massachusetts

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Ms. Louweasel , of which I am quite certain.

I think "Mr. Louweasel" was a reference to Louweasel's boyfreind, mentioned in the post he was responding to. the suggestion, as I read it, was that Mr. Louweasel (and Louweasel herself) is NOT dissatisfied and thus doesn't need to compensate.

-m

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Peach

Depends on the marriage. I'm quite delighted with mine after a few years (28 on Saturday)

Congratulations on your anniversary, and many happy returns of the day! Does this mean you won't come down to BCAF on Sunday and heckle all the epee and foil fencers?

[jeff]

I'm enjoying the contrast between Bush saying "the sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges" while calling for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as straights-only, and at the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education saying "Fifty years ago today, nine judges announced that they had looked in the Constitution and saw no justification for the segregation and humiliation of an entire race". Nine activist judges, naturally.

[CarlKnoch]

Originally Posted by noodle

i think thats something that was discussed in the other thread
remove all instances of "marriage" out of government laws and regulations and replace it with "civil union".

make this "civil union" or whatever be issuable by the government and have the church get people hitched. civil union must come before or on the same day as the wedding. that way, appropriate civil unions will get the proper tax breaks when dealing with whatever, etc. i think this is something kerry supports though i don't know if he'd actually propose it if in office.

but even this brings up problems that need to be addressed. can a brother <strike>marry</strike>unionize(?) their brother? sister/sister? the laws governing this only dealt with this because having kids with family caused some serious genetic defects. what if men off at war get unionized while gone in order to get a special bonus and break it off after the war (or whatever, i understand that if you're married and at war, you/your family gets something extra of some form)?

anyway, what i'm saying is that the civil union path is probably the best way to deal with this issue. everyone gets civil unionized and anyone else who wants an official religous marriage can get that as a supplement. the outstanding problem is the things that must be addressed if the law changes in order to prevent legal loopholes like some of the ones i mentioned above.

No civil unions. Cut all that out entirely. If you don't have a will, the state gets your stuff to distribute. No tax cuts at all.

[CarlKnoch]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

see above. I'm all about the gov't not calling it "marriage" if people actually think that will help, but these breaks and social programs have benefit to society. we could find a way to work around it, but letting a person DEFINE their survivor, the way we do with insurance policies, etc, but I think the easiest way is to still have the gov't issue a status, but just not have it have anything to do with religious marriage.

-m

I don't mean change it's name to something else. I mean totally remove the notion. Have no tax breaks at all for anyone based on your life partner. Have no survivorship laws at all other than what's in your will.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I think "Mr. Louweasel" was a reference to Louweasel's boyfreind, mentioned in the post he was responding to. the suggestion, as I read it, was that Mr. Louweasel (and Louweasel herself) is NOT dissatisfied and thus doesn't need to compensate.

-m

Ah, I stand corrected. Or I sit, as it turns out. Much easier to reply when sitting.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by jeff

Congratulations on your anniversary, and many happy returns of the day! Does this mean you won't come down to BCAF on Sunday and heckle all the epee and foil fencers?

I'll actually be at Brandeis this weekend, celebrating my anniversary by watching my daughter get some athletic awards and a college diploma - - about as great an anniversary as I could possibly have.

Good luck to all you pointy-weapon fencers! Have fun. Consider yourselves heckled.

[Monkeyboy]

Originally Posted by CarlKnoch

I don't mean change it's name to something else. I mean totally remove the notion. Have no tax breaks at all for anyone based on your life partner. Have no survivorship laws at all other than what's in your will.

My life partner is just that...my partner FOR LIFE. If something happens to me, be it a vegitative state, temporary insanity, whatever, I know I have someone at my side who will do without question what is best for me. I feel that humankind has a distinct need for partership, as well as family/tribal group assosiation. This has been and should continue to be the bedrock foundation of our country, but that does not mean it must be man and woman only. I see no reason for cousins or twins or best friends not to "join" if they so desire. In my state, however this means that from the day the union is "official" all assets acrued will be shared jointly should separation occur. As you can see from just a financial aspect, this is a HUGE decision. I do like the idea of seperate state vs relegious "unions".

