OT: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional in CA

[Mark S]

Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.

[Gerard]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:

> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.

You can do so everywhere else.

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC+1, Mark S wrote:

[re: California Prop 8 banning gay marriage ruled in violation of US Constitution]

> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.

Thank you for posting this good news.

--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

[Hank Drake]

On Feb 7, 1:11 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.

My only regret about this ruling is that it is limited to the state of
California. I look forward to the day when my marriage, which I had
to travel to Vermont for, is recognized in all 50 states and the US
territories.

Hank

[John Thomas]

Mark S wrote:
> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.

Unfortunately, the Mormons and Catholics who drove the turnout that
passed Prop 8 may still take it to the Supreme Court. And the Ninth
Circuit has been the most often overruled circuit court in the
country. It's not over yet.

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 2/7/2012 1:11 PM, Mark S wrote:
> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.

eh, have Mitt and Newt expressed their righteous indignation about
activist judges yet?

It would be curious to see if restrictions on gay marriage go more
quickly or more slowly than did Jim Crow.
I'm not optimistic.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Kip Williams]

I hope that day comes soon.


Kip W

[Jenn]

In article
<6b543341-4e29-436e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.

Great news indeed. On to the SC now, I suppose.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Frank Berger]

Jenn wrote:
> In article
> <6b543341-4e29-436e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.
>
> Great news indeed. On to the SC now, I suppose.

Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this case, nor,
of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.

[pianomaven]

Move to Canada.

TD

[pianomaven]

On Feb 7, 8:07 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > In article
> > <6b543341-4e29-436e-83fd-1b1e390bc...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

> > Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Off topic, but great news that deserves to be trumpeted everywhere.
>
> > Great news indeed.  On to the SC now, I suppose.
>
> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this case, nor,
> of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.

Of course not. California is entitled to its OWN constitution. State's
rights.

TD

[Hank Drake]

We've considered it. Alas, emigrating to Canada is easier said than
done.

Hank

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...

> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.

Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is highly
likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's decision.

[Mark S]

On Feb 7, 8:36 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The only vote that matters is the swing vote of Kennedy. The 9th's
decision was - in the words of Ted Olsen - tailored to win his vote
for equality.

The other important point in this is that the SCOTUS often overturns
findings in the law, but seldom overturns findings in fact. The Prop 8
overturn is very much a fact-based decision. Coupled that with the
fact that the SCOTUS itself has already built up an impressive set of
case law that supports gay marriage, and I doubt very much that they
will be doing anything be affirming the decision of the 9th Circuit
Court.

[wagnerfan]

Actually no - if you read the carefully worded ruling it was a direct
appeal to Justice Kennedy who is the swing vote - the ruling was not
too broad sothe judges would have an easy job overruling it but very
carefully constructed. I think there is a strong chance the SCOTUS may
not accept it due to their rulings nationwide implications.However if
they do, there is a very strong chance it will overturned -the lawyers
representing the overturning of the law are very strong. Wagner fan

[wagnerfan]

I agree and I think you may even get one or two of the conservative
justices to agree. Wagner fan

[William Sommerwerck]

"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4j4j79f8qf662tm2...@4ax.com...

I guess I'll have to read it. Do you know where I can find it?


If I were arguing the case, I would apply the 14th Amendment, and argue that
a legislature cannot grant a right, then have taken away in a referendum.

PS: Please note that, if the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit's ruling,
that doesn't mean all states (or State Farm, for that matter) would required
to permit same-sex marriage.

PPS: I don't hate Wagner. He just isn't at the top of my list of faves. Did
you see the rave review of the new "Meistersinger" on PentaTone?

[wagnerfan]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:10:39 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"

<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f4j4j79f8qf662tm2...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:36:02 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
>> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>
>>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>
>>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is
>>> highly likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's decision.
>
>> Actually no - if you read the carefully worded ruling it was a direct
>> appeal to Justice Kennedy who is the swing vote - the ruling was not
>> too broad sothe judges would have an easy job overruling it but very
>> carefully constructed. I think there is a strong chance the SCOTUS may
>> not accept it due to their rulings nationwide implications.However if
>> they do, there is a very strong chance it will overturned -the lawyers
>> representing the overturning of the law are very strong. Wagner fan
>
>I guess I'll have to read it. Do you know where I can find it?
>
>
>If I were arguing the case, I would apply the 14th Amendment, and argue that
>a legislature cannot grant a right, then have taken away in a referendum.
>
>PS: Please note that, if the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit's ruling,
>that doesn't mean all states (or State Farm, for that matter) would required

olzong. >to permit same-sex marriage.

>
>PPS: I don't hate Wagner. He just isn't at the top of my list of faves. Did
>you see the rave review of the new "Meistersinger" on PentaTone?
>

I read a review somewhere that really liked the conducting and the
Sachs and Beckmesser but had some reservations about the Eva and
Stolzing - I'll check it out.
I have seen other opnions about the scope of the SCOTUS ruling if it
rules in favor of overturning Prop 8 - it may be further than just
California. I'm not sure. Wagner fan

[wagnerfan]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:16:51 -0500, wagnerfan <ivanm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Here is the ruling itself - according to some law professors the
SCOTUS could uphold the ruling without actually applying it nationally

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/07/31161/prop-8-ruling-9th-circuit-court-doc/

Wagner fan

[Kip Williams]

These are delaying tactics. The majority continues to peel away from the
cause of sexual bigotry and vote to give equal rights to their sons,
daughters, friends, and other loved ones as they realize how this
affects them. Some people who are there say the vote wouldn't go the
same way in California now if it was up to the public.


Kip W

[William Sommerwerck]

> Here is the ruling itself -- according to some law professors the

> SCOTUS could uphold the ruling without actually applying it nationally

>
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/07/31161/prop-8-ruling-9th-circuit-court-doc

The following is significant...

"In adopting the amendment, the People simply took the designation of
'marriage' away from lifelong same-sex partnerships, and with it the State's
authorization of that official status and the societal approval that comes
with it."

"Societal approval". This is the central point. A civil union is one
thing -- but the (incorrectly applied) assumption that "marriage" is a holy
union gets some people's knickers twisted in a knot. I don't understand why
"those people" aren't bothered by the fact that civil ceremonies are called
"marriages".

[Frank Berger]

"wagnerfan" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4j4j79f8qf662tm2...@4ax.com...

I was talking about the likelihood that the SCOTUS will choose to review the
case, not the likelihood of their ruling should they do so. Different
things.

[Ward Hardman]

On Feb 8, 5:02 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> > Here is the ruling itself -- according to some law professors the
> > SCOTUS could uphold the ruling without actually applying it nationally
>

> http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/07/31161/prop-8-ruling-9th-circuit-c...

>
> The following is significant...
>
> "In adopting the amendment, the People simply took the designation of
> 'marriage' away from lifelong same-sex partnerships, and with it the State's
> authorization of that official status and the societal approval that comes
> with it."
>
> "Societal approval". This is the central point. A civil union is one
> thing -- but the (incorrectly applied) assumption that "marriage" is a holy
> union gets some people's knickers twisted in a knot. I don't understand why
> "those people" aren't bothered by the fact that civil ceremonies are called
> "marriages".

