECIFICALLY calls out the change in terminology. As to the future I guess we will both have to wait. Given the propensity of the parties involved to rush to court over exactly this kind of thing I am pretty comfortable with my prediction.

On a hunch...I took a glance at the current CA Family Code.

You would be interested to know that the terms "husband" and "wife" are still used in some places, and remain in the defintions...

For example:


Section 11. A reference to "husband" and "wife," "spouses," or "married
persons," or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully
married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully
married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of
the particular case.

Another part:

Section 803


803. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, whenever any
real or personal property, or any interest therein or encumbrance
thereon, was acquired before January 1, 1975, by a married woman by
an instrument in writing, the following presumptions apply, and are
conclusive in favor of any person dealing in good faith and for a
valuable consideration with the married woman or her legal
representatives or successors in interest, regardless of any change
in her marital status after acquisition of the property:
(a) If acquired by the married woman, the presumption is that the
property is the married woman's separate property.
(b) If acquired by the married woman and any other person, the
presumption is that the married woman takes the part acquired by her
as tenant in common, unless a different intention is expressed in the
instrument.
(c) If acquired by husband and wife by an instrument in which they
are described as husband and wife, the presumption is that the
property is the community property of the husband and wife, unless a
different intention is expressed in the instrument.


You will note, these sections have NOT been changed by the new law.

So much for your ban...

sandsjames
07-29-2014, 04:19 PM
You will note, these sections have NOT been changed by the new law.

So much for your ban...I know you were replying to TJ, but I personally don't care what term is used in the law. Spouse works just fine. It gets the point across, etc. As I've said, just let it refer to myself and my partner on our legal documents the way we choose it to be. If not, then that would be the "ban" that is being discussed.

No problems at all with any other aspect of the law.

Measure Man
07-29-2014, 04:32 PM
I know you were replying to TJ, but I personally don't care what term is used in the law. Spouse works just fine. It gets the point across, etc. As I've said, just let it refer to myself and my partner on our legal documents the way we choose it to be. If not, then that would be the "ban" that is being discussed.

Understood...I believe you and I worked this out a long time ago. As I mentioned, the law does not have anything to say on what you use on your documents...


No problems at all with any other aspect of the law.

IOW, no problems. :-)

sandsjames
07-29-2014, 04:53 PM
IOW, no problems. :-)Currently...as I said, I reserve the right to resume my rant when changes go further.

TJMAC77SP
07-29-2014, 06:59 PM
On a hunch...I took a glance at the current CA Family Code.

You would be interested to know that the terms "husband" and "wife" are still used in some places, and remain in the defintions...

For example:



Another part:

Section 803




You will note, these sections have NOT been changed by the new law.

So much for your ban...

The law you cited is the one that was changed (taking effect next January)..............repost this next January.

Measure Man
07-29-2014, 07:07 PM
The law you cited is the one that was changed (taking effect next January)..............repost this next January.

The sections I posted were not changed.

TJMAC77SP
07-29-2014, 10:01 PM
The sections I posted were not changed.

And what about this fairly clear statement in the summary?

"The bill would delete references to “husband” or “wife” in the Family Code and would instead refer to a “spouse,” and would make other related changes."

Measure Man
07-29-2014, 10:31 PM
And what about this fairly clear statement in the summary?

"The bill would delete references to “husband” or “wife” in the Family Code and would instead refer to a “spouse,” and would make other related changes."

Well...it does delete references to husband and wife and replaces them with spouse. Completely accurate statement.

It just didn't delete ALL of them.

Perhaps this is the problem...you might have a tendency to read the words "All" "Always" "Never" or "Must" into sentences when they aren't there.

Let's say, there were...I dunno 30+ references to husband and wife in the Family Code...they changed all but 2 of them. The statement you posted is still accurate. (Disclaimer: I didn't really search the whole thing...I did a few random searches and found 2...there could be more)

From the two I posted...the first one seem fairly straight forward...it's just defining the terms as being more or less interchangeable.

From the second one, I can only guess...it appears to be that the intent is to provide some kind of special protection for woman-owned property that is not provided for man-owned property prior to 1975...maybe there was another law prior to 1975 that gave women some kind of special "ownership" (not community property) while married that a man didn't get, considering the timeframe that is plausible that woman could separate her property but a man could not...so the terms husband and wife might be important there...it would be logical to conclude that whatever law provided that special treatment of women was either repealed, overruled or found irrelevant by something in 1975, since it does not apply to purchases after that. Likewise, it would not be important to apply it to same-sex marriages, since there were no legal same-sex marriages prior to 1975.

Exactly why these provisions were or weren't changed is not really the important issue....the point is, even AFTER this law is enacted, the terms husband and wife will still exist in the code, as far as i can tell.

TJMAC77SP
07-30-2014, 03:55 AM
Well...it does delete references to husband and wife and replaces them with spouse. Completely accurate statement.

It just didn't delete ALL of them.

Perhaps this is the problem...you might have a tendency to read the words "All" "Always" "Never" or "Must" into sentences when they aren't there.

