Frist Wants to Ban Same-Sex Marriage by Amendment
mike weber
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>
I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
history of Western culture and values.
Neil Belsky
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
"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
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
<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
On 6/29/03, 10:25:37 PM, Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> wrote
> 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
>
> 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
On 6/30/03, 7:12:07 AM, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote
> 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
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.
>
>"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
> 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
> 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
<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
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
>
> 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
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
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)
>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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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.
Karen Lofstrom
> "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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
On 7/1/03, 7:50:50 AM, rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) wrote
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
> 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
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.
David Friedman
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.
David Friedman
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?
Neil Belsky
> 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
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.
Marilee J. Layman
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
> 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
: 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
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.
David Friedman
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.
Karen Lofstrom
> 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
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
> 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
> --
> --Kip (Williams)
To misquote The Talking Rings:
"I think I take my chance on the surface.....
However poor they are."
Marilee J. Layman
>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
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
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.
Neil Belsky
On 7/1/03, 9:00:32 PM, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote > Unless they decide
> --
> --Kip (Williams)
All right.
So I made a mistake.
How long are you going to layer it on?
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>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
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
> So, basically, anything you earn while you are a part of the bundt is
> theirs?
If the government has the power to tax, then any government has that power
-- in theory.
I would imagine that there would be communist bunds, where everything
would be held in common, ad devil-take-the-hindmost libertarian bunds
which advertised that they did not exercise their power to tax for bund
purposes and they'd let you die in the street if you couldn't take care of
yourself. Not my choice, but some people would go for it.
Then you'd still have the territorial taxes, which I would imagine would
be a combination of land taxes, usage taxes, and per capita taxes. To pay
for police, roads, etc. But nothing for education, health care, pensions,
and such-like social purposes.
The thinking behind that is that the social welfare taxes are the ones
that people MOST object to paying -- very often on the grounds that if
certain groups (not *them*) would just behave properly (as defined by
*them*) social spending would plummet. So, you let groups pay the piper
for their own behavior. As I said previously, the Seventh Day Adventists
would have low health insurance payments and the Party Hard bund would pay
high rates. Bunds that educated their kids to get good jobs would have
prosperous members; bunds that didn't value education would reap the
results.
Or so I think. It's possible that a real life experiment would upend all
my assumptions about what is common sense behavior. That's all to the
good. I'm not imagining a utopia that only works if everyone thinks the
way I do. I'm imagining a utopia where, to my horror, the LDS might be the
fittest group :)
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look! Leo's mutating into a fire truck!
David Friedman
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) 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.
(various examples snipped)
> My idiosyncratic theories, but just about any student of kinship would say
> that there are more patterns than monogamy.
I didn't say that monogamy was the only pattern. I said it was the usual
pattern in almost all known societies--i.e. most people engage in it. I
said nothing at all about how kinship was calculated.
I may be mistaken, but I had thought that human societies without some
sort of long term pair bond associated with sex and children were
uncommon.
Can you suggests a good readable reference that demonstrates my belief
is mistaken?
Mark Atwood
>
> So, basically, anything you earn while you are a part of the bundt is
> theirs?
That *is* apparently the basic axiom of socialism.
--
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
Mark Atwood
> good. I'm not imagining a utopia that only works if everyone thinks the
> way I do. I'm imagining a utopia where, to my horror, the LDS might be the
> fittest group :)
They do have the *ONLY* actually implemented, operating, practical,
sustainable welfare system I have ever heard described.
I may have basically walked away from the rest of it, but I still pay
my monthy Fast Offering, just in case...
(The founder of J C Penney's, while not an LDS, had been when a youth
saved from starvation by LDS Welfare, so he paid Fast Offerings
himself, for the rest of his life, in gratitude.)
Mark Atwood
>
> 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.
Such a wonderful system, where a man doesn't even have to be "oops"'ed
to get stuck with supporting the kids.
In systems were its the genetic father who has the breadwinning
responsability, he can opt out by refusing to fuck in a fertile
manner.
Matrilinial systems cleverly counter that defense.
No thanks.
Karen Lofstrom
David Friedman wrote:
> I may be mistaken, but I had thought that human societies without some
> sort of long term pair bond associated with sex and children were
> uncommon.
This is where it gets difficult. "Common" is not easy to evaluate. I think
it would be easy to demonstrate that of all the people living today, most
of them live in societies where some form of marriage is recognized. If
you counted "cultures" one by one, without any reference to the number of
people in those "cultures", you'd still have a hard time getting a number,
because "cultures" don't come with lines drawn around them. I'd have to
muck with the Human Relations Area Files to even get an approximate figure
and even then I wouldn't want to try to defend it.
