Solution for Mass. Gay Marriage problem . . .

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email hidden] wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
all the rights of legally recognized couples.

And then, let anyone who wants to, participate a religious ceremony performed by any church that
wants to that gives them the title "married" in the eyes of the church and other religious folks.
Straight folks can go to their Babtist/Methodist/Church of Christ/Holy Roller/etc, gay folks can
go to the MCC/Wiccan/gay preist/etc and everyone can walk away being "married." Not that the
"married" title would get them anything else, legally speaking; it would simply be as significant
as, say, being Confirmed in the Catholic church, or "Saved" in the Protestant, or "Bar Mitzvah'ed"
in the Jewish.

It would make every couple not only "civil unioned," but equally treated under the law. Send the
marriage ritual back to the folks who do rituals, and make everyone happy. Yes? No? --Tock

If we married hets have to pay the "marriage penalty" (income tax) then why should homos not have to
pay that same penalty?

It's related to what Barry Goldwater said about "straight": "You don't have to be straight to be in
the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

I think I'd feel a mite bit uncomfortable around a male who felta mite bit

I say let 'em get married and, then, let 'em pay the "marriage penalty" just like the rest of us
married folks do.

Gray Shockley
-----------------------
dontchaknow

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email hidden] wrote (in article
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both
straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights
of legally recognized couples.

I would go farther and allow such a civil union be amongst two or more

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:31:05 -0600, Gray Shockley wrote (in article
<[email hidden]>😉:

I'm not sure why you would suggest this would be so.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Gray Shockley said:

more income tax.

Because the standard deduction is larger than their [the homophobes'] yearly income, and they don't
really know how the "marriage penalty" works?

"James L. Ryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email hidden] wrote (in article
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both
straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights
of legally recognized

couples.

Quoted message said:

I would go farther and allow such a civil union be amongst two or more

responsibilities.

Quoted message said:

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Actually, I agree . . . no reason why not. Something like that would be useful for, say, three
people who started a business, and wanted a simpler way to transfer property in case someone died.
Has a lot of potential uses, I suppose . . . --Tock

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:46:07 -0600, [email hidden] wrote
(in article <[email hidden]>😉:

[responding to my suggesting that "civil unions" could be amongst any number of persons wishing to
share what I call "responsibilities and benefits."]

Quoted message said:

Actually, I agree . . . no reason why not. Something like that would be useful for, say, three
people who started a business, and wanted a simpler way to transfer property in case someone died.
Has a lot of potential uses, I suppose . . .

I look upon "marriage" as being a state of union with religious significance, something different
than a "civil union" which is a state recognized by the government. I'm a strong proponent of
keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from religions with their myriad of
diversities.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:21:55 -0600, James L. Ryan wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:31:05 -0600, Gray Shockley wrote (in article
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure why you would suggest this would be so.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

pay the "marriage tax" that we married (one male/one female) currently have to pay.

I just can't understand why someone would be so all-fired gung ho on refusing tax monies.

Two people get married: their taxes go up.

I consider myself not to be a "collectivist" and see no reason to believe

Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Gotta judge everyone as individuals.

Quoted message said:

Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
all the rights of legally recognized couples.

And then, let anyone who wants to, participate a religious ceremony performed by any church that
wants to that gives them the title "married" in the eyes of the church and other religious folks.

I have been advocating this position on USEnet for years! It seem the major squabble is
over terminology - specifically the word "marriage". The government civil union certificate
and the religious marriage certificate neatly separates church and state and allow both
sides to win.

<snip>

--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+ This represents my personal opinion
and NOT Company policy Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail

+================================================================+

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:38:07 GMT, No One <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Gray Shockley <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more income tax.

Because the standard deduction is larger than their [the homophobes'] yearly income, and they don't
really know how the "marriage penalty" works?

My, what an intelligent response. Are you employed as a part time tax return associate by H
& R Block?

Al Ongapo said:

No One said:

Gray Shockley <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more income tax.

Because the standard deduction is larger than their [the homophobes'] yearly income, and they
don't really know how the "marriage penalty" works?

My, what an intelligent response. Are you employed as a part time tax return associate by H &
R Block?

It was a lot more clever than the garbage you post.

Let's see. X-no-archive flag set, posting from terranews on this newsgroup among others. Same as
Bill Taylor, the alledged "artist" whose paintings are so bad that it is hard to see why anyone
would buy one (assuming maf identified you correctly.)

See

<google.comgroupsOpen ↗
101.chcgilgm.covad.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>

for a quote of one of your missives where you apparently forged a post (with the x-no-archive flag
set, nobody will find the original.) That should pretty much settle the question.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
licensing them, and since the gov't has no

legitimate

Quoted message said:

place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all think

Secular marriage predates religious marriage. Even in Christianity, the Church took little interest
in marriage at all until about the 12th century.

Quoted message said:

of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both straight and gay, get a
state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights of legally recognized
couples.

