Democrats Declare War On Words 'Husband,' 'Wife'

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Maybe, if we actually are "growing up" as a culture, we will be more respectful to what a marriage is, and further, before we involve kids in our situations, we will understand the level of our commitments?

In "growing up" this new generation seems to be getting past the stigma of "once you've had sex with someone - they're done to you if you break up". Sexual partners, whether they were married or not, seem to be staying friends after the relationship doesn't work out. Society today is more fluid. Gender roles are less defined.

Parents are coming together more with their new partner/spouse like an extended family, which is healthy for the kids.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

I introduce my partner as "my partner."

When we get married in a few years, he will be "my husband."

Perhaps there is an inequity in the structure of the laws when your so-called "wifely extras" are factored in?

He will be your husband, and you will be his husband? If you adopt a child, then get a divorce, who will get the child? Now, the courts usually give the wife custody with visitation by the father (husband) and child support? She usually gets the house as well.

How will that work in a same-sex scenario?

I think that, traditionally, the wife has been given priority in custody proceedings because the mother carried, gave birth, nursed and nurtured the child from birth, and they figured it would be traumatic on the child to lose that bond. But, women were, in the day, easily labeled unfit by ruthless husbands and their lawyers, in custody battles.

Things have changed from those traditional standards and roles, with more women having careers and more stay at home dads, adoptions and now same sex couples with children. The courts are supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the children, not the wife.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh, it will be different. What if both husbands are capable and competent? What if both husbands are not in the least bit destitute? The female aspect will now be removed and same-sex divorce with children involved is going to line the pockets of lots of attorneys, especially those who "specialize" in same-sex divorce.

Courts generally give custody to the mother, not because the mother may have more rights to the children, but because the mother is usually seen as the more nurturing caregiver. The female of our species will die to protect her young. She is the one that suckled her infant, provided the physical and emotional element to help it thrive. Unless a woman can be shown as unfit, 1 out of 6 times the courts will assign custody to the mother.

As you implying a father wouldn't die to protect his child? Because that's patently false.

The whole "mothers are more nurturing" thing is becoming a thing of the past as the rise of the working mom has given birth to a generation of "Mr. Mom"s and same sex couples who SHARE responsibility of nurturing a child. To imply that only mothers can give a child the nurturing they need makes you just a sexist as the men who held you back before the women's sufferage movement.

There you go taking offense for nothing. I---me personally---did not say that fathers wouldn't die to protect their children. I am telling you that being a loving and nurturing mother (female) has always been considered in the courts when assigning custody of a child for the historical reasons stated. Don't get all PC on me.

Me, personally, know that dads can be just as nurturing. When there are two dads, no moms, the female aspect that has HISTORICALLY been factored in is now gone. This is going to create more money for child custody lawyers as they take up same-sex divorce.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right.

Its the grandstanding.

Meanwhile, the world is on fire.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh, it will be different. What if both husbands are capable and competent? What if both husbands are not in the least bit destitute? The female aspect will now be removed and same-sex divorce with children involved is going to line the pockets of lots of attorneys, especially those who "specialize" in same-sex divorce.

Courts generally give custody to the mother, not because the mother may have more rights to the children, but because the mother is usually seen as the more nurturing caregiver. The female of our species will die to protect her young. She is the one that suckled her infant, provided the physical and emotional element to help it thrive. Unless a woman can be shown as unfit, 1 out of 6 times the courts will assign custody to the mother.

As you implying a father wouldn't die to protect his child? Because that's patently false.

The whole "mothers are more nurturing" thing is becoming a thing of the past as the rise of the working mom has given birth to a generation of "Mr. Mom"s and same sex couples who SHARE responsibility of nurturing a child. To imply that only mothers can give a child the nurturing they need makes you just a sexist as the men who held you back before the women's sufferage movement.

There you go taking offense for nothing. I---me personally---did not say that fathers wouldn't die to protect their children. I am telling you that being a loving and nurturing mother (female) has always been considered in the courts when assigning custody of a child for the historical reasons stated. Don't get all PC on me.

Me, personally, know that dads can be just as nurturing. When there are two dads, no moms, the female aspect that has HISTORICALLY been factored in is now gone. This is going to create more money for child custody lawyers as they take up same-sex divorce.

