"That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex
marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be .?.?. near-total
silence?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1
or, http://tinyurl.com/n3su2gk

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally getting smart.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:58:17 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:34:45 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:



"That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex
marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be .?.?. near-total
silence?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1
or, http://tinyurl.com/n3su2gk

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally getting smart.

The ones who are firmly against it understand the limited effect of
the "punt" and the ones who are ambivalent (probably most) understand
there is no advantage to saying anything.

Personally, I am still not sure why marriage is a government function
in the first place. People are "married before God" and everything
else is simple contract law. Why not just have the government manage
the civil union, just like they do partnerships, incorporation,
property transfers and child custody issues?

Those people could be considered 'unionized'. Works for me.

In that regard, any 2 or more people should be able to enter into a
civil union. If they are going to hell for it, let the churches deal
with it. It is none of the government's business.

Amen.

I'd still consider giving GLBT's a tax break for not having kids.

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 3:36:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:05:40 -0400, Poco Loco

I'd still consider giving GLBT's a tax break for not having kids.


Actually it works the other way. The government encourages kids with
tax breaks.

Even worse, that effectively forces those without kids (or with just one or two) to subsidize those who chose to have many children.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:36:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:05:40 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:58:17 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:34:45 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:



"That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex
marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be .?.?. near-total
silence?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1
or, http://tinyurl.com/n3su2gk

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally getting smart.

The ones who are firmly against it understand the limited effect of
the "punt" and the ones who are ambivalent (probably most) understand
there is no advantage to saying anything.

Personally, I am still not sure why marriage is a government function
in the first place. People are "married before God" and everything
else is simple contract law. Why not just have the government manage
the civil union, just like they do partnerships, incorporation,
property transfers and child custody issues?

Those people could be considered 'unionized'. Works for me.

I prefer the idea of "partnership". That is closer to the relationship
in business law. They have already embraced the word.

Why change the terminology from 'civil union' to 'partnership'?
Perhaps there's a legal rationale for doing so.



In that regard, any 2 or more people should be able to enter into a
civil union. If they are going to hell for it, let the churches deal
with it. It is none of the government's business.

Amen.

I'd still consider giving GLBT's a tax break for not having kids.

Actually it works the other way. The government encourages kids with
tax breaks.

I know how it works. But the Glibitsers deserve something for *not*
procreating.

On 10/8/14 5:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:36:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:05:40 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:58:17 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:34:45 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:



"That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex
marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be .?.?. near-total
silence?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1
or, http://tinyurl.com/n3su2gk

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally getting smart.

The ones who are firmly against it understand the limited effect of
the "punt" and the ones who are ambivalent (probably most) understand
there is no advantage to saying anything.

Personally, I am still not sure why marriage is a government function
in the first place. People are "married before God" and everything
else is simple contract law. Why not just have the government manage
the civil union, just like they do partnerships, incorporation,
property transfers and child custody issues?

Those people could be considered 'unionized'. Works for me.

I prefer the idea of "partnership". That is closer to the relationship
in business law. They have already embraced the word.

Why change the terminology from 'civil union' to 'partnership'?
Perhaps there's a legal rationale for doing so.



In that regard, any 2 or more people should be able to enter into a
civil union. If they are going to hell for it, let the churches deal
with it. It is none of the government's business.

Amen.

I'd still consider giving GLBT's a tax break for not having kids.

Actually it works the other way. The government encourages kids with
tax breaks.

I know how it works. But the Glibitsers deserve something for *not*
procreating.


D'oh. They do procreate, as it were, just not in a way known to you,
apparently.

--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.”
Sarah Palin

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 21:12:35 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:11:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/8/14 5:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

I know how it works. But the Glibitsers deserve something for *not*
procreating.


D'oh. They do procreate, as it were, just not in a way known to you,
apparently.

As long as guys like David Crosby are around, lesbians can procreate
but gay guys ... not so much.

On the positive side I could say it is seldom an accident but that
still might not insure they are good parents.
At least they were willing at one time. That is more than you can say
for a large part of the population who have accidental babies.

In DC, about 80% of the births are to unwed mothers in part of the
population. You reckon those are 'accidental' or 'intentional'?

We are in a strange point in our history. The ecological issues would
say we should be limiting population but the financial realities of
our Ponzi style economy need an exponential population growth to make
the numbers work out.
All of the programs are based on growth rates like we had in the 30-40
years after the baby boom.

Once the word gets out, we may see fewer lesbian couples making babies
with 'help'.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-sper...ry?id=18102778

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:34:45 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:



"That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex
marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be .?.?. near-total
silence?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1
or, http://tinyurl.com/n3su2gk

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally getting smart.

The ones who are firmly against it understand the limited effect of
the "punt" and the ones who are ambivalent (probably most) understand
there is no advantage to saying anything.

Personally, I am still not sure why marriage is a government function
in the first place. People are "married before God" and everything
else is simple contract law. Why not just have the government manage
the civil union, just like they do partnerships, incorporation,
property transfers and child custody issues?
In that regard, any 2 or more people should be able to enter into a
civil union. If they are going to hell for it, let the churches deal
with it. It is none of the government's business.

Marriage licenses were not required in the states until the states decided
they needed revenue, except the first licenses were for Miscegenation
marriages. All but MD required licenses by 1935. Just make it contract
law as Gregg states.

On 10/8/14 2:58 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:34:45 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:



"That the Republican response to the justices’ move to let same-sex
marriages proceed in nearly half the states would be .?.?. near-total
silence?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-americas-amazing-transformation-on-same-sex-marriage/2014/10/07/3426582a-4e44-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1
or, http://tinyurl.com/n3su2gk

Maybe, just maybe, they're finally getting smart.

The ones who are firmly against it understand the limited effect of
the "punt" and the ones who are ambivalent (probably most) understand
there is no advantage to saying anything.

Personally, I am still not sure why marriage is a government function
in the first place. People are "married before God" and everything
else is simple contract law. Why not just have the government manage
the civil union, just like they do partnerships, incorporation,
property transfers and child custody issues?
In that regard, any 2 or more people should be able to enter into a
civil union. If they are going to hell for it, let the churches deal
with it. It is none of the government's business.



I cannot understand why anyone gives a tinker's dam about how or with
who consenting adults pair up.

--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin