Real World Event Discussions

Its too late to apologize...

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 14:53
VIEWED: 5999
PAGE 6 of 6

Sunday, July 11, 2010 3:47 PM

WULF-

Quote:

Congrats on making it that far in your civil union.
I read your link and I thought ... WTF??? It has nothing to do with being married by a judge, doesn't even mention it. What were you trying to prove???

My hubby and I have a MARRIAGE LICENSE, issued by the state we were married in. According to Federal and state tax law, Social Security and Medicare, all of our insurances, employers, investment advisors, lawyers with whom we have set up a special needs trust and living wills etc; family, friends, employers, and everyone of consequence (obviously you're not included in that list) we are married. And if we were to come to a parting of the ways, we would be divorced from a marriage, which would be bound by the laws of whichever state we happened to be living in including child custody, and when one of us dies for assets to be governed by the laws of spousal inheritance.

"Married" has meanings IN LAW which "civil union" does not. For example, "civil union" does not allow you to claim spousal benefits from Social Security, nor does "civil union" necessarily give a partner custody or inheritance rights. That's why marriage is a government function, which (BTW) is defined, recognized and documented (licensed) at the state level (your favorite form of government). It is ALSO a religious function, but not necessarily so

And that is the reality of the situation, whether you like it or not. It doesn't change things... it really doesn't... to plug your ears and go "La la la I can't hear you". Refusing to see what you don't want to see is not only stupid and juvenile, it's also THE most dangerous way of dealing with reality.

Please, for god's sake don't become another rappy. Rappy is blind, deaf and dumb to much of reality and the world doesn't need another mental case.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:05 PM

Sig, you put it beautifully. Congrats to both of you--sticking together this long says a lot about you and your partner...far more, whether legal or not, than all the fancy weddings that collapse within a few years! I got your both beat, tho'...Jim and I recently passed our 36th. I think it's in april...don't know what day it was, we don't celebrate it. We got together some ten years before we made it "legal", and only did so in order for me to put him on my dental insurance.

My long-time ranger friend, Paula, did the same and has been together with HER Jim for a year or two longer I believe. THEY only got married so that he could live in her state-provided housing on the State Park grounds.

Paula's sister, a Universal Life minister (remember those?) "married" us in a field on the grounds of Grover Hot Springs State Park. We're registered there in Markleeville, which is neat because it is THE least populated county in California, gorgeous, and we both love it there so much.

I never intended to marry; neither did Paula. We had to in order to comply with regulations in both cases, otherwise neither we nor our Jims gave a damn.

Marriage by law, and the laws that fall under it, are government institutions. You can be married by a priest, have a $100,000 wedding (as far too many start out in debt by doing) and still, I believe, not have the legal rights of marriage; alternatively, Jim and I, having been together over eight years by then, made me his "common law wife" in California, so I would have had legal coverage.

Does anyone know if you can be married religiously but not registered and still considered "legally married"? I'm curious--of course, after eight years here in CA it's a moot point...unless you're a gay couple, of course.

Jo and Curt were married sitting at a desk in a clerk's office; no ceremony was ever held. I think the entire thing is absurd, but that's the way the world works presently. Even more absurd is how CA is dealing with that travesty of Prop. 8--any gay couple married BEFORE it passed is legally married with all the resultant rights; anyone married AFTER that date, isn't. How absurd is that??


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:14 PM

I also agree with what you said to Wulf, Sig, but I fear it falls on deaf ears.

Quote:

Sorry, but being gay doesnt buy you special compensation
--no, Wulf, it certainly does not. However, neither should it buy anyone any special denial of rights, which is what it's all about. It's discrimination to say one group of people have no right to marry, not changing society's anything to say they do.

Back just a few years, marriage between races was ILLEGAL, remember? How is that any different? Back then African-Americans were considered "not people", so giving them the right to marry by law is giving them the same rights as gay people are entitled to. Not that I believe you're capable of comprehending that, but it's the truth.

"Created equal", remember? So equality SHOULD hold in all ways, for all things. I realize "equality" is "qualified" in your view, but that doesn't make it right. It's easy for you to qualify aspects of "rights", but that doesn't make it valid or relevant.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:57 PM

Ahh, instead of reading from bottom to top, I started from top to bottom. How amusing.

Quote:

Have you cowards forgotten what makes us Americans?
One of the things that “makes us Americans” is our rule of law, and the documents which began this country: “All men are created equal”. “Equal” really is a problem for you, obviously, but that doesn’t change the fact that it IS a basic precept upon which this country is founded. So THAT’s what makes us American.

As to all the things you listed, “After No Child Left Behind, starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Katrina, creating the Patriot Act, spying on Americans, wiretapping, [continuing gun control—which Obama hasn’t, he’s LOOSENED gun control], cowtowing to big oil and the rich at the expense of the rest of us, making the world hate us, twisting our laws to “legalize” torture, and generally screwing the economy...” You really need to stop doing that, as comparisons always leave you wide open; there are TONS more things Dumbya did that are egregious compared to what Obama has done or continued. You want to talk about tyranny? You can look right back to Dumbya/Darth, who literally took away our civil rights by illegal means.

Our poor, deluded citizens DID “roll over and pule to your rule” when it came to Dumbya, and he felt free to call a slim majority a “mandate” of the people. All of which sent them into the arms of the dems IN DROVES. Because a group of poor losers have become vocal changes nothing of our past.

Yes, you DO have the right to spew and pretend that which has no basis in reality, but it IS cowardice to do so, to puff yourself up and live in a fantasy world of your own making, and it will all come crashing down on your head, which won’t bother you in the least, because you don’t exist in the real world, so you are free to boast and brag and threaten, which is fine. Sad, but your right. All your bluster about “simple people”, etc., ignores the fact that it’s the “simple people” who suffered the MOST under Dumbya and his dad, but again, it’s not about reality. Spew away, little one,
for your self-delusion and delusions of grandeur; but they mean nothing and frighten absolutely nobody.

Oh, Reenact, I just read yours. That is pure, REALISTIC poetry, that is. How eloquently and realistically put, I’m deeply impressed. And I agree, word for word. Frem, ditto, really well said and to the point.

DT, as to who began the most wars:
Quote:

Indian Wars occurred in every Presidency up to the 20th Century. Many were the results of broken treaties.They will not be counted.

Franco-American Naval War(Quasi War): John Adams, Federalist(Ancestor Party of the Republicans

First Barbary War: Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican(Ancestor Party of the Democrats); Tripolitians ransomed American Sailors and tried to blackmail US. When the US refused the Pasha(equivalent to king) declared war.

Second Barbary War and War of 1812: James Madison, Democratic-Republican; Second Barbary War began the same way as the first only with the Bey of Algiers declaring war. While the War of 1812 can be argued as being a war about sailor's rights, the real motive was Canada.

Mexican-American War: James K. Polk, Democratic; The Republic of Texas had a claim to Land between the Rio Grand and San Antionio(which the US inherited), which was not valid. Polk sent troops to the territory to protect it and the Mexican government sent troops to drive it out.

American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln, Republican; First fought to preserve the Union(the right to secede is still debated to this day) later to end slavery.

Korea(1876); Ulysses S. Grant, Republican.

Spanish-American War and Phillipine Insurrection: William McKinley, Republican; American Naval Ship Maine sent to monitor alleged mistreatment of the civilians of Cuba and protect American economic interests. The ship was destroyed and the press (the real instigators of the war)of the time

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:53 PM

Quote:

I also agree with what you said to Wulf, Sig, but I fear it falls on deaf ears.
Well, I see Wulf going down the rappy-path, and I'm trying to tell him There lies doom. Denial of reality being dangerous and all.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:46 PM

Marriage historically has been a contract, honouring whatever laws and customs that pertain to a society. It's main purpose has been to bind property between families or individuals, to provide perameters for the inheritance of such property by the issue of the marriage - ie the children. Marriage determined legitimacy of children in the days before DNA testing, that's why in the patriarchal European system, historically a wife's adultery resulted in severe penalties whereas the husbands, not so much.

The church got mixed up in it because for a long time they were the judiciary.

In more recent times, being legally marriage has had significance for a whole host of legal reasons, including tax, property inheritance, and social security payments. It also governs how you separate your property if you divorce and what happens to the children when there is a divorce.

Recent laws have increasingly given other relationships, such as defacto and same sex relationships, similar status under the law. With the recent Relationship Act (Aust), there is now equality, and in many ways it has made 'marriage' as a legal status redundant, even though the law continues to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

I can see a day soon when that legal definition will disappear, and people can describe themselves as married or committed or whatever. I think where there may be issues - and I haven't seen this tested recently, is where people dispute whether they have been in a relationship or not, because being in a 'relationship' creates a certain legal status that does not exist with friendships or business partners.

I guess that might bring about the type of 'bed sniffing' that we see here with welfare payments, and once again the private detectives might be back in the relationship business.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:41 PM

Well said, Magons!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2025 5:24 AM

TOOGAY pologize

terrible music but...

guy is sad, sings a song

http:/
/www.
youtube
.com/
watch?v=ZSM3w1v-A_Y

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2025 2:53 PM

apologize (it's too late) with lyrics



TalkTV presenter forced to apologise as he loses it on air in furious Reeves rant
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/2095672/talk-tv-host-reacti
on-keir-starmer-news


Gordon Brown: 'Government needs to apologise for historic forced adoption scandal'
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-08-20/gordon-brown-government-needs-to-a
pologise-for-forced-adoption-scandal

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME