Frist Wants to Ban Same-Sex Marriage by Amendment

3 views
Skip to first unread message

mike weber

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 5:24:20 PM6/29/03
to
<begin quote>

Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme
Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said
he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for
relationships between men and women.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament
should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between,
what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as
between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
support the amendment."

<end quote>

<more>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20030629/ts_nm/congress_marriage_dc_4

I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
history of Western culture and values.

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 8:28:22 PM6/29/03
to
On 6/29/03, 4:24:20 PM, mike....@electronictiger.com (mike weber) wrote
> I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
> history of Western culture and values.

You didn't think the Neo Cons would let it stand without a fight?

Neil

When a man thinks with his stomach, he forgets his head.
When he thinks with his head, he forgets his heart.
And when he thinks with his heart......
He forgets everything!

Matt Austern

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:25:37 PM6/29/03
to
Neil Belsky <bea...@medscape.com> writes:

> On 6/29/03, 4:24:20 PM, mike....@electronictiger.com (mike weber) wrote
> > I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
> > history of Western culture and values.
>
> You didn't think the Neo Cons would let it stand without a fight?

I don't think Frist is a neocon. This does not mean that I think
he's an honorable or decent person, mind you. It just means that
words have meanings, and distinctions are worth preserving. The term
"neoconservative" refers to a very specific intellectual tradition,
and, as far as I know, it's not an intellectual tradition that Frist
is part of.

The idea of passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine religious
doctrine comes much closer to the Christian right than to the
neoconservative movement.

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:47:22 PM6/29/03
to
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:24:20 GMT, mike....@electronictiger.com (mike
weber) wrote:

><begin quote>
>
>Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
>Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
>By Peter Kaplan
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
>on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
>marriage.
>
>Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme
>Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said
>he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for
>relationships between men and women.
>
>"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament
>should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between,
>what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as
>between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
>support the amendment."

If he really believes that, he should be working on getting rid of
civil weddings.

> <end quote>
>
><more>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20030629/ts_nm/congress_marriage_dc_4
>
>I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
>history of Western culture and values.

--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:29:26 AM6/30/03
to
mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
> Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the
> Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy
> law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage
> for relationships between men and women.

I hope nobody tells him that the vast majority of sodomy is
heterosexual, or he'll try to ban that, too.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

Kathy Gallagher

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:37:25 AM6/30/03
to

"mike weber" <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote in message
news:3eff58b8...@news.ynt.sbcglobal.net...

> <begin quote>
>
> Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
> Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
> By Peter Kaplan
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
> on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
> marriage.
>
> Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme
> Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said
> he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for
> relationships between men and women.
>
> "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament
> should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between,
> what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as
> between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
> support the amendment."
>
> <end quote>

Marriage was originally a property transaction. It is no longer such a
thing. If marriage is the joinging of two individuals, then let marriage be
for anyone who wants it. It''ll just increase teh revenues of the divorce
lawyers.

KG


mike weber

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 2:26:34 AM6/30/03
to
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:28:22 GMT, Neil Belsky <bea...@medscape.com>
wrote:

>On 6/29/03, 4:24:20 PM, mike....@electronictiger.com (mike weber) wrot=
>e=20
>> I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the=


>
>> history of Western culture and values.
>
>You didn't think the Neo Cons would let it stand without a fight?
>


Of course not.

David G. Bell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 2:30:44 AM6/30/03
to
On 29 Jun, in article
<m1d6gw1...@Matt-Austerns-Computer.local>
aus...@well.com "Matt Austern" wrote:

I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at the
idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would clarify
some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements such as next-
of-kin rights.

The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the idea
may just vanish.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 7:57:30 AM6/30/03
to

On 6/29/03, 10:25:37 PM, Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> wrote
> I don't think Frist is a neocon. This does not mean that I think
> he's an honorable or decent person, mind you. It just means that
> words have meanings, and distinctions are worth preserving. The term
> "neoconservative" refers to a very specific intellectual tradition,
> and, as far as I know, it's not an intellectual tradition that Frist
> is part of.

> The idea of passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine religious
> doctrine comes much closer to the Christian right than to the
> neoconservative movement.

Most of the Neo Cons I've met have a viewpoint that integrates all
aspects (religion in only only part of it) of their lives into a single
philosophical wall.
Since the Shrub has taken power, many of the moderates (Powell,
Todd-Whitman are the prime examples that come to mind) have either been
betrayed, quit, or both.
Frist's financial dealings (his interactions with the HMOs as the best
example) tend to support his being a Neo Con.
Also, the Christian Right at the very least, gives the appearance of
being tied closely to the Neo Conservative movement.

Mark Atwood

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:12:07 AM6/30/03
to
Neil Belsky <bea...@medscape.com> writes:
>
> Most of the Neo Cons I've met have a viewpoint that integrates all
> aspects (religion in only only part of it) of their lives into a single
> philosophical wall.