I think it could be argued, however, that societies with male-dominated
monogamous or polygamous have been the most successful in terms of
numbers. Kinda like kudzu.
However, there is a lot of evidence that the more bonobo-like systems were
more common in the past. I don't even want to go near the discredited
arguments about the wonderful earth-mother matriarchal past overthrown by
the evil patriarchalists. It's a good guess that the patriarchalists were
always around. But still ...
And perhaps we're heading back to the matrilineage. Patterns in Russian
and African-American society suggest a trend that way. Divorce rates point
that way. Dunno.
> Can you suggests a good readable reference that demonstrates my belief
> is mistaken?
No, it's been years since read exteensively on the subject and when I did,
I was reading nothing that would remotely qualify as readable. It would
take me a good long browse in a big university bookstore to get some idea
of what's out there now. Whatever is current is probably slathered with a
good dose of deliberately inaccessible pomo jargon.
Geez, maybe there's a market there. Kinship for Dummies?
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
--------------------------------------------------
"A man could not be in two places at the same time
unless he were a bird!" -- Sir Boyle Roche
David Friedman
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
> In article <ddfr-D0FD26.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net>,
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > I may be mistaken, but I had thought that human societies without some
> > sort of long term pair bond associated with sex and children were
> > uncommon.
>
> This is where it gets difficult. "Common" is not easy to evaluate. I think
> it would be easy to demonstrate that of all the people living today, most
> of them live in societies where some form of marriage is recognized. If
> you counted "cultures" one by one, without any reference to the number of
> people in those "cultures", you'd still have a hard time getting a number,
> because "cultures" don't come with lines drawn around them. I'd have to
> muck with the Human Relations Area Files to even get an approximate figure
> and even then I wouldn't want to try to defend it.
>
> I think it could be argued, however, that societies with male-dominated
> monogamous or polygamous have been the most successful in terms of
> numbers. Kinda like kudzu.
I think if you check back to my post, I didn't specify "male dominated,"
merely different roles for the sexes.
But in any case, I was responding to statements about the religious
origins of marriage. If my claim is merely true for societies since the
agricultural revolution and falls down on hunter gatherers, I think
that's sufficient for the argument, since we don't know enough about
early agriculturalists to attribute their mating customs to religion.
David G. Bell
<j714gv8gti9jdnkv3...@4ax.com>
I suspect people may be spelling the word they hear.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Steve Cooper
of in the U.K. Where until recently you could only be
"married" in a Church or Registry office, and ceremonies
in other places were not legally recognised. Even today
although the location of the ceremony has broadened, the
people able to officiate have not. People of other faiths
are forced to have two ceremonies, one by their religious
officiate (so that they are married in the eyes of their
god) and a second officiated by a civil registrar (so
they are married legally).
But even this civil ceremony has its roots in the Christian
marriage ceremony and the concept of what a marriage is has
its roots in Christianity. For what is basically a secular
society, where less than 1 in 10 are regular church goers
this is an anachronism. Its time that the legal concept of
marriage was shifted from tghis historic perspective, and
made what it should be a legal contact giving rights and
responsibilities to those that is joins. People can still
have their religious ceremonies for the minority that this
means anything to, and the rest of us can celebrate our
joining in what ever way we want to. The same sex legislation
proposed is the first step on this road, as there is no
reason why civil marriage should be limited to a heterosexual
couple.
Steve Cooper
David Friedman wrote:
> 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?
>
Karen Lofstrom
David Friedman wrote:
> But in any case, I was responding to statements about the religious
> origins of marriage. If my claim is merely true for societies since the
> agricultural revolution and falls down on hunter gatherers, I think
> that's sufficient for the argument, since we don't know enough about
> early agriculturalists to attribute their mating customs to religion.
Things get fuzzy again. How you define religion is an issue (a biiiig
issue) and the extent to which religion supports custom can vary from
society to society. Frex, religion may or may not regulate what you eat.
Christians can chow down on just about anything (except human flesh, I
suppose) but Orthodox Jews follow all sorts of rules. Some religions may
regulate marriage (as Confucians did) and others may not (Buddhist
priests, in Asia, do funerals, not marriages).
Still, in the majority of cases, religion has been the ultimate rationale
for "why we do the incomprehensible things we do and shut up!" Regarded
from a certain viewpoint, it makes sense. Frex, if more children survive
if they are nursed until they are two, and if an extended post-partum
sexual taboo ensures that no new pregnancies interrupt this, then you
might end up with religious rules about post-partum sex. Which no one can
explain or justify, they just know that everything works better if we do
it just as specified by the gods/ancestors.
