Solution for Mass. Gay Marriage problem . . .



"James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> 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.

I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying that gays gotta have
the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
 
"James L. Ryan" wrote:

> 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.

ALL marriages are civil unions under the law. While states recognize religious marriage, there is no
obligation in any state for religion to play any part in marriage; the United States constitution
forbids it.

> I'm a strong proponent of keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from religions
> with their myriad of diversities.

Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?
--
Gregory Gadow
[email protected]
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:31 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
<[email protected]>):
>
> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree.
>
> But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying that gays gotta have the
> right to marry and not just civil unions?
>
> -Tock

We've got something of a Catch-22 here. Because "marriage" (traditionally between one man and one
woman) is currently so ingrained into our legal system it is not surprising that gay organizations
feel that gay couples should be treated equally. If, as I suggest, marriage as such is considered a
relationship independent of the government, and that government recognized "civil unions" be that
which determine benefits and responsibilities, then we hopefully will have ended a contentious area.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
 
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:51:29 -0600, [email protected] wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>
> "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
>
>

You are correct. My mistake.

Although, here's the "skinny" on that tax:

[about.com comes through again.]
--------------------------------------------------------

<http://financialplan.about.com/cs/taxes/a/MarriagePenalty.htm>

Before the Act was passed, married couples were penalized in two ways:

1. The standard deduction that married people were allowed to claim was less than the total the two
of them could deduct when they were single, resulting in higher taxes.

2. The tax tables delivered a second whammy by making the income limit in the 15% tax bracket for
married couples filing jointly less than the limit for two single individuals.

According to divorce attorney James J. Gross of Chevy Chase, Maryland, "the marriage tax penalty
causes some couples to put off marriage until January to defer the penalty for another year. And it
causes a logjam at divorce court in December because many couples want to avoid being taxed as
married for another year." The average penalty is about $1,400 a year, according to Gross.

Now the 15% bracket for joint filers is exactly twice the 15% bracket for singles, so for at least
the next two years, couples in the 15% tax bracket who are married and file jointly will pay the
same tax as two single individuals.

The downside of the 2003 Tax Act is that these benefits will disappear in 2005 unless Congress
renews them, but previous reductions in the marriage tax penalty planned for 2005 and beyond will
remain in place.
--------------------------------------------------------

Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >My, what an intelligent response. Are you employed as a part time tax return associate by H &
> >R Block?
>

Har! Sorry, but that's a good one, below the belt. I've been thinking about who I'm going to have
prepare my taxes this year. I went with Block last year, and it was just way too expensive. I'm
happy to say that my cheapskate nature has won out, and I've decided to do them myself on
Taxbrain.com.

shawn
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> > 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.
>
>
> I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying that gays gotta
> have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock

It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a seperate but equal status. It
would be far easier for churches to change what they currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony"
than it would be for the Government to change. So, why don't the churches change?
 
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:24 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?

As I've tried to make clear, I consider "marriage" the subject of a union outside of the province of
the law, and a "civil union" a legal contract between two or more persons that wish to share
benefits and responsibilities. I have no interest in preventing marriages, say in the religious
sense, whatsoever, and it doesn't matter to me who would perform them.

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
 
"Gregory Gadow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "James L. Ryan" wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> ALL marriages are civil unions under the law. While states recognize
religious
> marriage, there is no obligation in any state for religion to play any
part in
> marriage; the United States constitution forbids it.
>
> > I'm a strong proponent of keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from
> > religions with their myriad of diversities.
>
> Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?

Some states allow non-clergy people to officiate at a marriage . . . In California, anyone can pay
$25 and get a permit to do one marriage. In Colorado, the couple can solemnize the relationship
themselves while filling out the marriage license.

IMHO, though, states should stop calling what they do "marriage" because marriage is a religious
thing, and governments have no legitimate business doing religious things. Instead, every state
ought to just do "civil unions" for everybody, and instead of issuing "marriage licenses" they need
to issue "civil union licenses." Then anyone wanting a church to marry 'em can go to Jerry Falwell
or at the local MCC (gay church) and get it done. Controversy over. Next crisis, please . . . --Tock
 
"James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:31 -0600, [email protected] wrote (in article
> <[email protected]>):
> >
> > "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
that
> > gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions?
> >
> > -Tock
>
> We've got something of a Catch-22 here. Because "marriage" (traditionally between one man and one
> woman) is currently so ingrained into our legal system it is not surprising that gay organizations
> feel that gay couples should be treated equally. If, as I suggest, marriage as such is
considered a
> relationship independent of the government, and that government recognized "civil unions" be that
> which determine benefits and responsibilities, then
we
> hopefully will have ended a contentious area. -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Well, I just e-mailed a copy of my notion to the members of the Massachusetts State Senate and to
the Gov'nor. Figure that out of 30 or so folks, maybe one might actually read it. We'll see what
happens from here, although I ain't holding my breath . . . not until I gargle with listerine,
anyway . . . Thanks, --Tock
 
"Light Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
that
> > gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
>
> It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a seperate but equal status. It
> would be far easier for churches to change what
they
> currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony" than it would be for the Government to change. So, why
> don't the churches change?