[Soldier]

So we fencers obviously have the solution figured out - separate civil unions from marriages, for everybody - let the church handle the marriages, and the government decide what rights go with a civil union, and what the requirements are.

Why do all of our leaders have to be so stupid? We need a fencer for president. Of course, then I'd have a problem with separation of church and state, because foil would obviously have to be the state religion...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by CarlKnoch

I don't mean change it's name to something else. I mean totally remove the notion. Have no tax breaks at all for anyone based on your life partner. Have no survivorship laws at all other than what's in your will.

I understood that's what you meant. I was disagreeing with you to that extent, as I feel that having those breaks and benefits benefits society in a number of ways.

-m

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Why do all of our leaders have to be so stupid? We need a fencer for president.

Hear, hear... but I think fencers have too much character to be career politicians. Can you imagine setting disputes over a 15-touch bout? It would have to be epee so there wouldn't be endless arguments over ROW. The Secret Service would have a fit!

[telkanuru]

"Mr. President, you were off the side of the strip when you scored that touch."

Oh, yeah. That would work *real* well

[noodle]

that would be hillarious

and it would be the best way to get tv coverage
qualify our president for the olympics...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by noodle

that would be hillarious

and it would be the best way to get tv coverage
qualify our president for the olympics...

Sada Jacobson for President, as soon as she's old enough?

-m

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

Hear, hear... but I think fencers have too much character to be career politicians. Can you imagine setting disputes over a 15-touch bout? It would have to be epee so there wouldn't be endless arguments over ROW. The Secret Service would have a fit!

No, see, campaigns would be so much simpler. Can you think of anything better than dueling for office?

Would be a great way to settle international disputes, too - Bush and Saddam facing off on an island somewhere in the North Atlantic. I imagine both would be sabrists.

[Musketeer]

Originally Posted by Peach

Depends on the marriage. I'm quite delighted with mine after a few years (28 on Saturday)

Congratulations!

[Louweasel]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I think "Mr. Louweasel" was a reference to Louweasel's boyfreind, mentioned in the post he was responding to. the suggestion, as I read it, was that Mr. Louweasel (and Louweasel herself) is NOT dissatisfied and thus doesn't need to compensate.

-m

Quite so.

It would obviously be unladylike for me to comment upon the accuracy of Peter's speculation, but just imagine there's a smiley with a raised eyebrow and a small secret half-smile...

Come to think of it, Mr. Louweasel's brother has a TVR Chimera. When it pulls up outside it sounds like the world's coming to an end... I think I've picked the right brother...

Anyway, gay marriage. My two penn'orth (which is worth more - 3 and a half cents at todays exchange rate ) is that denying gay people a civil marriage does suggest (as somebody above says) they are somehow second class citizens - they are denied a right that is afforded to all heterosexuals. If a religion (whichever one) feels that homosexuality goes against their religious tenets, then they do not have to provide a religious marriage ceremony for gay people. They don't have to provide a marriage ceremony for people not of their religion either; that is their affair. But I see no reason why gay people shouldn't get married in a registry office just because a religion they may not even believe in, says their lifestyle is wrong.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

I'm enjoying the contrast between Bush saying "the sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges" while calling for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as straights-only, and at the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education saying "Fifty years ago today, nine judges announced that they had looked in the Constitution and saw no justification for the segregation and humiliation of an entire race".

I see no conflict, naturally

Nine activist judges, naturally.

Nine strict-constructionist judges, perhaps?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No, see, campaigns would be so much simpler. Can you think of anything better than dueling for office?

Would be a great way to settle international disputes, too - Bush and Saddam facing off on an island somewhere in the North Atlantic. I imagine both would be sabrists.

I just can't see Bush with a Saber. With a shotgun in a second, but I have to disagree with the image of him in a duel that didn't allow him to shoot his opponent. Or run over him with his Dodge Ram.

edit: Make that: with his daddy's Dodge Ram!! hahaha

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I see no conflict, naturally ... Nine strict-constructionist judges, perhaps?

I can't imagine why not? The same arguments about activist judges were made then in the uproar over Brown vs. Board of Ed. as are made today. Remember "Impeach Earl Warren" signs?