Which is why some people go ballistic when you say "gay marriage" because
"God said" and "this is the way things have always been" and "society will
go to hell in a handbasket if X".
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to realize you're joking
just because you're posting something that is patently deranged.
Steve Glover
writes
>I was talking about marriage as it is legally conceived
>of in the U.K. Where until recently you could only be
>"married" in a Church or Registry office, and ceremonies
>in other places were not legally recognised. Even today
>although the location of the ceremony has broadened, the
>people able to officiate have not. People of other faiths
>are forced to have two ceremonies, one by their religious
>officiate (so that they are married in the eyes of their
>god) and a second officiated by a civil registrar (so
>they are married legally).
For values of "U.K." equal to "Englandandwales", I suspect. Not in
Northern Ireland (even twenty years ago it was possible to get married
in a private house), and I'm fairly sure not in Scotland.
Oh, and:
A: Because it loses context
Q: Why is top-posting bad?
Steve
--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd. Available
Weblog at http://weblog.akicif.net/blogger.html
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07961 446 902
Kip Williams
> 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!
That attitude really frosts me.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
Kip Williams
They must have a half-baked worldview.
Kip Williams
> On 7/1/03, 9:00:32 PM, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote > Unless they decide
> to toss you a crumb...
>
> So I made a mistake.
> How long are you going to layer it on?
Doh! I was going to batter you, but you seem to have risen to the
occasion.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...using floury language at members.cox.net/kipw
Kip Williams
> 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.
Now you're just being a smart cookie.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
JFW Richards
> 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.
>
> of getting married but might want to live together on a long term basis.
>
Such pairs would gain next of kin benefits through, er, being each
other's next of kin.
> For that matter, what about f/f or m/m pairs whose relationship is
> longterm but not sexual--sisters living together, for example.
>
I don't think that the government is thinking of requiring that sexual
activity be demonstrated. The idea is that a long term relationship be
registered and that its disolution should it occur would also require
registration. On registering such a relationship certain, limited
benefits, the major one being the ability to claim next of kin status
would be available to the partners. This would enable, for example,
one partner to be party to decisions on medical care for the other and
to inherit guardianship of children or to receive pension benefits.
BTW hetro was a typo and not a variant spelling.
Regards
JFWR
Rebecca Ore
> lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) writes:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Such a wonderful system, where a man doesn't even have to be "oops"'ed
> to get stuck with supporting the kids.
>
> In systems were its the genetic father who has the breadwinning
> responsability, he can opt out by refusing to fuck in a fertile
> manner.
>
> Matrilinial systems cleverly counter that defense.
>
In most of those societies, women did a fair amount of the providing.
The system tends to go with fairly non-restrictive childcare rearing
practices (Cherokee kids were running all over a restaurant when I was
there, without anyone being surprised, and without any of them really
being annoying) and women working in the fields, now outside the home.
The matriarchial/patriarchial struggles in black American culture
appear to be imported from Africa (Moslim Africa is patriarchial; the
pagans tend not to be).
--
Rebecca Ore
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore
Neil Belsky
On 7/1/03, 11:25:26 PM, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote
regarding Re: Frist Wants to Ban Same-Sex Marriage by Amendment:
> --
> Karen Lofstrom
Which answers my question how?
It seems to me we are not talk only about taxes, but TOTAL
possessions.
Or am I missing something?
Neil Belsky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 7/2/03, 2:09:31 AM, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote
> That *is* apparently the basic axiom of socialism.
> --
> Mark Atwood
So is "Socialized Medicine" misnamed?
Dave Weingart
>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 :)
>>
>> theirs?
>
Doesn't exactly make leaving a piece of cake.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Sixteen Tones (16th UK Filkcon)
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Feb 6-8,2004, Lincoln, England
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux
ICQ 57055207 More info coming soon
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <vg4mqin...@corp.supernews.com>,
> lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) 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.
>
> (various examples snipped)
>
> > My idiosyncratic theories, but just about any student of kinship would say
> > that there are more patterns than monogamy.
>
> I didn't say that monogamy was the only pattern. I said it was the usual
> pattern in almost all known societies--i.e. most people engage in it. I
> said nothing at all about how kinship was calculated.
Depends on how much you believe the studies about violation of
monogamy in *allegedly* monogamous societies.
--
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/>
Pete McCutchen
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, will there be a Libertarian bund, whose rules consist mostly of
"enforce contracts and property rights, but otherwise Leave Me The
Fuck Alone?"
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
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?
Not to defend Karen's idea (which I find nutty, but in a charming
enough way), but I think she'd allow for contracts which specified in
detail your rights upon leaving the bund. Such contracts could well
include the right to keep all the property you'd earned while in the
bund. In fact, I thought that's exactly what she said, in the portion
which you quoted and which I left in for context.
Though I'm not sure that anybody who's ever dealt with a condominium
association would find her idea particularly appealing. Humans seem
to enjoy ordering each other around, which is one reason why,
efficient though it might be, liberty is not something that occurs
automatically. This is one of the reasons why I think that Professor
Friedman's ideas, charming though they might be, are equally nutty.
--
Pete McCutchen
Timothy McDaniel
Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>Christians can chow down on just about anything (except human flesh, I
>suppose)
Nope. Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15.
<http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+15&version=KJV>
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from
among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions
of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and
from blood. ...
28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon
you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,
and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye
keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
(What was the official car of the Council of Jerusalem?
A Honda, for they were assembled with one accord.)
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
David Bilek
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>On 7/2/03, 2:09:31 AM, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote
>> That *is* apparently the basic axiom of socialism.
>> --
>> Mark Atwood
>
>So is "Socialized Medicine" misnamed?
>
Pretty much. It's called that by opponents because the world
"socialism" is scary. Kind of like the word "nuclear".
A lot of proponents call it "single-payer" health care.
-David
Mark Atwood
"Pro-life" / "Anti-abortion". Two terms. One thing.
Karen Lofstrom
> Which answers my question how?
> It seems to me we are not talk only about taxes, but TOTAL
> possessions.
> Or am I missing something?
Perhaps it seemed so obvious to me that I didn't explain clearly. If an
entity has power to tax and fine, clearly it has ultimate power over
all your possessions. Because there's no limit to the possible size of the
tax or the fine. You have $10,000. You break a rule. Fined $10,000.
Governments don't usually do that -- but they *have* been known to adopt
confiscatory policies. Therefore it's possible for a badly-run bund to do
the same thing.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh what a cute wee thing!
Karen Lofstrom
> So, will there be a Libertarian bund, whose rules consist mostly of
> "enforce contracts and property rights, but otherwise Leave Me The
> Fuck Alone?"
Sure. Bound to be. I wouldn't join it, and I have a feeling that it
wouldn't last too long, but I could well be wrong.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is this the Gordian knot? The thing doctors sever upon birth?
Personally, I like navel oranges the best." -- Ludwig Plutonium
Neil Belsky
On 7/2/03, 1:16:31 PM, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote
> entity has power to tax and fine, clearly it has ultimate power over
> all your possessions. Because there's no limit to the possible size of
the
> tax or the fine. You have $10,000. You break a rule. Fined $10,000.
> Governments don't usually do that -- but they *have* been known to adopt
> confiscatory policies. Therefore it's possible for a badly-run bund to do
> the same thing.
> --
> Karen Lofstrom
I think I'll stick to cake, thank you.
Neil Belsky
On 7/2/03, 11:52:34 AM, David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote
> Pretty much. It's called that by opponents because the world
> "socialism" is scary. Kind of like the word "nuclear".
> A lot of proponents call it "single-payer" health care.
> -David
Scare tactics from the oposition.
Wonderful.
Neil Belsky
On 7/2/03, 11:44:04 AM, Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> enough way), but I think she'd allow for contracts which specified in
> detail your rights upon leaving the bund. Such contracts could well
> include the right to keep all the property you'd earned while in the
> bund. In fact, I thought that's exactly what she said, in the portion
> which you quoted and which I left in for context.
> Though I'm not sure that anybody who's ever dealt with a condominium
> association would find her idea particularly appealing. Humans seem
> to enjoy ordering each other around, which is one reason why,
> efficient though it might be, liberty is not something that occurs
> automatically. This is one of the reasons why I think that Professor
> Friedman's ideas, charming though they might be, are equally nutty.
> --
> Pete McCutchen
I have learned that (as you say) controlling each other is a full time
job for many people. Laws unused for ages can be brought up as a means of
forcing individuals into certain situations or preventing behavior that
others (and not necessarily a majority) find offensive.
Recently (like two days ago) a cable network was forced to pull Charlie
Chan films by an Asian advocacy group.
Another variation on the people whose screaming stopped Disney from
issuing "Song of the South" as a home video release.
Shea and Wilson referred to groups like this in the "Illuminati!" trilogy
as being "Mothers Marchers".
I just think of them as reality deniers
Robert Sneddon
<m...@pobox.com> writes
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> >
>> >So is "Socialized Medicine" misnamed?
>>
>> A lot of proponents call it "single-payer" health care.
>
>"Pro-life" / "Anti-abortion". Two terms. One thing.
The best short description I could come up with is "all-inclusive". No
British citizen is left out; I don't know about others like asylum
seekers and permanent residents.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Kris Hasson-Jones
the following for your consideration:
>David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> >
>> >So is "Socialized Medicine" misnamed?
>>
>> A lot of proponents call it "single-payer" health care.
>
>"Pro-life" / "Anti-abortion". Two terms. One thing.
Not so. Pro-life is a set of beliefs, one of which is being
anti-abortion.
You're conflating a part with the whole. Same with the health care
thing.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Kevin J. Maroney
>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.
Very few babies are tossed out, alone, naked, and without family to
support them while they take the time to become self-sustaining
beings.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
K-Mac
wrote:
>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.
>
Not to mention that 'infidelity' appears as a feature of "monogamous"
mating patterns so frequently as to be considered a functional
component of the system.
--
Michael Kube-McDowell - author of VECTORS, THE QUIET POOLS, and EMPRISE
David Friedman
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Not to defend Karen's idea (which I find nutty, but in a charming
> enough way), but I think she'd allow for contracts which specified in
> detail your rights upon leaving the bund. Such contracts could well
> include the right to keep all the property you'd earned while in the
> bund. In fact, I thought that's exactly what she said, in the portion
> which you quoted and which I left in for context.
But in her system, that contract gets interpreted by the bund courts,
and the overarching system recognizes and enforces those verdicts. So if
the bund is sufficiently corrupt it simply interprets the contract out
of existence.
> Though I'm not sure that anybody who's ever dealt with a condominium
> association would find her idea particularly appealing. Humans seem
> to enjoy ordering each other around, which is one reason why,
> efficient though it might be, liberty is not something that occurs
> automatically. This is one of the reasons why I think that Professor
> Friedman's ideas, charming though they might be, are equally nutty.
There is a reason why this human tendency doesn't apply to monopoly
governments?
David Friedman
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > I didn't say that monogamy was the only pattern. I said it was the usual
> > pattern in almost all known societies--i.e. most people engage in it. I
> > said nothing at all about how kinship was calculated.
>
> Depends on how much you believe the studies about violation of
> monogamy in *allegedly* monogamous societies.
1. Less than I did before someone pointed me at the large studies
(Switzerland and Iceland), which yield false paternity rates around one
percent.
2. But in any case, we were discussing the origins of marriage as it now
exists--monogamy tempered by adultery.
David Friedman
Steve Cooper <s...@jet.uk> wrote:
> I was talking about marriage as it is legally conceived
> of in the U.K. Where until recently you could only be
> "married" in a Church or Registry office, and ceremonies
> in other places were not legally recognised. Even today
> although the location of the ceremony has broadened, the
> people able to officiate have not. People of other faiths
> are forced to have two ceremonies, one by their religious
> officiate (so that they are married in the eyes of their
> god) and a second officiated by a civil registrar (so
> they are married legally).
>
> But even this civil ceremony has its roots in the Christian
> marriage ceremony and the concept of what a marriage is has
> its roots in Christianity.
How can an institution that is several thousand years old have its roots
in a link with religion that is, what, eight hundred years old? Do you
think the idea of a long term m/f agreement to sexual fidelity and joint
childrearing and support was invented by the Catholic church?
Jim Battista
>> Though I'm not sure that anybody who's ever dealt with a
>> condominium association would find her idea particularly
>> appealing. Humans seem to enjoy ordering each other around,
>> which is one reason why, efficient though it might be, liberty is
>> not something that occurs automatically. This is one of the
>> reasons why I think that Professor Friedman's ideas, charming
>> though they might be, are equally nutty.
>
> There is a reason why this human tendency doesn't apply to
> monopoly governments?
Non-monopoly governments like condominium associations aren't bound to
respect freedoms of expression, association, or anything else; aren't
required to hold fair trials of people they're accusing of whatever;
need not give all their residents equal protection of their
regulations; need not honor any of the requirements of due process,
including but not limited to the requirement of providing counsel for
someone accused of violating regulations...
Unless of course the evil monopoly government requires them to do so.
Empirically, it seems that this human tendency is at least combated in
monopoly governments, while nonmonopoly pseudo-governments are given
free reign to oppress their members/citizens.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.