Cobol - OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Author

OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Howard Brazee

2004-11-24, 8:55 pm

On 24-Nov-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>
> Well, there's already DE (Duke Ellington), LA (Louis Armstrong), GA
> (Georgie Auld), AK (Andy Kirk), and CT (Claude Thornhill)... but no BG
> (Benny Goodman) or TD (Tommy Dorsey) yet.
>
> (confession - the only one I could remember was DE, the rest I managed to
> generate with the assistance of
> http://www.swingmusic.net/Big_Band_Playlist.html )

I remember my brother and myself teasing my father about the band Chicago, being
a "big band". But I don't want to get into Chicago politics.

Lueko Willms

2004-11-24, 8:55 pm

.. On 24.11.04
wrote howard@brazee.net (Howard Brazee)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in co261q$j9t$1@peabody.colorado.edu
about Re: OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

[color=darkred]

HB> Is that the same as "swing states"?

Or he was thinking of Java.

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Das ganze Zeitungs-All. -G.C.Lichtenberg

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-24, 8:55 pm

In article <co2a7h$lnv$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 24-Nov-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I remember my brother and myself teasing my father about the band Chicago, being
>a "big band". But I don't want to get into Chicago politics.

You should make sure to steer clear of it at least once every 24 hours;
that way you'd be certain to have your...

.... daily avoidance.

DD

LX-i

2004-11-24, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is that the same as "swing states"?

Well, since Bush won most of 'em, I guess that debunks the "moral values
is the reason he won" argument...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Howard Brazee

2004-11-24, 8:55 pm

On 22-Nov-2004, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Hear hear. In the global village, we are all neighbours. The sooner we
> realize that, and start acting on it, then the sooner we can start
> getting onto some of the real problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by "getting onto" here. But I've seen that
neighbors can make pretty bad enemies.

Richard

2004-11-24, 8:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message

> Apparently churches and fundies do see a difference. That's their right. A
> major function of churches is in defining morality and being moral authority for
> their members.
>
> It should *not* be the prerogative of the state.

I expect everybody to have the same, or at least similar, morality
regardless of whether they are a member of a church and no matter
which church. Those morals are primarily embedded in the laws set by
the state (country) and imposed by the state's authorities, such as
the police, law courts, etc.

If the churches want to impose restrictions and sanctions on their
members beyond this then they must do so only within the laws. If
they want to impose restrictions and sanctions on others that are not
willing members, such as me, they can take their saanctimonous crap
and just bugger off.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-25, 8:55 am

In article <cnl9j3$4ko$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 19-Nov-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Note, I said "some existing marriages" above. By that token, some lives can be
>weakened to the extend of death.

Mr Brazee, I am not sure what you intended by that, would you be so kind
as to re-phrase it in a different way? The grammar of 'some lives can
weakened to the extend of death' does not seem to apply to 'the fact that
one can be killed weakens life'.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-26, 8:55 am

On 19 Nov 2004 19:54:35 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

>The issue over 'gay marriage' is that people in permanent
>relationships should be able to enjoy the benefits legislated by the
>state, for example inheritance. For example equity in property. In NZ
>they will call it 'Civil Union' and not Marriage but it will be
>recognised by the law exactly as marriage.

The US State of Vermont also has Civil Union for same-sex households.
It did not cause much protest because they deliberately avoided the
word 'marriage'.

Richard

2004-11-26, 8:55 am

Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote

>
> There are those that would suggest that no persons should receive
> benefits from their neighbors simply because they choose to enter a
> spiritual union.

Some people see the world as being watched over by space pixies,
others know that it is CCTV.

> The conclusion that naturally follows is that the universe of people
> reciving such handouts from their neighbors should be reduced -- not
> expanded.

You may note that I stated "benifits and _responsibilities_". The
benefits are not necessarily 'handouts'.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-26, 8:55 pm

In article <30acl1F2ssqp6U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>As we are seeing a lot of this "Tell it to the Marines" nonsense, I thought
>it might be pertinent at this point to remind all concerned that the
>Marines being spoken about, were NOT that admirable company of "Semper Fi"
>warriors who do all the grunt work for the US Government.
>
>This expression (although it WAS used by a US general during the Second
>World War, in connection with aforementioned Semper Fi warriors) came into
>use LONG before that.
>
>Samuel Pepys, the famous 17th Century diarist, was re-telling some stories
>he had gathered from the Navy, to Charles the Second.
>
>One of these involved flying fish.

Gotta love this Internet. Would the word of the National Maritime Museum
in Greenwich have any weight here?

From:

<http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/s...005002006001002>

--begin quoted text:

The version of the origin of the phrase Tell it to the Marines, approved
by the Royal Marines tells, of a typically wise and experienced officer of
the Maritime Regiment (the forerunner of todayâ€™s Royal Marines)
verifying a yarn about flying fish for the benefit of King Charles II in
the 1660s. Even then, Marines had been everywhere, done everything, and
knew everything worth knowing..... Unfortunately this version was actually
invented by the novelist W. P. Drury (a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the
Royal Marines) in the 1900s

An earlier reference, more in keeping with the contemporary meaning of the
phrase, is found in an anonymous work of naval fiction, The Post Captain;
or, The Wooden Walls well manned: comprehending a view of naval society
and manners (London: 1806). In this, Captain Brilliant, of HMS Desdemona,
when a tale started to grow too tall for his taste, was given to saying,
'You may tell that to the Marines, but I'll be d----d if the Sailors will
believe it!'.

--end quoted text

Cpt. Brilliant's use is echoed by Sir Walter Scott in Redgauntlet (1824)
(found at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/redg10.txt ); the text
reads 'Tell that to the marines--the sailors won't believe it.'

DD

LX-i

2004-11-27, 3:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
> The recently released movie, "Team America: World Police", (a wonderful,
> funny, astute commentary on our times by two great American philosphers
> from Canada -- Trey Parker and Matt Stone), deals with this issue of
> color in the state from an new perspective.

Haven't seen it - I guess I'll have to wait for the DVD at this point.

> According to the geopolitical, anitomically-correct, worldview espoused
> by the lead puppet -- the blue states really should be pink.

heh

> Terrorist countries and dictatorships should be brown.

HA! :) That's priceless...

> But the proper red state color is open to some interpretation...

Is it in the movie? Red and pink are pretty close to each other...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-11-27, 3:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:7vhvp0h38nj78i2j9pjvqmb979q35m1ndq@
4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
>
> OOOOOoooooohhh, yes please! ALL OF THE ABOVE...!!!

how.... enlightening.... ;)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-371215.15070620112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <cnlgpr$870$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
><and>
>
>I am almost certain we are speaking of two different concepts of
>'informed consent'.

My error and apologies, Mr Zitzelberger; I have been using 'informed
consent', a term specific to medical activities, when what I intended was
'consent which is legally binding', consent which has been given by a
competent, unimpaired adult of or beyond a certain age (the 'age of
consent' I mentioned).

This correction should clarify all matters at hand.

DD

James J. Gavan

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:57:50 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>The union of more than two parent classes is ILLEGAL in most places.
>It should be in Cobol as well. First it was same-sex marriage, now
>this. Must we pass a Constitutional amendment to stop debauchery too?
>
>
Robert,

As the saying goes, "Tell it to the Marines...". It is NOW a part of
COBOL. Even if you went to the expense of pursuing a Constitutional
amendment and directed ANSI to change it, who in turn would attempt to
rap J4 across the knuckles - you are screwed mate ! It's now an *ISO*
COBOL Standard. Somebody would probably re-issue that 'Finger' message
you received - but this time in Windows GUI coloured format. :-)

PS: I've read it up in N/E 4, which I don't have - but as yet it hasn't
triggered any concrete thoughts where I could put it to good use.

Jimmy

James J. Gavan

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger wrote:

>In article <pu3vp0d7lmaa7h4ec45r0h07k5bt2tu49g@4ax.com>,
> Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>You are just intolerent and hateful.
>
>Why should we not accept non-traditional object creation?
>
>
>
I like it, I like it :-)

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:21:41 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>I like it, I like it :-)

You like what -- gay marriage, group sex or multiple inheritance?

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:17:41 GMT, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>Robert,
>
>As the saying goes, "Tell it to the Marines...".

I used to be a Marine. The aphorism is as false as "easy as taking
candy from a baby." Babies don't relinquish candy without loud protest
and Marines don't do as they're told, unless you tell them whoring and
drinking are ok.

>It is NOW a part of COBOL. Even if you went to the expense of pursuing a Constitutional
>amendment and directed ANSI to change it, who in turn would attempt to
>rap J4 across the knuckles - you are screwed mate ! It's now an *ISO*
>COBOL Standard.

It doesn't give me heartburn but fundies will say it's the
devil'babies don't relinquish candy without loud protest.s work.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:7vhvp0h38nj78i2j9pjvqmb979q35m1ndq@
4ax.com...
<snip>
>
>
> You like what -- gay marriage, group sex or multiple inheritance?
>
>
OOOOOoooooohhh, yes please! ALL OF THE ABOVE...!!!

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:i5jvp0hhtb3j340saq94adu703ltu81g6a@
4ax.com...
<snip>> >
>
> I used to be a Marine. The aphorism is as false as "easy as taking
> candy from a baby." Babies don't relinquish candy without loud protest
> and Marines don't do as they're told, unless you tell them whoring and
> drinking are ok.
>
Watch the generalizations, Robert. They consistenly undermine some otherwise
valuable posts. (NOT all marines are into whoring and drinking.)

As we are seeing a lot of this "Tell it to the Marines" nonsense, I thought
it might be pertinent at this point to remind all concerned that the
Marines being spoken about, were NOT that admirable company of "Semper Fi"
warriors who do all the grunt work for the US Government.

This expression (although it WAS used by a US general during the Second
World War, in connection with aforementioned Semper Fi warriors) came into
use LONG before that.

Samuel Pepys, the famous 17th Century diarist, was re-telling some stories
he had gathered from the Navy, to Charles the Second.

One of these involved flying fish.

The assembled courtiers were sceptical, but an officer of the Maritime
Regiment of Foot (The forerunner of the Royal Marines) confirmed that he too
had seen such.

The King accepted this evidence and is quoted as saying:

"From the very nature of their calling no class of our subjects can have so
wide a knowledge of seas and lands as the officers and men of Our Loyal
Maritime Regiment. Henceforward, ere ever we cast doubts upon a tale that
lacks likelihood, we will first 'Tell it to the Marines'."

This expression should be used only where there is scepticism (if it was
good enough for King Charles, it should be good enough for us... <G> ), not
as a dismissal, or acknowledgement of fait accompli.

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

I dunno... maybe it's the culture here, but I agree 100% with the views
expressed below.

Why is it so hard? If you want a Church wedding, have one. If you don't,
then don't. If your sexual persuasion is not mainstream, but you want to
make a statement of affirmation to your partner, why shouldn't you be able
to? Richard points out in his succinct post below that there are legal
benefits to a Civil Union, so why should gays and lesbians or ANYONE) be
excluded?

There has been a lot of talk about tolerance in this thread, but very little
actual practise of it.

Only when one group wishes to impose its values and will on another, do
problems arise.

I am reminded of Jack Nicholson as the President, in "Mars Attacks"...

"Why can't we all just..... get along?"

Pete.
(Top post, nothing below.)

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0411191954.7fb500b7@posting.google.com...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote
>
>
anything at[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
Church.[color=darkred]
>
> I personally don't see what 'moral authority' has to do with marriage
> at all. It is irrelevant to me what churches do or don't do, and what
> they have to say about anything.
>
> The only reason for getting married is that there are state legislated
> benefits and responsibilities. For example I can set up a partnership
> with my wife for the purpose of doing business and can split the
> income and equity 50-50 without having to make any justification at
> all to the inland revenue in spite of it giving benefits of lower
> taxation.
>
> As for 'morals', no you've lost me there, I see no difference in the
> behaviour of people whether they are married or not.
>
> The issue over 'gay marriage' is that people in permanent
> relationships should be able to enjoy the benefits legislated by the
> state, for example inheritance. For example equity in property. In NZ
> they will call it 'Civil Union' and not Marriage but it will be
> recognised by the law exactly as marriage. In fact we have laws that
> prevent discrimination so straight couple can get Civil Union too, if
> they prefer not to be associated with the 'churchy' marriage.
>
> No, I was not married in a church, nor in a registery office. In NZ
> we have public non-government, non-church Celibrants who will marry
> anyone (with a license) anywhere and anytime (for a fee). If you want
> to be married (or Civil Unionised) in a balloon at midnight over an
> active volcano - no problem. (Well actually there might be for
> _that_.)
>

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In article <9LTN4MDeflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote:

> . On 23.11.04
> wrote joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com (Joe Zitzelberger)
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in joe_zitzelberger-9D1C0B.21152023112004@knology.usenetserver.com
> about Re: OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
>
>
> JZ> What matrimonal responsibilities still exist?
>
> The right to speak for one's child, be it with the school, a
> hospital, or other.

That is a parental responsibility, but does not require marriage.
Single and divorced parents do it all the time...

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cnpm8k$565$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <30acl1F2ssqp6U1@uni-berlin.de>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
thought[color=darkred]
Fi"[color=darkred]
into[color=darkred]
stories[color=darkred]
>
> Gotta love this Internet. Would the word of the National Maritime Museum
> in Greenwich have any weight here?

While I have the utmost respect for this establishment, and have spent many
happy hours there looking at (among other things) the uniform Horatio Neslon
was wearing when he was shot (complete with bullet hole), on this occasion I
am not so sure.

I note that the person responding to the query does not sign his name. I
also know that there is inter-service rivalry in Britain and it would be
just like the Navy to try and discredit the Marines... <G>.(Note the
throwaway disparaging asides in the NMM account...)

Furthermore, I remember my father telling me this story when I was quite
young and he made me check it in "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable"
(first published in 1870 and an accepted authority on folk lore). As my
father was God like in his infallibility I tend to think he got it right,
but I admit to bias on this account <G>.

And then there is the actual quote (which I reproduced from the current
edition of Brewer's...) and this purports to be from Pepys, who is a pretty
reputable chronicler... To my ear, it has the ring of Royalty about it...

I would agree there may be cause for doubt, but I am not convinced by the
J.P Drury story. I could find no reference to him or his alleged book on the
Internet, but that doesn't mean anything, except I could find no reference.
Even if Drury DID publish this account in a work of fiction, how do we know
he hadn't got it from some other source (like Pepys, maybe...)

>
> From:
>
>
<http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/s...contentTypeA/co
nFaq/contentId/64/navId/005002006001002>
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> The version of the origin of the phrase Tell it to the Marines, approved
> by the Royal Marines tells, of a typically wise and experienced officer of
> the Maritime Regiment (the forerunner of todayâ?Ts Royal Marines)
> verifying a yarn about flying fish for the benefit of King Charles II in
> the 1660s. Even then, Marines had been everywhere, done everything, and
> knew everything worth knowing..... Unfortunately this version was actually
> invented by the novelist W. P. Drury (a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the
> Royal Marines) in the 1900s
>
> An earlier reference, more in keeping with the contemporary meaning of the
> phrase, is found in an anonymous work of naval fiction, The Post Captain;
> or, The Wooden Walls well manned: comprehending a view of naval society
> and manners (London: 1806). In this, Captain Brilliant, of HMS Desdemona,
> when a tale started to grow too tall for his taste, was given to saying,
> 'You may tell that to the Marines, but I'll be d----d if the Sailors will
> believe it!'.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> Cpt. Brilliant's use is echoed by Sir Walter Scott in Redgauntlet (1824)
> (found at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/redg10.txt ); the text
> reads 'Tell that to the marines--the sailors won't believe it.'

We could reasonably expect Scott to be aware of it if Brilliant had been
created in naval fiction in 1806. This was a year after Trafalgar and there
was a wave of feeling in the population for the invincible Royal Navy and
Jolly Jack Tar and Hearts of Oak (and of course, the war with Napoleon was
still proceeding, although Trafalgar removed the immediate threat of
invasion.). Under those circumstances it is likely that a work of naval
fiction would be widely read and Scott, being of a literary persuasion,
might well have come across it. The real question then is whether the
anonymous author of "The Post Captain" simply made it up or whether it was,
indeed, reported by Pepys as a conversation with Charles II.

I believe the jury is still out and I don't find the Maritime Museum
evidence compelling enough to make the case. However, I do admit that there
is reasonable doubt on the case made by Brewer's.

I believe this one is a case of believe what you prefer. I prefer Brewer's
account becauseI have found it to be accurate on other things. When they are
not sure they usually say "possibly" or otherwise qualify their explanation.

Pete.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On 23-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> Maybe the 2008 standard can define "swinging classes".... ;)

Is that the same as "swing states"?

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In article <co261q$j9t$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 23-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>Is that the same as "swing states"?

Well, there's already DE (Duke Ellington), LA (Louis Armstrong), GA
(Georgie Auld), AK (Andy Kirk), and CT (Claude Thornhill)... but no BG
(Benny Goodman) or TD (Tommy Dorsey) yet.

(confession - the only one I could remember was DE, the rest I managed to
generate with the assistance of
http://www.swingmusic.net/Big_Band_Playlist.html )

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In article <30bqh6F2ugelsU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cnpm8k$565$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>I believe the jury is still out and I don't find the Maritime Museum
>evidence compelling enough to make the case. However, I do admit that there
>is reasonable doubt on the case made by Brewer's.

*Far* too reasonable of you, Mr Dashwood.

DD

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In article <30ad59F2tpil5U1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> I dunno... maybe it's the culture here, but I agree 100% with the views
> expressed below.
>
> Why is it so hard? If you want a Church wedding, have one. If you don't,
> then don't. If your sexual persuasion is not mainstream, but you want to
> make a statement of affirmation to your partner, why shouldn't you be able
> to? Richard points out in his succinct post below that there are legal
> benefits to a Civil Union, so why should gays and lesbians or ANYONE) be
> excluded?

There are those that would suggest that no persons should receive
benefits from their neighbors simply because they choose to enter a
spiritual union.

The conclusion that naturally follows is that the universe of people
reciving such handouts from their neighbors should be reduced -- not
expanded.

Lueko Willms

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

LX-i

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On 19-Nov-2004, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

>
> I personally don't see what 'moral authority' has to do with marriage
> at all. It is irrelevant to me what churches do or don't do, and what
> they have to say about anything.
>
> The only reason for getting married is that there are state legislated
> benefits and responsibilities. For example I can set up a partnership
> with my wife for the purpose of doing business and can split the
> income and equity 50-50 without having to make any justification at
> all to the inland revenue in spite of it giving benefits of lower
> taxation.

The state shouldn't legislate those benefits and responsibilities, at least in
this limited way. You should be able to make the same partnership with your
brother with the same amount of work.

> As for 'morals', no you've lost me there, I see no difference in the
> behaviour of people whether they are married or not.

Apparently churches and fundies do see a difference. That's their right. A
major function of churches is in defining morality and being moral authority for
their members.

It should *not* be the prerogative of the state.

Donald Tees

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> As a member of a society that believes all New Zealanders should be free to
> exercise whatever kind of union they wish, it would be churlish of me to
> only support the ones I personally "agree with". I see a bigger picture. We
> are all citizens of the same country and we don't want class, race, colour,
> creed, or any other divisions to make us lose sight of that. I love the
> diversity here and I am very happy to support other Kiwis doing things I
> would never consider doing myself.
>
> The key word in your paragraph above is "neighbours". You can be a good one
> or a bad one. If you don't support your neighbours you are not much of a
> neighbour really, are you?
>
>

Hear hear. In the global village, we are all neighbours. The sooner we
realize that, and start acting on it, then the sooner we can start
getting onto some of the real problems.

Donald

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Richard

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In article <pk05q09n8h7gl92u42837ef4uap8jpqah9@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2004 12:35:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>It's not separate from marriage. One cannot get Married (in any State)
>without first dissolving the Civil Union in Divorce Court -- the same
>Family Law court that dissolves marriages, playing by the same rules.
>
>It's not equal to marriage, either.

Sounds like 'Civil Union' in Vermont is not the same as 'Civil Union' in
New Zealand... separated by a common language and all that.

[snip]

>Other States
>may or may not recognize it. DOMA says they don't have to; the Federal
>Constitution says they do. This is sure to be settled in the Supreme
>Court.

This is the same conclusion to which I arrived a while back, aye.

DD

James J. Gavan

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In-Reply-To: <pk05q09n8h7gl92u42837ef4uap8jpqah9@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <pCwod.313615$%k.54997@pd7tw2no>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:44:53 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147
X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1101174293 24.71.223.147 (Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:44:53 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:44:53 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com comp.lang.cobol:102547

Robert Wagner wrote:

>On 22 Nov 2004 12:35:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>It's not separate from marriage. One cannot get Married (in any State)
>without first dissolving the Civil Union in Divorce Court -- the same
>Family Law court that dissolves marriages, playing by the same rules.
>
>It's not equal to marriage, either.
>
>.. Civil Union can only be dissolved in Vermont, which requires one
>year's residency (same as traditional divorce). Other States and
>countries recognize the Union for the purpose of bigamy, but not for
>granting divorce. This is a significant drawback for non-residents of
>Vermont, one not shared by heterosexual couples. Canadian marriages
>face the same problem.
>
>
>
Correct. Quite recently, but I am not sure of location, a male same-sex
couple got a 'civil union' under provincial law, (Ontario, I think).
About a year later they decided it wasn't going to work out, so wanted a
divorce. Problem is nobody anticipated they would want a same-sex divorce.

(The original British North America Act, passed by the British
parliament designated the responsibilities of federal and provincial
jurisdictions. While the federals control law, particularly, criminal,
that Act states that provinces are responsible for the solemnization of
marriage. I haven't checked it out but I would guess the same wording
prevails in the Canadian Charter of Rights which supersedes the now
defunct BNA. The problem on solmenization at the provincial level is
that it's the feds who control application of property rights and equity).

>.. The Federal government does not recognize Civil Union for filing
>joint tax return nor any other benefit, thanks to DOMA. Other States
>may or may not recognize it. DOMA says they don't have to; the Federal
>Constitution says they do. This is sure to be settled in the Supreme
>Court.
>
>

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:17:47 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>(This isn't necessarily directed at you - just the message I picked to
>reply to... :> )
>
>You know, there's something that's been bugging me... I've been reading
>up on that couple in Massachusetts who brought the lawsuit that
>eventually ended up in their Supreme Court. What started it was when
>one of the ladies gave birth, the other couldn't go in and see the baby
>because the hospital's policy only allows for "immediate family members."
>
>Why did they turn to the government for a remedy for this, instead of
>asking the hospital to alter its policy?

Because you're dealing with self-style bureaucrats who will point to
HIPAA, claiming their hands are tied when the regulation said no such
thing.

Dealing with bureaucrats is like dealing with religious fundies.
Appeals to logic, decency and common sense don't work. You have to hit
them with Law. Shove a Power of Attorney under their nose. After they
consult with The Guy Who Knows, they'll let you in.

>That would have raised much
>less of a stink, and it wouldn't have been asking government to redefine
>a word using a definition it's *never* had before. "Gay marriage"
>legislation hasn't stopped companies from offering "domestic partner"
>insurance options - why was the private sector not addressed first? Why
>use the force of the government?

Excellent question. We've been conditioned by FEMA to look first to
Federal solutions.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On 22 Nov 2004 14:55:01 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
>

George W. Bush won the election based on 'moral values'. Last time I
looked his approval rating was 70% compared to Kerry's 20%.
[color=darkred]
>I expect everybody to have the same, or at least similar, morality
>regardless of whether they are a member of a church and no matter
>which church. Those morals are primarily embedded in the laws set by
>the state (country) and imposed by the state's authorities, such as
>the police, law courts, etc.
>
>If the churches want to impose restrictions and sanctions on their
>members beyond this then they must do so only within the laws. If
>they want to impose restrictions and sanctions on others that are not
>willing members, such as me, they can take their saanctimonous crap
>and just bugger off.

THUMBS UP! I agree completely.

Humans have a built-in moral code that isn't tied to religion, it's
tied to survival. A rule like 'don't have sex with close relatives'
has practical ramifications -- offspring are more likely to be
mentally retarded.

When I lived in Japan, the Shinto religion said planting trees on hill
ridges 'pleased the gods'. Well it also had the practical benefit of
protecting cropland from salt spray thrown up by typhoons. People did
the right thing for the wrong reason.

James J. Gavan

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner wrote:

>On 22 Nov 2004 14:55:01 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>George W. Bush won the election based on 'moral values'. Last time I
>looked his approval rating was 70% compared to Kerry's 20%.
>
>
>
>
>THUMBS UP! I agree completely.
>
>Humans have a built-in moral code that isn't tied to religion, it's
>tied to survival. A rule like 'don't have sex with close relatives'
>has practical ramifications -- offspring are more likely to be
>mentally retarded.
>
>When I lived in Japan, the Shinto religion said planting trees on hill
>ridges 'pleased the gods'. Well it also had the practical benefit of
>protecting cropland from salt spray thrown up by typhoons. People did
>the right thing for the wrong reason.
>
>
Well even religion can take a common sense approach, (sometimes). I'm
sure that like you or me there must be the odd Jew who likes the taste
of a pork chop - providing they aren't ultra orthodox. Purely hygiene,
their biblical law enjoins them not to eat pork - because of the
alacrity with which it goes sour in the Mediterranean climate. While in
the RAF in Egypt we certainly ate beef, possibly lamb, but I have to
think really, really hard - I don't think we ever had pork.

On the pork theme, back in UK late fifties - just as refrigerators were
being introduced. We bought a piece of pork for our Sunday roast, put it
in the pantry (a

cupboard), in a Pyrex dish with a lid. Don't know
how but one of those bastard bluebottles got in and following the Bible
edict, "Go forth and multiply" - we finished up within hours with a
family of crawling maggots. Solution - heave ho !.

Don't go near a church but still LUV my fish and chips on Fridays - I
just *like* fish. This is where the Vatican got in on Italian economics
to assist impoverished Italian fishermen. OK Gr

word 'Icthus' and
fish symbol denoting Christ - let's all remember Christ and Good Friday
by acknowledging both by having fish on Fridays. Hey, the fishermen
weren't complaining.

Jimmy.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On 22-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> George W. Bush won the election based on 'moral values'. Last time I
> looked his approval rating was 70% compared to Kerry's 20%.

The polls trying to find out what the swing voters meant by "moral values"
haven't found substance yet. We all have moral values, some believe it is
immoral go to war to hide the fact our war against terrorism is failing.
Others believe divorce is immoral. A vague reference to "moral values" does
not indicate which values we want codified in law.

President Bush talks like a friendly guy from the country. Kerry talked like a
city slicker used-car salesman. And votes were divided between urban and
rural.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

In article <30eg2aF2uu65tU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-A7C2BE.22053521112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> able
>
> Then I would suggest that those who suggest that are small minded people.
>
> If society has agreed to recognise both spiritual and civil unions then the
> "benefits" should be equal whichever union is adopted. And the people who
> stay single have a right to do that too. (Even if it means they are
> contributing to benefits they personally miss out on...) It is all about
> choice.

Our recent marital issues in the US have come from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, both geographically and ideologically remote from most of
the country. It might be worth mentioning that society did not choose
to recognize those unions -- one judge, supported by a panel of higher
judges dictated recognition by fiat (never underestimate the power of a
small car...).

> As a member of a society that believes all New Zealanders should be free to
> exercise whatever kind of union they wish, it would be churlish of me to
> only support the ones I personally "agree with". I see a bigger picture. We
> are all citizens of the same country and we don't want class, race, colour,
> creed, or any other divisions to make us lose sight of that. I love the
> diversity here and I am very happy to support other Kiwis doing things I
> would never consider doing myself.

I tend to agree with you here, though I think it is far easier to get 4
million geographically collocated people to get along than 300 million
well dispersed ones.

> The key word in your paragraph above is "neighbours". You can be a good one
> or a bad one. If you don't support your neighbours you are not much of a
> neighbour really, are you?

I used the word 'neighbours' only in the most sarcastic sense -- around
these parts we tend to call them comrades from the 'Peoples Republic of
Massachusetts'.

But I am a bad neighbour to my geographic neighbours -- I broke with 70%
of of them to oppose the Georgia gay marriage ban -- but does that make
me a good neighbour to my fellow Massachusetians?

Either way, it was disturbing the way the entire issues was removed from
the legislature (e.g. the people) and simply imposed ... I can
understand the hostility and I also see great potential for abuse...even
as I support the general outcome.

Chuck Stevens

2004-11-29, 8:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-3D1013.09575819112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> In article <x6hnd.788$3K3.79@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
at[color=darkred]
members."[color=darkred]
>
> This always has been a totally bogus arguement. The simple fix is a
> limited power of attorney for medical matters.

Yes, it's simple. Why should this be the only available option for one pair
of people and unnecessary for another pair? What other hoops should the
first pair have to go through (e.g., *automatic* inheritance rights) that
the second doesn't?

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2004-11-29, 8:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-A7C2BE.22053521112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> In article <30ad59F2tpil5U1@uni-berlin.de>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
able[color=darkred]
>
> There are those that would suggest that no persons should receive
> benefits from their neighbors simply because they choose to enter a
> spiritual union.
>
> The conclusion that naturally follows is that the universe of people
> reciving such handouts from their neighbors should be reduced -- not
> expanded.

Reduced? To which subset, and why? Why not eliminate the criterion
altogether?

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2004-11-29, 8:55 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message news:...

> ... pastor of the Woodbury Baptist Church of Wichita, Kansas ....

Sorry, I was going from memory at that point in composing my entry. That's
*Westboro* Baptist Church of *Topeka*, Kansas.

-Chuck Stevens

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-30, 3:55 pm

In article <cofu28$2jvc$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-A7C2BE.22053521112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> able
>
> Reduced? To which subset, and why? Why not eliminate the criterion
> altogether?
>
> -Chuck Stevens

I have in fact said they should be eleminated altogether in other places
in this long running thread.

