[Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .

[Steven]

Absolutely.
Right now you could get around estate tax by marriage.
Anna Nicole Smith for example.
The old guy gave her millions. On his death, she could have married a
grandchild of the old guy and helped to pass on those millions tax free.

Why should ANYONE get benefits of another? This is similar to the health
insurance discussions. Why should the employer be involved in your personal
health insurance at all.
It all boils down to folks getting something from the government.

If I want someone to help me in my time of need, if I want to give someone
all my possessions, I'll write it in a will or via contract.
Why does the government have to deal with any of this? It is not an issue of
common defense or interstate commerce.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
> Behalf Of Steve Jerrett
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:26 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Describing marriage as a state sponsored, non-spiritual (religious or
> otherwise) union leaves it as nothing but a "business" arrangement, solely
> for the purpose of obtaining equal legal rights. I'm O.K with that as long
> as everyone gets to participate- friend to friend, sibling to sibling,
> parent to sibling, etc. If we don't inlcude everyone, discrimination will
> continue.
>
> I'm not quite ready for human to pet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of
> time.
>
> Steve
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Bob Browning
>   To: Forest Grove local interests list
>   Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:09 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
>
>   Carol - I'm not quite so flip as Jim Katen, but I find it really hard to
> believe that the State has such an interest in marriage as between a man
> and a woman for the protection of the family given the huge number of
> divorces and of dysfunctional families of which I know. Also, I personally
> know several families which have gay parents and very well adjusted
> children. It seems to me that many of the arguments now being used against
> gay marriage are no different than those put forward to adopt
> miscegenation laws and to prevent blacks and gays from adopting white
> children.
>
>   I chalk it all up to the inability of some people to think outside the
> box, an inability to realize that they may have been lied to by their
> parents and religious leaders as to the true nature of the world. How else
> can one explain the high percentage of Americans who reject the age of the
> Earth and the workings of evolution!! It's almost Aristotelean, the
> ability to hold a belief in the face of contrary evidence immediately
> before one's own eyes. I believe that is the only explanation for how
> Dobson can remain so ignorant of the true statistics and yet still spout
> falsehoods and misstatements (which, the last time I looked, should also
> be one of the ten commandments, but somehow didn't make it in!!).
>
>   Which, of course, brings us to the one and only solution - remove all
> references to marriage from the statutes, give the rights now conferred
> upon "married" people to those who have committed to each other through a
> civil ceremony which must be performed by a magistrate (municipal judge,
> justice of the peace, or state court judge), take away the power of any
> others to perform the civil ceremony (and that includes all the members of
> the Reverend Kirby Hensley's Universal Life Church!!), and leave marriage
> to the church people who want to have a spiritual joining. That way, each
> group can discriminate all it wants, but no one is subject to legal
> disability on account of (in the eyes of some) spiritual shortcoming.
>
>   Just my $0.02 worth!!
>
>   bob "everybody needs 144 hugs a day; it's just that most of us are about
> 143 short" browning
>   ++++++++++++++++++++
>   Jim Katen wrote:
> I guess infertile atheists don't count for much in your world view.
>
>  What a condescending attitude.
>
> - Jim Katen
>
>    _____
>
> On Behalf Of Carol Morgan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:14 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
> Marriage has traditionally been to covenant before god and legitimize
> offspring.
>
> If it is just who you want to have a nice little committment ceremony
> with,
> it could be anything.
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: 12:08 PM PDT, 05/13/2009
> From: "Geri" <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
> Sorry, Carol, not understanding your comment ... ?
>
> Geri
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carol Morgan
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>
> The relationship is that if men just happen to like men boys or multiple
> women, what's the difference?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geri" <g-g-steele at comcast.net>
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Lies, damned lies, and evangelicals . . .
>   Nicely written by Brown ...
>
> <snip>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   GroveNet mailing list
>   GroveNet at rdrop.com
>   http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>