Let's say, there were...I dunno 30+ references to husband and wife in the Family Code...they changed all but 2 of them. The statement you posted is still accurate. (Disclaimer: I didn't really search the whole thing...I did a few random searches and found 2...there could be more)

From the two I posted...the first one seem fairly straight forward...it's just defining the terms as being more or less interchangeable.

From the second one, I can only guess...it appears to be that the intent is to provide some kind of special protection for woman-owned property that is not provided for man-owned property prior to 1975...maybe there was another law prior to 1975 that gave women some kind of special "ownership" (not community property) while married that a man didn't get, considering the timeframe that is plausible that woman could separate her property but a man could not...so the terms husband and wife might be important there...it would be logical to conclude that whatever law provided that special treatment of women was either repealed, overruled or found irrelevant by something in 1975, since it does not apply to purchases after that. Likewise, it would not be important to apply it to same-sex marriages, since there were no legal same-sex marriages prior to 1975.

Exactly why these provisions were or weren't changed is not really the important issue....the point is, even AFTER this law is enacted, the terms husband and wife will still exist in the code, as far as i can tell.

So perhaps because of previous laws enacted the terms for these particular sections must remain as written (since they deal with things of value). We will have to wait until 1 January to know for certain but I will stipulate they will remain unchanged.

And, perhaps all future laws and administrative actions (forms, policies, etc) will no longer have these terms..........enacting in effect a ban on the two terms which have previously been used.

You keep attempting to paint me into a corner where there is no corner.

You attempted to weaken a hyperbolic statement by a poster with hyperbole of your own. At the end of the day the direction to change the terminology (thus banning previously used terminology) is as you (with my agreement) have stated, an inconsequential matter yet you keep defending this position.

Measure Man
07-30-2014, 04:22 AM
So perhaps because of previous laws enacted the terms for these particular sections must remain as written (since they deal with things of value). We will have to wait until 1 January to know for certain but I will stipulate they will remain unchanged.

Yes, perhaps. Perhaps when a law refers to ONLY a man/woman marriage, then husband/wife is fine to use. When a law applies to all marriages, then spouse is a more appropriate word choice.


And, perhaps all future laws and administrative actions (forms, policies, etc) will no longer have these terms..........enacting in effect a ban on the two terms which have previously been used.

You call it a ban, I call it using the most appropriate term, when applicable. Since that husband/wife term is stipulated to still be used, when appropriate, it has not been banned. It is just not used when it isn't appropriate...i.e laws that equally affect same-sex marriages.


You keep attempting to paint me into a corner where there is no corner.

You attempted to weaken a hyperbolic statement by a poster with hyperbole of your own. At the end of the day the direction to change the terminology (thus banning previously used terminology) is as you (with my agreement) have stated, an inconsequential matter yet you keep defending this position.

Yes...inconsequential. Much ado about nothing.

TJMAC77SP
07-30-2014, 02:13 PM
Yes, perhaps. Perhaps when a law refers to ONLY a man/woman marriage, then husband/wife is fine to use. When a law applies to all marriages, then spouse is a more appropriate word choice.

No argument there. Never has been. Not really part of our discussion



You call it a ban, I call it using the most appropriate term, when applicable. Since that husband/wife term is stipulated to still be used, when appropriate, it has not been banned. It is just not used when it isn't appropriate...i.e laws that equally affect same-sex marriages.

Actually another poster called it a ban. You categorically state it isn’t a ban. I disagreed and said it in effect is a ban on future use of the terms husband and wife. I still say that.



Yes...inconsequential. Much ado about nothing.

Another point we agree on and yet, here we are, with an equal number of posts about the same inconsequential issue.

giggawatt
08-04-2014, 01:54 PM
I just happened to have my marriage certificate because I'm doing a DEERS reverification. The certificate was issued in 2003 from the county of Wilbarger in the state of Texas. No where on the document does it say husband, wife, or spouse. The document begins with "You are hearby authorized solemnize the rites of matrimony bewtween Mr. ____________ and M _____________. The only other part of the document mentions gender is on the back where it asks the DOB of Male and DOB of Female.

Just thought this was interesting to bring up in light of all discussion regarding terms on marriage certificates.

sandsjames
08-04-2014, 05:54 PM
I just happened to have my marriage certificate because I'm doing a DEERS reverification. The certificate was issued in 2003 from the county of Wilbarger in the state of Texas. No where on the document does it say husband, wife, or spouse. The document begins with "You are hearby authorized solemnize the rites of matrimony bewtween Mr. ____________ and M _____________. The only other part of the document mentions gender is on the back where it asks the DOB of Male and DOB of Female.

Just thought this was interesting to bring up in light of all discussion regarding terms on marriage certificates.

But soon it can only say "Spouse 1 and Spouse 2", even if you want it to say Male/Female...because that's easier for administrative purposes, I guess.

