Well this news is probably going to send her into fits of apoplectic homophobic fits. From today's P-G:
Pittsburgh Councilman Bruce Kraus proposed rules for domestic registry of unmarried couples today, in a move that would tweak the way city benefits are governed, and would allow any two unrelated city residents to make a "declaration of mutual commitment" indicating that they "contribute mutually to each other's maintenance and support."Take a look how the P-G describes it. It seems benign and fair:
The legislation would allow any two city residents -- unmarried people of the same or opposite sex, cohabitating seniors or friends, to name a few -- to report to the city Personnel Department and present documents indicating "mutual responsibility." People who are related closely enough that they can't marry under state law would be ineligible.Regardless of what else it says, the self-appointed guardians of morality will pounce on this because it will allow "teh gays" to have a shot at an equal shot at cohabitation.
Couples would have to show three such documents, which can include loan papers, utility bills, insurance policies, wills, powers of attorney, contracts, motor vehicle titles, bank or credit account statements, or evidence of mutual child care responsibility.
They then would be certified as domestic registrants, until one party either presented an affidavit terminating the relationship or died.
And as we all know, those same guardians can not allow that. It's against Leviticus 17:22 and all that.
Hysterical. YES, SALLY KERN!!!! COME SAVE US!
ReplyDeleteFlying Spaghetti Monster forbid that people like Dick Cheney's daughter and Phyllis Schlafly's son be treated as human beings.
ReplyDeleteWhat present laws deny co-habitation?
ReplyDeleteUpdate, for the record:
ReplyDeleteIt came to my attention that (perhaps) the Bishop does not allow co-ed undergrads at Duquesne Univ. to be room mates in the university dorms.
So, that is a denial of co-habitation of sorts.
I oppose defining marriage to include homosexual partners, but I also oppose the State having involvement in marriage. Therefore, I support Kraus' proposal but reject his reason for offering it.
ReplyDeleteI oppose a man and woman who don't even really like each other as people getting married, and then compounding the problem by having kids. Can we add that to your marriage rules, Eric W?
ReplyDeleteI guess you didn't follow the link to my post, Fillipelli. I think churches and similar community-based organizations, and not government, should determine who marries. Governments should only be concerned with civil unions (Kraus' mutual commitments). Marriage, as it has been traditionally defined, is a religious matter, not a civil one. I have no desire to see the Catholic Church regard homosexual activity as anything but sinful, but that's a private freedom of association issue. If Anglicans, et al., want to marry gays, they should have that right, just so long as the Catholic Church doesn't have to recognize those marriages. My point is that civil unions, gay or straight, should have no explicit connection to love or raising children. At the civil level, I'd like to see marriage be replaced with a contract that could bind friends, siblings, or whomsoever chooses to be legally bound. The State should neither restrict nor permit anyone to marry, per se. It should be solely up to social organizations, such as churches, to marry people.
ReplyDeleteI got your point and agree with the whole idea of the state getting out of the business of marriage. My point was that regardless of WHO recognizes the marriage, I find your idea of who is suitable to enter into such an arrangement - that is, that they are sinners - outdated and frustrating.
ReplyDeleteI know numerous gay couples who have been in committed relationships for long periods, are raising children in a healthy environment, and are a heck of a lot better role models as people and parents than many straight married couples.
My problem with you is that you are more worried about the way somebody engages in sex than who they are and how they act as actual human beings.
Fillippelli the Cook said Re Eric W:
ReplyDeleteMy problem with you is that you are more worried about the way somebody engages in sex than who they are and how they act as actual human beings.
That was a bigoted assumption. Just because he may disagree with government intervention in personal relationships it does not make him homophobic. Please dismount that tall horse.
"I find your idea of who is suitable to enter into such an arrangement - that is, that they are sinners - outdated and frustrating.
ReplyDeleteTake that up with the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, most Protestant denominations, orthodox and convervative Jews, etc. In the realm of universal truths, "outdated" is a pretty meaningless word. If you don't like that, practice a different religion - or none at all.
"I know numerous gay couples who have been in committed relationships for long periods, are raising children in a healthy environment, and are a heck of a lot better role models as people and parents than many straight married couples."
That's a red herring. The abuse of a thing does not destroy its right use and two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a lot of heterosexuals have brought shame to the sacrament of marriage, doesn't mean the church should allow gays to marry or raise children. Don't agree with that? You're free to disagree and find a religion or other societal institution to allow gays to marry and adopt. Just don't expect the Church to suddenly embrace heresy. By all means, find fault with the Church's lax praxis with regard to marriage, though. Perhaps if people could be civilly bound by the State and only asked the Church for marriage the Church might be stricter about letting any couple off the street marry. Maybe we'd see more healthy families and fewer divorces.
In the realm of "truth" (universal or otherwise), most religious concepts are pretty meaningless, too.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the solution is to make all legally recognizable marriages a function of government. Anyone who wishes to conduct a religious ceremony -- in addition to the civil marriage -- could do so. The state would not interfere with the religious activity. The religious might not be so inclined toward outrage concerning marriages that give them the creeps. With respect to marriage, minimizing the intertwining of the religious and the governmental could benefit both sides of that divide greatly.
Infinonymous, I think we're in agreement regarding separating legal and religious marriage. I choose to refer to the former as civil union (whether gay, straight, polygamous, whatever) to avoid confusion.
ReplyDeleteIt has come to my attention that two people who file in the new governmental registry handled by some bureaucrat in city hall would have the benefit of getting a family pack of swim passes from Citiparks.
ReplyDeletePool tags cost $60 per year for a family of four. Meanwhile, they are $30 per adult and youth, $15 each. A savings of $30 if that 'partnership' is on the books.
Over 10 years, that's a $300 savings -- and well worth the effort of going to town with three proofs of shared responsibility.
Windfalls!
I don't know if city council will need to make a budget adjustment to its 5 year plan to reflect the shortage of income/revenue or not. I can't predict what those folks might do. But, then again, there is no five year plan from council to amend.
Nope. Mr. Kraus is too busy making sure that the animal shelter is churning dogs and cats, despite starting meetings 30 minutes late.
I believe this is what Sally Oklahoma used as her justification:
ReplyDeleteLeveticus 18:22 (LOLCat Version):
"No can has mansex liek has ladysex. (hehe) Taht iz teh ghey."
So sayeth teh Ceiling Cat.
- Shawn
Your (mostly) right, Eric W. My apologies. I don't practice any religion, precisely because I have seen very little evidence that most Christian-based religions actually behave in the manner Christ is said to have. If the Catholic Church, for example, would be as outspoken about its opposition to, say, immoral wars, poverty, and hunger, as it is to homosexuality and abortion, I might be inclined to not think so poorly of it and its leaders.
ReplyDelete"If the Catholic Church, for example, would be as outspoken about its opposition to, say, immoral wars, poverty, and hunger, as it is to homosexuality and abortion, I might be inclined to not think so poorly of it and its leaders."
ReplyDeleteActually it is. Subscribe to an international Catholic news source and you'll find that the Vatican frequently addresses those topics. You hear little from American Catholic leaders due to a combination of prioritization (abortion is about as grave as an evil can get) and incompetent, biased media who tend to report on the Church very unfavorably.