I think that many folks are bothered by the prospect that homosexual
"married couples" would qualify for the same tax deductions that were
intended to help the "traditional" married couples who, once upon a
time, produced large enough families (i.e. "baby boom") to allow
Social Security to survive temporarily. Those deductions provided a
*subsidy* for what was considered "good for society."

The idea that homosexual behavior should also receive a government
subsidy sticks in some folks' craws, as does the fact that public
schools (at least here in California) are beginning to "teach"
homosexuality to young children, taking their own tax dollars to
indoctrinate their kids to something they strongly disapprove of.

Things have come to a strange pass when one person can walk down the
street wearing a "Gay Pride" t-shirt without comment, while somebody
wearing a "Straight Pride" t-shirt is labelled a "hate-
monger." (Aren't there any "BiSexual Pride" aficianados? What do
they get labelled? "Flip-floppers"??? GINOs??? [Gay In Name
Only] ;-)

By the way, there may be a basis for appealing the original court
decision against Prop. 8, reportedly delivered by a gay judge who
wanted to get married. This was NOT a disinterested, uninvolved
adjudicator!

--Ward Hardman

"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence,
just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken

[Mark S]

You've presented the usual hackneyed list of RW talking points which
basically amount to playing the victim card.

Just to take your last point about the gay judge in this case -
following your logic, no straight male judge would ever be able to
rule fairly in a divorce case, because being straight and male, they
could not possibly be a "disinterested, uninvolved adjudicator."

[wagnerfan]

That ridiculous assertion about the sexuality of the judge was handled
by the decision - didn't you read it????? Wagner fan

[wagnerfan]

I was replying to Willimas posting, not yours --different things.
Wagner fan

[William Sommerwerck]

> By the way, there may be a basis for appealing the original court
> decision against Prop. 8, reportedly delivered by a gay judge who
> wanted to get married. This was NOT a disinterested, uninvolved
> adjudicator!

I've always thought that absurd. If a gay judge is biased, then why isn't a
straight judge biased?

[O]

In article <4f328da1$0$8187$426a...@news.free.fr>, Kirk McElhearn
wrote:

> On 2012-02-07 20:53:33 +0000, Hank Drake <hankdra...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > My only regret about this ruling is that it is limited to the state of
> > California.
>

> I'm not sure that's true. Jurisprudence regarding constitutionality is
> not limited to a single state.

It's regarding the constitutionality of a *state* law, so only applies
to one state. It's probably not high enough in the appeals process to
be used as a model for other states.

-Owen

[Mark S]

On Feb 8, 8:41 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <4f328da1$0$8187$426a7...@news.free.fr>, Kirk McElhearn
> wrote:

>
> > On 2012-02-07 20:53:33 +0000, Hank Drake <hankdrake44...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > My only regret about this ruling is that it is limited to the state of
> > > California.
>
> > I'm not sure that's true. Jurisprudence regarding constitutionality is
> > not limited to a single state.
>
> It's regarding the constitutionality of a *state* law, so only applies
> to one state.  It's probably not high enough in the appeals process to
> be used as  a model for other states.
>
> -Owen

Actually, the 9th Circuit decision found that Prop 8 was in violation
of the US Constitution, not the CA Constitution. At least that was
what Ted Olsen said last night in an interview on Rachel Maddow's show.

[JohnGavin]

On Feb 8, 7:00 am, Ward Hardman <ward.hard...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 8, 5:02 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Things have come to a strange pass when one person can walk down the
> street wearing a "Gay Pride" t-shirt without comment, while somebody
> wearing a "Straight Pride" t-shirt is labelled a "hate-
> monger."

That is only proper in a rigidly technical sense. You well know that
gays have been reprressed for decades while heterosexuals have not.
The above argument is the same as saying we ought to be able to wear
"White, Caucasian Power" t -shirts.
It's the context that means everything in this case.
But you already know all of the above.

[Frank Berger]

"According to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:

WILL THE CASE GO TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

I think the narrow approach in today's decision makes the case less likely
to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The court applies general principles
that apply across the United States. Because this case only deals with the
unique circumstances in California, I think the Supreme Court is less likely
to review it.

So the good news for same-sex marriage supporters is this decision may mean
that a conservative Supreme Court will decide not to take the case."

[O]

In article
<ac5c1cef-af22-45b9...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, Mark

A federal court could not find a law to violate the CA Constitution.

Prop 8 is the fundamental for a *state* law, not a federal law, so it
only applies to that particular law. It didn't find banning same-sex
marriages unconstitutional, it found the law prescribed by Proposition
8 unconstitutional.

-Owen

[Wayne Brown]

I hope and pray you're right.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

[Ward Hardman]

On Feb 8, 8:01 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:00:34 -0800 (PST), Ward Hardman

[snip]

> >By the way, there may be a basis for appealing the original court
> >decision against Prop. 8, reportedly delivered by a gay judge who
> >wanted to get married.  This was NOT a disinterested, uninvolved
> >adjudicator!

> That ridiculous assertion about the sexuality of the judge was handled
> by the decision - didn't you read it?????  Wagner fan

Read it? Where? Are you talking about the 89 page document or the 39
page one following? If so, cite a page number and I'll look at it.
(Are you a lawyer?) As I stated the decision was "reportedly"
delivered by an affected party. I don't have the time or the interest
to check such claims, but if true it would be a biasing factor.

Now the claim that homosexual couples had the right and the dignity of
marriage, was untrue at some recent point in the past. A "married
couple" was heterosexual. Homosexuals did not qualify. If the
legislature or some state court temporarily granted homosexuals the
"right" to marry, and the people of California as a whole voted in a
referendum overturn that grant, that was the people's right according
to the California constitution. To claim that they were depriving
homosexual couples of some spurious "dignity" is ridiculous.
Homosexuals were trying to grab a right they did not previously enjoy
through all of human history, except for a brief legal aberration in
California. (The California voters also have the right to recall
state Supreme Court justices, and once sacked about half the bench,
dumping liberals, such as Rose Bird.)

(California is in deep trouble anyway. State public employee unions
have gotten huge unfunded benefits which cannot possibly be paid under
any realistic level of taxation. Businesses are moving out of state.
Even I buy out-of-state when possible to avoid our 7.75% sales tax.
State university tuitions have ballooned beyond most middle-class
families' ability to afford them, while we are offering free education
to illegal immigrants and foreigners. Let this be a warning to those
in other states ... don't do it our way!!! ;-)

The fight for homosexual "respectability" has revolved in large part
about commandeering labels to make themselves sound more palatable.
"Gay" was a silly and inappropriate label, but technically accurate
nomenclature was considered prejudicial. Its appropriation ruined a
perfectly respectable word. "Marriage" was an ultra-respectable word,
and if it could also be hijacked it was deemed capable of bringing
homosexuality an aura of respectability.

If this is all about LABELS, then we should make a distinction:

- call homosexual marriage "homosexual marriage"

- call heterosexual marriage "standard marriage" or
"traditional marriage" or "normal marriage," because
that's exactly what it is and what the other kind isn't.

Homosexuals have come a long way. At one point they could be stoned
to death:

http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm

Now the situation has evolved to "live and let live." Some people
consider that homosexuality is just nature's way of cleaning up the
gene pool because they aren't reproducing. (I tell them, "Don't say
that ... you'll just egg them into finding a way." ;-)

[wkasimer]

On Feb 8, 7:16 am, wagnerfan <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >PPS: I don't hate Wagner. He just isn't at the top of my list of faves. Did
> >you see the rave review of the new "Meistersinger" on PentaTone?
>
>  I read a review somewhere that really liked the conducting and the
> Sachs and Beckmesser but had some reservations about the Eva and
> Stolzing - I'll check it out.

I thought that I wrote something about it here before, but I can't
seem to find it. In short, the sonics are fantastic, and Janowski's
conducting is much like it is for the early digital RING cycle -
solid, unmannered, emphasizing transparency and forward movement. The
good news about the cast is that no one is less than good (I wish that
I could say that about some other famous Meistersinger recordings).
The bad news is that no one is really distinctive, either. Dohmen and
Smith handle the two most difficult roles, Sachs and Walther, quite
well, but neither has a particularly attractive voice.

One nice feature is that Janowski's tempi are just fleet enough that
Act 1 fits onto a single CD - so there's no awkward break before "Am
stillen Herd" or "Fanget an!", as there is on virtually every other
recording.

In short, buy it for the sonics, and as a sort of reference version;
it won't supplant the best recordings in the Meistersinger discography
(which are, IMO, Kubelik, Solti 2, Karajan 2, and Sawallisch).

Bill

[wagnerfan]

Look you read the ruling, then come back and talk to me - thats what
intelligent people do when they foreward an argument. If you just want
to regurgitate something you "heard" or "read" then I will know you
can't be taken seriously - actually the rest of your posting pretty
much proved that anyway - i particularly thought your statement about
how gays have "come a long way' because they are not stoned to death
particularly amusing. You also seem to have no concept of the idea of
protection of a minority from a majority ruling/ Wagner Fan

[Mark S]

Why change the subject line?

[Mark S]

On Feb 8, 9:56 am, Ward Hardman <ward.hard...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Now the claim that homosexual couples had the right and the dignity of
> marriage, was untrue at some recent point in the past.  A "married
> couple" was heterosexual.  Homosexuals did not qualify.  If the
> legislature or some state court temporarily granted homosexuals the
> "right" to marry, and the people of California as a whole voted in a
> referendum overturn that grant, that was the people's right according
> to the California constitution.

And it's the responsibility of the courts to overturn bad decisions
made by "the people." That's our system of checks and balances at its
best.

BTW - does it not bother you that Prop 8 passed in large part as the
result of a dishonest scare campaign that was funded by Mormons and
Catholics who didn't even reside in CA and who could not have voted on
the referendum had they so wanted?

>To claim that they were depriving
> homosexual couples of some spurious "dignity" is ridiculous.
> Homosexuals were trying to grab a right they did not previously enjoy
> through all of human history, except for a brief legal aberration in
> California.

The same way that women got the vote by "grabbing a right they did not
previously enjoy," or the way blacks were freed from slavery, gaining
an equality that slaves "did not previously enjoy through all of human
history." Your point?

BTW - it's not up to you to decide what constitutes another person's
sense of dignity. Judging from what you've posted here, your time
would be better spent rehabilitating the dignity you've tossed away by
airing your bigoted views in this public forum.

> The fight for homosexual "respectability" has revolved in large part
> about commandeering labels to make themselves sound more palatable.
> "Gay" was a silly and inappropriate label, but technically accurate
> nomenclature was considered prejudicial.  Its appropriation ruined a
> perfectly respectable word.  "Marriage" was an ultra-respectable word,
> and if it could also be hijacked it was deemed capable of bringing
> homosexuality an aura of respectability.

Your bigotry is showing. Why should homosexuality NOT be considered to
be as respectable as heterosexuality?

> If this is all about LABELS, then we should make a distinction:
>
>   - call homosexual marriage "homosexual marriage"
>
>   - call heterosexual marriage "standard marriage" or
>     "traditional marriage" or "normal marriage," because
>     that's exactly what it is and what the other kind isn't.

Why stop there with the labels? Why not insist on "inter-racial
marriage" while you're at it?

It's not about labels, except in your mind.

> Homosexuals have come a long way.

No thanks to you.

>At one point they could be stoned
> to death:

Gays are still murdered in this country for the sole reason that they
are gay. The only difference is that under our laws, that's murder.

> Now the situation has evolved to "live and let live."

And the problem with that is...?

>Some people
> consider that homosexuality is just nature's way of cleaning up the
> gene pool because they aren't reproducing.

Those people are called bigots.

(I tell them, "Don't say
> that ... you'll just egg them into finding a way."   ;-)

That statement proves that you're a bigot as well.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Now the claim that homosexual couples had the right and the dignity
> of marriage, was untrue at some recent point in the past. A "married
> couple" was heterosexual. Homosexuals did not qualify. If the
> legislature or some state court temporarily granted homosexuals the

> "right" to marry...

The right was granted in perpetuity, and it's a real right -- why do you put
quotes around it?

> and the people of California as a whole voted in a referendum

They did not vote "as a whole".

> ...to overturn that grant, that was the people's right according

> to the California constitution. To claim that they were depriving
> homosexual couples of some spurious "dignity" is ridiculous.

So the brevity of the period of dignity means it had no value?

The argument has been made that rights should not be subject to referendums.

> Homosexuals were trying to grab a right they did not previously enjoy
> through all of human history, except for a brief legal aberration in
California.

<loud klaxon sound> Wrong. Homosexual marriage is extremely uncommon, but I
can point to at least two historically verified examples. See Ruth
Benedict's "Patterns of Culture" for her discussion of berdaches. Male
tribal members sometimes married berdaches. There were also Islamic
marriages among the men guarding the Siwa oasis. (Unfortunately, the British
put a stop to this in the 1920s.)

There are also almost-close-enough-to-be-marriage relationships. Tobias
Schneebaum describes how, in the Irian Jaya region of Indonesian, young men
are paired off in relationships that are pretty much marriages, and intended
to last a lifetime. (These men also marry women, and swap wives.)

Slaves have rarely had much in the way of legal rights. Are laws outlawing
slavery "aberrations"?

Human beings have a right to rethink what they thought was right or wrong.
We are going through such a period with respect to views about
homosexuality.

> The fight for homosexual "respectability" has revolved in large part
> about commandeering labels to make themselves sound more palatable.

Gee, isn't it just terrible that minorities demand the right to self-define
themselves.

If homosexuality is a normal part of human biology (as it appears to be),
then why shouldn't it be "respectable"? What is your problem, anyhow?

[William Sommerwerck]

PS: I would have no trouble with restricting the word "marriage" to unions
performed in churches... IF AND ONLY IF civil unions -- same-sex or opposite
sex -- were legally and socially identical to marriages -- and called CIVIL
UNIONS.

I don't understand why unions performed by a judge or justice of the
peace -- and called "marriage" -- is not an affront to religious unions.

[Gerard]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:

> Why change the subject line?

Because the subject has changed?

[wkasimer]

On Feb 8, 1:56 pm, EM <emmemmmemnmme...@gnail.com> wrote:

> What would be your recommendation for the Meistersinger on DVD?

I don't know them well enough to comment, but if the recent
Glyndebourne production, with Gerald Finley, conducted by Marek
Jurowski ever makes it to DVD, that's the one I'd buy.

Bill

[graham]

"Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...

> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>>
>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>>
>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is highly
>> likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's decision.
>
> I hope and pray you're right.
>

Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?

[Roland van Gaalen]

Why I Am Not A Social Conservative --

Ward Hardman wrote:

> I think that many folks are bothered by the prospect that homosexual
> "married couples" would qualify for the same tax deductions that were
> intended to help the "traditional" married couples who, once upon a
> time, produced large enough families (i.e. "baby boom") to allow
> Social Security to survive temporarily. Those deductions provided a
> *subsidy* for what was considered "good for society."
>
> The idea that homosexual behavior should also receive a government
> subsidy sticks in some folks' craws, as does the fact that public
> schools (at least here in California) are beginning to "teach"
> homosexuality to young children, taking their own tax dollars to
> indoctrinate their kids to something they strongly disapprove of.
>
> Things have come to a strange pass when one person can walk down the
> street wearing a "Gay Pride" t-shirt without comment, while somebody
> wearing a "Straight Pride" t-shirt is labelled a "hate-
> monger." (Aren't there any "BiSexual Pride" aficianados? What do
> they get labelled? "Flip-floppers"??? GINOs??? [Gay In Name
> Only] ;-)
>
> By the way, there may be a basis for appealing the original court
> decision against Prop. 8, reportedly delivered by a gay judge who
> wanted to get married. This was NOT a disinterested, uninvolved
> adjudicator!

The above opinion nicely illustrates some of the attitudes of the Conservative Movement in North America.

Count me out.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

[William Sommerwerck]

"wkasimer" <wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:64e9e087-9827-4ad8...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

"You say Janowski and I say Jurowski.
You say Swarowsky and I say Stokowski.
Janowski, Jurowski, Swarowsky, Stokowski...
Let's call the whole thing off!"

[wkasimer]

On Feb 8, 1:08 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why change the subject line?

Because it's an music recordings newsgroup, and someone asked a
question about a recording.

Bill

[wagnerfan]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:56:59 +0100, EM <emmemmme...@gnail.com>
wrote:

>wkasimer <wkas...@comcast.net> - Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:09 -0800
>(PST):

>
>> In short, buy it for the sonics, and as a sort of reference version;
>> it won't supplant the best recordings in the Meistersinger discography
>> (which are, IMO, Kubelik, Solti 2, Karajan 2, and Sawallisch).
>

>What would be your recommendation for the Meistersinger on DVD?
>

>EM
For me its the Wolfgang Wagner production with a very strong cast
(Weikl, Jerusalem, Prey) and a beautifully traditional production. His
seocnd one (the global one) is not as strongly cast or directed.
Wagner fan

[Matthew B. Tepper]

wkasimer <wkas...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:132df8e9-a61e-48e9-a7e1-1e976f5aa138
@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> In short, buy it for the sonics, and as a sort of reference version;
> it won't supplant the best recordings in the Meistersinger discography
> (which are, IMO, Kubelik, Solti 2, Karajan 2, and Sawallisch).

I would add Kempe/Berlin.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> appears to have caused
the following letters to be typed in news:jguqei$tpn$1...@dont-email.me:

Are you familiar with this (very real) Gershwin song?

http://youtu.be/q9liNoampOk

I wish Bobby Short's rendition of it were online, but sadly it ain't.

[Wayne Brown]

Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> "You say Janowski and I say Jurowski.
>> You say Swarowsky and I say Stokowski.
>> Janowski, Jurowski, Swarowsky, Stokowski...
>> Let's call the whole thing off!"

> Are you familiar with this (very real) Gershwin song?
> http://youtu.be/q9liNoampOk

Never heard it or of it.

When he says they're "Oriental" gentlemen, he's using the word to refer to
the Middle East. I'm surprised that usage hadn't fallen away by 1922.

Could this song have been an influence on the Russian composers song from
"Lady in the Dark"?

It's interesting that, when a recording is properly declicked, how good it
can sound.

[Frank Berger]

Wayne Brown wrote:
> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>>>>
>>>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is
>>>> highly likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's
>>>> decision.
>>>
>>> I hope and pray you're right.
>>>
>> Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
>
> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.

I'm opposed to government-sanctioned marriage of any type.

[wagnerfan]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:48:22 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>>>>
>>>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is highly
>>>> likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's decision.
>>>
>>> I hope and pray you're right.
>>>
>> Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
>
>Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.

Of course you are. Wagner Fan

[wkasimer]

On Feb 9, 2:41 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > In short, buy it for the sonics, and as a sort of reference version;
> > it won't supplant the best recordings in the Meistersinger discography
> > (which are, IMO, Kubelik, Solti 2, Karajan 2, and Sawallisch).
>
> I would add Kempe/Berlin.

I keep it around only for the Eva of Elisabeth Grümmer - the rest of
the cast is decidedly mediocre. Kempe's conducting is fine, but the
sound is distressingly opaque for something recorded in 1956 (and it
should have been recorded in stereo, which EMI was already employing
by then - this was recorded, IIRC, *after* the Karajan Rosenkavalier).

Bill

[Mark S]

I have a hard time with Schock on that Kempe version.

[Mark S]

> > "You say Janowski and I say Jurowski.
> > You say Swarowsky and I say Stokowski.
> > Janowski, Jurowski, Swarowsky, Stokowski...
> > Let's call the whole thing off!"

You say *Car-MEE-nah,* I say *Car-MAH-nah,*
You say *Bur-EE-nah,* I say, Bur-AH-nah,"
etc etc
Let's Carl the whole thing Orff.

[Mark S]

On Feb 9, 11:58 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.
>
> I'm opposed to government-sanctioned marriage of any type.

I'm assuming you're also opposed to tax breaks for married people as
well, like the break a couple gets for filing a joint income tax
return.

[wagnerfan]

I think the set is much more than the sum of the parts and I find
Benno Kusche's Beckmesser decidedly above mediocre - as a matter of
fact its so well sung that its hard to see why Eva would choose Schock
over him(!) Also I find the sound on the orginal LPs excellent mono
though I also wish it had been recorded in stereo - but remember Legge
had to be pulled kicking and screaming intothe stereo age -the stereo
Rosenkavalier was really done as an experiment and I'm not convinced
it was originally scheduled for release. The Capriccio should have
been in stereo as well - it was recorded in the same venue as the
Rosenkavalier and a year later. Wagner Fan

[Frank Berger]

Of course.

[O]

In article <X-2dnQESKc5vqKnS...@supernews.com>, Frank

I'm opposed to any government-sanctioned Marriage of Figaro.

-Owen, supporting a referendum on le droit du seigneur.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:jh17u6$6dm$1...@dont-email.me...

> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...

>>>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.

>>>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is
>>>> highly likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's
decision.

>>> I hope and pray you're right.

>> Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?

> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.

Do you have a defensible reason?

[rkhalona]

On Feb 8, 9:43 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ac5c1cef-af22-45b9-9781-85621c89b...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 8:41 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> > > In article <4f328da1$0$8187$426a7...@news.free.fr>, Kirk McElhearn
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2012-02-07 20:53:33 +0000, Hank Drake <hankdrake44...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > > > My only regret about this ruling is that it is limited to the state of
> > > > > California.
>
> > > > I'm not sure that's true. Jurisprudence regarding constitutionality is
> > > > not limited to a single state.
>
> > > It's regarding the constitutionality of a *state* law, so only applies
> > > to one state.  It's probably not high enough in the appeals process to
> > > be used as  a model for other states.
>
> > > -Owen
>
> > Actually, the 9th Circuit decision found that Prop 8 was in violation
> > of the US Constitution, not the CA Constitution. At least that was
> > what Ted Olsen said last night in an interview on Rachel Maddow's show.
>
> A federal court could not find a law to violate the CA Constitution.
>
> Prop 8 is the fundamental for a *state* law, not a federal law, so it
> only applies to that particular law.  It didn't find banning same-sex
> marriages unconstitutional, it found the law prescribed by Proposition
> 8 unconstitutional.
>
> -Owen- Hide quoted text -
>

Do you realize that Prop. 8 was crafted as an *amendment* to the CA
constitution to ban gay marriage?
If such a ban is found unconstitutional according to federal law, this
sets up a conflict between state and federal constitutions (if Prop. 8
were allowed to stand) that eventually would have to be resolved.
Washington state, as of yesterday, has legalized same sex marriages.
The proponents of Prop. 8 are rowing upstream.

RK

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:jh17u6$6dm$1...@dont-email.me...
>> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>
>>>>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>>>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>
>>>>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is
>>>>> highly likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's
>>>>> decision.
>
>>>> I hope and pray you're right.
>
>>> Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
>
>> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.
>
> Do you have a defensible reason?

I have a better idea that might save some bandwidth. Why don't you list
reasons *you* would consider "defensible?"

[wagnerfan]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:34:53 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:jh17u6$6dm$1...@dont-email.me...
>> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> > "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> > news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>
>>>>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>>>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>
>>>>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is
>>>>> highly likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's
>decision.
>
>>>> I hope and pray you're right.
>
>>> Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
>
>> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.
>
>Do you have a defensible reason?
>

Didn't you notice he is Father Brown???? Wagner fan

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:teCdnXmf3891o6nS...@supernews.com...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Do you have a defensible reason?

> I have a better idea that might save some bandwidth. Why
> don't you list reasons *you* would consider "defensible"?

The principal purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for
raising children. But people marry for other reasons. Marriage has been used
as a means of acquiring wealth and/or power. It has been used simply to
produce an heir, so that property or power can be passed to another
generation. It has been used to create a bond between fractious families.

Then there's "love", possibly the worst reason for getting married.
"Same-Sex Unions * in Pre-Modern Europe" spends a lot of time discussing
Roman marriage. Romans rarely married for love -- there was usually some
"practical" consideration (such as those above). The author emphasizes that
Romans placed friends above family. When people had a choice between saving
the life of a relative (including children) and a friend, they often chose
the friend. One woman is quoted as saying "I can have more children -- but
where will I find another friend like her?"

Another purpose is the state's recognition that there can be a close,
"special" relationship between two biologically unrelated people. This, in
theory, encourages the formation and continuation of stable households.

To answer an obvious objection... The state is not obliged to listen to what
the church wants, any more than the church is obliged to knuckle under to
state demands. We have, thank God, civil government in this country -- one
of the reasons we have a great deal of personal freedom, especially freedom
of speech and conscience, freedoms that would be wiped out under religious
government. (Note Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25.)

Homosexual orientation appears to be normal biological variation. Other than
this, "we" are no differerent from "you". (Shall I quote Shylock?) There is
therefore no good reason for not marrying people of the same gender, for all
the reasons people of opposite gender marry.

"Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted in the necessities of our
being, and dedicated to the happiness of mankind. It is not to be entered
into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, and soberly."

One of those necessities is to share one's life and love with someone else.
Homosexual men and women are no different from anyone else in wanting this.
It is to society's advantage to support close personal relationships.


* Unions, not marriages. The word choice is deliberate.

** Western marriage tradition derives largely from Roman practice. A wife
became part of her husband's household, which is why women commonly append
their spouse's family name to theirs.

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:teCdnXmf3891o6nS...@supernews.com...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Do you have a defensible reason?
>
>> I have a better idea that might save some bandwidth. Why
>> don't you list reasons *you* would consider "defensible"?
>
> The principal purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment
> for raising children. But people marry for other reasons. Marriage
> has been used as a means of acquiring wealth and/or power. It has
> been used simply to produce an heir, so that property or power can be
> passed to another generation. It has been used to create a bond
> between fractious families.
>

Not much there that can't be handled by simple contracts.

> Then there's "love", possibly the worst reason for getting married.
> "Same-Sex Unions * in Pre-Modern Europe" spends a lot of time
> discussing Roman marriage. Romans rarely married for love -- there
> was usually some "practical" consideration (such as those above). The
> author emphasizes that Romans placed friends above family. When
> people had a choice between saving the life of a relative (including
> children) and a friend, they often chose the friend. One woman is
> quoted as saying "I can have more children -- but where will I find
> another friend like her?"
>
> Another purpose is the state's recognition that there can be a close,
> "special" relationship between two biologically unrelated people.
> This, in theory, encourages the formation and continuation of stable
> households.

What is the state's business in conveying such recognition? What does
"stable" mean? Is there evidence that the theory is valid?

>
> To answer an obvious objection... The state is not obliged to listen
> to what the church wants, any more than the church is obliged to
> knuckle under to state demands. We have, thank God, civil government
> in this country -- one of the reasons we have a great deal of
> personal freedom, especially freedom of speech and conscience,
> freedoms that would be wiped out under religious government. (Note
> Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25.)
>

Surely you are aware that secular government is no guarantee of civil
liberties.

> Homosexual orientation appears to be normal biological variation.
> Other than this, "we" are no differerent from "you". (Shall I quote
> Shylock?) There is therefore no good reason for not marrying people
> of the same gender, for all the reasons people of opposite gender
> marry.

I don't disagree. Given that government has intruded into this private
matter, it seems to me that equal protection requires this. Though
conservatives argue that a gay man has the same right to marry a woman that
a straight man has, so the equal protection is satisfied. What if 3 people
(any gender combination) want to marry? Can 3 spouses not provide a
"stable" relationship for children, etc.?

>
> "Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted in the necessities of our
> being, and dedicated to the happiness of mankind. It is not to be
> entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, and
> soberly."
>
> One of those necessities is to share one's life and love with someone
> else. Homosexual men and women are no different from anyone else in
> wanting this. It is to society's advantage to support close personal
> relationships.
>

Support? In way way? Tax breaks? Is it in societies interest to cause
people to marry to get tax breaks who might not otherwise bother and who
perhaps shouldn't be married?

[William Sommerwerck]

Your counter-arguments seem based solely on the view of
"marriage-as-contract". Is that all marriage is?

If you want to really demean marriage, I can't think of a better way to do
it than to define it solely as a contract between two people.


Here's a scene from "The Schoolmarm", a gender inversion of "The
Virginian". The scene makes more sense in the context of the entire film.
Sorry if the formatting is confusing, but people don't like it when postings
aren't plain-text.

INT: TEACHER'S COTTAGE: EARLY SUNDAY EVENING

TEX and RITTER enter, and RITTER lights the desk lamp. He pulls out a Bible
and browses it. TEX is surprised.

TEX
With all ya said, I figgered you was a infidel. Ya went ta church so people
wouldn't talk.

RITTER
No. I'm a believer. I just don't believe in a God Who makes arbitrary rules,
then punishes us for breaking them. Or Who tempts us, then throws us into
Hell for yielding to temptation.

Even if I were an infidel, I'd still have this Bible. My mother gave it to
me, in her expectation it would keep me from sin.

TEX
Doesn't seem t'ave worked.

RITTER
Not all sins are sexual. Lying, coveting, making a god of material things...
Murder.

(finding the section he's looking for)

Marriage is a covenant between two people. They aren't married by a minister
or justice of the peace. They marry each other, and if it isn't a willing
union, it isn't a valid union.

TEX
So it don't matter what the law says?

RITTER
All the law says is which unions are legally valid.

Our marriage won't have force of law, but our commitment will be as strong
as any other couple's.

We can join ourselves in wedlock, if we want.

TEX
Yeah. I want to. A lot.

TEX and RITTER sit quietly for some time, holding hands and looking into
each other's eyes. When they know they're ready, RITTER opens the Bible and
begins reading. (The ellipses indicate pauses where RITTER edits the
ceremony to make it appropriate for two men.)

RITTER
"...we are gathered... to solemnize the union of Mr Avery and Mr Ritter.

Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted in the necessities of our being,
and dedicated to the happiness of mankind. It is not to be entered into
unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, and soberly."

TEX and RITTER pause to consider that passage. Then RITTER passes the Bible
to TEX, who reads from it.

TEX
"If there be any present who knows why these two should not be wed, let him
speak now or forever hold his peace."

Only one I know of's been run outta town.

TEX returns the Bible to RITTER.

RITTER
"Frederick Aloysius Avery, do you take Lynn Stark Ritter to be your
wedded... spouse to live together in marriage? Do you promise to love,
comfort, honor, and keep him for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in
sickness and in health, and, forsaking all others, be faithful only to him
so long as you both shall live?"

TEX
I do.

RITTER hands the Bible to TEX.

TEX
"Do you, Lynn Stark Ritter, take Frederick Aloysius Avery to be your wedded
spouse to live together in marriage? Do you promise to love, comfort, honor,
and keep him for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in
health, and, forsaking all others, be faithful only to him so long as you
both shall live?"

RITTER
I do.

TEX and RITTER kiss uneasily. Unlike their previous kisses, this one is
tentative, even chaste. When the kiss is done, they lay their heads on the
other's shoulders.

They're startled by a KNOCK at the door.

TEX
That must be Judge Henry.

RITTER reflexively closes the Bible, with his finger marking the page, and
carries it to the door.

RITTER
Judge...?

JUDGE HENRY
Good evening. Is Mr Avery here?

TEX
Sure am, Judge.

JUDGE HENRY
I wouldn't have barged in, but we have a lot of work to go over, and I don't
want to get to bed late. Mrs Henry doesn't like sleeping alone.

TEX
How'd you know I was here?

JUDGE HENRY
(suggestively)
You two spend a lot of time together.

TEX\
(firm, unhesitating)
We're friends.

JUDGE HENRY
(noticing RITTER's Bible)
What's this? May I?

RITTER reluctantly hands him the book. JUDGE HENRY inserts a finger so as
not to lose the selected page.

JUDGE HENRY
(not serious)
Are you trying to make up for not attending church recently?

He opens the Bible, and after squinting, recognizes what he's looking at. He
realizes what was going on when he arrived, and doesn't indicate
disapproval.

JUDGE HENRY
(subtly arch, "aware")
Well, then... When your affairs here are completed, Mr Avery, get on back.
Not too late.

Smiling sincerely, JUDGE HENRY tips his hat and leaves.

RITTER
Think he knows?

TEX
Judge Henry's bout the smartest fella ya'll ever meet. He knows. And I don't
give a damn that he does.

RITTER
Better be gettin' back, then.

TEX
Ya did it again. <beat> I was lookin forward ta the honeymoon.

RITTER
There'll be plenty of time.

TEX and RITTER engage in a passionate kiss that lasts a lot longer then
three seconds.

[Kip Williams]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> TEX and RITTER sit quietly for some time, holding hands and looking into
> each other's eyes. When they know they're ready, RITTER opens the Bible and
> begins reading. (The ellipses indicate pauses where RITTER edits the
> ceremony to make it appropriate for two men.)
>
> RITTER
> "...we are gathered... to solemnize the union of Mr Avery and Mr Ritter.
> Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted in the necessities of our being,
> and dedicated to the happiness of mankind. It is not to be entered into
> unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, and soberly."

Tex Avery?
Will he change his name and become Tex Ritter?


Kip W
inquiring mind

[Frank Berger]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jh1ks1$l1t$1...@dont-email.me...

> Your counter-arguments seem based solely on the view of
> "marriage-as-contract". Is that all marriage is?
>
> If you want to really demean marriage, I can't think of a better way to do
> it than to define it solely as a contract between two people.
>

To some, contracts are sacrosanct. In fact, I'd say the protagonists in
your story just engaged in one, the irrelevant stuff with the bible they
don't believe in notwithstanding.

[Jenn]

In article <jh17u6$6dm$1...@dont-email.me>,

Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
> >>>
> >>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
> >>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
> >>>
> >>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is highly
> >>> likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's decision.
> >>
> >> I hope and pray you're right.
> >>
> > Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
>
> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.

Why?

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Roland van Gaalen]

I think the libertarian position is quite reasonable. That's what I like about Ron Paul (as opposed to the other Republican contenders for the presidency), my general preference for President Obama notwithstanding.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl

[O]

In article
<d387bba6-89c7-4aa4...@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

That is not inconsistent with what I said. The decision is not whether
Prop 8 violates CA constitution, but instead the federal constitution.

> If such a ban is found unconstitutional according to federal law, this
> sets up a conflict between state and federal constitutions (if Prop. 8
> were allowed to stand) that eventually would have to be resolved.

In that case, the federal constitution always trumps the state (at
least since the US civil war).

What is interesting is that the actual ruling itself seems weak. The
ruling was not the broad issue as to whether the State can ban gay
marriage, but instead whether the State can take away that right *once
they've granted it.*

CA for a brief time allowed gay marriage and the referendum removed
that "right," which the citizens already enjoyed. The judge is saying
that you can't do that under a referendum.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the basics of CA precedence and law,
but it seems to me that practically any referendum would remove some
"right" that citizens already enjoy.

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

"O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
news:090220122123436186%ow...@denofinequityx.com...

Which is the basis for several analysts I've read being of the opinion that
SCOTUS will choose not to review the decision.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Kip Williams" <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PYYYq.312$L6....@newsfe01.iad...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> TEX and RITTER sit quietly for some time, holding hands and looking into
>> each other's eyes. When they know they're ready, RITTER opens the Bible
>> and begins reading. (The ellipses indicate pauses where RITTER edits the
>> ceremony to make it appropriate for two men.)

>> RITTER
>> "...we are gathered... to solemnize the union of Mr Avery and Mr Ritter.
>> Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted in the necessities of our
being,
>> and dedicated to the happiness of mankind. It is not to be entered into
>> unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, discreetly, and soberly."

It's gratifying when people pay attention. Thank you.

> Tex Avery?

The animator.

> Will he change his name and become Tex Ritter?

Tex Avery's given name is Frederick Aloysius Avery. Aloysius was Lynn
Belvedere's middle name.

Ritter is Lynn Stark Ritter. Lynn Belvedere was mistakenly hired in the
belief he was a woman (as Ritter was to be Sunk Creek's new schoolmarm). The
schoolmarm in "The Virginian" is Mollie Stark Wood. I replaced Wood with
Ritter, which makes him a "strong knight" in German. (Now you know why your
dentist's equipment had the logo of a knight on it.)

There's an earlier scene where Tex and Ritter are discussing bad male names
(including Frederick). Ritter says he wouldn't mind being named "Tex
Ritter". This is the closest I came to explaining the joke. (Tex is called
either Tex or Mr Avery. He's never called Tex Avery.) It's more fun if
audiences catch it one their own.

[Mark S]

On Feb 9, 7:15 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "O" <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote in message
>
> news:090220122123436186%ow...@denofinequityx.com...
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <d387bba6-89c7-4aa4-b3e2-ac0704d8c...@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

I think the main reason the SCOTUS won't review the Prop 8 decision is
that neither side of the SCOTUS feels sure of the outcome of such a
review. Both sides are afraid of losing the argument as the only vote
in question is the swing vote Anthony Kennedy. The liberals on the
court won't take it up because if they lose it could set back gay
rights for another 20 years while the conservatives realize that their
losing the decision would make gay marriage the law of the land.

[Mark S]

On Feb 9, 5:42 pm, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, February 10, 2012 2:32:36 AM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:

> > "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >news:jh1ks1$l1t$1...@dont-email.me...
> > > Your counter-arguments seem based solely on the view of
> > > "marriage-as-contract". Is that all marriage is?
>
> > > If you want to really demean marriage, I can't think of a better way to do
> > > it than to define it solely as a contract between two people.
>
> > To some, contracts are sacrosanct.  In fact, I'd say the protagonists in
> > your story just engaged in one, the irrelevant stuff with the bible they
> > don't believe in notwithstanding.
>
> I think the libertarian position is quite reasonable. That's what I like about Ron Paul (as opposed to the other Republican contenders for the presidency), my general preference for President Obama notwithstanding.
> --

The RW organization World Net Daily just commissioned a poll on the
election and found that fully 20% of Republican voters are leaning
toward voting for Obama, no matter who the R candidate happens to be.
The main reasons given were 1. that Obama would provide more stability
than any of the R candidates, and 2. Obama had exceeded their
expectations as president.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:5qydnfd0J54p7qnS...@supernews.com...

> your story just engaged in one, the irrelevant stuff with the Bible they

> don't believe in notwithstanding.

You ARE contrary, aren't you? I could hold a piece of green paper in front
of you and you'd say it was purple, just to spite me.

I said /solely/ as a contract between two people. Do you know what "solely"
means in that context? (Frank is like most people -- they conveniently
ignore inconvenient qualifiers.)

Though it's a rough synonym, sacrosanct doesn't mean exactly the same thing
as sacred. Furthermore, Ritter is reading a marriage ceremony from the
Bible -- not the Bible, itself. The words are not, per se, religious. And
note his remark that there are many sins, other than just the sexual.

We don't know exactly what Tex thinks. But Edward Abbot, a famous cowboy who
lived well into the 20th century, said that 90% of cowboys were infidel.
Ritter explicitly says he's a believer -- just not in the perverse view of
he God he gives.

[Jenn]

In article
<cf7c6d3c-628c-40d4...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Wow! That's quite surprising.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[wagnerfan]

I was surprised to see that as well - I had thought they would not
vote at all rather than vote for Obama. Wagner fan

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58a8324d-ffb2-4c16...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

> I think the main reason the SCOTUS won't review the Prop 8 decision
> is that neither side of the SCOTUS feels sure of the outcome of such
> a review. Both sides are afraid of losing the argument as the only vote
> in question is the swing vote Anthony Kennedy. The liberals on the
> court won't take it up because if they lose it could set back gay

> rights for another 20 years, while the conservatives realize that their

> losing the decision would make gay marriage the law of the land.

Most of that makes sense -- especially the liberals declining to review the
decision. But as to "law of the land"...

The issue is whether Proposition 8 served any useful purpose. The California
court said "no" -- and that it violated "equal protection of the law". So
the effect of its decision is to prevent laws allowing same-sex marriage
from being overturned in a referendum. It does not require states to enact
same-sex marriage.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mark S" <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:cf7c6d3c-628c-40d4...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

> The RW organization World Net Daily...

World Net Daily is not a right-wing organization. It is an insane far-right
religious organization.

> ...just commissioned a poll and found that fully 20% of Republican

> voters are leaning toward voting for Obama, no matter who the R
> candidate happens to be. The main reasons given were 1. that
> Obama would provide more stability than any of the R candidates,
> and 2. Obama had exceeded their expectations as president.

Possibly. But when they enter the voting booth...

[Roland van Gaalen]

Look at the Republican candidates: Mitt Romney (smooth-talking Mormon), Gingrich ("unhinged" right-winger), Santorum (even more backward, a silly but scary conservative Roman Catholic) and Paul (the only worthy candidate, a libertarian with many thought-provoking ideas but too far away from the mainstream).

[O]

In article
<2658375.771.1328876338017.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbb11>,

I think Paul is the smartest of the lot, by far. Gingrich has gone off
the deep end, Santorum is too right-wing even for me. Romney probably
has the best ability to beat Obama. I think it's disgraceful that the
media covering the debate have given most of the time and questions to
Gingrich/Romney, and short-shrifted Paul and Santorum. I've never
heard any Republican voice either of the two sentiments above, in fact,
most would feel that Romney was more stable than Obama. The idea that
Obama has exceeded Republicans expectations could only come from a
position that their expectations were exceedingly low.

If any Republicans go to Obama, in my opinion, the reason would be: 3.
the Republican candidate field is, once again, exceedingly weak.

-Owen

[O]

In article
<58a8324d-ffb2-4c16...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >
> > Which is the basis for several analysts I've read being of the opinion that
> > SCOTUS will choose not to review the decision.
>
> I think the main reason the SCOTUS won't review the Prop 8 decision is
> that neither side of the SCOTUS feels sure of the outcome of such a
> review. Both sides are afraid of losing the argument as the only vote
> in question is the swing vote Anthony Kennedy. The liberals on the
> court won't take it up because if they lose it could set back gay
> rights for another 20 years while the conservatives realize that their
> losing the decision would make gay marriage the law of the land.

I think you're spot-on, Mark. The status quo is a lot easier to live
with than a resolution. Even if your side wins, (whichever side you're
on) there will be a backlash from the other side that will make things
worse. (Think Roe v. Wade)

-Owen

[Kip Williams]

Wasn't that reason 1?


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Kip Williams"<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> Tex Avery?
>
> The animator.

Well, he did start off as one, but I think of him as more of a director,
and as a gag man for the Spike Jones TV show.


Kip W

[Frank Berger]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5qydnfd0J54p7qnS...@supernews.com...
>> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:jh1ks1$l1t$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> Your counter-arguments seem based solely on the view of
>>> "marriage-as-contract". Is that all marriage is?
>
>>> If you want to really demean marriage, I can't think of a better way
>>> to do it than to define it solely as a contract between two people.
>
>> To some, contracts are sacrosanct. In fact, I'd say the protagonists
>> in your story just engaged in one, the irrelevant stuff with the
>> Bible they don't believe in notwithstanding.
>
> You ARE contrary, aren't you? I could hold a piece of green paper in
> front of you and you'd say it was purple, just to spite me.
>

Wouldn't.

[Frank Berger]

20% will be buying the Walter/Brahms set.

[Roland van Gaalen]

O wrote:

> Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > Look at the Republican candidates: Mitt Romney (smooth-talking Mormon),
> > Gingrich ("unhinged" right-winger), Santorum (even more backward, a silly but
> > scary conservative Roman Catholic) and Paul (the only worthy candidate, a
> > libertarian with many thought-provoking ideas but too far away from the
> > mainstream).
>
> I think Paul is the smartest of the lot, by far.

> ...

The contributions made by this maverick candidate to the recent televised debates are refreshing and will probably be somewhat influential in the decades to come -- today's young people seem to appreciate him as an independent thinker.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on a number of major ssues (again, I am a liberal and I would vote for President Obama), but his elegant reasoning certainly does not insult my intelligence, in contrast to the unenlightened Conservative Movement.

I think his candidacy is a very good thing.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I don't agree with Ron Paul on a number of major ssues (again,
> I am a liberal and I would vote for President Obama), but his
> elegant reasoning certainly does not insult my intelligence,
> in contrast to the unenlightened Conservative Movement.

Ron Paul was booed for suggesting that the Golden Rule might well-be applied
to international relationships. (It's worth thinking about.) But he also
stands for the gold standard, a bad idea. He either doesn't understand the
Labor Theory of Value, or has rejected it.

Gingrich sometimes gets points among liberals for good ideas. But he's
considered something of a loose cannon, and even perhaps "damaged
merchandise".

[Mark S]

On Feb 10, 7:05 am, Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Are you giving Paul a pass on the overtly racist remarks he made in
his newsletters back in the 90s? Why? A leopard doesn't change its
spots, as the saying goes.

Beneath the Libertarian façade resides an insidious form of racism and
bigotry that's bolstered by the belief that "I've already got mine,
you're not taking it away." That belief is coupled with a self-
congratulatory delusion that one is an entirely self-made man. Ever
notice how the ranks of the Libertarians are almost exclusively white?
Black/minority Libertarians are a rarer bird than Black/minority
Republicans. Why? Could it be that it's convenient to preach self
reliance and independence from the welfare state when you yourself
have actually benefited greatly in this country simply because the
color of your skin - and your gender if you're male - gives you more
than a leg up over others who came up short in the pick-your-parents
sweepstakes?

BTW - today's young people like Ron Paul because he tells them what
they want to hear - that living in these United States shouldn't cost
them anything. Most young people have little or no income, so anybody
who preaches the gospel of "you shouldn't have to pay anything for
anything" is going to be popular. It's easy to buy into such things
when your parents are footing the bill for your college education
while daddy lets you borrow the car for the homecoming dance.

[Mark S]

On Feb 10, 6:14 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

.
>
> Gingrich sometimes gets points among liberals for good ideas. But he's
> considered something of a loose cannon, and even perhaps "damaged
> merchandise".

Really? I don't know any liberals who would ever say Gingrich had a
good idea. Can you name a Gingrich idea that liberals have championed?
I'll wait.

The truth is that liberals see Gingrich as an intellectually lazy
poseur. His ideas can't stand up to any amount of drill down beneath
the surface of his bravado. Even Willard had no problem shooting down
Newt on his "you own stock in Fannie Mae" attack by pointing out that
Newt also owned stock in FM.

No, liberals give Gingrich no points. And that's even before they
figure in his race baiting and his self-serving and convenient
rewrites of history.

[O]

In article <kP9Zq.6409$Tu...@newsfe05.iad>, Kip Williams

Not particularly. Obama's pretty unstable himself - bouncing around
between liberal and conservative bents, changing his mind as the
politics moves him - the Boston Globe has reported he's about to cave
in to the RCC on the birth control issue, for one example. Romney has
probably the most "stability" of all the candidates, as he's acted in
an executive capacity both as Governor and as head of the Olympics.
Gingrich has become the most unstable, with his desperation moves
trying to knock down Romney. Santorum is a surprising dark horse who
will appeal to the base more than any of them. Paul is the smartest of
the candidates, but his isolationist aspect is troubling to many, and
not just conservatives. Romney's problem is not lack of stability,
just a personal woodenness that doesn't work well in the political
forum, and a seeming inability to act like he has any humility
whatsoever.

-Owen

[Roland van Gaalen]

I am not giving anyone a pass for anything (as if they needed one) and I agree to some extent with your objections to the self-congratulatory gospel of self-reliance preached by some.

Then again, the libertarians I met when I was a graduate student in California didn't fit your stereotype description.

All things considered I am not at all convinced that Ron Paul is a bad guy.

The other Republican candidates are just boring (although the pompous Newt Gingrich makes me laugh).

Conservatives like Santorum (as well as the other "rising stars" of the Conservative Movment Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio) come a dime a dozen.

Ron Paul is obviously a long-shot candidate, but he has something to say that is worth hearing.

Again, refreshing.

Too bad he isn't a gay atheist.

[Wayne Brown]

William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:jh17u6$6dm$1...@dont-email.me...

>> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> > "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> > news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...

>> >> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> >>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>
>>>>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>>>>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>
>>>>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is
>>>>> highly likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's
> decision.
>
>>>> I hope and pray you're right.
>
>>> Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
>
>> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.
>

> Do you have a defensible reason?

You may or may not consider my reasons defensible. They are based
on traditional Christian morality -- i.e., no sexual relationship is
defensible unless it occurs in private between a man and a woman who
are married to one another. That means that I am opposed not only
to homosexual relationships but also to premarital and extramarital
heterosexual relationships.

This really isn't the right place for a discussion of this nature,
so now that I've made my position clear, I'll bow out and say nothing
further about it here.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

[Jenn]

In article <jh3i16$u13$1...@dont-email.me>,

Then instead of attempting to damn millions of gay couples to a life of
loneliness and instead of trying to impose YOUR moral values on everyone
else, you should simply not be in a relationship with another man.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Wayne Brown]

Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <jh17u6$6dm$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> > news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
>> >>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is highly
>> >>> likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's decision.
>> >>
>> >> I hope and pray you're right.
>> >>
>> > Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
>>
>> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.
>

> Why?

My reasons are based on Biblical principles. For more details, see my
latest reply to William Sommerwerck in <jh3i16$u13$1...@dont-email.me> above.

[Jenn]

In article <jh3ic6$u13$2...@dont-email.me>,

Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <jh17u6$6dm$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> graham <g.st...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Wayne Brown" <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:jgucnb$2h5$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> >> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>> "Frank Berger" <frankd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:0eWdnT1jVeJwV6zS...@supernews.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Some analysts I've seen think it unlikely SCOTUS will review this
> >> >>>> case, nor, of course, that the full 9th Circuit will overturn it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Given the extreme conservatism of the current Supreme Court, it is
> >> >>> highly
> >> >>> likely they will review the case, and overturn the 9th's decision.
> >> >>
> >> >> I hope and pray you're right.
> >> >>
> >> > Why? For what reason(s) don't you like the decision?
> >>
> >> Quite simply, I am opposed to gay mariage.
> >
> > Why?
>
> My reasons are based on Biblical principles. For more details, see my
> latest reply to William Sommerwerck in <jh3i16$u13$1...@dont-email.me> above.

And please see my response to that.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com