What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take notice of.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
:What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as :anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the :assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands :now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where :granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges. : :"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, :as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would :be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: :an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take :notice of.
That would be ideal, in my opinion.
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"
"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in message news:Xns9640D129117DCjaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142...> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the> assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands> now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where> granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not,> as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would> be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church:> an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take> notice of.
The shitstorm from the wingnuts would be enormous. Marriage is the one foothold that religion has in government, and they ain't giving that up without a nuclear holocaust.
-- C The Shocker Never trust a big butt and a smile!
Bryan S . Slick 23 April 2005 04:38:41 [ permanent link ]
[C The Shocker (chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net)] [Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:37:29 -0700]
:"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in message :news:Xns9640D129117DCjaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142... :> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as :> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the :> assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands :> now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where :> granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges. :> :> "Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, :> as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would :> be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: :> an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take :> notice of. : :The shitstorm from the wingnuts would be enormous. Marriage is the one :foothold that religion has in government, and they ain't giving that up :without a nuclear holocaust.
Which wingnuts?
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"
James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in news:Xns9640D129117DCjaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142:
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as > anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning> the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As> it stands now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or> database, where granting it is a shorthand for granting many> individual privileges.
Tax law is on line 2, wants to know if it should clean it's desk out.
Unclaimed Mysteries 23 April 2005 04:46:56 [ permanent link ]
James Schrumpf wrote in part:
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as > anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the > assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.?
You sound like one of them anarchiastic, free-market, dope-loving libertinians. You can peddle your subversive ideas somewhere else, thank you.
As it stands > now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where > granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.>
The shitstorm from the wingnuts would be enormous. Marriage is the one > foothold that religion has in government, and they ain't giving that up > without a nuclear holocaust.
"One foothold"? I've hearing how strong and dangerous the "Religious Right" is, you'd think they would have a little more than one.
-Tom Enright
-- > C The Shocker> Never trust a big butt and a smile!>
James Schrumpf 23 April 2005 05:09:33 [ permanent link ]
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Tony Rice <rtphokie@gmail.com>? Shaken, or stirred?
James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in> news:Xns9640D129117DCjaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142: >
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning>> the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As>> it stands now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or>> database, where granting it is a shorthand for granting many>> individual privileges. >
Tax law is on line 2, wants to know if it should clean it's desk out.>
What would actually have to be cleaned out from tax law, regarding marriage?
Once you evened out the tax tables to eliminate the differences there, it seems that would be the end of it. Everything else is pretty much based on dependent children, which you don't have to be married to claim anyway. Is there something else I'm missing?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
James Schrumpf 23 April 2005 05:10:32 [ permanent link ]
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Unclaimed Mysteries <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net>? Shaken, or stirred?
James Schrumpf wrote in part:>
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning>> the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? >
You sound like one of them anarchiastic, free-market, dope-loving > libertinians. You can peddle your subversive ideas somewhere else,> thank you.>
As it stands >> now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database,>> where granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual>> privileges. >>
I now pronounce you root and administrator.>
Who gets to be root?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in message news:Xns9640D76FFE271jaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142...
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Unclaimed Mysteries> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net>? Shaken, or> stirred?
I now pronounce you root and administrator.
Who gets to be root?
Root root or SeOS root?
-Tom Enright
-- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net>
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up> lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and> kill it.> -- Master Shake
James Schrumpf 23 April 2005 05:21:14 [ permanent link ]
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. "Tom Enright" <thenright@komBOINKcast.nYet>? Shaken, or stirred?
"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in> message news:Xns9640D76FFE271jaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142...>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Unclaimed Mysteries>> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net>? Shaken, or>> stirred?>
I now pronounce you root and administrator.>
Who gets to be root?>
Root root or SeOS root?>
-Tom Enright>
You can take your weird perversions right on outta here.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
Misery waits in vague hotels, James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet>:
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the >assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands >now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where >granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, >as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would >be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: >an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take >notice of.
Please stop. My weekends are busy enough as it is.
Marty McMahone 23 April 2005 08:20:00 [ permanent link ]
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.net> wrote in message news:3fydnQwgYfBXBfTfRVn-gg@comcast.com...> "James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in message> news:Xns9640D129117DCjaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142...> > What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as> > anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the> > assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands> > now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where> > granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.> >
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or
not,> > as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would> > be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church:> > an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take> > notice of.>
The shitstorm from the wingnuts would be enormous. Marriage is the one> foothold that religion has in government, and they ain't giving that up> without a nuclear holocaust.
Glad to know you don't consider me a wingnut.
While I do think there would be a huge outcry from the religious right, your reasoning is just silly.
Marty McMahone 23 April 2005 08:21:18 [ permanent link ]
<deemsbill@aol.com> wrote in message news:1114217541.713137.102450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > James Schrumpf> http://www.hilltopper.net> >
That's my ideal solution....also, get rid of religion's tax> exempt...make them just like any other nonprofit organization.>
How are they not like any other nonprofit in terms of taxes?
Trent Woodruff 23 April 2005 08:54:24 [ permanent link ]
James Schrumpf was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the >assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands >now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where >granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.>"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, >as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would >be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: >an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take >notice of.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I see the point of such an action (or inaction, as the case may be).
I don't see it.
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Wonko the Sane 23 April 2005 10:28:27 [ permanent link ]
James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in news:Xns9640D129117DCjaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142:
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as > anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning> the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As
stands now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or> database, where granting it is a shorthand for granting many
individual> privileges. >
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize,
not, as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil
life. > It would be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in> your church: an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the> State would take notice of.>
Conceptually interesting, but I see some problems. How would you determine when those individual privileges begin and end? How do parental rights and responsibilities fit in?
Doug
-- "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
"There is another which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not,> as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would> be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church:> an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take> notice of.
Yes, that's a good idea.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
James Schrumpf 23 April 2005 18:55:30 [ permanent link ]
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Wonko the Sane <dougNOSPAM@sorensensdomain.net>? Shaken, or stirred?
James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote in> news:Xns9640D129117DCjaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142: >
What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning>> the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As > it>> stands now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or>> database, where granting it is a shorthand for granting many > individual>> privileges. >>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, > or>> not, as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil > life. >> It would be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in>> your church: an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the>> State would take notice of.>>
Conceptually interesting, but I see some problems. How would you > determine when those individual privileges begin and end? How do > parental rights and responsibilities fit in?>
Doug>
Of course there would be details to be worked out; but if we can figure out those things in today's world of multiple remarriages and adoptions, I think we could work this out as well.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, James Schrumpf:> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as > anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the > assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands > now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where > granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, > as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would > be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: > an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take > notice of.
It's good to recognize the stable relationship with broad rights and privileges, IMO.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, James Schrumpf:>> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the >> assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands >> now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where >> granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, >> as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would >> be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: >> an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take >> notice of.>
It's good to recognize the stable relationship with broad>rights and privileges, IMO.>
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, James>>Schrumpf: >>> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >>> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning>>> the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As>>> it stands now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or>>> database, where granting it is a shorthand for granting many>>> individual privileges. >>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize,>>> or not, as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil>>> life. It would be like getting your first communion, or being>>> confirmed in your church: an important milestone in your faith, but>>> nothing the State would take notice of.>>
It's good to recognize the stable relationship with broad>>rights and privileges, IMO.>>
rich>
Yes, "stable" would fit nicely.>
Hugh>
Heck, that would exclude about 50% of normal marriages.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, James>>>Schrumpf: >>>> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as >>>> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning>>>> the assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As>>>> it stands now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or>>>> database, where granting it is a shorthand for granting many>>>> individual privileges. >>>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize,>>>> or not, as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil>>>> life. It would be like getting your first communion, or being>>>> confirmed in your church: an important milestone in your faith, but>>>> nothing the State would take notice of.>>>
It's good to recognize the stable relationship with broad>>>rights and privileges, IMO.>>>
rich>>
Yes, "stable" would fit nicely.>>
Hugh>>
Heck, that would exclude about 50% of normal marriages.
You're right - but it wouldn't exclude the other 50%. In many instances, if one is somewhat selective, getting some is better than getting none.
James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as > anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning the > assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it stands > now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database, where > granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or not, > as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It would > be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your church: > an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would take > notice of.
That would be exactly like what I've been arguing for - as long as I can remember.
