Thrown out of an FBO...

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to
marriage.

Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in
front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever
community will provide the emotional and social support for your
marriage.

Separation of marriage and state and all that.

Yes, that would be a reasonable solution. Let the government provide civil
unions, and let churches or whatever sanctify marriages according to
whatever criteria they want to use. (To this day, there are still some
churches that refuse to sanctify interracial marriages. Although their
policy is morally reprehensible, it is unassailably protected as part of
their free-speech rights, and properly so, since a religious sanctification
constitutes nothing but an expression of belief.)

But as long as the government does presume to certify "marriages", they
should do so without regard to the race or gender of the participants.

--Gary

Why? What effect does it possibly have on you what it's called.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.

"In Afghanistan under the Taliban, the official punishment for homosexuality
was execution, by the tasteful method of burial alive under a wall pushed
over on the victim. The 'crime' itself being a private act, performed by
consenting adults who were doing nobody else any harm, we again have here
the classic hallmark of religious absolutism."

Quoted from Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". Pg 289

You're not far ahead of them. Some here are much closer.

mike



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.


Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.


But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.


Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.

They usurped "gay" so stealing marriage won't bother them either.

Matt

Jose wrote:
Maybe not. There are evolutionary processes going on around us all the
time. There are also evolutionary processes that we, as humans, have
done our best to counter. Poor eye sight, for example, has been pretty
well eliminated as a reason to die -- therefore, more and more humans
are being born that need glasses.

Evolution is a fairly long time frame process. Eyeglasses have been
available for only a handful of generations. This is not enough to make
a significant impact on the gene pool.

IMHO, homosexuality is probably more akin to poor eyesight than it is
to any evolutionary *advantage*.

What do you base this HO on?

Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

concentrated on equal rights, not equal labels.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

Jose
Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your
medical power of attorney. Yes, it more work then for married
heterosexual couples who only need to show ID to prove they should be
there but it's doable. By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro
couple who are not married. They lose visitation privileges as well.

Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your medical power of attorney.

In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different.

By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.

But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of
what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made
by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A
couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned
hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a
couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner
your medical power of attorney.

In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different.

By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.

But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of
what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made
by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A
couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned
hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a
couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose.

Jose
I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please
cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US )

John

I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US )

I am not gay and have not run into this personally. However I have
friends who are, and have. I'll ask around.

I =have= had the experience where certain powers of attorney which I
held (non-medical) were not respected, because the paperwork got
misplaced (at least that was the excuse). In the power-of-attorney
cases with which I am familiar, it can get sticky, and that's the last
thing you need if faced with a bigoted administrator, a dying loved one,
and other logistical problems.

And in any case, this would only cover medical issues. There are a host
of other areas (such as real estate held between spouses).

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:48:09 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your medical power of attorney.

In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different.

By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.

But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of
what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made
by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A
couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned
hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a
couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose.

You might want to throw common-law wedlock into the pot as well:
Marriage per se, without any jumping over broom-handles.

Don

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:Uol6h.891$672.696@trndny01...
Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your
medical power of attorney. Yes, it more work then for married
heterosexual couples who only need to show ID to prove they should be
there but it's doable.

Some issues can be solved through legal contracts. Some cannot.

For example, none of the federal tax benefits that come from being a married
couple are applicable to same-sex couples. No amount of legal contract
writing can change this.

Jose's example was simply that...an example. It in no way implies that if
you solve that one problem (and as he points out, doing that is not
assured), you have addressed the general problem of government-sanctioned
and government-implemented discrimination against same-sex couples.

By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.
They lose visitation privileges as well.

But heterosexual couples have a viable legal option to solve the problem.
They can get married. With a single act and a single piece of paper, they
are granted a huge swath of legal rights. Rights that can only partially,
and imperfectly, be emulated through thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
dollars worth of legal action.

Pete