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

a reply to: Indigo5

It's about language being language.

As I said words have meaning and when you use them or not in legal discourse ... it's important and has implications.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Kromlech

So what?? Sounds like a good idea to me. Why should the law differentiate between "Husband" and "Wife" in a marriage?

Shouldn't they have equal treatment in a legal context? "Spouse" should suffice.

It's not the 1800's.

How about the law start treating men and women/ husband and wife EQUALLY under the 'law' first ?

Before they go change 'terminology'.

As it stands right now the courts always side with the wife in matters of money, and 'rights'.

The 1800s weren't so bad. No one was whining about husband, and wife.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

For the IRS or your insurance company to refer to as "spouse" instead of wife doesn't take away from the fact that you are, indeed, someone's wife. But, you are also a spouse, are you not?

It's not like you're being referred to as something that you're not. You are a spouse and your husband and loved ones know that you're much, much more too! Do you really need a cold, non-human government agency to affirm that for you?

Apparently the gays did, so now I do too?

I am sick and tired of PC language everywhere, and I do not want to be gender neutralized just because we legalized gay marriage.

LOL You might want to check out butch avatar! Sorry, I couldn't resist.

You know, most job applications, loan application etc. already are forbidden to ask what sex you are, and if your husband is also listed on the loan, or your job wants to know if you have a husband for insurance purposes or for emergency contact info on your application, they still can't ask you if you have a husband or a wife. For those purposes you have a spouse.

Gender should never be an issue in legal or financial matters.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: Kromlech

Makes sense to me. Language can be very important in interpreting the law and therefore needs to be updated from time to time to better encompass its purpose.

In other words, change the language of the law to fit the desired interpretation? That's not "interpreting the law," that's legislating from the bench and then altering the law to be in compliance with the bench legislation.

If you're writing an email and a colleague looks over your shoulder and points out a mistake, is he "writing the email" or just pointing out a problem?

The whole point of well-written law is that it allows only one possible interpretation - the one the legislators intend. If a court finds an ambiguity, how on earth is a bad thing that the legislators may want to go back and fix it, to ensure it can only be interpreted the way they intended?

The mind boggles, it really does.

a reply to: ketsuko

.....it's important and has implications.

What implications? Like what for example?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Indigo5
It's not the 1800's.

No, it isn't. It seems to be 1984, however.

Please, I know you're smarter than this. This isn't about "newspeak" or any other orwellian dystopia nightmare. It's about closing a possible legal loophole that you KNOW for a fact lawyers would use in the future to swing a case if the language stays the way it is.

Of course he knows...don't bite.

"Newspeak" was government mandated language...whilst today the government enshrines the right of the KKK to rally whilst the local police protect them.

This is certain folks feeling all bad for themselves for no longer feeling like they hold a privileged position in the eyes of government.

Next up we can ponder why the followers of a "Rebel" flag so desperately need the endorsement of the government they rebelled from....or Amazon.com for that matter..

There is a sadness to the irony of those "outraged" by the "outrage".

a reply to: Indigo5

I'd prefer to be gender neutral in the eyes of the law?

Funny!

From the same people that makes us fill out our race on the census, and other government documents ?

LOL.

'Neutral' eh.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

It's about language being language.

Resorting to nonsense circle speak?

Sorry...can't really engage...it's about logic being logic

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

I'd prefer to be gender neutral in the eyes of the law?

Funny!

From the same people that makes us fill out our race on the census, and other government documents ?

LOL.

'Neutral' eh.

Who makes you do that? I always check the prefer not to answer box?

You should read what you fill out.

originally posted by: ketsuko

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

This is what they did in Canada when same-sex marriage was legalized there. They enacted gender neutral legal terminology.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

It has had impacts on parental rights and the rights of the children involved.

There were, in that entire article, exactly ZERO cases presented as examples of parental rights being affected.

Good try though.

a reply to: Indigo5

Hey I have reconsidered this whole gender 'neutral' thing.