Any other viewpoint is fractured and insane, and finally, quite
literally 'unprincipled'.

Otherwise, why even bother thinking at all, if you dont organize your
life around your principles?


--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:30:02 AM6/30/03
to

On 6/30/03, 7:12:07 AM, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote
> Any other viewpoint is fractured and insane, and finally, quite
> literally 'unprincipled'.

> Otherwise, why even bother thinking at all, if you dont organize your
> life around your principles?

> --
> Mark Atwood

Speaking as a person who's principles are a polyglot of many different
schools of thought I know that how I think would be rejected out of hand
by anyone with a solid "Wall" based on a single philosophy.
Does this make me unprincipled as I see things? I think not.
Does it make me unprincipled according to people with monolithic
world/life view?
You betcha.

James Nicoll

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:35:38 AM6/30/03
to
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:24:20 GMT, mike....@electronictiger.com (mike
weber) wrote:
>
><begin quote>
>
>Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
>Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
>By Peter Kaplan
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
>on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
>marriage.
>
snip

>"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament
>should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between,
>what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as
>between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
>support the amendment."

If it's a sacrament, it's religious. If it's religious,
then as I understand the US constitution the State has no place
making policy to favor one sect's idea of marriage over any others.

A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to occur
near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves feel more
comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any legal
standing.

James Nicoll
--
"About this time, I started getting depressed. Probably the late
hour and the silence. I decided to put on some music.
Boy, that Billie Holiday can sing."
_Why I Hate Saturn_, Kyle Baker

Manny Olds

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:54:34 AM6/30/03
to
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:

> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to occur
> near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves feel more
> comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any legal
> standing.

This fan speaks my mind.

--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA

"I personally would be happy to campaign not just on behalf of the 9 Noble
Virtues, but of Buddha's 8-Fold Path, the 12 Limbs of Yoga, the 7 Lucky
Charms of Leprechaun Wicca, the 666 Sayings of Satan, anybody the fuck
else who's got a list they'd like to post. And I really think that making
this point absolutely clear might be the only way to penetrate the thick
skulls of many public officials." -- St Loop

Mishalak

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:55:49 AM6/30/03
to
David G. Bell wrote:

> I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at the
> idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would clarify
> some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements such as next-
> of-kin rights.
>
> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the idea
> may just vanish.

Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I had
heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.

Mishalak

Bernard Peek

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 11:34:47 AM6/30/03
to
In message <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>, Mishalak
<cher...@mishalak.com> writes

The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
www.diversebooks.com: SF & Computing book reviews and more.....

In search of cognoscenti

David G. Bell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 11:36:34 AM6/30/03
to
On Monday, in article <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>
cher...@mishalak.com "Mishalak" wrote:

Just after news of the US Supreme Court decision on Sodomy, as I saw it.
And the UK government is snarled up in embarrassing questions about how
it presented the case for war in Iraq.

Yes, it is hopeful, but I don't trust the bastards.

Randolph Fritz

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:37:57 PM6/30/03
to
In article <bdpaqq$2o1$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> If it's a sacrament, it's religious. If it's religious,
> then as I understand the US constitution the State has no place
> making policy to favor one sect's idea of marriage over any others.
>

If the constitution is amended, then it's constitutional.

> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to occur
> near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves feel more
> comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any legal
> standing.

This is actually near to the current situation, save that marriages
are treated specially by state contract law. The only circumstances
under which gay marriages would be legal now are if all states amend
their laws or if the supreme court overturned those laws. Neither is
anything to worry about that I can see.

Randolph

Manny Olds

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:50:21 PM6/30/03
to

Immigration and naturalization laws treat legally-married pairs
differently from other contracted mates.

--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA

"If after some time you can't imagine yourself anywhere else, then apply
for membership. You can belong without joining, but you shouldn't join
without belonging. The hard part is, only you can tell if you belong!"
-- Timothy Keck

Jim Battista

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:56:00 PM6/30/03
to
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in
news:bdpaqq$2o1$1...@panix2.panix.com:

> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to
> occur near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves
> feel more comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any
> legal standing.

I'd support that. I think that having ministers of whatever faith out
there doing Caesar's business WRT civil marriage is just wrong. And it
blurs the distinction between whatever sort of mystical holy union the
couple is getting, and the utterly boring and businesslike legal
changes.

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

John Bartley K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 2:32:18 PM6/30/03
to
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:57:30 GMT, Neil Belsky <bea...@medscape.com> wrote:

>Most of the Neo Cons I've met have a viewpoint that integrates all
>aspects (religion in only only part of it) of their lives into a single
>philosophical wall.

