In article <1140421639.629285.75810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Parsifal <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote:

*When engaging in acts of civil disobedience, one accepts the penalties

*incurred. Hopefully, these men will not transform into bitches when it
comes
*time to go to prison.

Hopefully, you'll soon have sex

Do you understand how much Scotch it's going to take to get that image
out of my mind?

| In article <1140421639.629285.75810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
| Parsifal <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > *When engaging in acts of civil disobedience, one accepts the penalties
| >
| > *incurred. Hopefully, these men will not transform into bitches when it
| > comes
| > *time to go to prison.
| >
| > Hopefully, you'll soon have sex
|
| Do you understand how much Scotch it's going to take to get that image
| out of my mind?

On 20 Feb 2006 17:49:41 -0800, "newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

Charles Merrill, a 71-year-old artist and his partner Kevin Boyle, have
announced they will not pay Federal or North Carolina Income Tax on over two
million dollars worth of stock sales and income for 2004, because of unfair
discrimination in the Federal and State Income Tax Codes.
Merrill said, "I have no intention of paying Federal and State Income taxes
because my same sex partner and I cannot be legally married and receive the
same tax benefits as other married couples.

"By not paying taxes, this is a deliberate act of civil disobedience towards
a President that wants to make an amendment to the Constitution to only
allow marriage between a man and woman, rather than two people who love each
other, and that discriminates against us as full citizens of the United
States."

First of all, good luck to Charles and Kevin. Civil disobedience is
honorable. Unfortunately, its honorability does not negate the
consequences of breaking the law. So they need to prepare themselves
to get their butts kicked for tax avoidance.

Non-human beings do not pay taxes, dogs are not
obligated to pay taxes, nor were slaves. The only way
the government can deny a fundamental right, as
marriage, o a citizen, is to deny that they are in fact
human beings.

A question and an observation: Question: Is marriage a fundamental
right?

The states have a long history of licensing and regulating
marriage. People can be denied a marriage license without being denied
their humanity.

A marriage license can be denied, e.g., because one or
both prospective spouses do no meet minimum age requirements, or do
not have clean bills of health regarding STDs, or do not posess the
mental capacity to give informed consent, or one or both may already
be married. There may be other reasons that are considered legitimate
impediments to receiving a marriage license. None of these
"discriminations" disqualifies the applicants for the license from
their status as humans.

Related question: Did the Supreme court decision that ended
anti-miscegenation laws establish a fundamental right to marry, per
se, or was it argued and decided on narrower grounds, such as
violating the 14th amendment on grounds of racial discrimination,

which would then not necessarily apply to discrimination on grounds of
sexual orientation without a subsequent court decision expanding the
coverage of the equal protection clause - something the Texas sodomy
law decision may have set up?

Observation: Charles and Kevin do have the right to marry, just not
each other. Either could marry a woman if they so chose. So, their
right to marry is not being denied.

Of course, this is an unfair nit
picky distinction as neither would chose to marry a woman if they were
free under the law to marry a partner they prefered. Nevertheless,
they can get married provided they choose a parnter that meets state
requirements. This provision applies to heterosexuals as well. Nobody
has an absolute right under any state law to marry just anybody they
please.

to a citizen, is to deny that they are in fact
human beings. Since the USA has declared non-human
status to homosexuals, by the denial of the fundamental
right of marriage to homosexuals, they are not obligated
to pay taxes. You can't have it both ways.

You mean I wasted good money on TurboTax?

In <1140434826.167914.100240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mosherkustas@hotmail.com wrote:

The can pay the same tax when their relationship produces a child. Why the
***** should they get the same treatment as hetrosexuals.

Oh, I don't know, maybe because we're supposed to be a land of equality
under the law?