I'm not being "PC". I'm being honest. Men are more than capable of taking on the nurturing role of a mother. I've seen it happen personally. One of my best friends is a Mr. Mom who hangs out with me on occasion. He's adorable with his kid! And yes, historically the courts have sided with women. And that's been a sexist stance. Something I hope very soon will be a thing of the past.

You see, I'm a feminist in the truest sense of the word. I want TRUE equality for women. And yes, that means stopping the female bias in the family court system.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you ever use the word "spouse" to refer to your husband?

Has your husband ever used the word "spouse" to refer to you?

Aside from taking the opportunity to grind your usual axes, what is the big deal to you if "spouse" is added to the laws so that they address everyone equally?

Actually, no. We are husband and wife.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Should the cat and dog get a lawyer and fight it out in court?

This is mostly about legal forms.

Forms have 2 lines. Line 1: husband/wife/partner/other. Line 2: husband/wife/partner/other.

Or maybe just: Spouse/other. So much simpler. And saves on ink

That discriminates against me. I'm a wife.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Should the cat and dog get a lawyer and fight it out in court?

This is mostly about legal forms.

Forms have 2 lines. Line 1: husband/wife/partner/other. Line 2: husband/wife/partner/other.

Or maybe just: Spouse/other. So much simpler. And saves on ink

That discriminates against me. I'm a wife.

Society progresses for all inclusion on legal forms.

Be whatever, whoever you want in your personal life.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you ever use the word "spouse" to refer to your husband?

Has your husband ever used the word "spouse" to refer to you?

Aside from taking the opportunity to grind your usual axes, what is the big deal to you if "spouse" is added to the laws so that they address everyone equally?

Actually, no. We are husband and wife.

So, in all the years you've been married, neither of you have ever once filled in a form with the word "Spouse" on it?

No offense, color me skeptical.

I have mixed feelings about this new approach to political correctness, a man and a woman in matrimony are still husband and wife, but I also see that it will not apply to same sex marriage, so why no just modified the terms to accommodate for the latest.

I will always be calling my husband a husband and nobody is going to change that.

But I will be mindful to address somebody's else that are of the same sex with the proper term.

Sometimes politicians make things worst than they are this days.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Should the cat and dog get a lawyer and fight it out in court?

This is mostly about legal forms.

Forms have 2 lines. Line 1: husband/wife/partner/other. Line 2: husband/wife/partner/other.

Or maybe just: Spouse/other. So much simpler. And saves on ink

That discriminates against me. I'm a wife.

Society progresses for all inclusion on legal forms.

Be whatever, whoever you want in your personal life.

So in the name of inclusiveness, I have to be stripped of my identity? How is that inclusive?

And again, no one answered me. How many gays do you know that don't refer to their partners as either husband or wife regardless of what they are?

It seems to me that this is simply abolishing gender to fix a problem that doesn't exist. That means there is an ulterior motive for it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you ever use the word "spouse" to refer to your husband?

Has your husband ever used the word "spouse" to refer to you?

Aside from taking the opportunity to grind your usual axes, what is the big deal to you if "spouse" is added to the laws so that they address everyone equally?

Actually, no. We are husband and wife.

So, in all the years you've been married, neither of you have ever once filled in a form with the word "Spouse" on it?

No offense, color me skeptical.

On a form?

Please be more clear in what you specify. You merely asked if I'd ever referred to my husband as "spouse."

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Kromlech

Query:

Why are the gender specific terms being removed, rather than just adding extra terminology to the pre-existing document?

Drafting and interpretation has a particular set of rules. If a word is used, it means that there is a specific reason for that word. If you say "husband, wife, spouse, or partner", then you are actually identifying four different categories of people. You start from the principle that every word is chosen to give a deliberate result, there is no such thing as redundancy or mistake. If the law distinguishes between "husband and wife" and "spouse", then the law must be saying that a "spouse" is somehow a different entity.

Why is this a problem? Because if one piece of law says "husband, wife, spouse, or partner", while another piece of law says "spouse or partner", then it is can be argued that the difference in wording is deliberate and intends to exclude heterosexual married couples from the second piece of legislation.

On the other hand, simply changing all references to "husband or wife" to "spouse" removes any ambiguity.

While it chills me to the bone to ever say anything in support of a Democrat, this really is quite a sensible bit of law. She must have been high on drugs that day or something.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Should the cat and dog get a lawyer and fight it out in court?

This is mostly about legal forms.

Forms have 2 lines. Line 1: husband/wife/partner/other. Line 2: husband/wife/partner/other.

