Religions > Atheism > Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Jabsco" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2003 03:02:24 PM |
| Object: |
Another anti-gay marriage bill passes by over 75% of the vote. |
Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.
What's this all about? I thought you faggots said that "ignorance to old
beliefs are making way". Come on faggots, explain this... I don't
understand. If people love faggots so much, why would over two-thirds vote
otherwise? Why is there currently 38 states with anti-gay marriage laws,
all properly voted for by the public? I am having troubles understanding
why the only way faggots can appear to be accepted is by finding a
sympathetic judge to scratch out laws for them. Can't you get the
"accepting" public to vote for them for you? Why isn't it that the faggots
aren't putting these issues on the ballets rather than taking it to
sympathetic judges and congress men?
===
Ohio House passes anti-gay marriage bill
COLUMBUS -- Gay marriage would be banned and state employees could not
obtain health insurance and other benefits for unmarried partners under a
bill passed by the Ohio House on Wednesday.
The measure, approved by a 73-23 vote, would recognize marriage as a union
"between one man and one woman" and declare that extending benefits for
unmarried partners to state employees, whether of the same or opposite sex,
is against state policy.
Supporters of the measure point toward the possibility of other states
approving homosexual unions as the impetus for Ohio to set its own standards
for marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last month declared that state's
gay marriage ban unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to extend the legal
benefits of marriage to domestic partners.
But opponents called the bill discrimination.
House minority leader Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island, said committee
hearings on the bill were filled with "hate filled language and bigoted
comments" about homosexuals.
"I cannot allow myself to be aligned with that," he said. "I have respect
for my fellow members ... but I don't want them to be the morality police."
Redfern added that considering society's 50-percent divorce rate, it's hard
to argue that the issue is about upholding the sanctity of marriage.
.
|
|
| User: "Wild Bill Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 12:14:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:25:40 GMT, Ward Stewart
<wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
(...)
Fine -- you and the ms had a CHOICE to make such arrangements or not,
as YOU saw fit. Are you suggesting that George and I in our somewhat
different situation must be denied this choice?
"SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT!" You are men who ***** each other in the ***** and
you call yourself "SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
We are not here discussing or advocating for compulsory marriage,
religious OR civil.
You're ready to accept "civil" aren't you old guy? You actually are
beginning to see how futile your task is - you might even say it's a
"Fruitless Task", huh?
ward
--------------------------
Ward and George
48 years together
and yet
Strangers before the law.
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 11:06:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:14:21 GMT,
Wild Bill Taylor wrote:
Ward Stewart <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
(...)
Fine -- you and the ms had a CHOICE to make such arrangements or not,
as YOU saw fit. Are you suggesting that George and I in our somewhat
different situation must be denied this choice?
"SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT!" You are men who ***** each other in
the ***** and you call yourself "SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
We are not here discussing or advocating for compulsory marriage,
religious OR civil.
You're ready to accept "civil" aren't you old guy? You actually are
beginning to see how futile your task is - you might even say it's a
"Fruitless Task", huh?
WEIRD Bill -- your bigoted comments, above, are NOW archived in
Google -- permanently -- in THIS post. COUNT on this happening with
regularity, coward.
For as long as Google exists, everyone can thus be REMINDED of just
HOW utterly hateful and idiotic losers like you and your ilk really are!
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 12:39:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:07:20 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:frrutvcne1m6noc03asti50n78g2u1qlk0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:14:47 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
snip
You should do a little research about the disadvantages of not having
that contract. There are many.
I don't have to. I'm living them, and when you get where I am, you too will
have a rude awakening.
Does the above have any actual meaning?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 04:03:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:49:11 +0100,
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:14:47 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:oqautv0n0q6ammubaev3c4of5gg2kfh5er@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:44:28 GMT in alt.atheism, Brooks Gregory
("Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com> wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want the same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the majority how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I served as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something. We do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us will not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our church will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want separation of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of God, and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything they
wish.
We do not have to play."
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our marriage
licenses.
Hummm..... I rather doubt that such an attitude would impress the
probate judge much!
Who cares? There's lots of ways to avoid probate.
Who cares? I CARE and further I do not think that simply because
George and I are both male we should have an extra hurdle to leap.
