I was just about to say what matt_mcl said. It must be a Latin thing, maybe they have those in Italian and Portuguese too.
Any ways, the rough equivalent for *conjoint * or conjointe in Spanish is pareja, it applies to both genders but doesn’t convey the same sense of commitment as *marido * and mujer.
And this is the end our daily lesson. You may now return to your scheduled thread.
The question isn’t yet settled. There is a law on the books passed back when it was mixed-race couples who were barred from marriage stating that a marriage entered into in Massachusetts was void if it would be void in the home state of those contracting the marriage. The pigshit, excuse me, governor of MA, in his impotent rage at being unable to halt legal SSM for MA residents, has invoked this icon of capitulation to racism to stop clerks in MA from issuing licenses to out-of-staters. Some clerks defied him initially and a number of out of state couples married and at least one is suing in their home state of Florida for recognition. The MA law is also being challenged.
The question is before the state supreme court now but there is also a ballot initiative scheduled for November which would add a ban to the state constitution.
In other SSM news, a Louisiana ballot initiative to add a constitutional SSM ban was stricken from a September ballot today but the state will undoubtedly appeal.
Thanks matt_mcl, I had heard of that deadline. That one doesn’t apply to me, because I was born after 1977. It does apply to my uncle and my aunt, though, which is how I first started investigating this whole thing. They are all applying for citizenship 
I can’t find the article at the CIC on this laptop, but there is a seperate program for those of us who have non-canadian parent, but Canadian grandparents. It allows us to recieve citizenshio by demonstrating a significant tie to Canada, most of which boils down to living a year in Canada. Thank you for sending me the article though, thats the first news article I have seen on the deadline.
I’m so sorry, I had a long and informative answer to all you nay but the hamster has decided it was not information humanity was ready to receive. In short:
1 - My point was ‘The State’ does not determine what you believe in your heart, don’t let the state stop you. This is not ‘Love it or leave it’ more like ignore it, try to change it or as a last resort find a place that will accept it (I did leave out take up arms against which is also an option).
2 - Otto, I am an alien from Alpha Century C, and you not accepting my humanity is just what I expected from you.
3 - The question as to ‘what is marriage’ is a good one, but don’t expect me to accept your meaning just because you say so.
4 (or 3a) - Marriage has meant f/m union for 1000’s of years (on the short side, and yes there were different terms), I am not against homosexual unions, nor tax breaks for such households, but the term marriage already means something different.
5 - As for GillianBoardman comment
I think it speaks for itself, it would seem to me that GillianBoardman is intolerant of other views expressed, am I correct GillianBoardman? To such an extent that he is actually ashamed to call himself a citizen of the United States of America because I dare to speak my mind in a free country?
For the record I am not questioning the love, commitment, devotion of the pair, just the term marriage to define it.
To the OP poster:
I have stated that I don’t see your relationship as a marriage. Please note I accept your right to disagree and to act accordingly. I also encourage you to ignore the state and to carry our your lives as you desire. What I ask is you don’t expect me to agree with you and to act against my personal reality.
You have a relationship that you (and others) see as marriage, as such you should continue to act as such and I wish you and your partner a good and fulfilling life and should not let this get you (2) down. You are what you believe. The ultimate freedom to be able to design your own reality, independent of state, and other opinion.
I wish you to well and hope that the recent ruling means very little to you. I personally believe that f and m are very different to the point that the union of them is unique, this is why I posted, but I admit I am only an alien from Alpha Centura C (aka, never mind, Otto Knows) and only want to be albe to express my opinion. I do not deny that you 2 love each other nor that you have have a life time commitment to each.
A note to Otto:
We had vast disagreements in the past, but I took it as we have different views of reality. I have NEVER accused you of being non-human, and am deeply disappointed that you blew my cover as a alien form AC-C. Perhaps you will be a bit more tolerant of the next alien who might dare to challenge your views.
Then the change is particularly overdue.
I’m with the governor on this one. The law exists, it’s putatively valid, and it’s his duty to enforce it. You would have him simply ignore the law?
I’m with the judge on this one. The Lousiana law clearly says that it’s one subject per referendum; this clearly has two separate and distinct subjects: the marriage definition and the freedom to contract. The ruling to drop the referendum was correct. (And on the merits: I am absolutely opposed to the attempts to not only forbid marriage, but forbid contracts that create marriage-like benefits).
matt_mcl
So perhaps you would like to redefine the term water, air, fire and earth? does this really require a serious reply 
If an injustice has persisted for several millennia, it remains an injustice, and should be removed.
Rick, a question – more abstract than directed at this particular law. Would it not be (a) permissible, and (b) his duty, for the Governor of a state to refuse to enforce a law which he believed on reasonable grounds to be clearly unconstitutional, pending judicial review (which might be sought by a citizen seeking an injunction to compel the Governor to carry out the law)?
Obviously, that self-evident status is not present with the prohibition of non-resident marriages not permissible in the state of residency which is in force in Massachusetts – but suppose that, e.g., the Mississippi state legislature decided to enact a law that all public schools will open with a prayer acknowledging Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom – could the Governor say, “Hey, that law flies in the face of Supreme Court decisions, and I’m not going to let my education commissioner carry it out!”
I agree.
But HOW the injustice is removed is important. The process, how we make the laws under which we live, is important as well.
In the case of the MA law forbidding marriages if they would be invalid in the home state(s) of the partners, the proper course is not to simply ignore the law, even if you want the law gone. The proper course is to repeal the law.
Similarly, in Lousiana, the proper way to frame an amendment is to have it deal with one subject, even if you firmly believe that both subjects are important and should be on a referendum.
I say this because it seems like an awful lot of people are more interested in getting the result that they want, and hang it all how we get there.
I think we actually did that in the 18th or 19th century, didn’t we? Air, earth, fire, and water used to be defined as the four fundamental elements of which all matter was composed. Then, we wised up and figured that definition wasn’t working, so we changed it. No reason we can’t do the same with marriage.
Care to try for a less inept analogy?
Knock me over with a feather.
A serious point would require a serious reply. And in a separate forum, as well. Whatever happened to
?
It’s not as if there aren’t 100 other same-sex marriage threads you could’ve used to exercise your Free Speech Rights.
No comment on my support for the judge’s decision in Louisiana?
Language evolves. The meaning of words will evolve with time.
Water, air, fire and earth are not abstract concepts - they are concrete. As is the meaning of the word ‘cat’, ‘dog’, and ‘human’.
Marriage is not concrete - it is conceptual and is defined by societal views. Not so long ago, marriage was considered to be only acceptable between two people of opposite genders but the same race. That has since changed.
It is time for the concept of marriage to change again. Attempting to adequate marriage with “water, air, fire and earth” is particularly insane.
Did you move here voluntarily from your planet or did they kick you off?
True.
What institution is the right one to make this decision? Joe agrees with you, Jim and Steve do not. In our system of government, who or what makes the call?
Well, lessee. How did the law get changed last time?
The last time a state law was changed on marriage, I’m willing to bet a state legislature did it.
Well, the last time a state law was changed on marriage it was by refereundum. Time before that was the scardey-cat VA legislature who are so terrified of the idea of same-sex couples living happily ever after that they passed the harshest anti-gay law in the nation. Before that was, I think, the MA supreme court (which IIRC technically didn’t change a state statute; it changed the common law definition of “marriage”).
Somewhere in there was the Washington district court which ruled the state’s SSM ban unconstitutional.
Before that those meddling SCOTUS justices stuck their noses in the state’s business by making such outrageous rulings as mixed-sex couples are allowed to get married.