Solution for Mass. Gay Marriage problem . . .

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by tock, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. tock

    tock Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email protected] wrote
    (in message <%[email protected]>):

    > 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
     
  3. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
    <%[email protected]>):

    > 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
     
  4. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:31:05 -0600, Gray Shockley wrote (in article
    <[email protected]>):

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

    -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
     
  5. No One

    No One Guest

    Gray Shockley <[email protected]> writes:

    > 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?
     
  6. tock

    tock Guest

    "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
    > <%[email protected]>):
    >
    > > 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

    responsibilities.
    >
    > -- 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
     
  7. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:46:07 -0600, [email protected] wrote
    (in article <[email protected]>):

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

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

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

    >
    > 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.
     
  9. [email protected] wrote:

    > 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

    +================================================================+
     
  10. Al

    Al Guest

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

    >Gray Shockley <[email protected]> writes:
    >

    >> 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?
     
  11. No One

    No One Guest

    Al Ongapo writes:

    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:38:07 GMT, No One <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Gray Shockley <[email protected]> writes:
    > >

    > >> 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

    <http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RainbowChristiannohate-2008031911120001%40h-68-164-230-
    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.
     
  12. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:%[email protected]...
    > 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

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

    > 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
    >
    >

    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.
     
  13. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:35:23 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.
     
  14. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:46:07 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:23 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
    >> <%[email protected]>):
    >>
    >> > 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

    >responsibilities.
    >>
    >> -- 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
    >>
    >

    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"
     
  15. John Norris

    John Norris Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%[email protected]>...
    > 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
     
  16. Jd

    Jd Guest

    <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:

    >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
     
  17. "Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > <[email protected]>, a.k.a. <[email protected]>, wrote:
    >
    > >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.
    >

    >

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

    tock Guest

    "Jd" <[email protected]> wrote

    >
    > "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.
     
  19. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:17:30 GMT, Al Ongapo wrote:

    >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:38:07 GMT, No One <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Gray Shockley <[email protected]> writes:
    >>

    >>> 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?
     
  20. tock

    tock Guest

    "Gray Shockley" <[email protected]> wrote

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

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