But I used 'reduced' as a natural opposite of 'expanded'...

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-30, 3:55 pm

In article <coftso$2jrl$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-3D1013.09575819112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> at
> members."
>
> Yes, it's simple. Why should this be the only available option for one pair
> of people and unnecessary for another pair? What other hoops should the
> first pair have to go through (e.g., *automatic* inheritance rights) that
> the second doesn't?
>
> -Chuck Stevens

That hoop isn't much -- it took me about twenty minutes to get a LPA to
manage my brothers household goods when he was en route to Afganistan.

By contrast, my marriage license took about three hours at the Muscogee
County marriage and gun license bureau (yes, they really are together).

The why? Well, 800 years of english common law has failed to offer
legal recognition of same sex unions. That is the source of such
automatic rights for complementary sex unions, but hardly the only
source of those rights.

As DD asked earlier in this thread, why limit it to a single species?
Why not have automatic interspecies inheritance rights? Somewhere a
line must exist or everyone would have automatic rights to everyone
else. Tradition and common law drew that line a a complementary sex
pair. I'm not suggesting that is right or wrong, just what has existed
for hundreds of years.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-30, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-788233.09055330112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

[snip]

>As DD asked earlier in this thread, why limit it to a single species?
>Why not have automatic interspecies inheritance rights?

Mr Zitzelberger, I do not recall suggesting that species be ignored; what
I asked was why limit it to a single sex as long as the participants are
capable of giving legal consent (which I mislabelled as 'informed
consent'). To the best of my knowledge only human beings of a certain age
and who are not of diminished capacities are capable of giving this
consent; other species cannot sign contracts.

DD

Chuck Stevens

2004-11-30, 3:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-788233.09055330112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> That hoop isn't much -- it took me about twenty minutes to get a LPA to
> manage my brothers household goods when he was en route to Afganistan.
>
> By contrast, my marriage license took about three hours at the Muscogee
> County marriage and gun license bureau (yes, they really are together).

How many trips to how many government agencies, and how many hours of time
spent with a lawyer, would it take for a Lesbian couple to obtain every
single right that a heterosexual married couple have by virtue of a single
certificate?

> The why? Well, 800 years of english common law has failed to offer
> legal recognition of same sex unions. That is the source of such
> automatic rights for complementary sex unions, but hardly the only
> source of those rights.

And some 700 years of English common law continued the idea that females of
the human species were insufficiently equipped to make important decisions,
like voting. Unless your argument is that English (or American) law (common
or otherwise) has not evolved *at all* since the Magna Carta -- an argument
I can only look at with amazement -- I don't know what it is! Something
like "My great-great-grandpa held this position, and that's good enough for
me!"?
..
> As DD asked earlier in this thread, why limit it to a single species?
> Why not have automatic interspecies inheritance rights?

As DD has answered in this thread, precisely because the marriage CONTRACT
is a CONTRACT and those of other species are not eligible to enter into
CONTRACTS.

> Somewhere a
> line must exist or everyone would have automatic rights to everyone
> else.

I am not talking about having the "rights to" anyone -- that's a rather
interesting view of the marriage contract, I'd say. I am talking about any
two people who already have the right to enter into contracts being allowed
to sign this one.

> Tradition and common law drew that line a a complementary sex
> pair. I'm not suggesting that is right or wrong, just what has existed
> for hundreds of years.

Irrelevant.

-Chuck Stevens

James J. Gavan

2004-11-30, 3:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger wrote:

>That hoop isn't much -- it took me about twenty minutes to get a LPA to
>manage my brothers household goods when he was en route to Afganistan.
>
>By contrast, my marriage license took about three hours at the Muscogee
>County marriage and gun license bureau (yes, they really are together).
>
>
>
You had a shotgun wedding ?

Jimmy

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-30, 8:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-788233.09055330112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> In article <coftso$2jrl$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
<snip>>
> By contrast, my marriage license took about three hours at the Muscogee
> County marriage and gun license bureau (yes, they really are together).
>
ROFL!

Thanks Joe, that really made my day... <G>

So, would it take three hours to get a gun license?

(Ahm, perroud t' be an Okey from Muscogeeeee...)

The united States of America...(God Bless 'em).

Pete.
<snip>

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-30, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cohvq9$ba5$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article
<joe_zitzelberger-788233.09055330112004@knology.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>To the best of my knowledge only human beings of a certain age
> and who are not of diminished capacities are capable of giving this
> consent; other species cannot sign contracts.
>
I knew a monkey once... at least, I think it was a monkey...swore blind he
was a CEO, but I still reckon he was a monkey...

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-30, 8:55 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:coi8ra$1533$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
<snip>>
> How many trips to how many government agencies, and how many hours of time
> spent with a lawyer, would it take for a Lesbian couple to obtain every
> single right that a heterosexual married couple have by virtue of a single
> certificate?
>
As a repressed Lesbian I find this one particularly important.

I know there's a Lesbian in me because I've seen the videos of what they do,
and I'd do that in a heartbeat...

Just gimme a chance...<G>

>
> And some 700 years of English common law continued the idea that females
of
> the human species were insufficiently equipped to make important
decisions,
> like voting.

And the world has been going to Hell in a wheelbarrow ever since they got
the vote...

>Unless your argument is that English (or American) law (common
> or otherwise) has not evolved *at all* since the Magna Carta -- an
argument
> I can only look at with amazement -- I don't know what it is! Something
> like "My great-great-grandpa held this position, and that's good enough
for
> me!"?
> .
Oddly enough the Dashwood family motto is "Pro Magna Carta". (no, really,
I'm not joking...)

See, we've ALWAYS upheld the rights of people and democracy. Ever since
Roget D'Ashwood fought at Hastings. I can't help it, it's in my
jeans....well, SOMETHING is in my jeans...

>

Ooo Oooo Oooo can I marry my Teddy Bear? Please...can I?

(My psychiatrist, Dr Twinky, says we have a SPECIAL relationship... Teddy
likes Dr. Twinky...)

> As DD has answered in this thread, precisely because the marriage CONTRACT
> is a CONTRACT and those of other species are not eligible to enter into
> CONTRACTS.
>

So, what about the pond life in Car Sale yards who sign contracts ...?

>
> I am not talking about having the "rights to" anyone -- that's a rather
> interesting view of the marriage contract, I'd say. I am talking about
any
> two people who already have the right to enter into contracts being
allowed
> to sign this one.
>
>
> Irrelevant.

I like irrelefants. Do they have rights? Can they sign contracts? I reckon
the people (or species) with the biggest noses should rule the world...
(oops, sorry Moshe, forgot you already do...<G> )

Don't you think this thread is getting, like, surreal...?

"Pro Magna Carta"

Pete.

>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-01, 3:55 am

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:314fu2F3472ddU1@individual.net...

> Don't you think this thread is getting, like, surreal...?

Perhaps; I can see how you would think so. But some parts of the US are
*extremely* conservative, and Orange County, California is one of them.
Maybe you don't run into folks like this:

I've personally run across the folks from Westboro Baptist Church and their
ilk, I've seen what they trumpet as Christianity firsthand.

One gay couple I knew shared a life together for something approaching
thirty years. They owned a home together, with the appropriate paperwork.
One of them died, and his parents came in, stripped the house of all of its
contents, threw the surviver out onto the street, and convinced the probate
judge to declare the will invalid on the grounds that the survivor was a
gold-digger who had corrupted their son.

I knew another gay man who was told to his face by a co-worker that it was
not only his God-given right but his God-given duty to stone him to death in
front of the company offices for his sins, and that he personally resented
the fact that neither the company nor the government would allow him to
exercize freely the tenets of his religion.

I know another gay man who was literally beaten to the ground by a group of
self-proclaimed Christians wielding Bibles as weapons for the crime of
trying to walk away from their proclamations as to what an abomination
before God he was.

I've encountered people who feel that the men who killed Matthew Shepard
made an oopsie for which they're obviously forgiven because they're
obviously Christian, while Matthew Shepard clearly deserved to be murdered
and to burn in hell forever because he was gay.

Would that these events were surreal. Unfortunately, they aren't.

-Chuck Stevens

James J. Gavan

2004-12-01, 3:55 am

Pete Dashwood wrote:

>Oddly enough the Dashwood family motto is "Pro Magna Carta". (no, really,
>I'm not joking...)
>
>See, we've ALWAYS upheld the rights of people and democracy. Ever since
>Roget D'Ashwood fought at Hastings. I can't help it, it's in my
>jeans....well, SOMETHING is in my jeans...
>
>
Get outta here ! What does that translate to - Roger the Dodger from Ash
Wood - just shoving a "D'" in front doesn't make it sound very
Gallic/Normanesque. They were a bunch of Viking-Norman cut-throats and
robbers who joined Willie the Conker to s

their fortunes. And you
know bloody well that by slipping one of the monks at Battle Abbey a
few bucks, years after the Battle of Hastings, you could be added to the
roll-call as though you *actually* had been around in 1066. By the time
you get to your Hellfire Club relative - some legitimacy given to the
'claim' - nobody could really check after some 600-700 years.

Now my brother when he first came over here had the four family crests
put on to plaques, Maternal - Walsh and McDermot, Paternal - Gavan and
Dunne. There are outfits in N. America, for a buck, will print you out
a computerised family tree, even if granddaddy was a chimpanzee. (There
just aint no such animal as family crests in Ireland, they weren't into
heraldry). Really impressed his new Canuck friends. When they were gone
he would grin and slyly tell me, "Well I tell them we are descended from
the Kings of Ireland". Quite possible, and there were hundreds of 'em -
chieftains of small nomadic herdsmen clans drifting to and fro across
Ireland with their goats, sheep and cows.

Not too many years ago I got a blurb from the promoters assuring me they
could trace my family tree, using a template letter :-

"John Gavan was the first Gavan to arrive in New York in 1801. *She*
did this........".

I was intrigued by the bit that you did on checking accuracy for
duplicate names and addresses, rejecting, what was it, some 12,00
records. Those silly buggers that sent the above couldn't even get his
sex right !

You bet you've got something in your jeans - probably bovine. I believe
your fairy tale about as much as you believe there's a God :-)

BTW - I do *not* store stuff, (i.e. e-mail) - I keep it in my memory
box, that's why my quotes are only approximate.

Jimmy

James J. Gavan

2004-12-01, 3:55 am

Chuck Stevens wrote:

>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:314fu2F3472ddU1@individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>Perhaps; I can see how you would think so. But some parts of the US are
>*extremely* conservative, and Orange County, California is one of them.
>Maybe you don't run into folks like this:
>
>I've personally run across the folks from Westboro Baptist Church and their
>ilk, I've seen what they trumpet as Christianity firsthand.
>
>One gay couple I knew shared a life together for something approaching
>thirty years. They owned a home together, with the appropriate paperwork.
>One of them died, and his parents came in, stripped the house of all of its
>contents, threw the surviver out onto the street, and convinced the probate
>judge to declare the will invalid on the grounds that the survivor was a
>gold-digger who had corrupted their son.
>
>I knew another gay man who was told to his face by a co-worker that it was
>not only his God-given right but his God-given duty to stone him to death in
>front of the company offices for his sins, and that he personally resented
>the fact that neither the company nor the government would allow him to
>exercize freely the tenets of his religion.
>
>I know another gay man who was literally beaten to the ground by a group of
>self-proclaimed Christians wielding Bibles as weapons for the crime of
>trying to walk away from their proclamations as to what an abomination
>before God he was.
>
>I've encountered people who feel that the men who killed Matthew Shepard
>made an oopsie for which they're obviously forgiven because they're
>obviously Christian, while Matthew Shepard clearly deserved to be murdered
>and to burn in hell forever because he was gay.
>
>Would that these events were surreal. Unfortunately, they aren't.
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>
>
Incredibly tragic what you relate Chuck. Can you appreciate why much of
the world is currently disturbed by American attitudes, beliefs. Here's
me thinking that men in white pointed hoods, with holes poked out for
eyes, and uttering , "We don't need no niggers, Jews or catholics around
these parts", was just an historical aberration carried over from the
Civil War. Obviously a lack of tolerance is still a deep festering wound
in American society.

I've had a very private thought which has formulated over about a
ten-fifteen year period, and recent events triggered it in my mind.
Economically and historically events appear to occur in cycles. While
most members of 'groups' are quiet majorities, there are the vocal
activists who wish to push the envelope. I'm thinking of say Gloria
Steinberg (if that's how you spell her name - the one who did a stint at
a Bunny Club); she and her friends pushed the envelope for feminism -
not wrong, but to-day I don't think the concept has much female support
- young women accept as is, not realizing what Steinberg and company
actually achieved.

The same with homosexuality. I have no idea of numbers, but somehow
feel, that given decriminalization of the sexual act and equal
property/equity rights under the law, coupled with some civil
recognition of same-sex marriage/partnerships, then again a silent
majority could live with such a status, quietly leading their own
lifestyle. Unfortunately there are the activists, who again want to push
the envelope, 'in your face'.

Now here's my thought - religion, and specifically Christianity in the
Western World, is going to turn around and bite, with "Enough is enough
!". Might seem far-fetched, but I see that we could have something as
horrific as the Reformation, re-cycled, times a factor of 'n'. Then add
to that the possibility of it triggering a confrontation between
Christianity and Islam.

Note, agnostics and atheists - you don't even get consulted - in all
likelihood, after the homosexuals, you could be the next targets.
Reflect on Nazism - first target Jews, but then add mentally-disabled,
gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals et al......

(Pause at this point and ask yourself where is atheistic China in all
this confrontation).

God forbid. And I sincerely hope my thoughts are skewed.

Jimmy

Jeff York

2004-12-01, 8:55 am

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>
>"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
>news:coi8ra$1533$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
><snip>>
>As a repressed Lesbian I find this one particularly important.
>
>I know there's a Lesbian in me because I've seen the videos of what they do,
>and I'd do that in a heartbeat...
>
>Just gimme a chance...<G>
>
>
>of
>decisions,
>
>And the world has been going to Hell in a wheelbarrow ever since they got
>the vote...
>
>argument
>for
>Oddly enough the Dashwood family motto is "Pro Magna Carta". (no, really,
>I'm not joking...)
>
>See, we've ALWAYS upheld the rights of people and democracy. Ever since
>Roget D'Ashwood fought at Hastings. I can't help it, it's in my
>jeans....well, SOMETHING is in my jeans...
>
>
>Ooo Oooo Oooo can I marry my Teddy Bear? Please...can I?
>
>(My psychiatrist, Dr Twinky, says we have a SPECIAL relationship... Teddy
>likes Dr. Twinky...)
>
>
>
>So, what about the pond life in Car Sale yards who sign contracts ...?
>
>any
>allowed
>
>I like irrelefants. Do they have rights? Can they sign contracts? I reckon
>the people (or species) with the biggest noses should rule the world...
>(oops, sorry Moshe, forgot you already do...<G> )
>
>Don't you think this thread is getting, like, surreal...?
>
>"Pro Magna Carta"

Peter.. I don't know what you're "on"... But can you tell me where to
get it? :-)

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-01, 8:55 am

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:wxbrd.393951$nl.202429@pd7tw3no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Get outta here ! What does that translate to - Roger the Dodger from Ash
> Wood - just shoving a "D'" in front doesn't make it sound very
> Gallic/Normanesque. They were a bunch of Viking-Norman cut-throats and
> robbers who joined Willie the Conker to s

their fortunes.