I am fine with it now.

Since were are basically doing away with the sexes that means there will be no more 'The rights war on women'.

Since according to the law women don't exist anymore.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Kromlech

So what?? Sounds like a good idea to me. Why should the law differentiate between "Husband" and "Wife" in a marriage?

Shouldn't they have equal treatment in a legal context? "Spouse" should suffice.

It's not the 1800's.

How about the law start treating men and women/ husband and wife EQUALLY under the 'law' first ?

Before they go change 'terminology'.

What? Why not ask the courts to treat people equally before they stop referring to one party as "negro"!


You really do say the craziest things.

The 1800s weren't so bad. No one was whining about husband, and wife.

Yah...except for the whole suffragist, gender equality and property rights movement thing.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Kromlech

So what?? Sounds like a good idea to me. Why should the law differentiate between "Husband" and "Wife" in a marriage?

Shouldn't they have equal treatment in a legal context? "Spouse" should suffice.

It's not the 1800's.

How about the law start treating men and women/ husband and wife EQUALLY under the 'law' first ?

Before they go change 'terminology'.

As it stands right now the courts always side with the wife in matters of money, and 'rights'.

The 1800s weren't so bad. No one was whining about husband, and wife. [Emphasis by Railgun]

Yeah, the 1800's were swell! Everyone had life expectancies in 50's.

Public Lynchings were fun!

Black people knew their place, didn't they?

Women VOTING? Nah. Their place is barefoot in the kitchen raising kids.

Yup, they truly were good times.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It is about newspeak. Orwell's stated definition of newspeak was removing words with precise meaning from the English language whereby to reduce the language to a minimalist collection of words which the state possesses absolute definition over.

a reply to: Indigo5

What? Why not ask the courts to treat people equally before they stop referring to one party as "negro"!

Someone sure does say the 'craziest' things.

Dunno how that applies to courts siding with the wife when couples get DIVORCED.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

LOL No one is removing the terms husband and wife from the English language! It's just as evil to force people into gender roles that don't apply to them as it is to deny them marriage equality.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It is about newspeak. Orwell's stated definition of newspeak was removing words with precise meaning from the English language whereby to reduce the language to a minimalist collection of words which the state possesses absolute definition over.

Trouble is, the definition of "spouse" is already established. They're not changing the definition of ANYTHING. They're removing legal loopholes. That is all.

a reply to: neo96

Dunno how that applies to courts siding with the wife when couples get DIVORCED.

Why, do you suppose, that happens?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yeah, the 1800's were swell! Everyone had life expectancies in 50's.

And ?

Thanks to modern day GMO's, and big pharmaceuticals, and a government that just loves to make buddies with terrorists that really hasn't changed all that much.

Public Lynchings were fun!

Apparently they are still fun because that is what both the right,left, and the MSM, and we here on ATS do on a daily basis.

Black people knew their place, didn't they?

Them evil rich people,bankers,ceo's, gun owners, and the big bad evil police sure do don' they ?

Getting a public lyinching on a daily basis.

Women VOTING? Nah. Their place is barefoot in the kitchen raising kids.

Why no it's just better to have a government sugar daddy that gives them free healthcare, and birth control.

Yup, they truly were good times.

The 21st century is just so awesome ain't it?

Ah, the terrible issues we have in America! Guess who is the American woman and who is the 3rd world woman:

Woman 1: I can't believe the gays are allowed to marry and now the govt is taking away my right to be called a wife on this form!

Woman 2: I haven't eaten in a week

Woman 1: I mean the nerve of them to not rightfully acknowledge that I am a woman who is a wife and am married to my husband who is a man!

Woman 2: my husband was beheaded for speaking out against his religion and they took my children to be suicide bombers.

Woman 1: the govt said my rights wouldn't be affected by the gay marriage thing but now I can't identify myself as a wife!

Woman 2: I have no house because a missile blew it up.

Guess which is which and win a star!