Because churches don't traffic in reason, but in superstition. Trying to get them to do anything in
the best interests of anyone other than themselves is an excorcism in fertitlity. Much easier to
work with one part of the problem, much less both. --Tock
 
"James L. Ryan" wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:07:24 -0600, Gregory Gadow wrote (in article <[email protected]>):
>
> > Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?
>
> As I've tried to make clear, I consider "marriage" the subject of a union outside of the province
> of the law, and a "civil union" a legal contract between two or more persons that wish to share
> benefits and responsibilities.

No law in the country recognizes such a distinction.
--
Gregory Gadow
[email protected]
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 
[email protected] wrote:

> "Gregory Gadow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "James L. Ryan" wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > ALL marriages are civil unions under the law. While states recognize
> religious
> > marriage, there is no obligation in any state for religion to play any
> part in
> > marriage; the United States constitution forbids it.
> >
> > > I'm a strong proponent of keeping our government separate (as much as is possible) from
> > > religions with their myriad of diversities.
> >
> > Then you would have no objection to prohibiting clergy from officiating at marriages, yes?
>
> Some states allow non-clergy people to officiate at a marriage . . .

Every state allows judges the authority to officiate at marriages. Florida, Maine, South Carolina
and Louisiana allow notaries public to officiate at marriages (in Louisiana, the decision to allow
notary marriages is a matter for the parishes. Only Feliciana Parish currently allows this.) No
state or other US jurisdiction requires clergy or other religious personnel to officiate.

> In California, anyone can pay $25 and get a permit to do one marriage. In Colorado, the couple can
> solemnize the relationship themselves while filling out the marriage license.
>
> IMHO, though, states should stop calling what they do "marriage" because marriage is a
> religious thing, and governments have no legitimate business doing religious things. Instead,
> every state ought to just do "civil unions" for everybody, and instead of issuing "marriage
> licenses" they need to issue "civil union licenses." Then anyone wanting a church to marry 'em
> can go to Jerry Falwell or at the local MCC (gay church) and get it done. Controversy over.
> Next crisis, please . . .

You are too reasonable :)

It all comes down to semantics. The thing is that 210 years of semantics in the United States allow
for civil marriage and place no obligation on marriage as a religious event.
--
Gregory Gadow
[email protected]
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 
fLight Templar, a.k.a. "Light Templar" <[email protected]>, wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying that gays gotta
>> have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
>
>It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a seperate but equal status. It
>would be far easier for churches to change what they currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony"
>than it would be for the Government to change. So, why don't the churches change?
>

Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.

But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.

Jd

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Light Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
> that
> > > gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
> >
> > It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a
seperate
> > but equal status. It would be far easier for churches to change what
> they
> > currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony" than it would be for the Government to change. So,
> > why don't the churches change?
>
>
> Because churches don't traffic in reason, but in superstition.

It's well passed time they started.

Trying to
> get them to do anything in the best interests of anyone other than themselves is an excorcism in
> fertitlity.

I assume you meant "exercise in futility". That's a pretty funny Freudian Slip you have there. :c)

> Much easier to work with one part of the problem, much less both.

The big problem is that Christians seem to think they have some sort of proprietary hold on the word
"marriage" which they don't.
 
"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.
>

That's nice. Got anything that's legally relevant?

[snip bible thumping]
 
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:41:44 -0600, Jd wrote
(in message <[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.
>

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

Not "think"; "believe".

------------------------------------------------------
Choosing a Microsoft Operating System for your computer is equivalent to choosing Dr. Kervorkian as
your family doctor.
- Gray Shockley
 
<[email protected]>, wrote:

>
>"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.

God has given us the duty of governing ourselves.

>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 20:13 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.

God has also given us behavioral guidelines.

judgement of God?

Jd
 
"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> fLight Templar, a.k.a. "Light Templar" <[email protected]>, wrote:
>
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
that
> >> gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
> >
> >It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a
seperate
> >but equal status. It would be far easier for churches to change what
they
> >currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony" than it would be for the Government to change. So,
> >why don't the churches change?
> >
>
> Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
>
> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.
>

So your an idiot that dreams of living in a theocracy. Easily ignored and consigned to the closet of
historical idiocy.
 
"Jd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> fLight Templar, a.k.a. "Light Templar" <[email protected]>, wrote:
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "James L. Ryan" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> I agree. But is that the view of the national gay organizations who are saying
that
> >> gays gotta have the right to marry and not just civil unions? -Tock
> >
> >It is the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that you cannot create a
seperate
> >but equal status. It would be far easier for churches to change what
they
> >currently call marriage to "Holy Matrimony" than it would be for the Government to change. So,
> >why don't the churches change?
>
> Many of them probably will so they can take your tithes.
>
> But I won't. Sodomy is an abomination before God.

Even when a man and woman do it?

[snip repeated bible thumping]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back