Sort of a dumb question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and
heard about the Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at
the same time, I thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly
married can the file their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as
Mass. my allow them to do their state taxes together, but the union may
not be recognized by the federal government. Just a random musing, but
what about if Bob lives in Mass. and John in say, France and they want
to do a K1? I have no plans myself, but it does raise at the very least
an intersting set of questions.

The purpose of my question is not
asked to spark humor about the topic, but a serious conversation about
the subject. I feel that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question
of, "Equal Rights" is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob
going to have the same immigration rights being a US citizen if he were
to be engaged to John or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would
be interested to hear some feedback from some of the group:)

Scott


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions. The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group:) Scott

Hi:

The
idea that a marriage is valid if valid under the law of the jurisdiction
where it is performed is one of long legal standing. Under the
Constitution, this venerable idea is even stronger given the "full faith
& credit" clause.

So, from a "conservative" viewpoint of "State's
Rights" such a marriage should be recognized.

However, the Bush
administration has been quite radical in attacking this conservative
concept. Also, there is the "Defense of Marriage Act" which explicitly
attacks certain marriages which may be valid under state law.


Interesting topic.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions. The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group:) Scott

Hi:

The
idea that a marriage is valid if valid under the law of the jurisdiction
where it is performed is one of long legal standing. Under the
Constitution, this venerable idea is even stronger given the "full faith
& credit" clause.

So, from a "conservative" viewpoint of "State's
Rights" such a marriage should be recognized.

However, the Bush
administration has been quite radical in attacking this conservative
concept. Also, there is the "Defense of Marriage Act" which explicitly
attacks certain marriages which may be valid under state law.


Interesting topic.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

This is a great question. Clearly as Mr. F states the marriage must be
recognized in all 50 states (assuming there is no constitutional
amendment). But what about immigration rights?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

This is a great question. Clearly as Mr. F states the marriage must be
recognized in all 50 states (assuming there is no constitutional
amendment). But what about immigration rights?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions. The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group:) Scott

This is
such an interesting topic!:)
I heard about the gay marriage this
morning. Bush´s administration already said they are going to "appeal"
the decission made by The Massachusetts Supreme Court. :(:(


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions. The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group:) Scott

This is
such an interesting topic!:)
I heard about the gay marriage this
morning. Bush´s administration already said they are going to "appeal"
the decission made by The Massachusetts Supreme Court. :(:(


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

The Bush adminstartion cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme
court. Marriage is a state law and the federal government cannot touch
it.

What the Bushies can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not
state) which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In
the meantime, the Mass. state legislature may consider a (state)
constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule
what the Mass. Supreme Ct. ruled.

Confused yet?


Originally
posted by Hypertweeky This is such an interesting topic!:)
I
heard about the gay marriage this morning. Bush´s administration already
said they are going to "appeal" the decission made by The Massachusetts
Supreme Court. :(:(


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

The Bush adminstartion cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme
court. Marriage is a state law and the federal government cannot touch
it.

What the Bushies can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not
state) which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In
the meantime, the Mass. state legislature may consider a (state)
constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule
what the Mass. Supreme Ct. ruled.

Confused yet?


Originally
posted by Hypertweeky This is such an interesting topic!:)
I
heard about the gay marriage this morning. Bush´s administration already
said they are going to "appeal" the decission made by The Massachusetts
Supreme Court. :(:(


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark The Bush adminstartion
cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme court. Marriage is a state
law and the federal government cannot touch it. What the Bushies
can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not state) which defines
marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the meantime, the Mass.
state legislature may consider a (state) constitutional amendment
outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule what the Mass. Supreme Ct.
ruled. Confused yet?

Hi:

The scope and applicablity of
the "Defense of Marriage Act" in its attack on certain marriages has yet
to be determined.

I have not experienced this in my practice, but the
rumor mill has it that CIS will NOT recognize a marriage between a man
and a woman if the woman had been born a man -- and they actually RELY
on the DOMA definiton of a marriage being between a man and woman. This
was started by the former INS at the intructions of John Ashcroft.

