What constitutes a couple?

The Register Guard ^ | 29 May 02 | By Jeff Wright

[Glutton]

If any FReepers out there want to give the Eugene Human Right Commission, click on the link at the bottom of the article and give them your two cents worth.

Just some background not mentioned is that Eugene is a Mecca for lesbin couples. There are more here then any other smll city on the West coast.

Some have been on the city council, and many work in city government. The political environment of Eugene is waaaaaaaaaaay more liberal then most people here are used to dealing with too I might add.

[Enterprise]

This is simple. A couple is a male and a female. She spends all money earned by either or both of them.

[RAT Patrol]

Sounds like a lost cause, I'm sorry to say. It's pretty sad when relativism is so mainstream we can't even say someone is male or female anymore -- it all depends on how they feel at the moment.

When two women dress up like two men but relate to each other like members of the opposite sex it seems resonable to me to consider they might have some emotional issues.

[Dimensio]

cou·ple
n. Two items of the same kind; a pair.
Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
Two people together.
Informal. A few; several: a couple of days.
Physics. A pair of forces of equal magnitude acting in parallel but opposite directions, capable of causing rotation but not translation.

[freeeee]

How do you measure a couple's commitment to one another, and determine whether it's real enough to receive the government's blessing?

The State has no place sactioning or licensing relationships.

It isn't a party to the relationship, and to be perfectly honest, petitioning the State for a marriage license smacks of begging a King for his permission to wed. Free people need no such permission.

But people have grown so accustomed to having the state meddle in every bit of life's affairs, that these things never occur to them.

And then, in shock and dismay, they watch as government redefines marriage to include gays, when it is they themsleves who have given the State such power.

People will never learn.

[Glutton]

Yuo, I'm pretty sure this will pass without major opposition here. It is legal for woment to be as toples as a man can, and discriminating against lesbian, gay and transgender people here in Eugene is against the city code.

If you call someone a nasty, be propared to have the police respond. I have seen this happen. The cops can't do anything to someone for verbiage, but they advise anyone they respond to to deal with to stifle themselves.

[Glutton]

Last winter, I saw several local activists hassling a grocery store manager who had the audacity to allow a Boy Scout troop sell Christmas trees in their lot.

He walked away in disgust without any more woeds when they started talking how he was going against the spirit of the city code against discrimination.

I had to agree with his reaction. That was a bit much.

[MissMillie]

We live in the land of the relative. Nothing on the planet exists without its relation to something else. There is no "good" without "bad" or "worse" or "better" (or "same" for that matter).

As for the emotional issues, I say, "Physician: heal thyself." Why anyone would concern themself with how two consenting adults relate to one another is beyond my ken. It's not worth your energy. You will never change how other people feel about each other. Besides--when these feelings come with commitment and love, why would you want to? Those things are good, right?

[Black Agnes]

What WILL they do when the Poly-Amory types show up and demand legal rights for threesomes? (or more-somes) Seriously, I know a threesome that has been together longer than many 'couples' I know. Will there be an extra benefit divided among the other participants, or multiple benefits? Inquiring minds want to know.

[freeeee]

Last winter, I saw several local activists hassling a grocery store manager who had the audacity to allow a Boy Scout troop sell Christmas trees in their lot.

They're were on private property, were they not?

I'd have told them to leave and if they refused, have them arrested for trespassing.

If they don't like the store's support of the Boy Scouts, they can shop somewhere else.

BTW, I support the Scouts right to free association, despite the fact that they wouldn't allow me to participate. You see, they don't allow atheists either.

[freeeee]

Poly-Amory types

LOL!

[Dimensio]

Given that extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples wouldn't require re-examining any existing benefit structure (it would just remove a gender requirement while polygamous relationship benefits would require a host of new laws to cover the fact that more than one person is involved (nevermind that polygamous marriages could have mutiple arrangement configurations), I don't see how same-sex unions "obviously" leads to recognition of polygamous relationships.

[RAT Patrol]

I am not trying to change them, Millie, so just simmer down now. You cannot force me to support them, no matter how much predictable verbal intimidation you throw my way. Try your militant tactics on someone else you have a chance at scaring. Being free to make a choice about personal relationships does not translate into my being FORCED to endorse that relationship.

[Dimensio]

My only problem with the BSA is the special treatment and recognition that they receive from the US government (I'm referring specifically to their Congresional Charter, but there are other issues also -- not every land-use issue people bring up about them is based on misinformation). They're a private religious institution and they should be treated as such.

[Black Agnes]

But why not? The poly's will just argue discrimination and we'll be back to where we are now!

[freeeee]

I absolutely agree. If they want the free association rights afforded to private groups, they should start to behave like one - starting with returning their Congressional Charter.

[ArrogantBustard]

Poly-Amory

WTF??? Is that people with a parrot fetish?

[Dimensio]

That's great. Let them explain how to turn a legal arrangement for civil benefits granted between two people into one where x (where x>2) people are involved. That means determining (among other things) inheretance rights (including tax breaks that may apply upon the death of a spouse), the means and implications of dissolving such a union, "joint" income tax preparation methods and child guardianship issues. Then of course you've got to figure out whether you have it set up so one person can marry multiple partners (ie, a man has three wives or a woman has two husbands, but the three wives/two husbands have no direct legally recognized bond) or if you consider it a "group" marriage (wherein the three wives/two husbands would also be considered married to one another and receive similar benefits). That much would be very important when dealing with the death of a spouse (especially the "main" spouse in the former case).

With same-sex couples it's just "give the exact same legal benefits afforder to opposite-sex married couples". No new laws needed.

It's funny how I've heard polygamy brought up by people arguing that it's a logical step from homosexual unions, yet I've never heard anyone seriously advocating some form of legal recognition of polygamous unions.

[MissMillie]

Ummm, RAT, I'm quite calm, but thank you for your concern. And nowhere did I say you HAD to SUPPORT anyone. The only thing I said was while your questioning the emotional stability of these women, maybe you ought to question why it is this even matters to you.

Two adult people claim to love each other. They make a commitment, share joys and tribulations, fun and work, living space, expenses, maybe even children. There is nothing militant about it. It's what people do every day.