i can forsee i might have screwed this up, and expect critisum, but...
my MP, tom brake, dosent post messages on gay marrage
but the member of enfiled dose
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78524990/David-Burrowes-MP-Statement-on-Gay-Marriage
ive read it, and i want to reply. but its a link. so im gona write it here and throw it at his twitter. IN IT.
heres the things. im not gay. im not looking to get married. and so in meny sences im more or less disqulifed. and im fine with that. i dont have very much to say on the subject. its not something that nags at my soul. and yet...
the uk goverment says civil partnerships are treated the same as marrage on a wide range of league matters" but not all. we're more progrssive here then the us, but thats kinds like beating a small child in a race.
so, from the league standpoint, theres more to be done.
then, theres "changing the purpose of marrage". im genunely intriged. what is the purpose of marrage? to ensure a male eire to the family line? its cool, the commenwelth agree, its strait succession now. to have kids? well, lesbian couples have artifical insimantion. gay men are, alas, denied such a direct rout, but adopt, and love children, like meny couples.
then theres all the stuff i cant examin. im in no postion to question the use of words. for starters, im fairly relaxed on such things. and im not the person whom would have to deal with the issue. i dont have to sit here, and worry about wether, when i get married, it'll be real mariage
final food for thought. when my friend got her civil partnership, she called it marraed. i call it marrage. her other half is her wife. i ask after her wife, as her wife (ive an awful memmory). if civil partner ship is de facto marrage in public consunes, why not make it de jure?
edit: insdently, my prefered soulstion, if i could have it, would be enterly opposit. take the goverment out of marrage. all civil marrages become civil partnerships. all civil partnerships gain the same respect int he law as what was called marrage. relgion can keep its pantys untwisted, becous "the scrade insution of marrage" will be left enterly to there hands, a relgiuse cermony invested with whatever meaning they care to give it, whilst the goverment can consider the issue without having to worry it gona piss off the lords spiritual or whatever. if marriage is regluse, leave it to them.
but the member of enfiled dose
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78524990/David-Burrowes-MP-Statement-on-Gay-Marriage
ive read it, and i want to reply. but its a link. so im gona write it here and throw it at his twitter. IN IT.
heres the things. im not gay. im not looking to get married. and so in meny sences im more or less disqulifed. and im fine with that. i dont have very much to say on the subject. its not something that nags at my soul. and yet...
the uk goverment says civil partnerships are treated the same as marrage on a wide range of league matters" but not all. we're more progrssive here then the us, but thats kinds like beating a small child in a race.
so, from the league standpoint, theres more to be done.
then, theres "changing the purpose of marrage". im genunely intriged. what is the purpose of marrage? to ensure a male eire to the family line? its cool, the commenwelth agree, its strait succession now. to have kids? well, lesbian couples have artifical insimantion. gay men are, alas, denied such a direct rout, but adopt, and love children, like meny couples.
then theres all the stuff i cant examin. im in no postion to question the use of words. for starters, im fairly relaxed on such things. and im not the person whom would have to deal with the issue. i dont have to sit here, and worry about wether, when i get married, it'll be real mariage
final food for thought. when my friend got her civil partnership, she called it marraed. i call it marrage. her other half is her wife. i ask after her wife, as her wife (ive an awful memmory). if civil partner ship is de facto marrage in public consunes, why not make it de jure?
edit: insdently, my prefered soulstion, if i could have it, would be enterly opposit. take the goverment out of marrage. all civil marrages become civil partnerships. all civil partnerships gain the same respect int he law as what was called marrage. relgion can keep its pantys untwisted, becous "the scrade insution of marrage" will be left enterly to there hands, a relgiuse cermony invested with whatever meaning they care to give it, whilst the goverment can consider the issue without having to worry it gona piss off the lords spiritual or whatever. if marriage is regluse, leave it to them.