who cares about the Guard thing?

[vincent p. norris]

>..... We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
>fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least
>bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
>marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
>thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
> Tom

Hell, that ain't all! The Episcopalians are appointing gay bishops!
It's the end of Christianity as we know it!

I think the following item pretty well sums up our outrage at that
development:

"The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront
to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's
founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, his wife Anne
Boleyn, his wife Jane Seymour, his wife Anne of Cleves, his wife
Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to
suffer through this assault on our traditional and sacred Christian
marriage."

vince

[Tom Littleton]

.....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least
bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
Tom

[Tim Lysyk]

Tom Littleton wrote:

> ....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
> fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at least
> bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
> marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
> thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
> Tom

In Canada, we have been hearing all the arguments against gay marriages
for quite some time. The usual "it will cheapen marriage" to the latest
on how it will lead to incestuous marriages. A lot of nonsense in my
opinion. I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could feel threatened by
gay marriage.

Tim Lysyk

[snakefiddler]

"Tom Littleton" > wrote in message
...
> ....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing
our
> fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at
least
> bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
> marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
> thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
> Tom

Quite frankly, I don't give a **** who gets married.

One can look at gay marriage from a romantic point of view, and say that
love is precious, and that anytime a couple is willing to commit to one
another- especially under such socially difficult circumstances- they should
face no obstacles.

One can also look at gay marriage from a political and religious viewpoint.
Historically the institution of marriage has been encouraged and supported,
and even controlled by the church. This was done for a variety of reasons,
not the least being social control. Now, when one looks at gay marriage
from this viewpoint, it becomes obvious that the next step is to review the
Constitution, and in doing so be reminded of our endeavor to separate church
from state. In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Snakefiddler

[Lat705]

>We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
>fair nation!

Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up the
lost revenues through increased taxes.

..Lou T

[George Cleveland]

On 25 Feb 2004 01:13:52 GMT, (Lat705) wrote:

>>We have this gay marriage crisis facing our
>>fair nation!
>
>Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up the
>lost revenues through increased taxes.
>
>.Lou T


Jeez, I was just hearing about the Marriage Tax Penalties.


g.c.

[rb608]

"snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
> marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United
States.

Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer.
Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain
rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be
degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me
a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets.
So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what
occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's
business, we're all in it deep.

If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is
a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the
same word to describe two very different things.

$.02,
Joe F.

In article >, fleischman608
@NOSPAMverizon.net says...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> > In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
> > marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United
> States.
>
> Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer.
> Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain
> rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be
> degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny me
> a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets.
> So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what
> occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's
> business, we're all in it deep.
>
> If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
> institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace is
> a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
> underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use the
> same word to describe two very different things.

I think the more underlying problem is that the religious institutions
(in general) don't like it.....regardless of what it's called.
- Ken

[snakefiddler]

"rb608" > wrote in message
...
>
> "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> > In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
> > marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United
> States.
>
> Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer.
> Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain
> rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to be
> degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To deny
me
> a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it gets.
> So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only what
> occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the government's
> business, we're all in it deep.
>
> If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
> institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace
is
> a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
> underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use
the
> same word to describe two very different things.
>
> $.02,
> Joe F.
>
>

Well Said.......

Snake

[Wayne Knight]

"Lat705" > wrote in message
...
> Yeh! Give the gays the marrige tax breaks. The rest of us can pick up
the
> lost revenues through increased taxes.
>

No doubt you have not heard of the marriage penalty in the computation of
federal income tax. While the Bush tax cut attempted to remove the effect of
some of it, it's still there.

[snakefiddler]

> wrote in message
...
> In article >, fleischman608
> @NOSPAMverizon.net says...
> >
> > "snakefiddler" > wrote in message
> > > In that light, it becomes clear that failure to allow gay
> > > marriage is in itself a violation of the Constitution of the United
> > States.
> >
> > Despite all the heated debate, I think it boils down to a no-brainer.
> > Civilly, marriage is nothing more than a contract that affords certain
> > rights, responsibilities, and priveleges to the entrants. The right to
be
> > degnated next of kin, right of inheritance, child custody, etc. To
deny me
> > a civil right simply because of my gender is as discriminatory as it
gets.
> > So what's the difference between a hetero union & a homo union? Only
what
> > occurs in the privacy of the home; and when that becomes the
government's
> > business, we're all in it deep.
> >
> > If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
> > institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the
Peace is
> > a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
> > underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use
the
> > same word to describe two very different things.
>
> I think the more underlying problem is that the religious institutions
> (in general) don't like it.....regardless of what it's called.
> - Ken

I think you are right. I also think it is important to note the Reformed
and even (somewhat) the Conservative Jewish community has supported gay
marriage for some time now.

Snake

[Lat705]

Die. Then see if your legal spouse doesn't get a tax break. Asked the rental
car clerk in Bozeman if me and my male fishing buddy would have to pay the
extra $5 per day if we were gay. She said no. I would not kiss him though.
There IS a financial break given to gays not given to others.

[Tom Littleton]

Lou writes:
>She said no. I would not kiss him though.
>There IS a financial break given to gays not given to others.

....I think the clerk was trying to amuse herself by watching you mull it over.
Tom

[slenon]

>If a church wants to refuse to perform a ceremony because of their
>institutional beliefs, I can live with that; but the Justice of the Peace
is
>a government representative and cannot discriminate. I think the
>underlying problem is that the government and religious institutions use
the
>same word to describe two very different things.
>$.02,
>Joe F.

Exactly what we should be looking at. All the unions we currently call
marriage in this country are actually civil unions. In some cases the
various states have allowed religious leaders the authority to perform said
unions and , in doing so, sanction such unions under the auspices of that
particular religion.

Here in FL, a notary public can legally perform such a legal union and have
it recognized as a marriage. I have no idea how many weddings are performed
in Las Vegas by non religious people. Even the majority of Christians still
accept these as legal "marriages." We need to take a stab at changing the
language we work under in this instance.

Like many others, I don't care who does what to whom if they consent and do
it in private. I don't care who wishes to grant each other legal and
medical power of attorney, rights to inherit, or other property and civil
rights as long as it is done between consenting adults. The civil union of
two gays performed by a civil authority in any state has exactly no effect
and no bearing on the civil union performed by a Rabbi in MD when Gloria and
I were married.

Now I've got to write my various congress people and tell them to vote
against this stupid amendment.


--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[asadi]

It is inherently unfair and sancitmonious to deny anyone, based on their
sexual orientation, the pleasure of a really nasty divorce.

john

"Tom Littleton" > wrote in message
...
> ....or the economy, or terrorism. We have this gay marriage crisis facing
our
> fair nation! Drop everything, get that amendment passed, proto!!(or, at
least
> bring it up at those GOP stump speeches). Good God! If anyone has sullied
> marriage in a society with a 53% divorce rate, it sure as hell isn't a few
> thousand committed homosexuals, is it?
> Tom

[Tom Littleton]

asadi notes:
>It is inherently unfair and sancitmonious to deny anyone, based on their
>sexual orientation, the pleasure of a really nasty divorce.
>
>john

precisely!
Tom