Yeah, they lifted the idea from Objectivism, but it does not work quite so
well, especially for folks on the outside of that wall. But, then, good
fences make good neighbors.
--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

Manny Olds

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 3:02:40 PM6/30/03
to

I am in an add position: what passes for clergy in a religion that doesn't
hold marriage to be a particularly religious thing at all, living in a
state that requires a "what passes for clergy" to officiate at
non-courthouse weddings. So I have ended up doing weddings for people who
are not of my religion and who were not interested in religious marriage
anyway, so they could get their ticket punched.

I always tell people "Say you are married in front of me and other
witnesses and I will sign your paper." So far, however, they have always
wanted a bit of foofadoodle to mark the occasion and I have obliged. (I
have a good non-denominational community-and-contract emphasizing wedding
ceremony if anyone needs one.)

I don't understand why people in this situation don't get their legal
paperwork signed when they are at the clerk's office anyway and then do
the foofadoodle when and how it is convenient. But most people (it seems)
are programmed to need a "real" wedding.

--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA

"The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are
wisely careful never to set up any of their own."-- Edmund Burke

Andy Leighton

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 3:21:40 PM6/30/03
to
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:34:47 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> In message <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>, Mishalak
><cher...@mishalak.com> writes
>>David G. Bell wrote:
>>
>>> I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at
>>>the idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would
>>>clarify some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements
>>>such as next- of-kin rights.
>>> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the
>>>idea may just vanish.
>>
>>Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I
>>had heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.
>
> The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
> unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
> announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.

The news this evening suggests that the new (not-marriage) contract
will just be for same sex partners. It seems that it doesn't offer anything
to unmarried heterosexual partners (or even non-sexual relationships).

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Karen Lofstrom

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 5:44:40 PM6/30/03
to
In article <bdpaqq$2o1$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll wrote:

> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18.

Here I trot out my hobbyhorse. Let the bunds handle family law (marriage,
divorce, inheritance) and the territorial government merely enforce the
rulings of the various family courts. If one is a member of the Southern
Baptist Bund, then gay marriage is right out. However, join the
Universalist Bund and any arrangement of consenting adults is OK.

--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevermore

Timothy McDaniel

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:25:20 PM6/30/03
to
In article <bdqh76$nr0$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
Paul Ciszek <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>The ammendment that established Prohibition made a specific exemption
>for religious use of wine.

No, it didn't.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxviii.html>

Amendment XVIII

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article
the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof
from the United States and all territory subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have
concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have
been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the
legislatures of the several states, as provided in the
Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission
hereof to the states by the Congress.

>Whether or not this violated the establishment clause was irellevent

The entire act is at
<http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1920s/Volstead.html>. It
exempted sacramental wine, subject to permits and record-keeping.

Using
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=US&CiRestriction=%2522National+Prohibition+Act%2522+AND+sacramental>
I was unable to find any cases that came before the US Supreme Court
on this issue.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address

David Friedman

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:39:40 PM6/30/03
to
In article <Xns93AA838F846A...@216.168.3.44>,
Jim Battista <batt...@unt.edu> wrote:

I also find the idea of getting the state uninvolved with marriage an
attractive one.

A friend of ours used to be an Episcopal minister--indeed, she married
us. I remember discussing marriage with her and discovering that one
requirement for the Episcopal church to marry you is (or, at the time,
was) that you can be legally married in the country where you are being
married. I objected that the church ought not to let the state make a
religious decision for it--the decision of who was permitted the
sacrament of matrimony.

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

Karen Lofstrom

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 8:50:21 PM6/30/03
to
In article <bdqhts$lh9$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Paul Ciszek wrote:

> "This was completely legal. As this document from the Islamic Bund
> shows, I followed all the rules and met all the requirements when I
> killed my unfaithful wife and promiscuous daughter."
>
> Give me one law for all, please.

Where did I say that the bunds would make ALL laws? I said marriage,
divorce, and inheritance. Not criminal and commercial. Those affect
everyone.

--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member #462 of the Lumber Cartel (TINLC)

Karen Lofstrom

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 4:34:53 AM7/1/03
to
In article <bdquca$nha$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Paul Ciszek wrote:

> You said you wanted to let the Bunds take care of "family law", and gave
> an example of a Baptist Bund. If we forbid the bunds from acting in
> maters of infidelity, unchastity, or racial issues, and do not let them
> make their own rules about child custody and child discipline/abuse, then
> there isn't much "family law" left for them to be in charge of.

Suppose that bunds could make laws about anything, but were limited in the
punishments they could impose. Fines or expulsion, that's all. The state
would be involved only in enforcing any rulings involving property (which
would include fines and inheritance).

Child discipline/abuse and child custody are difficult. I myself would
favor treating children like "guests" in the bund until they are old
enough to choose for themselves, in which case spanking would be right
out. I know that you can raise children without hitting them -- though
sometimes you have to restrain them, which is a grey area. Custody is also
difficult. A well-run bund would necessarily have laws which would spell
out in exquisite detail just what would happen if a couple split and one
wanted to leave the bund, one wanted to stay. Like a pre-nuptial
agreement. No one would want to commit to it unless it were fair.
Circumcision would also be a difficult matter to resolve.