A "bunch of cutthroats" who carried out the last successful invasion of
England ....

I spent a Summer afternoon on the field in Battle and visualized the whole
thing. The total numbers on both sides were less than 10,000 men and in one
afternoon they changed the course of Western History. When you think that
100,000 men died on the Somme in one day without making the tiniest bit of
difference, it is a sobering thought.

Despite what you might think, my sympathies were with Harold and I think the
whole thing was a tragedy.

But you missed the whole point of my post, Jimmy. It was about how
ridiculous this thread is becoming.

I certainly did not intend to add fuel to the fire.

> And you
> know bloody well that by slipping one of the monks at Battle Abbey a
> few bucks, years after the Battle of Hastings, you could be added to the
> roll-call as though you *actually* had been around in 1066.

Well Jimmy, before you dismiss the research of other people, you should do
some of your own. I understand it is DeBrett's who document Roget D'Ashwood
although the connection is, admittedly, tenuous, and it is over 30 years
since I was told about it. As I don't have a copy, I can't check, so you may
be right.

Personally I neither know nor care whether the Dashwoods were at Hastings,
any more than I care about the properly documented history of the family.
You have obviously been to West Wycombe, gone through the caves and decided
that was the start of the family. It wasn't. The baronetcy was granted by
Queen Elizabeth the first, and the Dashwood family were prominent before
that. Francis and the Hellfire club (the Mad Monks of Medmenham) are
probably the most interesting, but we had a Lord Mayor of London (1702),
several admirals, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and an explorer in
Victorian times who found a pass through the Southern Alps of New Zealand
which is named after him. We also had a number of rogues and vagabonds, just
like any family. Then there is me... <G>

I place no store by any of this stuff and mentioned it in passing only
because the family motto IS "Pro Magna Carta" and there IS a long history of
defending civil rights. I might just as well have mentioned that Francis
introduced the Black Mass to England and was the first British Satanist, so
it is hardly any wonder I am an atheist. While all of these things may be
true, I attach no importance to them and I don't believe they were
instrumental in making me what I am today. I hold the views I do because of
my life experience in THIS lifetime, no other, and certainly not because of
what some ancestor did or didn't do. I am what I am and I make no apology
for it.

> By the time
> you get to your Hellfire Club relative - some legitimacy given to the
> 'claim' - nobody could really check after some 600-700 years.
>

The claim was legitimate long before that, see above.

> Now my brother when he first came over here had the four family crests
> put on to plaques, Maternal - Walsh and McDermot, Paternal - Gavan and
> Dunne. There are outfits in N. America, for a buck, will print you out
> a computerised family tree, even if granddaddy was a chimpanzee. (There
> just aint no such animal as family crests in Ireland, they weren't into
> heraldry). Really impressed his new Canuck friends. When they were gone
> he would grin and slyly tell me, "Well I tell them we are descended from
> the Kings of Ireland". Quite possible, and there were hundreds of 'em -
> chieftains of small nomadic herdsmen clans drifting to and fro across
> Ireland with their goats, sheep and cows.
>
> Not too many years ago I got a blurb from the promoters assuring me they
> could trace my family tree, using a template letter :-
>
> "John Gavan was the first Gavan to arrive in New York in 1801. *She*
> did this........".
>
> I was intrigued by the bit that you did on checking accuracy for
> duplicate names and addresses, rejecting, what was it, some 12,00
> records. Those silly buggers that sent the above couldn't even get his
> sex right !
>
> You bet you've got something in your jeans - probably bovine. I believe
> your fairy tale about as much as you believe there's a God :-)
>
That is both our prerogatives. I did not post in the hope of persuading
Jimmy Gavan, and disparaging my personal beliefs to support your argument
could be seen by some as a cheap shot. Have I ever sneered at your religious
beliefs? (or those of anyone else here?) Please accord the same respect to
mine. I hold my views just as firmly and with the same reverence you do
yours, Jimmy. Although I recognise you meant no harm by it, your analogy is
out of order.
>
I will not be responding to any further posts here regarding the family. It
was wrong of me to mention it and I realise I shouldn't have. It is
personal, and it is off topic.

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-01, 8:55 am

Thanks Jeff,

glad to know I'm appreciated... <G>

Pete.

"Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kcarq05uactdkpl0pr7169jrgse2haieli@
4ax.com...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
time[color=darkred]
single[color=darkred]
do,[color=darkred]
females[color=darkred]
Something[color=darkred]
CONTRACT[color=darkred]
existed[color=darkred]
reckon[color=darkred]
>
> Peter.. I don't know what you're "on"... But can you tell me where to
> get it? :-)
>
> --
> Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
> jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
> and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
>
> ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
> than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
> known as afternoon tea.."
>
> Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
>
>
>

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-12-01, 3:55 pm

In article <coi8ra$1533$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-788233.09055330112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
>
> How many trips to how many government agencies, and how many hours of time
> spent with a lawyer, would it take for a Lesbian couple to obtain every
> single right that a heterosexual married couple have by virtue of a single
> certificate?

Maybe a few hours with Quicken Family Lawyer and a trip to the local
Notery.

>
> And some 700 years of English common law continued the idea that females of
> the human species were insufficiently equipped to make important decisions,
> like voting. Unless your argument is that English (or American) law (common
> or otherwise) has not evolved *at all* since the Magna Carta -- an argument
> I can only look at with amazement -- I don't know what it is! Something
> like "My great-great-grandpa held this position, and that's good enough for
> me!"?
> .

That is not my position, just the reality. A hundred years ago you
would have gotten the same answer to the "why can't women vote?"
question.

You (and others) seem to be of the impression that it was just last w

when a bunch of southern christian redneck KKK types rode into town and
invalidated all the happy same sex marriages that had existed forever.

They are quite new and quite unusual in the historical scope of things.
AFAIK, only Vermonters have only (slightly) addressed this question with
their legislature. Why not actually try to change the law before
accusing your neighbors of being intolerent and insensitive in the
tradition of great-great-grandpa?

>
> As DD has answered in this thread, precisely because the marriage CONTRACT
> is a CONTRACT and those of other species are not eligible to enter into
> CONTRACTS.

There are many places where society sets arbitray critera for licenses.

One is denied access to the bar for lack of a JD degree -- that does not
mean one is denied legal advice. One is denied medical license without
equal certification, regardless of possible competance -- that does not
deny one medical care.

A marriage license is but one way to secure some automatic rights. And
lack of a marriage license, does not in most cases, deny one other means
of access to the rights it might confer.

>
> I am not talking about having the "rights to" anyone -- that's a rather
> interesting view of the marriage contract, I'd say. I am talking about any
> two people who already have the right to enter into contracts being allowed
> to sign this one.

Automatic right of inheritances.
Automatic implied power of attorney for lots of stuff.
Etc.

Two people who have rights to enter into contracts can enter into the
above contracts through slightly different means. Such a separate
contract option is also available to hetrosexual couples with the
passing of the Commonlaw spouse in some states.

Why insist on the specific contract when the results are otherwise
available. Common law, as you noted, evolves VERY slowly. Specific
acts of legislature trump that and can do so VERY quickly.

