Nevada switch hits with SB 283

[Archaea]

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/...ory.cfm?ID=764

Nevada Switches its position by the mere change of a word or two from having an anti-gay marriage to having a domestic partnership law which makes them virtually identical to marriages, except you file a business entity.

Interestingly, DPs are not limited to gay couples, invoke the divorce statutes and may present fascinating opportunities for legal squabbles down the road. Everybody needs to invest more money with lawyers, God Save the Queen, or at least us lawyers.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/...ory.cfm?ID=764

Nevada Switches its position by the mere change of a word or two from having an anti-gay marriage to having a domestic partnership law which makes them virtually identical to marriages, except you file a business entity.

Interestingly, DPs are not limited to gay couples, invoke the divorce statutes and may present fascinating opportunities for legal squabbles down the road. Everybody needs to invest more money with lawyers, God Save the Queen, or at least us lawyers.

so can a non-member couple with a domestic partnership get baptized?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so can a non-member couple with a domestic partnership get baptized?

I think you know the answer.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think you know the answer.

No I don't, and neither do you, since I doubt it has ever come up before in the USA.

On my mission, in my area, it was not required to be married to be baptized. Yet in other parts of the mission, it was a requirement. Essentially an arbitrary decision designed to maximize baptisms (where it was required, the missionary work was successful, so they could afford the extra barrier. Where I was, the work was difficult, and such a requirement would have dropped baptisms to almost nil).

In this case, I think betting men could all agree that the words "domestic partnership" are nuclear to the church, and for political reasons, they would not accept it.

But let's not pretend there is some written-in-stone principle here.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

No I don't, and neither do you, since I doubt it has ever come up before in the USA.

On my mission, in my area, it was not required to be married to be baptized. Yet in other parts of the mission, it was a requirement. Essentially an arbitrary decision designed to maximize baptisms (where it was required, the missionary work was successful, so they could afford the extra barrier. Where I was, the work was difficult, and such a requirement would have dropped baptisms to almost nil).

Marriage isn't a requirement of baptism unless you're living with someone of the opposite sex. I'm confused how your mission president could dissolve that requirement. Did unmarried live-in partners just "promise" to be chaste? Seems unlikely.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

In this case, I think betting men could all agree that the words "domestic partnership" are nuclear to the church, and for political reasons, they would not accept it.

But let's not pretend there is some written-in-stone principle here.

It depends. The basic requirement here is chastity. If you have to homosexual men living together who are in a DP and are living chaste lives, then fine. As I suggest above, seems unlikely.