WILDJOKER5
08-04-2014, 06:02 PM
I just happened to have my marriage certificate because I'm doing a DEERS reverification. The certificate was issued in 2003 from the county of Wilbarger in the state of Texas. No where on the document does it say husband, wife, or spouse. The document begins with "You are hearby authorized solemnize the rites of matrimony bewtween Mr. ____________ and M _____________. The only other part of the document mentions gender is on the back where it asks the DOB of Male and DOB of Female.

Just thought this was interesting to bring up in light of all discussion regarding terms on marriage certificates."Mr" is a term for gender right?

giggawatt
08-05-2014, 08:09 AM
"Mr" is a term for gender right?

Right, which is why I said the only OTHER part of the document that mentions gender.... The other M could just as well say "Mr" if the law allowed.

My point was that not all marriage certificates are created equal. This thread had a lot of discussion regarding terminology on certain legal documents. I just thought it interesting that this example from Texas mentions any of the terms in dispute.

sandsjames
08-05-2014, 12:22 PM
Right, which is why I said the only OTHER part of the document that mentions gender.... The other M could just as well say "Mr" if the law allowed.

My point was that not all marriage certificates are created equal. This thread had a lot of discussion regarding terminology on certain legal documents. I just thought it interesting that this example from Texas mentions any of the terms in dispute.

I think it's fair to say that Texas and California are probably about as different as it gets. I don't foresee Texas making changes any time soon to appease the minority.

giggawatt
08-05-2014, 01:47 PM
I think it's fair to say that Texas and California are probably about as different as it gets. I don't foresee Texas making changes any time soon to appease the minority.

Quite fair to say. No arguments here.

WILDJOKER5
08-05-2014, 02:15 PM
Right, which is why I said the only OTHER part of the document that mentions gender.... The other M could just as well say "Mr" if the law allowed.

My point was that not all marriage certificates are created equal. This thread had a lot of discussion regarding terminology on certain legal documents. I just thought it interesting that this example from Texas mentions any of the terms in dispute.

So maybe in TX is was ok for 2 guys to be married but not 2 women? Honestly, why should government be involved in this area of a persons life at all? Why must any one ask for permission to be "married" or "unionized" and share a dwelling and income and insurance benefits from the government? What does applying for license actually do for people? Is the government doing a background check? We know it doesnt stop anyone from have sex. What is the point of the government to be involved in this processes at all?

giggawatt
08-05-2014, 03:18 PM
So maybe in TX is was ok for 2 guys to be married but not 2 women? Honestly, why should government be involved in this area of a persons life at all? Why must any one ask for permission to be "married" or "unionized" and share a dwelling and income and insurance benefits from the government? What does applying for license actually do for people? Is the government doing a background check? We know it doesnt stop anyone from have sex. What is the point of the government to be involved in this processes at all?

Maybe it was. I agree with everything you say. Get government out of marriage. Give no benefits, tax breaks or anything to ANY married couples and same sex marriage becomes a non issue.

For medical issues like life support and other things of that nature, just make a living will.

Bos Mutus
05-23-2015, 12:20 AM
So perhaps because of previous laws enacted the terms for these particular sections must remain as written (since they deal with things of value). We will have to wait until 1 January to know for certain but I will stipulate they will remain unchanged.

Section 803 remains unchanged:


803. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, whenever any
real or personal property, or any interest therein or encumbrance
thereon, was acquired before January 1, 1975, by a married woman by
an instrument in writing, the following presumptions apply, and are
conclusive in favor of any person dealing in good faith and for a
valuable consideration with the married woman or her legal
representatives or successors in interest, regardless of any change
in her marital status after acquisition of the property:
(a) If acquired by the married woman, the presumption is that the
property is the married woman's separate property.
(b) If acquired by the married woman and any other person, the
presumption is that the married woman takes the part acquired by her
as tenant in common, unless a different intention is expressed in the
instrument.
(c) If acquired by husband and wife by an instrument in which they
are described as husband and wife, the presumption is that the
property is the community property of the husband and wife, unless a
different intention is expressed in the instrument.


If you would like to follow the link where I found this, you can see that it is current as the other sections 300, 301, 302, 420, 500, 720, 721, 750, 751, 752, 754, 761, 1102, 1500, 1620, 1839, 2200, 2201, 2210, 2211, 2322, 2400, 2401, 3120, 3450, 3551, 3580, 3585, 3600, 4323, and 4930 have been changed (okay, I didn't check them all, I only checked the first couple and they were changed)

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2015, 05:05 AM
Section 803 remains unchanged:



If you would like to follow the link where I found this, you can see that it is current as the other sections 300, 301, 302, 420, 500, 720, 721, 750, 751, 752, 754, 761, 1102, 1500, 1620, 1839, 2200, 2201, 2210, 2211, 2322, 2400, 2401, 3120, 3450, 3551, 3580, 3585, 3600, 4323, and 4930 have been changed (okay, I didn't check them all, I only checked the first couple and they were changed)



Oh good God, do I have to go back and reread 22 pages of posts?

No thank you. You are right, completely right. I was wrong, completely wrong. You are on the moral high ground and I surrender.