Try to think again and see how terribly inappropriate your "who cares"
sounds.
ward
There are lots of ways to avoid divorce, property disputes and child
custody cases too. Even so an amazing percentage of people, including
church members, will have those experiences.
Secular marriage is a legal contract between the two people involved.
It is a very risky thing doing without it. It in no way, interferes
with what ever religious concepts one may have about marriage.
You should do a little research about the disadvantages of not having
that contract. There are many.
Quite Right!
ward
----------------------------------------------------
"George W. Bush lives at the intersection of faith
and inexperience. This is not a reassuring address,
especially in a time of trouble."
--Joe Klein
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
16 Dec 2003 12:15:58 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com> wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want the same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the majority how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need not allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I served as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something. We do not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us will not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our church will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want separation of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of God, and the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is all that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes them
change their minds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
16 Dec 2003 12:54:15 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com> wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want the same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the majority how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something. We do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us will not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our church will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want separation of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of God, and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them conform? I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry "uncle".
--
If you can't protest with a voter registration card
what makes you think you have any clout with
your opinions?
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
16 Dec 2003 01:31:31 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something. We do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want separation of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of God, and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them conform? I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry "uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they need is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns, immunity from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
16 Dec 2003 02:00:29 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I
served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the
general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something. We
do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all
that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want separation
of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of God,
and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything
they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is
all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them conform?
I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry "uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they need is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely
ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage
license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns, immunity
from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those things.
Well, I'm 73 years old and been married 52 years and I don't think I have
ever had cause to use any of those things. And, if we were divorced in the
eyes of the law, I would draw a full social security check as would my wife,
instead of the "rationed" version we now get. Plus, we would have much
better healthcare advantages and many. many other things that you only
discover as you get older.
What religious marriage would give would be the freedom from government
interference in some parts of their lives. And, if society wants all this
separation of church and state stuff, why not start with marriage?
--
If you can't protest with a voter registration card
what makes you think you have any clout with
your opinions?
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
16 Dec 2003 03:38:45 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:xvJDb.3270680$Id.519363@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted
subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the
majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need
not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the
majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes
of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I
served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the
general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something.
We
do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us
will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our
church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all
that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want separation
of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of God,
and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything
they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our
marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is
all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil
marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes
them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them
conform?
I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry
"uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they need
is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely
ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage
license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns, immunity
from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for
foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those things.
Well, I'm 73 years old
I'm not all that far behind you. :)
and been married 52 years and I don't think I have
ever had cause to use any of those things.
Seems rather unlikely, especially with respect to all of the ancillary
benefits provided by next-of-kin status, but good for you. Maybe you should
have just cohabited. Just as there isn't one now, there wasn't a law 52
years ago requiring you to get married. There's about 1,100 other benefits
conveyed by your civil marriage license. Likely you've unknowingly taken
advantage of some of them.
But, that's not the point. The issue at hand is giving same-sex couples the
same options available to opposite-sex couples. That doesn't force you or
anyone else to do anything you don't want to do, and the 'abolish civil
marriage' crowd need to make sure they understand all of the ramifications
of what they're asking for.
And, if we were divorced in the
eyes of the law, I would draw a full social security check as would my
wife,
instead of the "rationed" version we now get. Plus, we would have much
better healthcare advantages and many. many other things that you only
discover as you get older.
Some of us learn earlier than others. As my dear mother says, intelligent
people become wise. Stupid people just get old. :)
What religious marriage would give would be the freedom from government
interference in some parts of their lives. And, if society wants all this
separation of church and state stuff, why not start with marriage?
[shrug] Start a petition if that's what you want. Meanwhile we'll continue
addressing the issue of giving same-sex couples the same options available
to opposite-sex couples.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
16 Dec 2003 04:42:00 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnubp$5a5ic$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:xvJDb.3270680$Id.519363@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted
subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want
the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the
majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need
not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the
majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes
of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I
served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the
general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something.
We
do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us
will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our
church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is
all
that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want
separation
of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of
God,
and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for
anything
they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our
marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ...
is
all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil
marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes
them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them
conform?
