<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Brief Saturday Morning Thought</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html</link>
	<description>NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:17:35 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Leum</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48157</link>
		<dc:creator>Leum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:04:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48157</guid>
		<description>I would, incidentally, support a radical change to divorce laws to make &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; process easier. However, I&#039;d also like to note that a very real danger for unmarried people in long-term relationships is having their stuff misdivided, extreme difficulty in getting custody, etc. In other words, all the problems already associated with divorcing after a marriage, but without the protections provided for divorcing people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would, incidentally, support a radical change to divorce laws to make <i>that</i> process easier. However, I'd also like to note that a very real danger for unmarried people in long-term relationships is having their stuff misdivided, extreme difficulty in getting custody, etc. In other words, all the problems already associated with divorcing after a marriage, but without the protections provided for divorcing people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leum</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48156</link>
		<dc:creator>Leum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48156</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The rights would be automaticly granted to people who could porve they are together. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?&lt;/i&gt;

Andrew, with all due respect, that&#039;s a completely ridiculous idea. Why should people with jobs requiring them to be away from their partners for months or years at a time be denied having their relationship recognized? Why should I have to prove to the gov&#039;t that I&#039;m living with (or in a relationship with) my partner at all? It is cheaper, more efficient, and less intrusive to sign an affidavit saying I&#039;m in relationship (this is, essentially, what a marriage license amounts to) than to have the government investigate my private life to make an identical determination. It also places me at less risk of having nutty exes or family members try to &quot;prove&quot; that the relationship was somehow invalid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The rights would be automaticly granted to people who could porve they are together. Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?</i></p>
<p>Andrew, with all due respect, that's a completely ridiculous idea. Why should people with jobs requiring them to be away from their partners for months or years at a time be denied having their relationship recognized? Why should I have to prove to the gov't that I'm living with (or in a relationship with) my partner at all? It is cheaper, more efficient, and less intrusive to sign an affidavit saying I'm in relationship (this is, essentially, what a marriage license amounts to) than to have the government investigate my private life to make an identical determination. It also places me at less risk of having nutty exes or family members try to "prove" that the relationship was somehow invalid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48155</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:32:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48155</guid>
		<description>The main difference, I&#039;d like to see is that the privelages would be in effect only upon the condition that peple are ACTUALLY together.  And if you wanted to get with somebody else, you wouldnt need to do anything except move in together, no divorce proceedings or anything of that nature.  

As far as familes not approving who they&#039;re with: I doubt even in that case most people would actually lie about them being together.  And even if they did, it shoulnt be hard to prove they were, in fact lying.  

And yes, many states do have common law marriages, and I think that makes other forms unecessary.  Although I&#039;d like to see those allowed for same-sex-couples(I know some states already allow it, but not all) and for people who live polygymous/polymorous lifestyles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The main difference, I'd like to see is that the privelages would be in effect only upon the condition that peple are ACTUALLY together.  And if you wanted to get with somebody else, you wouldnt need to do anything except move in together, no divorce proceedings or anything of that nature.  </p>
<p>As far as familes not approving who they're with: I doubt even in that case most people would actually lie about them being together.  And even if they did, it shoulnt be hard to prove they were, in fact lying.  </p>
<p>And yes, many states do have common law marriages, and I think that makes other forms unecessary.  Although I'd like to see those allowed for same-sex-couples(I know some states already allow it, but not all) and for people who live polygymous/polymorous lifestyles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rowen</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48130</link>
		<dc:creator>Rowen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:55:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48130</guid>
		<description>How is that different from a marriage license then?  (I don&#039;t accept your idea that families and friends could be relied on to prove the couple&#039;s coupleness, since many folks date someone that their family and friends don&#039;t want to see them with.  As for joint banking accounts and such, in many states, if you have a joint banking account and file your taxes together, or some other criteria, you automatically have a common law marriage.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is that different from a marriage license then?  (I don't accept your idea that families and friends could be relied on to prove the couple's coupleness, since many folks date someone that their family and friends don't want to see them with.  As for joint banking accounts and such, in many states, if you have a joint banking account and file your taxes together, or some other criteria, you automatically have a common law marriage.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48122</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48122</guid>
		<description>And again I already answered this: The rights would be automaticly granted to people who could porve they are together.  Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And again I already answered this: The rights would be automaticly granted to people who could porve they are together.  Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rowen</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48120</link>
		<dc:creator>Rowen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48120</guid>
		<description>You might want to reread my post.  I didn&#039;t ask you how the government would prove two people were a couple, I asked you how all the rights and regulations that the government has attached to marriage would be handled, without the use of a marriage contract/license.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might want to reread my post.  I didn't ask you how the government would prove two people were a couple, I asked you how all the rights and regulations that the government has attached to marriage would be handled, without the use of a marriage contract/license.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48116</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48116</guid>
		<description>Didn&#039;t I already answer that question?  

If two people are that involved in each others lives it shouldnt be that hard to prove.  In fact they wouldnt be legally strangers if they live together, have joint bank account, have kids together ect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn't I already answer that question?  </p>
<p>If two people are that involved in each others lives it shouldnt be that hard to prove.  In fact they wouldnt be legally strangers if they live together, have joint bank account, have kids together ect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48115</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:52:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48115</guid>
		<description>Didn&#039;t I already answer that question?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn't I already answer that question?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rowen</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48111</link>
		<dc:creator>Rowen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48111</guid>
		<description>Andrew, what are you advocating, then?  When gay folks want to get married, they want to be able to designate their lover as their next of kin, in case they die.  They want that person to have visitation rights, and the right to make end of life decisions, over what the person&#039;s family might say.  They want to know that their partner gets their social security benefits, and can be listed as a spouse on their insurance.  There&#039;s numerous other things that people get granted when they get married.  True, there are people who turn it into a holy ceremony, but that&#039;s neither here nor there to the government.  You keep saying you don&#039;t want the government involved in marriage, but how else to obtain all these rights and regulations dealing with joining the households of two (legally) strangers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew, what are you advocating, then?  When gay folks want to get married, they want to be able to designate their lover as their next of kin, in case they die.  They want that person to have visitation rights, and the right to make end of life decisions, over what the person's family might say.  They want to know that their partner gets their social security benefits, and can be listed as a spouse on their insurance.  There's numerous other things that people get granted when they get married.  True, there are people who turn it into a holy ceremony, but that's neither here nor there to the government.  You keep saying you don't want the government involved in marriage, but how else to obtain all these rights and regulations dealing with joining the households of two (legally) strangers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ebonmuse</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48110</link>
		<dc:creator>Ebonmuse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48110</guid>
		<description>You hear that, gays? Now you&#039;ve destroyed Mark Sanford&#039;s marriage too! Wasn&#039;t John Ensign enough? How many more heterosexual white Christian men will you force to cheat on their wives with your relentless drive for legally recognized monogamy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You hear that, gays? Now you've destroyed Mark Sanford's marriage too! Wasn't John Ensign enough? How many more heterosexual white Christian men will you force to cheat on their wives with your relentless drive for legally recognized monogamy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maynard</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48104</link>
		<dc:creator>Maynard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:29:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48104</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_where&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Whoops!&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_where" rel="nofollow">Whoops!</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thumpalumpacus</title>
		<link>http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/06/a-brief-saturday-morning-thought.html#comment-48101</link>
		<dc:creator>Thumpalumpacus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1057#comment-48101</guid>
		<description>I need neither god nor government to sanctify my love.  I do understand the difficulties of common-law relationships, and for that reason -- and because bigotry is always wrong -- I support GLBT marriage rights.  I am certainly ashamed that my adopted home of California chose to ensconce discrimination into its Constitution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need neither god nor government to sanctify my love.  I do understand the difficulties of common-law relationships, and for that reason -- and because bigotry is always wrong -- I support GLBT marriage rights.  I am certainly ashamed that my adopted home of California chose to ensconce discrimination into its Constitution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
