Today Is My Anniversary
I live in London, UK, with my partner. I am a solicitor (attorney), now retired. She is a specialist clinician, a systemic psychotherapist working as part of a multi-disciplinary team in a service for children and young people with mental health problems, and their families. She is also a painter.
Today is the sixth anniversary of our civil partnership (civil union). If it had been possible, Liz and I would have registered our partnership in 1987, which is when we decided to buy a house and spend the rest of our lives together.
We are not freaks. We are just an ordinary couple who love each other and have been entirely faithful to each other for more than 25 years.
I don't want to undermine religion. I have no problem with religion, although I am not myself a believer. And I certainly don’t want to destroy the fabric of our society. I feel too much part of it to want to harm it.
What I do need, and feel entitled to expect, is the same opportunity as other people to live a normal family life. I should also like people to respect my relationship with Liz, which I am very proud of.
Does this make sense to Ricochet readers?
- Comment (650)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (17)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I apologize but I don't get what you're saying. I don't want to exasperate you but I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. · Dec 23 at 8:34am
Our chess pieces have been in this very same position before. · Dec 23 at 10:19am
One more time and we can call it a draw.
Jul '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno: "Favorably? I’m beginning to wonder if English is your second language. Please go back to 'comment something or other' [309 if you’re not being sloppy] and show any word in it the English language remotely considers a synonym for 'favorably.'
"Or pretend to not know what I mean... your usual course when confronted with the obligation to finally concede a point."
Wow, Tommy, I sure hope you and Mollie are really best buds outside of Ricochet. This is pretty nasty stuff. If it isn't a CoC violation, I don't know what he have a CoC for. And I don't think anyone on here deserves to be described as one of "Mollie's minions", either. It may be meant good-naturedly, but it doesn't read like it.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Favorably? I’m beginning to wonder if English is your second language. Please go back to "comment something or other" [309 if you’re not being sloppy] and show any word in it the English language remotely considers a synonym for "favorably."
Or pretend to not know what I mean... your usual course when confronted with the obligation to finally concede a point. · Dec 24 at 6:24am
Sorry about that Tommy, you simply linked it. Not sure why I thought it was "favorable."
As for the rest of your comment, it's beneath you and I'll just assume you weren't at your best when posting it.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
It's been a difficult thread for me with Mollie's minions erecting straw men in my clothing. We could have gotten so much farther without that. I’ve come to firmly believe they don’t wish to.
Slaves devoted to their master? Is that what we mean by minion? Even though I think you and I are closer in legal positions than I am to anyone else?
OK!
Sep '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Tommy De Seno
It's been a difficult thread for me with Mollie's minions erecting straw men in my clothing. We could have gotten so much farther without that. I’ve come to firmly believe they don’t wish to.
Slaves devoted to their master? Is that what we mean by minion? Even though I think you and I are closer in legal positions than I am to anyone else?
OK! · Dec 25 at 6:50pm
Quick factoid: The Ron Paul 2012 campaign is using the Minion font for their campaign posters. Also, if Mollie does have Minions I'm a tad offended that I haven't been offered a place in the starting line up. Mollie, do your minions receive free dental or is it a co-pay system, and what about parking?
Nov '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
I just spent the afternoon with family, including my baby brother who happens to be gay. On such occasion, the issue is never far from my mind.
I imagine the proximity of a loved one who happened to be gay significantly impacts one's ability to perceive the issue in black and white terms. It certainly does mine. From a policy point of view, I do not wish to support anything that further undermines the importance of marriage in our society more than it already is. And yet, were my brother to be in a loving and committed relationship, I would personally want for him the same protections under the law that legal recognition provides, the same ones enjoyed by my other brother and myself. The wrinkle, and I have told him such, is that I would rather not have it called marriage. That's something for a man and wife. And their union would be something else. And legally, something new. Its just that our language offers no appropriate alternatives.
It may be simplistic, but a new institution might best served with a new word.
My ultimate concern is that the issue be resolve via the ballot, not court.
Nov '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Pseudodionysius
Also, if Mollie does have Minions I'm a tad offended that I haven't been offered a place in the starting line up.
I couldn't get that point in in the 200 words allotted me. And full disclosure, I didn't have the energy or the heart to read more than the first and last two pages. All I know is that the each of their positions were laid out in the 45,000 words I never got to. So, all things being equal, I'd gladly accept the moniker, whether I ended up fully agreeing with her or not. As I have shared with her directly, I am sure such a line would hardly be lacking for volunteers.
Aug '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Pseudodionysius
Also, if Mollie does have Minions I'm a tad offended that I haven't been offered a place in the starting line up. Mollie, do your minions receive free dental or is it a co-pay system, and what about parking?
-- The Celery Stalks at Midnight, James Howe
Pseud, if you're not acquainted with the Bunnicula series, you're missing out on one of the most entertaining feline masterminds in children's lit, Chester.
Merry Christmas!
Aug '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Tommy De Seno
It's been a difficult thread for me with Mollie's minions erecting straw men in my clothing. We could have gotten so much farther without that. I’ve come to firmly believe they don’t wish to.
Slaves devoted to their master? Is that what we mean by minion? Even though I think you and I are closer in legal positions than I am to anyone else?
Y'know, Mollie, that's one of the things I've found odd about this conversation.
You, me, James of E... we're all much closer to agreeing with Tommy on the legal aspects than many others are. (I believe you and I both wonder whether the institution of traditional marriage may be better served by it reverting to a contract before the law rather than a license anyhow -- and as far as I know, nothing prevents two folks of the same sex from making a lifelong contract with each other and regarding it marriage, while more tradition-minded folks remain free to regard such a contract as not a marriage. And James of E said in comment #426 that he's worked in Pride Law, and thinks eventually SSM will be good for America.)
Maybe Tommy's landed into us so hard because he believes we are the most persuadable?
Edited on Dec 25, 2011 at 9:11pmSep '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
I hope everyone had a joyous Christmas.
I'm not sure this is true. My understanding is that the Catholic Church, for example, recognizes the relationship of a non-Christian man and woman who have a marriage license issued by a registrar as a marriage, although not a sacramental one. Such a couple would not be committing the sin of fornication in course of performing marital acts.
I bring this up because several commenters seem to view marriage as a primarily religious concept. I don't think it is.
Sep '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
This strikes me as a violation of the rights of employers. I think the benefits an employer provides to employees should be a matter of negotiation between the two, and not mandated by the state. In the U.S., the Catholic Church in D.C. has had to stop providing any spousal benefits in order to avoid violating their faith by providing benefits to the same sex partners of employees. That's a shame. In a free country one ought to be able to live according to one's beliefs unless doing so violates the rights of someone else.
It's something of a mystery to me that so many people who call themselves libertarians support SSM when the most substantial effects of SSM that I'm aware of are reductions in the freedom of believers in traditional marriage.
Aug '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Mack The Mike:
I'm not sure this is true. My understanding is that the Catholic Church, for example, recognizes the relationship of a non-Christian man and woman who have a marriage license issued by a registrar as a marriage, although not a sacramental one. Such a couple would not be committing the sin of fornication in course of performing marital acts.
That is also several protestant churches' understanding of marriage.
Marriage by a judge (even of two Christians) is considered legitimately binding before God's eyes, after which a couple is not considered to be living in sin by living together and performing marital acts. There is even a sacrament to bestow the church's sacramental blessing on a union previously sealed by a judge.
While secular marriage followed by the church's blessing is considered inferior to starting the marriage with the church's blessing, it is considered far, far superior to succumbing to temptation before marriage simply because the church wedding cannot be arranged on time.
Couples facing certain circumstances (such as military deployment) may ask permission for judge first, church later, if they believe it will likely be the least sinful path they can manage.
Aug '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Couples facing certain circumstances (such as military deployment) may ask permission [from their church] for judge first, church later, if they believe it will likely be the least sinful path they can manage.
In case you're wondering what form the church blessing of a civil marriage takes, it includes an affirmation of the traditional Christian vows and a humble petition for the Lord to show mercy on the couple's prior union, and look upon their life together with favor. (In other words, the union of the couple is considered already established by the secular marriage.)
It is more modest and less celebratory than the sacrament of marriage in the church, and it's considered tacky -- even sinful -- for the surrounding festivities to be as extravagant as they would have been if the couple had been married in the church in the first place.
Edited on Dec 26, 2011 at 11:39amJun '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno: @JoesephStanko:
Hi Joe. Some of the above issues you raised were discssed by ED G and me somewhere between comments 430 and 450. I'll be glad to talk more about them.
Right, I believe your position is that the marriage license should be replaced by a reporting requirement, so we agree with the need for (b) an official record of married couples.
What about (a) define what constitutes a marriage? You compared the reporting requirement to real estate transactions, if I file papers claiming you sold me the Brooklyn Bridge will the court uphold my rights when I set out to collect tolls on my new bridge? Of course not, the transaction must still conform to basic legal requirements e.g. the seller must have legal title to the property clear of all liens.
So it seems to me that unless we also change the long-standing common law definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, moving to a reporting system alone would not legalize SSM. A same sex couple could file a report, but the report would either be rejected by the clerk or else ruled invalid in any later court action.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Joseph Stanko
So it seems to me that unless we also change the long-standing common law definition of marriage as between a man and a woman...
Do you have a citation to support that common law definition?
A same sex couple could file a report, but the report would either be rejected by the clerk or else ruled invalid in any later court action. · Dec 26 at 1:49pm
Unless they are in Iowa which already rocognizes same sex common law marriages.
Why then would you think there would be an impediment in other states?
Edited on Dec 26, 2011 at 3:00pmJun '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Stanko
So it seems to me that unless we also change the long-standing common law definition of marriage as between a man and a woman...
Do you have a citation to support that common law definition?
Do I need a citation to assert that the sun rises in the east? Some things strike me as such common knowledge as to not require academic citations to back them up.
But I think we can bracket that discussion, my point is that I don't see how licensing vs. reporting is germane to the issue. If as you assert the common law already allows same sex marriage, then the state can no more deny licenses to same-sex couples than it can refuse to recognize them. The question is the definition of marriage; license vs. reporting is a separate and I think unrelated issue.
Mar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Lance:
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Joseph Stanko
So it seems to me that unless we also change the long-standing common law definition of marriage as between a man and a woman...
Do you have a citation to support that common law definition?
Do I need a citation to assert that the sun rises in the east? Some things strike me as such common knowledge as to not require academic citations to back them up.
"Common Law" is not popular opinion nor an unspecified "common knowledge." Common Law in 49 US states comes from English common law, which in itself was developed by a series of judicial decisions.
I'm not saying that nowhere in the English common law can there be found a prohibition against same sex marriage.
I am saying that of the many people on this and other Ricochet threads who have made the common law assertion, none have shown it to me. I'll let the question stand until someone shows it.
Edited on Dec 26, 2011 at 5:32pmRe: Today Is My Anniversary
Joseph Stanko
But I think we can bracket that discussion, my point is that I don't see how licensing vs. reporting is germane to the issue. If as you assert the common law already allows same sex marriage, then the state can no more deny licenses to same-sex couples than it can refuse to recognize them. The question is the definition of marriage; license vs. reporting is a separate and I think unrelated issue. · Dec 26 at 5:16pm
Joe statutes often abrogate the common law. Legislators are free to do away with common law by staute, so I don't follow your logic above that a state "can no more" do x because of common law.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
On the issue of Common Law, I note that at Common Law, no license or ceremony was required for marriage. That was also true in US states.
It was changed by statute in both England and various US states.
Yet so many on this thread claim "common law" and "tradition" are reasons to keep the state in charge of marriage licensing, when state licensing of marriage is not part of common law or tradition.
Edited on Dec 26, 2011 at 5:49pm