And then, let anyone who wants to, participate a religious ceremony performed by any church that
wants to that gives them the title "married" in the eyes of the church and other religious folks.
Straight folks can go to their Babtist/Methodist/Church of Christ/Holy Roller/etc, gay folks can
go to the MCC/Wiccan/gay preist/etc and everyone can walk

away

Quoted message said:

being "married." Not that the "married" title would get them anything else, legally speaking; it
would simply be as significant as, say, being Confirmed in the Catholic church, or "Saved" in the
Protestant, or "Bar Mitzvah'ed" in the Jewish.

It would make every couple not only "civil unioned," but equally treated under the law. Send the
marriage ritual back to the folks who do

rituals,

Quoted message said:

and make everyone happy. Yes? No? --Tock

Since secular marriage predates religious marriage, let the church rename their marriages to "Holy
Matrimony", and let the government perform civil marriage, as they have been.

Quoted message said:

Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
all the rights of legally recognized couples.

And then, let anyone who wants to, participate a religious ceremony performed by any church that
wants to that gives them the title "married" in the eyes of the church and other religious folks.
Straight folks can go to their Babtist/Methodist/Church of Christ/Holy Roller/etc, gay folks can
go to the MCC/Wiccan/gay preist/etc and everyone can walk away being "married." Not that the
"married" title would get them anything else, legally speaking; it would simply be as significant
as, say, being Confirmed in the Catholic church, or "Saved" in the Protestant, or "Bar Mitzvah'ed"
in the Jewish.

It would make every couple not only "civil unioned," but equally treated under the law. Send the
marriage ritual back to the folks who do rituals, and make everyone happy. Yes? No? --Tock

Strange. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone lay it out on the table like that.
Congratulations.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it looks like a winner to me.

Quoted message said:

"James L. Ryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email hidden] wrote (in article
<[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both
straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the
rights of legally recognized

couples.

Quoted message said:

I would go farther and allow such a civil union be amongst two or more

Quoted message said:

responsibilities.

Quoted message said:

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Actually, I agree . . . no reason why not. Something like that would be useful for, say, three
people who started a business, and wanted a simpler way to transfer property in case someone died.
Has a lot of potential uses, I suppose . . . --Tock

Quoted message said:

A bit of a bizzare extension, I suppose, but hey, marriages have been used for the same purpose in
the past....the ultimate "nothing personal, just business".

They even have a name for it, called "marriages of convenience"

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
all the rights of legally recognized couples.

And then, let anyone who wants to, participate a religious ceremony performed by any church that
wants to that gives them the title "married" in the eyes of the church and other religious folks.
Straight folks can go to their Babtist/Methodist/Church of Christ/Holy Roller/etc, gay folks can
go to the MCC/Wiccan/gay preist/etc and everyone can walk away being "married." Not that the
"married" title would get them anything else, legally speaking; it would simply be as significant
as, say, being Confirmed in the Catholic church, or "Saved" in the Protestant, or "Bar Mitzvah'ed"
in the Jewish.

It would make every couple not only "civil unioned," but equally treated under the law. Send the
marriage ritual back to the folks who do rituals, and make everyone happy. Yes? No? --Tock

Wouldn't work. Makes too much sense.

JohnN

Quoted post said:

Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
licensing them, and since the gov't has no legitimate place involving itself in religious
affairs/practices, what do y'all think of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that
everybody, both straight and gay, get a state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get
all the rights of legally recognized couples.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

Jd

"Jd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted post said:

Since marriages have been performed by churches longer than the gov't has been keeping track or
licensing them, and since the gov't has no

legitimate

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

place involving itself in religious affairs/practices, what do y'all

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the state modifying its laws and constitution so that everybody, both straight and gay, get a
state certificate of "civil union" which ensures they get all the rights of legally recognized
couples.

Quoted message said:

Since the United States is not operated as a Christian Theocracy, it is not relevant.

"Jd" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

Congratulations. You're welcome to your opinion. If you were a church preacher, you'd have the
freedom not to perform a marriage ceremony for gays and lesbians, and I'd cheerfully support your
right not to do so. In fact, I'd excoriate gays and lesbians who criticised you for exercising your
rights not to marry them, then we could trot down to the local greasy spoon and I'd buy you
breakfast and we could have a lively chat.

But when a gay couple want to have their relationship recognized the same way as straight couples,
the issue concerns only government agencies, and not religious organizations.

But let me ask you this . . . If you want other people to abide by Leviticus 18:22, would you also
say that people should abide by Leviticus 20:13, which says that gay people have to be put to
death? If not, why should people abide by some parts of the Bible and not others? --Just curious .
. . --Tock

Leviticus 20:
8: And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed
his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery
with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of
them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12: And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have
wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Al Ongapo said:

No One said:

Gray Shockley <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more income tax.

Because the standard deduction is larger than their [the homophobes'] yearly income, and they
don't really know how the "marriage penalty" works?

My, what an intelligent response. Are you employed as a part time tax return associate by H
& R Block?

My what a useless response. Do you flip burgers for a living?

"Gray Shockley" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

pay the "marriage tax" that we married (one male/one female) currently

have

Quoted message said:

to pay.

I thought congress fixed that. Seems that's what they said . . . --Tock