I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry
"uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they need
is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely
ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage
license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns, immunity
from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for
foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those
things.
Well, I'm 73 years old
I'm not all that far behind you. :)
and been married 52 years and I don't think I have
ever had cause to use any of those things.
Seems rather unlikely, especially with respect to all of the ancillary
benefits provided by next-of-kin status, but good for you. Maybe you
should
have just cohabited. Just as there isn't one now, there wasn't a law 52
years ago requiring you to get married. There's about 1,100 other benefits
conveyed by your civil marriage license. Likely you've unknowingly taken
advantage of some of them.
But, that's not the point. The issue at hand is giving same-sex couples
the
same options available to opposite-sex couples. That doesn't force you or
anyone else to do anything you don't want to do, and the 'abolish civil
marriage' crowd need to make sure they understand all of the ramifications
of what they're asking for.
And, if we were divorced in the
eyes of the law, I would draw a full social security check as would my
wife,
instead of the "rationed" version we now get. Plus, we would have much
better healthcare advantages and many. many other things that you only
discover as you get older.
Some of us learn earlier than others. As my dear mother says, intelligent
people become wise. Stupid people just get old. :)
What religious marriage would give would be the freedom from government
interference in some parts of their lives. And, if society wants all
this
separation of church and state stuff, why not start with marriage?
[shrug] Start a petition if that's what you want. Meanwhile we'll continue
addressing the issue of giving same-sex couples the same options available
to opposite-sex couples.
Give them anything you want. But why would you be against giving those of a
religious belief what they want as well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
16 Dec 2003 04:47:16 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:VSLDb.3359400$Of.523034@news.easynews.com...
[snip]
But why would you be against giving those of a
religious belief what they want as well?
Religious couples, same- or opposite-sex, can already have all the religious
marriages they want. What's being denied to them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 04:21:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:42:00 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
Give them anything you want. But why would you be against giving those of a
religious belief what they want as well?
What is it that you suppose is being denied to those "of a religious
belief?"
ward
--------------------------
Ward and George
48 years together
and yet
Strangers before the law.
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 03:52:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:00:29 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I
served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the
general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something. We
do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all
that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want separation
of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of God,
and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything
they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is
all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them conform?
I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry "uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they need is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely
ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage
license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns, immunity
from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those things.
Well, I'm 73 years old and been married 52 years and I don't think I have
ever had cause to use any of those things.
A profound irrelevance Brooke -- shall we outlaw life insurance since,
being alive, you have never had cause to use it?
When one or another of you does croak you will find that the "next of
kin" status is of great importance.
ward
----------------------------------------------------
"George W. Bush lives at the intersection of faith
and inexperience. This is not a reassuring address,
especially in a time of trouble."
--Joe Klein
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 07:51:46 AM |
|
|
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mm90uvs5u06kljep7segfmcduv1mg1jemo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:00:29 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted
subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want
the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the
majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need
not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the
majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes
of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I
served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the
general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something.
We
do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us
will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our
church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all
that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want
separation
of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of
God,
and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything
they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our
marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is
all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil
marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes
them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them
conform?
I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry
"uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they need
is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely
ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage
license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns, immunity
from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for
foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those things.
Well, I'm 73 years old and been married 52 years and I don't think I have
ever had cause to use any of those things.
A profound irrelevance Brooke -- shall we outlaw life insurance since,
being alive, you have never had cause to use it?
When one or another of you does croak you will find that the "next of
kin" status is of great importance.
ward
I would think whoever was named "beneficiary" would have the most relevance.
And I would think that whoever has their name on the title to any property
would have the most revelance. Such as in our case, we divorced, but live
together, have separate title to everything we own, even a homestead, which
in Texas can be up to 200 acres and thus we having 400 have 200 in each of
our names with a "deed in lieu" to the other if one dies. Being free of
legal entanglements is a very easy thing to accomplish and sure makes life a
lot simpler and much more enjoyable.
Shoot, even married couples have the option to a "Partition of Property"
that has many benefits.