Or maybe just: Spouse/other. So much simpler. And saves on ink

That discriminates against me. I'm a wife.

Society progresses for all inclusion on legal forms.

Be whatever, whoever you want in your personal life.

So in the name of inclusiveness, I have to be stripped of my identity? How is that inclusive?

And again, no one answered me. How many gays do you know that don't refer to their partners as either husband or wife regardless of what they are?

It seems to me that this is simply abolishing gender to fix a problem that doesn't exist. That means there is an ulterior motive for it.

You seem to be perfectly fine discriminating and excluding others for personal glory.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Should the cat and dog get a lawyer and fight it out in court?

This is mostly about legal forms.

Forms have 2 lines. Line 1: husband/wife/partner/other. Line 2: husband/wife/partner/other.

Or maybe just: Spouse/other. So much simpler. And saves on ink

That discriminates against me. I'm a wife.

Society progresses for all inclusion on legal forms.

Be whatever, whoever you want in your personal life.

So in the name of inclusiveness, I have to be stripped of my identity? How is that inclusive?

And again, no one answered me. How many gays do you know that don't refer to their partners as either husband or wife regardless of what they are?

It seems to me that this is simply abolishing gender to fix a problem that doesn't exist. That means there is an ulterior motive for it.

You seem to be perfectly fine discriminating and excluding others for personal glory.

So gays are NOT fine with being husbands and wives? I thought their marriages were just like ours?

Now you're saying they're not?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

Should we next demand that we abolish the words "cat" and "dog" in the name of "companion animal equality?"

Should the cat and dog get a lawyer and fight it out in court?

This is mostly about legal forms.

Forms have 2 lines. Line 1: husband/wife/partner/other. Line 2: husband/wife/partner/other.

Or maybe just: Spouse/other. So much simpler. And saves on ink

That discriminates against me. I'm a wife.

Society progresses for all inclusion on legal forms.

Be whatever, whoever you want in your personal life.

So in the name of inclusiveness, I have to be stripped of my identity? How is that inclusive?

And again, no one answered me. How many gays do you know that don't refer to their partners as either husband or wife regardless of what they are?

It seems to me that this is simply abolishing gender to fix a problem that doesn't exist. That means there is an ulterior motive for it.

You seem to be perfectly fine discriminating and excluding others for personal glory.

So gays are NOT fine with being husbands and wives? I thought their marriages were just like ours?

Now you're saying they're not?

Husband and wife titles express limited and outdated gender roles that gay marriages aren't subject to.

a reply to: ketsuko

It has to do with gender specific language, pretty simple.

Zero to do with your personal life.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ketsuko

It has to do with gender specific language, pretty simple.

Zero to do with your personal life.

Oh, but it has plenty to do with it. Legally, my personal status is being changed to strip me of the "outdated gender roles" I would rather keep.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Rocker2013

I just think it would be nice for people to have their status described in a manner they feel most comfortable with. I have never been fortunate enough to be married, but if I did, I would want the government to refer to my lady in communications, as my wife, not my life partner, spouse, or what have you. Couples should select from a list upon marriage or upon taking up domestic premises, in order that their preferred choices be remembered in communications from the state.

Spouse is simply a convenient gender-neutral form form of husband/wife. It means exactly that; it is not interchangeable with partner/life partner/etc, each of which are legally different entities. The law really isn't concerned with how comfortable you feel.

To the best of my knowledge, "spouse" is still only used in relation to a married heterosexual couple. For a homosexual couple it would be "civil partner".

Edited to add: should point out that this is from a UK perspective, not sure if the same applies in US law.


EDITED AGAIN! Well blow me down with a feather, they've only gone and redefined it. As of a year or two ago, the legal definition of spouse now includes couples that have "lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship" for at least 2 years. In other words, ignore most of what went before, I clearly need to catch up on my Family Law

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ketsuko

It has to do with gender specific language, pretty simple.

Zero to do with your personal life.

Oh, but it has plenty to do with it. Legally, my personal status is being changed to strip me of the "outdated gender roles" I would rather keep.

How are you being stripped of your chosen gender role? You can still make sammiches for your man, clean toilets and do laundry in your frilly apron, while Hubbie brings home the bacon and watches Monday Night Football!

Anyone can assume gender roles if they so desire, but filling out a government form or document shouldn't relegate anyone to such limited titles.