Equality for women - has it gone too far?

[Brianwarnock]

Nothing hearsay about post 57


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5230708.stm

The Judges comments support my view about semantics IMO

Brian

 

[ChrisO]

If the information in post #57 was of suitable quality why then was it necessary to supply additional information to support it?

Chris.

 

[Adam Caramon]

With the hearsay from post #57, post #58 and post #59 become an opinion based on hearsay.

Are there any other types of opinions? Can you think of anyone's opinion that is not informed at least to some degree on unsubstantiated statements?

 

[Brianwarnock]

If the information in post #57 was of suitable quality why then was it necessary to supply additional information to support it?

Chris.

I consider this both insulting and stupid.

Post 61 points to the source for comments in post 57 , something we are frequently asked for. I guess that you are annoyed that your self righteous response was shown to be all hot air.

Brian

 

[Fifty2One]

Not all of Canada has been as progressive - seems like the urban areas of central Canada is a bit behind the rural areas, specially the east and west coasts. But generally speaking Canada has been ahead of USA for a lot of rights parity for gender, race and beliefs.

It is very encouraging to see one of the older folks speaking like this. Unfortunately, you're from Canada, which is more advanced than the US in many ways. I wish some of our old timers would get with the program.

 

[Vassago]

There comes a time when the legal system has to realize when existing laws do not fit with present times. There are still laws on the books in the United States from hundreds of years ago in some states or cities. Example: Some states still have laws about wearing white after labor day. Obviously, no one has been arrested for breaking this law in 100 years, but the law still hasn't been removed. Police just use common sense that it's a stupid law and doesn't fit in with today's society. They don't play with semantics.

The judge in this case should have realize the ability to rear children is no longer limited to a man and a woman. Times have changed. He is playing with semantics. There is no other explanation.

 

[ColinEssex]

I've heard that some laws in the USA date back to the early 1950's, although from what we see on TV, in the south, bribery and a lax attitude prevail where laws are concerned.

Col

 

[ChrisO]

The information given in post #57 did not contain a source let alone a means to verify the content.

The information given in post #61 contains a source:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5230708.stm

Which inturn contains a Q&A source:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4497348.stm

The difference I see between #57 and #61 is that #57 expects the reader to agree with the statements whereas #61 attempts to supply verifiable evidence so the reader may become better informed in order to form their own opinion.

My reading leads me in the direction that civil partnerships, once formed, already have equal rights except in title.

Civil partnerships may actually have an advantage in that both parties need not be present when the partnership is formed. That would seem to leave it open for the partnership to be formed when, say, one of the parties was on active service while abroad. Did the two people concerned even consider that situation when they wanted a title change?

If that is a legal possibility then why try to convert civil partnerships to marriages? Why not convert marriages to civil partnerships and get that advantage? In fact, why get married at all and simply live in a de facto relationship?

Australian link:
http://www.law4u.com.au/cgi-bin/factsheet_right.asp?article_id=476

So why the pressing need to publicly try and make a change of title when the result they seek may be less than what they already have?



But I would recommend people form their own opinion by reading all of the sources provided while remembering that the information given may only apply to the country concerned.

Chris.

 

[Fifty2One]

In Canada the trend has been a rise in de facto unions for couples rather then marriages, with the exception of the same sex unions, most of which are from persons visiting Canada who want to be documented as being married.