Why waste your time with the slow common law approach instead of
addressing this problem to your legislature for correction?

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-01, 3:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Dlcrd.399066$%k.100230@pd7tw2no...

> Incredibly tragic what you relate Chuck. Can you appreciate why much of
> the world is currently disturbed by American attitudes, beliefs. Here's
> me thinking that men in white pointed hoods, with holes poked out for
> eyes, and uttering , "We don't need no niggers, Jews or catholics around
> these parts", was just an historical aberration carried over from the
> Civil War. Obviously a lack of tolerance is still a deep festering wound
> in American society.

When Walt Disney decided to build Disneyland in Anaheim in the early 1950's,
he made it a condition of doing so that the City Council could no longer
wear their Klan garb in Public.

I've heard from several relatively reliable sources that as late as the
1980's there was a police code "NIN" in Newport Beach; the last two letters
stood for "In Newport". I leave it to your imagination what the first "N"
stood for.

I don't disagree with the points at all. Stonewall was in 1969, and I think
in general the gay community has quieted *way* down since the early 1980's
(after the decimation -- and devastation -- of the AIDS crisis).

As to the point of "in your face": Why is a family photograph of wife and
kiddies on one's desk appropriate in the workplace, while a family
photograph of oneself with one's lover a political statement? "Quitely
leading their own lifestyle" tends to evolve very quickly into "unless we
get a hint that your lifestyle might differ from ours".

The concept of privacy as to sexual activity applying only to heterosexual
activity was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick back in
1986. This decision was reversed by Lawrence and Garner v. Texas just one
year ago.

The police had entered Lawrence and Garner's apartment without permission to
investigate a (false) report of an armed intruder (having broken into the
wrong apartment), found them "engaged in sodomy" and arrested them.
Lawrence and Garner appealed their conviction on the grounds of equal
protection and right to privacy (basically challenging Hardwick) and won
their appeal. At the time of that decision, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and
Missouri banned "sodomy" between same-sex couples but not between
opposite-sex couples; thirteen more banned such acts outright. These laws
were overturned by that decision.

> Now here's my thought - religion, and specifically Christianity in the
> Western World, is going to turn around and bite, with "Enough is enough
> !". Might seem far-fetched, but I see that we could have something as
> horrific as the Reformation, re-cycled, times a factor of 'n'. Then add
> to that the possibility of it triggering a confrontation between
> Christianity and Islam.

Well, as I said, I see *much* less activism from the gay community now than
I saw in the early 1980's.

> Note, agnostics and atheists - you don't even get consulted - in all
> likelihood, after the homosexuals, you could be the next targets.
> Reflect on Nazism - first target Jews, but then add mentally-disabled,
> gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals et al......

I don't disagree.

> God forbid. And I sincerely hope my thoughts are skewed.

They may well not be. But I am not convinced it's the job of the targets
(of any stripe or ilk) to make themselves invisible and accept whatever the
targeters want to dish out! The Stonewall Riots in 1969 stemmed from the
police repeatedly raiding the gay bars in Greenwich Village. I do reflect
on Nazism and similar views; as I indicated elsewhere in this thread the
City Council of the town in which I live was appearing as a group in their
Klan robes until Walt Disney convinced them that this might repel the
tourists he was hoping to attract with Disneyland! And this ain't hardly the
deep south.

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-01, 3:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-7FC25A.09402001122004@knology.usenetserver.com...

> Maybe a few hours with Quicken Family Lawyer and a trip to the local
> Notery.

And that's going to suffice to convince the people in the hospital that you
*really are* another guy's spouse? Does a married couple have to carry
their marriage certificate around with them to prove their relationship?

> You (and others) seem to be of the impression that it was just last w

> when a bunch of southern christian redneck KKK types rode into town and
> invalidated all the happy same sex marriages that had existed forever.

Figuratively it *was* last w

when KKK types were running the town I live
in. The times, they are a'changing, though; we now have one (out of six)
US representative from our county that's a Democrat, replacing the
much-loved B-1 Bob Dornan, who I believe replaced William Dannemeyer ...

> They are quite new and quite unusual in the historical scope of things.
> AFAIK, only Vermonters have only (slightly) addressed this question with
> their legislature. Why not actually try to change the law before
> accusing your neighbors of being intolerent and insensitive in the
> tradition of great-great-grandpa?

My personal opinion is that laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of
sex are fundamentally in conflict with laws that prohibit same-sex couples
from entering into a marriage contract to begin with. I don't understand
the convoluted thinking that allows both to coexist in the same
jurisdiction.

> A marriage license is but one way to secure some automatic rights. And
> lack of a marriage license, does not in most cases, deny one other means
> of access to the rights it might confer.

It does deny *automatic* rights because they are automatically conferred
with the marriage license. One can address each of those rights
individually -- with varying success compared to that which comes with the
marriage license -- but that is no longer an automatic process.

> Automatic right of inheritances.
> Automatic implied power of attorney for lots of stuff.
> Etc.

But this isn't automatic.

> Two people who have rights to enter into contracts can enter into the
> above contracts through slightly different means. Such a separate
> contract option is also available to hetrosexual couples with the
> passing of the Commonlaw spouse in some states.

Not all states recognize common-law marriages (California for one).

> Why insist on the specific contract when the results are otherwise
> available. Common law, as you noted, evolves VERY slowly. Specific
> acts of legislature trump that and can do so VERY quickly.

And as I said above I think laws that preclude two people with matching
plumbing from entering into this particular contract are in fundamental
conflict with civil rights laws based on gender.

-Chuck Stevens

Howard Brazee

2004-12-01, 3:55 pm

On 30-Nov-2004, "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Incredibly tragic what you relate Chuck. Can you appreciate why much of
> the world is currently disturbed by American attitudes, beliefs. Here's
> me thinking that men in white pointed hoods, with holes poked out for
> eyes, and uttering , "We don't need no niggers, Jews or catholics around
> these parts", was just an historical aberration carried over from the
> Civil War. Obviously a lack of tolerance is still a deep festering wound
> in American society.

Send them back where they came from - the Injuns too!

Michael Wojcik

2004-12-01, 8:55 pm

In article <coi8ra$1533$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> writes:
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-788233.09055330112004@knology.usenetserver.com...
>
> How many trips to how many government agencies, and how many hours of time
> spent with a lawyer, would it take for a Lesbian couple to obtain every
> single right that a heterosexual married couple have by virtue of a single
> certificate?

For that matter, how much work is it to dissolve that relationship?
Before we were married, my wife and I had (present, durable) medical
power of attorney, (present, durable) financial power of attorney,
joint bank accounts, wills and insurance policies specifying the
other as the beneficiary, and considerable property owned jointly
with right of survivorship. When people suggested we get married "to
show our commitment", we pointed out that marriage would make it much
easier for us to split up.

Dissolving all of those piecemeal arrangements is a lot more work
than divorce. Easy divorce is also a civil right, accorded only to
couples that are permitted to marry.

(That wasn't the main reason we weren't married, of course. The main
one was that we don't like joining exclusionary clubs. That hasn't
changed, but Vermont, Massachusetts, and Ontario took some of the
sting out - one of my wife's former graduate students was among the
first men in Toronto to marry another man - and eventually my wife
decided she'd like to be married to me. I was planning to stick
around anyway, so our legal status didn't concern me terribly one way
or the other.)

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Viewers are bugs for famous brands.
-- unknown subtitler, Jackie Chan's _Thunderbolt_

James J. Gavan

2004-12-02, 3:55 pm

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-03, 3:55 am

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-03, 3:55 am

Chuck Stevens

2004-12-03, 3:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-A7C2BE.22053521112004@knology.usenetserver.com...