Tom Enright <thenright@komboinkcast.nyet> wrote:>
"C The Shocker">
The shitstorm from the wingnuts would be enormous. Marriage is the one >> foothold that religion has in government, and they ain't giving that up >> without a nuclear holocaust.>
"One foothold"? I've hearing how strong and dangerous the "Religious> Right" is, you'd think they would have a little more than one.
James Schrumpf wrote:>> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage as>> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws concerning> the>> assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As it> stands>> now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database,> where>> granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual privileges.>>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize, or> not,>> as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life. It> would>> be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your> church:>> an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would> take>> notice of.>>
-->>
------------------------------------------------------------------------>> James Schrumpf> http://www.hilltopper.net>>
That's my ideal solution....also, get rid of religion's tax> exempt...make them just like any other nonprofit organization.>
James Schrumpf 25 April 2005 20:10:24 [ permanent link ]
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <mdahwoopitywoomus@iwoopitywooo.com>? Shaken, or stirred?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:16:43 -0500, James Schrumpf wrote:>
"One foothold"? I've hearing how strong and dangerous the "Religious>>> Right" is, you'd think they would have a little more than one.>>>
What foothold is it that marriage gives religion into government?>
Denying gays the right to visit each other in the hospital, adopt kids,> etc. Duh.>
That's not religion-based. If one gets married in a civil ceremony by a JP you get those bennies. The church doesn't have to be involved at all.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist 25 April 2005 20:21:47 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:10:24 -0500, James Schrumpf wrote:
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist > <mdahwoopitywoomus@iwoopitywooo.com>? Shaken, or stirred?>
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:16:43 -0500, James Schrumpf wrote:>>
"One foothold"? I've hearing how strong and dangerous the "Religious>>>> Right" is, you'd think they would have a little more than one.>>>>
What foothold is it that marriage gives religion into government?>>
Denying gays the right to visit each other in the hospital, adopt kids,>> etc. Duh.>>
That's not religion-based. If one gets married in a civil ceremony by a JP > you get those bennies. The church doesn't have to be involved at all.
You asked "What foothold is it that marriage gives religion into government?"
the answer is: as long as the thing blessed by the state is called "marriage", people continue to think it's appropriate for their religion to define its terms.
-- Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist Remove the woopitywoo, you moron.
Marty McMahone 26 April 2005 03:56:28 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote in message news:3T25ll9bI2dfN3l@redshark.goodshow.net...> > That's my ideal solution....also, get rid of religion's tax> > exempt...make them just like any other nonprofit organization.> >
Or a for-profit organization as the case may be.
Actually, it would make more sense to remove taxes from all corporations and make taxes paid by individuals.
This would help make the tax code more sane, and would eliminate the double standard that really can't be eliminated by this expedient (non-profits cannot "pass on" taxes to constituents the way profits can)
James Schrumpf wrote:>> >> What would the effects be if the State quit recognizing marriage> as>> >> anything special at all, and instead passed specific laws> concerning>> > the>> >> assignment of heirs, next-of-kin, hospital visitation, etc.? As> it>> > stands>> >> now, "marriage" is like a role in an operating system or database,>> > where>> >> granting it is a shorthand for granting many individual> privileges.>> >>
"Marriage" could then be left to individual churches to recognize,> or>> > not,>> >> as they see fit, and would have no bearing at all on civil life.> It>> > would>> >> be like getting your first communion, or being confirmed in your>> > church:>> >> an important milestone in your faith, but nothing the State would>> > take>> >> notice of.>> >>
-->> >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------>> >> James Schrumpf>> > http://www.hilltopper.net>> >>
That's my ideal solution....also, get rid of religion's tax>> > exempt...make them just like any other nonprofit organization.>> >
Or a for-profit organization as the case may be.>>
-->> Aaron>
If they don't meet the standard nonprofit standards, they would be.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist 26 April 2005 18:24:23 [ permanent link ]
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:39:19 -0500, James Schrumpf wrote:
You asked "What foothold is it that marriage gives religion into>> government?">>
the answer is: as long as the thing blessed by the state is called>> "marriage", people continue to think it's appropriate for their>> religion to define its terms.>>
It's the state that puts the definition to marriage, actually. Mormons > wanted marriage to include polygamy, but the state put the kibosh to > that.
Yes. Irrelevant to the point. People today are using the fact that the state sanctions something with the same name as a way to use their religion to define its terms for other people.
-- Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist Remove the woopitywoo, you moron.