So, I think these young folks are smart enough to decide for themselves
whether or not they want to led around on a leash by the government marriage
scam and I find it very refreshing they have discovered this attitude,
somthing that never would have dawned on me. After all, I think marriage was
first mentioned in a religious vein, and if so, heck, churches that adhere
to the Bible can do so, and those that wish not to can go their own way,
without any restrictions by the whims of government. Would not that be the
most fundamental separation of church and state possible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 06:17:55 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:SbZDb.2392689$be.372015@news.easynews.com...
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mm90uvs5u06kljep7segfmcduv1mg1jemo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:00:29 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter
<Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted
subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want
the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the
majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it
need
not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the
majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the
purposes
of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I
served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on
current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the
general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do
something.
We
do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us
will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our
church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is
all
that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want
separation
of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of
God,
and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for
anything
they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want
to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our
marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but
the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ...
is
all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil
marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes
them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them
conform?
I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry
"uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they
need
is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely
ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage
license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns,
immunity
from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for
foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those
things.
Well, I'm 73 years old and been married 52 years and I don't think I
have
ever had cause to use any of those things.
A profound irrelevance Brooke -- shall we outlaw life insurance since,
being alive, you have never had cause to use it?
When one or another of you does croak you will find that the "next of
kin" status is of great importance.
ward
I would think whoever was named "beneficiary" would have the most
relevance.
Unless a blood relative contests it.
And I would think that whoever has their name on the title to any property
would have the most revelance.
A house for instance, a blood relative can force your partner to sell the
house, and/or pay them
half the value of the house. A blood relative cannot do that where next of
kin status is established
through marriage.
Such as in our case, we divorced, but live
together, have separate title to everything we own, even a homestead,
which
in Texas can be up to 200 acres and thus we having 400 have 200 in each of
our names with a "deed in lieu" to the other if one dies. Being free of
legal entanglements is a very easy thing to accomplish and sure makes life
a
lot simpler and much more enjoyable.
Unless a blood relative exists that claims half of what you own. Then you
have problems upon one, or the
other's death.
Shoot, even married couples have the option to a "Partition of Property"
that has many benefits.
Not particularly relevant. Even under a partition of property, upon the
death of one or the other
of the married couple, the spouse is still going to get first dibs on the
property.
So, I think these young folks are smart enough to decide for themselves
whether or not they want to led around on a leash by the government
marriage
scam and I find it very refreshing they have discovered this attitude,
Whether they want to or not, they have the right to, which is the point.
somthing that never would have dawned on me. After all, I think marriage
was
first mentioned in a religious vein, and if so, heck, churches that adhere
to the Bible can do so, and those that wish not to can go their own way,
Civil marriage pre-dates religious marriage.
without any restrictions by the whims of government. Would not that be the
most fundamental separation of church and state possible?
Civil marriage has nothing to do with the church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
18 Dec 2003 07:27:58 AM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:Tm6Eb.8502$Pg1.3016@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Civil marriage has nothing to do with the church.
Wow, you went through all of that just to arrive at the point I was making
originally?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
18 Dec 2003 04:01:21 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:yXhEb.3397289$Id.539852@news.easynews.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:Tm6Eb.8502$Pg1.3016@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Civil marriage has nothing to do with the church.
Wow, you went through all of that just to arrive at the point I was making
originally?
I was simply showing you how to make your point, without flapping your gums
all day about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
18 Dec 2003 04:34:06 PM |
|
|
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:RspEb.9694$Pg1.4146@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:yXhEb.3397289$Id.539852@news.easynews.com...
"Light Templar" <I@DONTACCEPTEMAIL.FAM> wrote in message
news:Tm6Eb.8502$Pg1.3016@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Civil marriage has nothing to do with the church.
Wow, you went through all of that just to arrive at the point I was
making
originally?
I was simply showing you how to make your point, without flapping your
gums
all day about it.
<G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ward Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 03:33:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:51:46 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mm90uvs5u06kljep7segfmcduv1mg1jemo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:00:29 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
"blewyn" <blewyn@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1f63b835.0312160719.778f2450@posting.google.com...
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDE5133.5020800@hotmail.com>...
Al wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 07:21:07 GMT, Phylter <Phylter@freeway.com>
wrote:
Homosexuals , though want to reverse the structure
and have a small , minuscule and sexually perverted
subculture
telling
the majority how they must live.
Wrong. Homosexuals want to tell the majority that they want
the
same
PRIVATE freedoms as the majority. NO-ONE is telling the
majority
how
they must live
Indeed. A Republic needs to protect minorities, but it need
not
allow
minorities dictate or destroy the institutions of the
majority.
Indeed. Is allowing civil union between gays for the purposes
of
equal freedom a destruction of the institutions of the US ? I
thought
the US stood for freedom....
Blewyn
gained a whole new perspective on marriage over the weekend. I
served
as
one of 20 youth sponsors at a church youth discussion on current
events.
The
subject of gay marriage was one of the hottest topics and the
general
attitude of these young adults was this.
"Who cares whether or not gays can or can not marry. That is a
government
argument over whether or not to grant a license to do something.
We
do
not
need a license to be married in the eyes of God and many of us
will
not
seek
a license from the government. Our church will marry us, our
church
will
accept and sanction our marriage and stand behind us. That is all
that
matters in marriage. If the people of this country want
separation
of
church
and state, let it begin with our being married in the eyes of
God,
and
the
state can play all the games they wish with licenses for anything
they
wish.
We do not have to play.
I find this attitude most refreshing. It almost makes me want to
organize
a
protest march to the capital whereupon arrival we burn our
marriage
licenses.
The 'live and let live' attitude is certainly commendable, but the
statement
that 'being married in the eyes of [insert particular diety] ... is
all
that
matters in marriage' is somewhat shortsighted. Take the civil
marriage
license benefits out of their marriages and see how long it takes
them
change their minds.
So, you believe the government has to bribe people to make them
conform?
I
would almost bet that the government would be the first to cry
"uncle".
That's not what I said.
What I'm saying is that these simpletons who posit that 'all they need
is
marriage in [diety's] eyes' are taking for granted (or more likely
ignorant
of) some of the things that are conferred only by a civil marriage
license.
Big ones that come to mind are next-of-kin status, unquestioned
second-parent adoption, the option to file joint tax returns, immunity
from
testifying against a spouse, and permanent residency for
foreign-national
spouses. Religious-only marriage doesn't give them any of those things.
Well, I'm 73 years old and been married 52 years and I don't think I have
ever had cause to use any of those things.
A profound irrelevance Brooke -- shall we outlaw life insurance since,
being alive, you have never had cause to use it?
When one or another of you does croak you will find that the "next of
kin" status is of great importance.
ward
I would think whoever was named "beneficiary" would have the most relevance.
And I would think that whoever has their name on the title to any property
would have the most revelance. Such as in our case, we divorced, but live
together, have separate title to everything we own, even a homestead, which
in Texas can be up to 200 acres and thus we having 400 have 200 in each of
our names with a "deed in lieu" to the other if one dies. Being free of
legal entanglements is a very easy thing to accomplish and sure makes life a
lot simpler and much more enjoyable.
Shoot, even married couples have the option to a "Partition of Property"
that has many benefits.
So, I think these young folks are smart enough to decide for themselves
whether or not they want to led around on a leash by the government marriage
scam and I find it very refreshing they have discovered this attitude,
somthing that never would have dawned on me. After all, I think marriage was
first mentioned in a religious vein, and if so, heck, churches that adhere
to the Bible can do so, and those that wish not to can go their own way,
without any restrictions by the whims of government. Would not that be the
most fundamental separation of church and state possible?
First I think that your legal "opinion" is dubious -- however, dubious
or not you have exercised a CHOICE -- a CHOICE which is denied to
George and I.
ward
--------------------------
Ward and George
48 years together
and yet
Strangers before the law.
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Gays get another "***** SLAP." This time in in Ohio. |
17 Dec 2003 03:55:53 PM |
|
|
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1qi1uvs5nnht4a196ms71ql0mnn1nq86aj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:51:46 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Ward Stewart" <wstewart@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mm90uvs5u06kljep7segfmcduv1mg1jemo@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:00:29 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
<brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote:
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brnmk4$5cvef$3@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:pxIDb.2329454$be.361007@news.easynews.com...
"Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:brniqe$5g11d$1@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:wLFDb.3257787$Id.517651@news.easynews.com...
| | | | | | | | |
