[Mod: We are here in full flower. Not sure what the problem is there. Perhaps close down and restart your browser. Good luck.]

When the bastids deny others their rights, they deny me MY rights. Bastids. Harumph.

Here’s hoping . . .

darkblack, you’re even more devastating with words than you are with pictures.

;)

Aw, shucks

;>)

TexBetsy
September 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Some vegan noodle dishes for tonight’s snack.

Thanks TexBetsy!

And there’s a shiny alomst-new tofu-lovin’ thread upstairs….

peanutbutter @ 278

No, marriage clearly has many aspects the state is interested in including property rights and inheritance. But the way I see it, marriage needs to be split into two aspects. There’s the legal aspects of a marriage, which needs to be collected and reframed into a specific legal partnership between any two (or more) people. Then there needs to be, as you say (which is really the best way I’ve seen it put), the “blessing” of the marriage by individual churches which are free to choose the parameters under which they will bless a particular legal union.

There are legal and religious aspects to any marriage, and these need to be separated out. Not that I think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of this happening anytime soon…

the state also takes an interest in the welfare of the offspring of marriage.

There is an entire area called “family law” in which marriage is a very important contract. For example, IIRC, in many states, a husband is obliged to support any child his wife delivers during their marriage regardless of the child’s biologically established paternity. And, in such cases, the biological father has no automatic custody/visitation rights.

wangdangdoodle
September 9th, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Packin’ it in, y’all have fun in the Late Late!

With 11″ to spare, your Late Late is likely to be a lot more fun than most…