Where is equal protection when it comes to taxation. Guess that premise
doesnt apply either.

At least tomorrow is Monday.

Hurry up turkey day.


----- Original Message -----
From: "fred White" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Enlightenment?


> On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 05:07 AM, Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 03:49:33AM -0800, Craig Lalley wrote:
> >> Once again you hit the nail on the head.  Society over time has
> >> developed a
> >> contract call "Marriage" it is a partnership between two people, God,
> >> and since
> >> the Government is involved it is a four way partnership.
> >
> > Bzzt. Incorrect premise: while, under the beliefs of many (probably
> > all)
> > religions, the relevant deit{y is,ies are} involved, in the eyes of US
> > law,
> > it is strictly a civil contract. Otherwise, civil judges could not
> > perform
> > marriages.
> >
> > It is the benefits of that civil contract that should be made
> > available to
> > all under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation. If they are
> > not,
> > then the words "equal protection under the law" are devoid of meaning.
>
> Right on Jay.
>
> Unfortunately, this reasoning won't make a dent on closed minds.
>
> FW
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *