|
|
Re: ::: Celibacy: Everyday Presentations
Lief M. Hendrickson (hendrick@NOSC.MIL)
Mon, 18 Dec 1995 15:45:23 PST
On Dec 18, Dorothy Cattle wrote:
> One
>isn't imitating if the rituals, etc. have meaning, social recognition,
>and form the basis for legal arguments and arrangements.
The above referred to spousal issues.
Yes, the "rituals" can be imitated and form the basis for legal
arguments and arrangements. However, at present the rituals do not
form an universal equivalency under law in the U.S. Even if they did,
the fundamental basis is not the same. Same-sex partners are not
spouses in the traditional sense of the word contrary to Dorothy's
statement:
> There are
>hundreds of people in same-sex relationships on the US west coast who have
>all the social and legal rights of spouses, even as traditionally defined.
All the social and legal rights do not create an equivalency in every
respect- especially an underlying one which can not be duplicated.
> Language changes; definitions change, become obsolete, fall into
>disuse, etc. "Some sector" hasn't misappropriated a very general term
>and muddied the water of some pure English pond. Can't see it even as
>derivative which seems to imply something derogative here.
Derivative means derived from. It takes a warped viewpoint to
find that derogatory.
> Spouse has gained additional meaning; if some individuals want to
>ignore that addition that's their perogative, but the meaning has expanded
>and in many places *is* legally recognized. One has to "keep up" in that
>arena at least. Language usage often goes "beyond" one's personal
>perspective.
Well, we're approaching tax season. Let's see if anyone checks the
"spouse" box on their Form 1040 (U.S. income tax form) when it applies
to their same-sex partner.
|