Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1119202122 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 216

Thread: What is the CA govenor thinking??

  1. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    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.

  2. #202
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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."
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  3. #203
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Measure Man; 07-29-2014 at 10:00 PM.

  4. #204
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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.
    Last edited by TJMAC77SP; 07-30-2014 at 03:00 AM.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  5. #205
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    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.

  6. #206
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    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.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  7. #207
    Senior Member giggawatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    447
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    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.
    Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop, TSgt, USAF
    Deputy Executive Assistant for the Assistant Deputy Chief
    HQ COBRA
    867-5309
    :ranger

    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do taskers on their behalf.

    "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -- Muhammad Ali

    "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer!"- Arnold Schwarzenegger

  8. #208
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by giggawatt View Post
    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.

  9. #209
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by giggawatt View Post
    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?
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  10. #210
    Senior Member giggawatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    447
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    "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.
    Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop, TSgt, USAF
    Deputy Executive Assistant for the Assistant Deputy Chief
    HQ COBRA
    867-5309
    :ranger

    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do taskers on their behalf.

    "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -- Muhammad Ali

    "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer!"- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •