Sentences with phrase «civil marriage because»

Ironically, our civil partnership legislation provides more rights than US state - based civil marriage because the latter can not include federal rights in critical areas such as immigration, tax and health benefits.

Benson said some couples want a civil marriage because «there's a historical hangover» of people thinking marriages are bad, instead of «attributing it to bad people».

Not exact matches

We should promote gay marriages or civil partnerships because they encourage monogamy, fidelity, and commitment.

I know, its the cowards way out but I just do not know because civil unions many folks agree with but folks having issues with using the term «marriage», I can see both sides to a point that I am stumped on an opinion.

Civil unions (providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name) are better, because a «separate but equal» institution is always constitutional.

What YOU propose is STILL marginalizing people, STILL denying them equal civil rights under the 14th, because you have some weird idea of what «traditional» marriage is.

I am against calling their relationship a marriage, or so I thought because why not call it a civil union for legality purposes, as the argument for it goes?

(Because someone is bound to ask, I've made it pretty clear in the past that I support gay marriage as a civil right, and would hold this position regardless of whether I believed such marriages should be blessed by my church.)

We can not so easily divorce Christian and civil marriage, because everyone has a compelling interest in legal, natural matrimony.

And as such, because of the implications of marriage as a tradition crossing into the realm of civil law, it is also being seen as conflicted with the ideals outlined for separation of church and state.

hingie, I really don't care what you think since my civil marriage has nothing to do with your book of fairy tales and if the main reason you believe gays should be discriminated against is because you read it in your book of myths, then all the more reason to grant gays their civil marriages.

Poor Bob is getting desperate because he's clueless about marriage being a civil right which is why even the NAACP is now joined the fight for gay rights.

Because Church and civil marriage were separate and distinct, the Church was absolutely free to follow its own doctrine with regard to marriage and its disciplines.

The clandestinely married did have the same civil - law rights as the licitly married — whatever that happened to entail in a given legal regime — but that was because the state recognized the capacity of the Church to arbitrate questions of contracting marriage.

Polis said lawmakers are pursuing civil unions instead of same - sex marriage legislation because no lawmaker introduced a measure to expand marriage in the state to include gay couples.

I think there's much that's good in your article but would like to ask some questions: first, you say at bullet point # 5, «This argument is wrong, because (a) important benefits obtain in marriage, which do not in civil partnerships».

My preferred option would be to keep the traditional definition of the word «marriage» because of its place in our law and history, but make it clear that civil partnerships, though different, are totally equal.

64 % agree that «gay marriage is unnecessary because gay people already have civil partnerships».

If you'll remember, a deal between Smith and the «gang of three» (Diaz, Kruger, and Espada) fell apart when Smith decided his moral standing would be reduced by bargaining away civil rights because the deal hinged on same - sex marriage as a bargaining chip.

What is the mindset of the people who support equal civil rights for homosexuals but disagree with Obergefell v. Hodges because it redefines the word «marriage», which they believe is a sacred thing...

I think gay marriage will obviously be an issue for any Republican next year because Republicans are either in favor of the position I'm in favor of, civil unions, or in many cases Republicans don't even favor civil unions.

Parisian weddings are typically multiple - day affairs, probably in part because only civil marriages are legally binding in France.

So we solo together and because of that DCFS has to ck both love dating and marriage pdf our no I was met he met me he was prime the community service caballeros he was responsible for now dating a drug addict girlfriend it had been civil in and all was druv.

«Two years ago, when I wanted to give a speech outlining the case for marriage equality in New York, I came right here to this stage at The Cooper Union, because I believe that marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time.

As a result, it is unclear whether the civil marriage of Prince Charles was permitted as a one - off because of the unavailability of a church wedding, or whether all members of the royal family are now able to marry in any of the ways available to their subjects.

Perhaps because that state is the home of a large number of devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a.k.a. Mormons, and churches of all stripes care about such things as marriage — and sometimes hold beliefs about them that are at odds with those of civil society.

Thorne - Begland's opponents argued that they voted against him not because he was gay, but rather because his advocacy «amounted to military insubordination and a challenge to the state constitution, which bans gay marriage and civil unions,» the Post reports.

Paul Hewitt, partner at Withers, says: «Charities, along with surviving civil partners or spouses of second marriages (for instance), faced with similar clauses are unlikely to take comfort because the Court of Appeal took a broader, more purposive, approach than the judge at first instance.

The Judge ruled that refusal of the Widowed Parent's Allowance was not justified because the responsibilities for the children are the same irrespective of marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation.

Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health — the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same - sex marriage in the United States for the first time — said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimmarriage in the United States for the first time — said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimMarriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.

Many Muslim couples do not register their religious marriage, so that on breakdown of the marriage, or the death of one spouse, there is no possibility of obtaining a civil divorce or exercising their rights as a spouse, because they are simply not married, either in life or on death, in the eye of the law.

The Casebook also includes court decisions from Canada: Haig v. Canada (1992)(omission of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act is discriminatory); Egan v. Canada (1995)(whether exclusion of same - sex relationships from the definition of common law spouse violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation); Vriend v. Alberta (1998)(college laboratory instructor dismissed because of his homosexuality); Hall v. Powers (2002)(student refused permission to attend a prom at a Catholic high school with his boyfriend); Halpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (2003)(whether denial of marriage licenses to same - sex couples based on the common law definition of marriage was discriminatory under the Charter; a postscript indicates that the 2005 Civil Marriage Act provided for gender - neutral definition of mamarriage licenses to same - sex couples based on the common law definition of marriage was discriminatory under the Charter; a postscript indicates that the 2005 Civil Marriage Act provided for gender - neutral definition of mamarriage was discriminatory under the Charter; a postscript indicates that the 2005 Civil Marriage Act provided for gender - neutral definition of maMarriage Act provided for gender - neutral definition of marriagemarriage).

I brought up the Civil Marriage Act because the issue of policy in the conflict of laws seems to be extremely relevant in this case.

courts, and until the time of James I, it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.

Walsh believed their motion had been accepted by the then taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and minister for justice, Dermot Ahern, and was «very disappointed» when the Bill was published, because it conveyed «most» marriage entitlements to civil partnerships.

Failing to recognize this UK civil partnership as a marriage would perpetuate impermissible discrimination, primarily because in the UK these parties could not marry because of their sexual orientation, but had to enter into a civil partnership instead.

Four years ago, imagine if SAS decided they were going to move all their operations to another state because Amendment One passed, banning gay marriage and civil unions.