![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
The spousal privilege only applies if both the defendant and their spouse want to keep the secret. If a wife wants to testify against her husband, she can, and there is nothing the husband can do to prevent it. Compare that to the privilege between an attorney and their client. The attorney can virtually never testify against their client, even if they want to.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
meaning they can't be *compelled* to testify against their spouse.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
It's now official in Washington State... Next is New Jersey
![]() MSNBC 2/13/12 Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Doctor Wtf
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
|
Are heteros allowed to have civil unions too? When they brought in civil unions in France, something like a third of hetero couples went the civil union path and cut the church out altogether.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
trying hard to be a better person
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,493
|
I'm pretty sure civil unions for hetero couples have been common in the US just as they have been in Australia, for quite a long time. At least since the 60's.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber Last edited by Aliantha; 02-13-2012 at 06:54 PM. Reason: Can't get my grammar correct. :( |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
The issue is that civil unions generally don't afford ALL the benefits of marriage and legally is in a separate category. On top of that, and on top of the longstanding (and constitutional!) problem with "separate but equal", the federal Defense Of Marriage Act prevents civil unions OR gay marriages from "counting" at the federal level. I assume that civil unions are available to everyone regardless of gender, but there is no advantage to civil unions over marriage, and quite a host of drawbacks. I'm sure it's not common, but it happens.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
I believe whether the benefits are the same depends upon the state.
In VT, for example, they are the same. However those Civil Unions in VT may or may not be recognized in other states. ETA ... thats not entirely true... read this. I can't paste it because its a pdf.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt Last edited by classicman; 02-13-2012 at 07:57 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
polaroid of perfection
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 24,185
|
Civil Unions in this country are for same-sex couples only.
To start with I thought we were progressive in introducing them at all. And certainly the gay press seemed to have that opinion. After a few years now I am of the opinion that separate but equal doesn't cut it. Civil Unions for all, with the choice of a church wedding for those who require the blessing of God. There are churches in this country who would bless a same sex union. I don't believe in forcing those with problems to do so - religion should be a private matter. But the unions should be equal. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
This is my personal solution, too. The government shouldn't be in the business of validating religious ceremony. The civil contract legally uniting two adults, whether you call it a "civil union" or a "marriage", should be an ENTIRELY secular affair from the point of view of the government, and I think the way to do that is to not ("re")define marriage as between a man and a woman OR as between anyone, but to change the law so that the government recognizes ONLY civil unions that are the same as what are now recognized by the name of marriage.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
Let the "religious" have the WORD "Marriage" for their religious ceremonies and let the legal term with all benefits and whatever be "Civil Union" keeping the two separate.
Next! We have much larger issues to deal with.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
What's the adjective you would put next to the box on forms instead of "married?"
Civil unionized? Civilized? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,002
|
Civilly unioned?
Then when you break up you are uncivilly ununioned. Nah, that sounds too much like onion. uncivilly de-unioned? non-civilly disenunioned? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|