You didn't bring up one area that could be the most difficult -- bund
schisms and bund property. Suppose a clique took control of a bund and
then fined everyone else to the limit of their ability to pay and then
expelled them. Leaving the majority outside, stripped of their assets, and
a minority gloating. If you let a territorial court rule on these matters,
then there's a possibility that a territory would use this to control the
bunds. But without some kind of arbiter or extremely well-drafted ground
rules, you could have some jolly smash-ups.

At least the consequences would be limited to everyone having to start
from scratch again -- like a bad divorce. Not at all as bad as a civil
war.

--
Karen Lofstrom SCIENTOLOGIST BAIT lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OT7-48 1. Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them
individually until you know they received your communication.

Steve Cooper

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 5:08:20 AM7/1/03
to
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:34:47 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>>In message <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>, Mishalak
>><cher...@mishalak.com> writes
>>
>>>David G. Bell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at
>>>>the idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would
>>>>clarify some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements
>>>>such as next- of-kin rights.
>>>> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the
>>>>idea may just vanish.
>>>
>>>Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I
>>>had heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.
>>
>>The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
>>unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
>>announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.
>
>
> The news this evening suggests that the new (not-marriage) contract
> will just be for same sex partners. It seems that it doesn't offer anything
> to unmarried heterosexual partners (or even non-sexual relationships).
>

There's not much point offering it to hetrosexuals. From all
I've seen its the same as marriage, without using the term.
You'll even need to go to court to get a divorce should the
relationship break down, with alimony and the all the other
implications that this brings.

So hetrosexual couples already have access to this, they just
get to call if getting married, which I'm sure will be the
common vernacular for the same sex ceremonies. We probably do
need a proper partnership registration scheme open to both
types of couple. But that will probably be a few years away.

Steve Cooper

David G. Bell

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 5:31:16 AM7/1/03
to
On Tuesday, in article <bdrj25$ngk$1...@box-public-8.jet.uk>
s...@jet.uk "Steve Cooper" wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal fine detail were to be different.
There might not be the accumulated biases that there can be in
conventional male-female marriage, gradually being eroded, such as
assumptions about who supports whom.

I could see some of that feeding into the law on conventional marriage.

JFW Richards

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 9:07:30 AM7/1/03
to
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote in message news:<ZrIJjIBXiFA$Ew...@shrdlu.com>...

> In message <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>, Mishalak
> <cher...@mishalak.com> writes
> >David G. Bell wrote:
> >
> >> I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at
> >>the idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would
> >>clarify some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements
> >>such as next- of-kin rights.
> >> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the
> >>idea may just vanish.
> >
> >Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I
> >had heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.
>
> The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
> unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
> announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.

The government spokesman on the Today Programme said explicitly that
these proposals were intended for gay partners in long term
relationships only and that unmarried hetrosexual couples would not be
covered as they already had the option of getting married and thus
enjoying the benefits that the proposals covered.

Regards
JFWR

Steve Cooper

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 9:13:22 AM7/1/03
to

Yes, I can see nothing but good coming from this, for both
hetrosexual and same sex couples. Same sex couples will get
the legal recognition so long denied them and as a result
get the support to make the relationships more stable. For
hetrosexual couples marriage will be moved one step further
from its religeous origins and away from the male bias that
resulted from this origin, towards been a true partnership.
I cannot see any down side to this proposition, and can't
see why this proposition shouldn't just go through with ease.

It won't of course because of the HoL and the in-built bias
that place has for the status quo.

Steve Cooper

Lucy Kemnitzer

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 8:50:50 AM7/1/03
to
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:35:00 +0000 (UTC), pci...@TheWorld.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>In article <bdpt8t$hsu$1...@news1.radix.net>,


>Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In article <bdpaqq$2o1$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
>>>> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
>>>> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
>>>> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
>>>> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
>>>> kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to occur
>>>> near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves feel more
>>>> comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any legal
>>>> standing.
>>
>>> This is actually near to the current situation, save that marriages
>>> are treated specially by state contract law. The only circumstances
>>> under which gay marriages would be legal now are if all states amend
>>> their laws or if the supreme court overturned those laws. Neither is
>>> anything to worry about that I can see.
>>
>>Immigration and naturalization laws treat legally-married pairs
>>differently from other contracted mates.
>

>How do immigration and naturalization laws treat legally-married more-than-
>pairs?
>

You can get a green card, and often amnesty on violating the
numerous,complicated, capricious and constantly changing migra rules,
if you're married to a citizen. And the spouse of a green card holder
has a better chnace of getting a green card than the merely partnered.


And depending on the mood of the moment, cohabiting without marriage
can actually count against you in immigration hearings. As can being
gay.

Or lately, being from anywhere in North Africa, the Eastern
Mediterranean, the Indian Subcontinent and the contiguous mountainous
areas of Asia except for Tibet, and most of southern and eastern Asia.
Especially if you are male. Did I mention that the INS wields its
unchecked, enormous power capriciously, cruelly, and secretly?

Lucy Kemnitzet

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 10:33:49 AM7/1/03
to

On 7/1/03, 7:50:50 AM, rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) wrote
> Or lately, being from anywhere in North Africa, the Eastern
> Mediterranean, the Indian Subcontinent and the contiguous mountainous
> areas of Asia except for Tibet, and most of southern and eastern Asia.
> Especially if you are male. Did I mention that the INS wields its
> unchecked, enormous power capriciously, cruelly, and secretly?

> Lucy Kemnitzer

Actually, no one organization wields power " capriciously, cruelly, and
secretly".
My experience (Canadian immigration) taught me that the people who
enforce the rules control how they are applied, and even the most liberal
and fair system fails when you have bigoted bureaucrats administering it.

Manny Olds

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 10:42:02 AM7/1/03
to
Steve Cooper <s...@jet.uk> wrote (among other things):

> For hetrosexual couples marriage will be moved one step further
> from its religeous origins and away from the male bias that
> resulted from this origin,

First of all, "marriage" doesn't have any one origin. There is at least
one per culture, and that rather dim in the past.

Second, and more pointed, even in Western European Christian culture,
marriage was a completely non-religious affair until something like the
11th century.

--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA

"Real Men don't ask reference librarians -- or anyone else -- for help.
Real Women are too considerate to impose on reference librarians by asking
them for help." -- Dan Goodman

Manny Olds

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:02:45 AM7/1/03
to
Paul Ciszek <pci...@theworld.com> wrote:

> Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>Immigration and naturalization laws treat legally-married pairs
>>differently from other contracted mates.

> How do immigration and naturalization laws treat legally-married more-than-
> pairs?

Badly. For immigration purposes, you have to choose one each male and
female to be "married" and get the benefits thereof. In theory, this is
just to torment you, because polygamy is among the disqualifying moral
offenses to permanent residence or naturalization--alongside prostitution,
drug-smuggling, and being an habitual drunkard.

http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm

--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA

"Feel free to provide authoritative references; in the meantime, you
won't mind if we conclude that you're simply making this up." -- Ian York

David G. Bell

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 10:29:43 AM7/1/03
to
On Tuesday, in article <bds1dj$3qh$1...@box-public-8.jet.uk>
s...@jet.uk "Steve Cooper" wrote:

> It won't of course because of the HoL and the in-built bias
> that place has for the status quo.

HoL = House of Lords

Steve Cooper

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:02:43 AM7/1/03
to
Manny Olds wrote:
> Steve Cooper <s...@jet.uk> wrote (among other things):
>
>
>>For hetrosexual couples marriage will be moved one step further
>>from its religeous origins and away from the male bias that
>>resulted from this origin,
>
>
> First of all, "marriage" doesn't have any one origin. There is at least
> one per culture, and that rather dim in the past.
>
> Second, and more pointed, even in Western European Christian culture,
> marriage was a completely non-religious affair until something like the
> 11th century.
>

Yes, but what we concider marriage to be today
in the UK does owe most, it not all, of its
characteristics to these religious ceremonies.

I'm not claiming the marriage is a specifically
Christian idea, just that what has commonly
become thought of as marriage, in the UK, does,
and the quicker and further from these roots we
can move the idea of marriage the better. I look
forward to the day when what we consider to be a
married person in the UK is as divergent as are
the people of the UK, and we no longer think that
to be married fits you into this pseudo-christian
straight jacket that it does at present.

Steve Cooper

Kip Williams

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 12:49:38 PM7/1/03
to
David G. Bell wrote:
> On Tuesday, in article <bds1dj$3qh$1...@box-public-8.jet.uk>
> s...@jet.uk "Steve Cooper" wrote:
>
>>It won't of course because of the HoL and the in-built bias
>>that place has for the status quo.
>
> HoL = House of Lords

Hey, cool! I guessed correctly on the "of" part.

--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"When I go in-to the wood / I see the lit-tle bun-nies, eat-ing
por-ridge as they should. / Those clev-er lit-tle rab-bits!"
--Mother Goosery Rinds

mike weber

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 1:08:37 PM7/1/03
to

As someone else has pointed out, "marriage" has certain legal
implications in re immigration/naturalisation laws that other
contracts do not. This may be significant here, too.

mike weber

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 1:12:15 PM7/1/03
to
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:50:50 GMT, rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer)
wrote:

>Did I mention that the INS wields its
>unchecked, enormous power capriciously, cruelly, and secretly?
>

Talk to my brother about their attempts (finally successful) to adopt
Cambodian orphan twins. There was apparently corruption at fairly
high levels involved in *that* shemozzle.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 2:22:53 PM7/1/03
to
Steve Cooper <s...@jet.uk> writes:

> There's not much point offering it to hetrosexuals. From all
> I've seen its the same as marriage, without using the term.
> You'll even need to go to court to get a divorce should the
> relationship break down, with alimony and the all the other
> implications that this brings.
>
> So hetrosexual couples already have access to this, they just
> get to call if getting married, which I'm sure will be the
> common vernacular for the same sex ceremonies. We probably do
> need a proper partnership registration scheme open to both
> types of couple. But that will probably be a few years away.

Marriage is essentiall a religious tradition. Many people might want
to register their relationship without having that baggage attached.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>

David Friedman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 3:43:17 PM7/1/03
to
In article <1b6b638a76d3e28efe5fdfba2db04ece@TeraNews>,
Neil Belsky <bea...@medscape.com> wrote:

> On 7/1/03, 7:50:50 AM, rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) wrote
> > Or lately, being from anywhere in North Africa, the Eastern
> > Mediterranean, the Indian Subcontinent and the contiguous mountainous
> > areas of Asia except for Tibet, and most of southern and eastern Asia.
> > Especially if you are male. Did I mention that the INS wields its
> > unchecked, enormous power capriciously, cruelly, and secretly?
>
> > Lucy Kemnitzer
>
> Actually, no one organization wields power " capriciously, cruelly, and
> secretly".
> My experience (Canadian immigration) taught me that the people who
> enforce the rules control how they are applied, and even the most liberal
> and fair system fails when you have bigoted bureaucrats administering it.

I think the empirical side of this issue would be whether the caprice
depends on the views of the organization as a whole or of the particular
bureaucrat. Correlated or random caprice.

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

David Friedman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 3:45:47 PM7/1/03
to
In article <b9835481.03070...@posting.google.com>,
jfwri...@yahoo.co.uk (JFW Richards) wrote:

> The government spokesman on the Today Programme said explicitly that
> these proposals were intended for gay partners in long term
> relationships only and that unmarried hetrosexual couples would not be
> covered as they already had the option of getting married and thus
> enjoying the benefits that the proposals covered.

What about m/f sibling or parent/child pairs? They don't have the option
of getting married but might want to live together on a long term basis.

For that matter, what about f/f or m/m pairs whose relationship is
longterm but not sexual--sisters living together, for example.

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

David Friedman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 3:50:48 PM7/1/03
to
In article <bds1dj$3qh$1...@box-public-8.jet.uk>,
Steve Cooper <s...@jet.uk> wrote:

> For
> hetrosexual couples marriage will be moved one step further
> from its religeous origins and away from the male bias that
> resulted from this origin, towards been a true partnership.

I'm curious as to why you regard marriage as having religious origins
and its biases coming from those origins. I believe monogamous marriage
is the usual human mating pattern in almost all known societies, past
and present--if anything, modern developed societies may come closest to
violating that pattern. Even in societies where polygyny or polyandry
exists it has usually been practiced by only a small minority--at least
from the cases I have read about.

And in almost all past societies there was a sexual division of labor
and general assymetry between husband and wife. Why would you trace that
to religion--and what religion would you trace it to?

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 3:51:59 PM7/1/03
to
On 7/1/03, 2:43:17 PM, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote
> I think the empirical side of this issue would be whether the caprice
> depends on the views of the organization as a whole or of the particular
> bureaucrat. Correlated or random caprice.

Interesting point.
If a person is hired based on non personal means (say for example, a
basic civil service test, it it likely that it can be ascribed to random
caprice.
If they are hired as a result of personal influence of an existing member
of the hierarchy, I'll go with the the organization as a whole being
corrupt, but still, policies tend to (at the very least) try to exist
independently of the people who enforce them.

David Friedman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 3:57:03 PM7/1/03
to
In article <vg2htdh...@corp.supernews.com>,
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:

> You didn't bring up one area that could be the most difficult -- bund
> schisms and bund property. Suppose a clique took control of a bund and
> then fined everyone else to the limit of their ability to pay and then
> expelled them.

This whole discussion seems to take it for granted that the bund itself
has a hierarchical authority structure to be taken control of.

The closest real world equivalent to your proposal that occurs to me
would be the four orthodox schools of law in Sunni Islam. In a medieval
Islamic city, as I understand it, there would typically be separate
court systems for each school, dealing largely with family law, contract
law, and the like. But there was no legislature. The legal doctrines of
each school reflected the views of the legal scholars that made up the
school.

You could, I suppose, have a corrupt judge of a particular school doing
the sort of thing you describe.

My other problem with the scenario you describe is that it only works if
there is a substantial time delay in leaving a bund--or if the coup is
so fast that the court cases are decided before the potential victims
have an opportunity to flee.

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 6:03:03 PM7/1/03
to
On 1 Jul 2003 06:07:30 -0700, jfwri...@yahoo.co.uk (JFW Richards)
wrote:

You're the second UK person who typed "hetrosexual" instead of
"heterosexual." Is this the common UK spelling?

--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 6:45:52 PM7/1/03
to
Here, Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:

> You're the second UK person who typed "hetrosexual" instead of
> "heterosexual." Is this the common UK spelling?

No, but it *is* a common UK pronunciation. As usual, pronunciation
leaks.

--Z (mutter mutter, what those heathens are doing to *our* national
language, -ish)

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.

Inspector J Lee

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 7:51:37 PM7/1/03
to
: "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament
: should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between,
: what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as
: between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
: support the amendment."

If it's a sacrament, then doesn't it fall under the heading of separation of
church and state? What's this idiot doing trying to shove his silly cristian
religion down everyone else's throat? Let him practice his silly
"sacraments" in his own damn church and leave us poor rationalists alone.
Well, what do you want from some idiot who can't spell "first."


David Friedman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 7:58:45 PM7/1/03
to
In article <b0a2c22fa2fc4e7dc0ba5051dbb92bf2@TeraNews>,
Neil Belsky <bea...@medscape.com> wrote:

> On 7/1/03, 2:43:17 PM, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote
> > I think the empirical side of this issue would be whether the caprice
> > depends on the views of the organization as a whole or of the particular
> > bureaucrat. Correlated or random caprice.
>
> Interesting point.
> If a person is hired based on non personal means (say for example, a
> basic civil service test, it it likely that it can be ascribed to random
> caprice.
> If they are hired as a result of personal influence of an existing member
> of the hierarchy, I'll go with the the organization as a whole being
> corrupt, but still, policies tend to (at the very least) try to exist
> independently of the people who enforce them.

But you could hire peole on the basis of a civil service test and still
make it clear to them that how well they did in the organization
depended in part on their enforcing organizational
caprice--discriminating against groups that the party in power thought
likely to support the other party, say, in the case of immigration rules.

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

David Friedman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 8:00:14 PM7/1/03
to
In article <m21xxaa...@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> Marriage is essentiall a religious tradition. Many people might want
> to register their relationship without having that baggage attached.

I don't agree that marriage is *essentially* a religious tradition,
given that the same tradition exists, with minor variants, across very
nearly all religions and all societies.

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

Karen Lofstrom

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 9:30:04 PM7/1/03
to
In article <bdt48a$6cc$1...@pcls4.std.com>, Paul Ciszek wrote:

> Once an NPR station had a program about a insular religious sect
> that was fairly communal-- I think it was the Hutterites. There
> were people who had briefly dabbled in the lifestyle gushing about
> how great it was, while people who had grown up in it warned that the
> church elders controlled *everything*, that to leave meant to give
> up all property and social and economic connections, to be plunged
> into poverty and isolation-- and that this threat keeps some families
> in the system against their will for generation after generation.
> Your "Bund" system would give additional legal legitimacy to such
> religious hierarchies, and make the situation worse. No, thank you.

You start again naked, with nothing ... how is that different from being
born? A great many people have been forced to do that, or even willing to
do that, and have done well in their second lives.

I'm not saying that it's nice, or that it would necessarily be fair. The
point is that it is an alternative to the ur-primate model of one troupe,
one territory. If the troupe splits, which they do, then there's bloody
civil war, and where territories abut, there's war tout simple. We've been
doing that for millenia. I'm trying to think of alternatives, and building
on what seems to have worked.

You can join the secular humanist bund, where the rules have been worked
out in detail by fiendishly clever lawyers to properly safeguard the
possessions of anyone who joins and later decides to leave. Religious
fervor will be punishable by expulsion :)

--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Usenet had a coat of arms, the
motto on the banner would be "SO THERE". -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 9:51:12 PM7/1/03
to

On 7/1/03, 8:30:04 PM, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote

> You start again naked, with nothing ... how is that different from being
> born? A great many people have been forced to do that, or even willing to
> do that, and have done well in their second lives.

> I'm not saying that it's nice, or that it would necessarily be fair. The
> point is that it is an alternative to the ur-primate model of one troupe,
> one territory. If the troupe splits, which they do, then there's bloody
> civil war, and where territories abut, there's war tout simple. We've
been
> doing that for millenia. I'm trying to think of alternatives, and
building
> on what seems to have worked.

> You can join the secular humanist bund, where the rules have been worked
> out in detail by fiendishly clever lawyers to properly safeguard the
> possessions of anyone who joins and later decides to leave. Religious
> fervor will be punishable by expulsion :)

> --
> Karen Lofstrom

So, basically, anything you earn while you are a part of the bundt is
theirs?

Kip Williams

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 10:00:32 PM7/1/03
to
Neil Belsky wrote:
> On 7/1/03, 8:30:04 PM, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote

>>You can join the secular humanist bund, where the rules have been worked


>>out in detail by fiendishly clever lawyers to properly safeguard the
>>possessions of anyone who joins and later decides to leave. Religious
>>fervor will be punishable by expulsion :)
>

> So, basically, anything you earn while you are a part of the bundt is
> theirs?

Unless they decide to toss you a crumb...

--
--Kip (Williams) ...with the three dots of humor at members.cox.net/kipw

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:11:49 PM7/1/03
to
On 7/1/03, 9:00:32 PM, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote
> Unless they decide to toss you a crumb...

> --
> --Kip (Williams)

To misquote The Talking Rings:
"I think I take my chance on the surface.....
However poor they are."

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:24:27 PM7/1/03
to
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 02:00:32 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:

>Neil Belsky wrote:
>> On 7/1/03, 8:30:04 PM, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote
>
>>>You can join the secular humanist bund, where the rules have been worked
>>>out in detail by fiendishly clever lawyers to properly safeguard the
>>>possessions of anyone who joins and later decides to leave. Religious
>>>fervor will be punishable by expulsion :)
>>
>> So, basically, anything you earn while you are a part of the bundt is
>> theirs?
>
>Unless they decide to toss you a crumb...

That takes the cake!

David Burns

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:32:32 PM7/1/03
to
"Neil Belsky" <bea...@medscape.com> wrote in message
news:7e3f0c8d016f31069c1d3dd2cfe578c5@TeraNews...

>So, basically, anything you earn while you are a part of the
>bundt is theirs?

I guess they want to have their cake and eat it too.


David Friedman

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:47:52 PM7/1/03
to
In article <vg4dcsa...@corp.supernews.com>,
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:

> I'm not saying that it's nice, or that it would necessarily be fair. The
> point is that it is an alternative to the ur-primate model of one troupe,
> one territory.

While your system might well be an improvement on what we have--indeed
in some ways a step towards my rather different radical restructuring of
the legal system--it isn't all that new. Systems where people under the
same sovereign were under different legal systems were pretty common in
the Middle Ages.

--
www.daviddfriedman.com

Neil Belsky

unread,
Jul 1, 2003, 11:49:28 PM7/1/03
to

On 7/1/03, 9:00:32 PM, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote > Unless they decide
to toss you a crumb...

> --
> --Kip (Williams)

All right.
So I made a mistake.
How long are you going to layer it on?

Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 12:04:19 AM7/2/03
to
In article <3F023CC0...@cox.net>, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> writes:
>Neil Belsky wrote:
>> On 7/1/03, 8:30:04 PM, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote
>
>>>You can join the secular humanist bund, where the rules have been worked
>>>out in detail by fiendishly clever lawyers to properly safeguard the
>>>possessions of anyone who joins and later decides to leave. Religious
>>>fervor will be punishable by expulsion :)
>>
>> So, basically, anything you earn while you are a part of the bundt is
>> theirs?
>
>Unless they decide to toss you a crumb...

Let them eat cake.

-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================

Karen Lofstrom

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 12:10:58 AM7/2/03
to
In article <ddfr-DAFC1B.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net>,
David Friedman wrote:

> I'm curious as to why you regard marriage as having religious origins
> and its biases coming from those origins. I believe monogamous marriage
> is the usual human mating pattern in almost all known societies, past
> and present--if anything, modern developed societies may come closest to
> violating that pattern. Even in societies where polygyny or polyandry
> exists it has usually been practiced by only a small minority--at least
> from the cases I have read about.

I think you need to read more anthropology.

IMHO, human mating patterns tend to veer between the chimp and the bonobo.
In the first, the female tries to choose and the male chimp tries to
prevent choice, by herding her off to a place where he'll have her to
himself. In the second, the females DO choose, and the males don't try to
prevent choice.

In human societies, you have a great many where the males
try to prevent female choice and treat women as possessions (and he who
has the most has the most glory). Patriarchies, often allowing or
condoning multiple partners for the male.

Then there are the societies (frequent but not so many) where the lineage
is counted through females, the male-female pair is not the husband and
wife but the brother and sister, and where women decide with whom they
copulate. A few, even, in which there is NO marriage whatsoever and the
one-night stand is the cultural norm.

Then you have intermediate societies, like Tonga where I did my fieldwork,
where the kinship system is a hybrid.

My idiosyncratic theories, but just about any student of kinship would say
that there are more patterns than monogamy.


--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What does he expect from the computer community?
Normality? Sorry pal, we're fresh out. -- Bruce Sterling

Karen Lofstrom

unread,
Jul 2, 2003, 12:25:26 AM7/2/03