Many
lawyers [both conservative and "liberal"-- and some within the
government] scratch their heads at the extremely radical positions taken
by Mr. Ashcroft. I know some quite conservative lawyers [long time
Republicans] who don't like Dubya because of Ashcroft.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark The Bush adminstartion
cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme court. Marriage is a state
law and the federal government cannot touch it. What the Bushies
can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not state) which defines
marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the meantime, the Mass.
state legislature may consider a (state) constitutional amendment
outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule what the Mass. Supreme Ct.
ruled. Confused yet?

Hi:

The scope and applicablity of
the "Defense of Marriage Act" in its attack on certain marriages has yet
to be determined.

I have not experienced this in my practice, but the
rumor mill has it that CIS will NOT recognize a marriage between a man
and a woman if the woman had been born a man -- and they actually RELY
on the DOMA definiton of a marriage being between a man and woman. This
was started by the former INS at the intructions of John Ashcroft.

Many
lawyers [both conservative and "liberal"-- and some within the
government] scratch their heads at the extremely radical positions taken
by Mr. Ashcroft. I know some quite conservative lawyers [long time
Republicans] who don't like Dubya because of Ashcroft.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark The Bush adminstartion
cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme court. Marriage is a state
law and the federal government cannot touch it. What the Bushies
can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not state) which defines
marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the meantime, the Mass.
state legislature may consider a (state) constitutional amendment
outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule what the Mass. Supreme Ct.
ruled. Confused yet?

They cant appeal but they could
overrule what the Mass. Supreme Ct Ruled.. It is not the same thing..
but the outcome is the same :(
Thanks for explaining!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark The Bush adminstartion
cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme court. Marriage is a state
law and the federal government cannot touch it. What the Bushies
can do is to introduce a constitutional (US not state) which defines
marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the meantime, the Mass.
state legislature may consider a (state) constitutional amendment
outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule what the Mass. Supreme Ct.
ruled. Confused yet?

They cant appeal but they could
overrule what the Mass. Supreme Ct Ruled.. It is not the same thing..
but the outcome is the same :(
Thanks for explaining!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I do not think this case falls under the type that can be appealed. If
so, Bush would be going for the appeal immediately rather than
suggesting the lengthy and risk constitutional amendment path.

If you
know differently, please explain. I would think Bush has enough of his
people on the Supreme Court to win that appeal.


Originally
posted by Hypertweeky They cant appeal but they could overrule
what the Mass. Supreme Ct Ruled.. It is not the same thing.. but the
outcome is the same :(
Thanks for explaining!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I do not think this case falls under the type that can be appealed. If
so, Bush would be going for the appeal immediately rather than
suggesting the lengthy and risk constitutional amendment path.

If you
know differently, please explain. I would think Bush has enough of his
people on the Supreme Court to win that appeal.


Originally
posted by Hypertweeky They cant appeal but they could overrule
what the Mass. Supreme Ct Ruled.. It is not the same thing.. but the
outcome is the same :(
Thanks for explaining!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark I do not think this case
falls under the type that can be appealed. If so, Bush would be going
for the appeal immediately rather than suggesting the lengthy and risk
constitutional amendment path. If you know differently, please
explain. I would think Bush has enough of his people on the Supreme
Court to win that appeal.

You Initially said "The Bush
adminstartion cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme court.
Marriage is a state law and the federal government cannot touch it"
You
then said "They could introduce a constitutional (US not state) which
defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the meantime,
the Mass. state legislature may consider a (state) constitutional
amendment outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule what the Mass.
Supreme Ct. ruled"

Thats what I said I dont care what Bush do if that
will eventually abolish the supreme court decission.
Is that better?:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark I do not think this case
falls under the type that can be appealed. If so, Bush would be going
for the appeal immediately rather than suggesting the lengthy and risk
constitutional amendment path. If you know differently, please
explain. I would think Bush has enough of his people on the Supreme
Court to win that appeal.

You Initially said "The Bush
adminstartion cannot appeal a decision by a state supreme court.
Marriage is a state law and the federal government cannot touch it"
You
then said "They could introduce a constitutional (US not state) which
defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the meantime,
the Mass. state legislature may consider a (state) constitutional
amendment outlawing gay marriage. This would overrule what the Mass.
Supreme Ct. ruled"

Thats what I said I dont care what Bush do if that
will eventually abolish the supreme court decission.
Is that better?:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions. The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group:) Scott

If John is
from France, Bob and John pacs themselves either in France or at the
nearest consulate (this is the tricky part, because they have to justify
so long of common life). Then, Bob packs its suitcases and moves to
France. There again, it is unfortunately not as easy as if they were
married, but at least, it is better than nothing, and hopefully, in the
future, the rights of pacsed people (who can actually be either 2
guys/women or 1 man and a woman) will be equal to the ones of married
people.

Caroline

PS: I realize that I am totally off-discussion...
However, I just think that it is a shame that "people" always have to
cast another "group of people" as "bad/dangerous for whatever you can
think of" and be intolerant. Can you believe that people used to kill
each other by the tens of thousands because some were catholic and some
were protestants?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw Sort of a dumb
question, but I was listening to Foxnews last night and heard about the
Gay Marriage thing in Mass. As I was doing my taxes at the same time, I
thought to myself, "So if Bob and John are legaly married can the file
their federal taxes jointly". I assume not, as Mass. my allow them to do
their state taxes together, but the union may not be recognized by the
federal government. Just a random musing, but what about if Bob lives in
Mass. and John in say, France and they want to do a K1? I have no plans
myself, but it does raise at the very least an intersting set of
questions. The purpose of my question is not asked to spark humor
about the topic, but a serious conversation about the subject. I feel
that if the thing in Mass. sticks then the question of, "Equal Rights"
is bound to be brought up sooner or later. Is Bob going to have the same
immigration rights being a US citizen if he were to be engaged to John
or Betty? Again, just random musing, but I would be interested to hear
some feedback from some of the group:) Scott

If John is
from France, Bob and John pacs themselves either in France or at the
nearest consulate (this is the tricky part, because they have to justify
so long of common life). Then, Bob packs its suitcases and moves to
France. There again, it is unfortunately not as easy as if they were
married, but at least, it is better than nothing, and hopefully, in the
future, the rights of pacsed people (who can actually be either 2
guys/women or 1 man and a woman) will be equal to the ones of married
people.

Caroline

PS: I realize that I am totally off-discussion...
However, I just think that it is a shame that "people" always have to
cast another "group of people" as "bad/dangerous for whatever you can
think of" and be intolerant. Can you believe that people used to kill
each other by the tens of thousands because some were catholic and some
were protestants?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Will the Defense Of Marriage Act do anything to reduce the divorce rate?


I don't know...


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Will the Defense Of Marriage Act do anything to reduce the divorce rate?


I don't know...


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Which God are you thanking to -- The One in "in God we Trust" or the One
your Hubby may have known in Morocco ("in the Name of God, the Most
Beneficent and the Most Merciful")?


Originally posted by
Leslie66
The thought of the U.S. being run by Islamic law is
pretty scary. In fact the blurring of the lines between government and
religion is a terrifying prospect. Thank God we have the separation of
Church and state, or at least we used to.


--
Sami


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Which God are you thanking to -- The One in "in God we Trust" or the One
your Hubby may have known in Morocco ("in the Name of God, the Most
Beneficent and the Most Merciful")?


Originally posted by
Leslie66
The thought of the U.S. being run by Islamic law is
pretty scary. In fact the blurring of the lines between government and
religion is a terrifying prospect. Thank God we have the separation of
Church and state, or at least we used to.


--
Sami


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Sami
Which God are you thanking to
-- The One in "in God we Trust" or the One your Hubby may have known in
Morocco ("in the Name of God, the Most Beneficent and the Most
Merciful")? Read a little Sami....you'll find that Allah =
Yahweh = Jehovah. Judiaism, Christianity and Islam all belive in the
same God; the differences are in beliefs about the fulfillment of the
prophecies.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Sami
Which God are you thanking to
-- The One in "in God we Trust" or the One your Hubby may have known in
Morocco ("in the Name of God, the Most Beneficent and the Most
Merciful")? Read a little Sami....you'll find that Allah =
Yahweh = Jehovah. Judiaism, Christianity and Islam all belive in the
same God; the differences are in beliefs about the fulfillment of the
prophecies.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Sami Which God are you thanking
to -- The One in "in God we Trust" or the One your Hubby may have
known in Morocco ("in the Name of God, the Most Beneficent and the
Most Merciful")?

They are one and the same. There are
ignorant people on both sides of this discussion who cannot seem to
grasp that concept.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Sami Which God are you thanking
to -- The One in "in God we Trust" or the One your Hubby may have
known in Morocco ("in the Name of God, the Most Beneficent and the
Most Merciful")?

They are one and the same. There are
ignorant people on both sides of this discussion who cannot seem to
grasp that concept.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by sunflwrgrl13 However, I'm of
the opinion that, if a person is gay, fine, as long as you don't try to
force your views down my throat.

I'm with Leslie here.
What views are you speaking of?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by sunflwrgrl13 However, I'm of
the opinion that, if a person is gay, fine, as long as you don't try to
force your views down my throat.

I'm with Leslie here.
What views are you speaking of?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Matthew Udall Or another approach
(as far as "benefits under the law" is concerned) is to do away with any
preferential treatment under the laws afforded to Married Couples. IÂ’m
a single person and IÂ’ve been so most of my life, and it burns me that
I donÂ’t get the same sort of advantages just because IÂ’m not
married.

What advantages to married people get as far as
"benefits under the law"? I'm not being sarcastic either, I really
don't know. I've been single most of my life and I want to take
advantage of these advantages I'm always hearing about.

This even carries over to the private sector. "Let the single guy work
the Christmas day shift or other holiday shifts at work". "He does not
have a family so he wonÂ’t mind while we hoard all of the holidays in
the name of "family". Of course, single people have friends and family
too. If special "leave" is granted to employees with families, similar
benefits should be offered to employees without families.


Exactly. A friend of mine showed up on my doorstep last night after a
huge row with her husband. The first thing she said to me was, "I knew
I could come over and crash here because you're on your own." IOW my
privacy and time was somehow less sacred than her "married with
children" friends. I let her stay the night but I told her that next
time she could go to a hotel. In one week I'm going to start using my
husband as an excuse to not get sucked into everybody's dramas anymore.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Matthew Udall Or another approach
(as far as "benefits under the law" is concerned) is to do away with any
preferential treatment under the laws afforded to Married Couples. IÂ’m
a single person and IÂ’ve been so most of my life, and it burns me that
I donÂ’t get the same sort of advantages just because IÂ’m not
married.

What advantages to married people get as far as
"benefits under the law"? I'm not being sarcastic either, I really
don't know. I've been single most of my life and I want to take
advantage of these advantages I'm always hearing about.

This even carries over to the private sector. "Let the single guy work
the Christmas day shift or other holiday shifts at work". "He does not
have a family so he wonÂ’t mind while we hoard all of the holidays in
the name of "family". Of course, single people have friends and family
too. If special "leave" is granted to employees with families, similar
benefits should be offered to employees without families.


Exactly. A friend of mine showed up on my doorstep last night after a
huge row with her husband. The first thing she said to me was, "I knew
I could come over and crash here because you're on your own." IOW my
privacy and time was somehow less sacred than her "married with
children" friends. I let her stay the night but I told her that next
time she could go to a hotel. In one week I'm going to start using my
husband as an excuse to not get sucked into everybody's dramas anymore.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 What advantages to
married people get as far as "benefits under the law"? I'm not being
sarcastic either, I really don't know. I've been single most of my life
and I want to take advantage of these advantages I'm always hearing
about.

Hi Leslie,
Since I've been single most of my life,
and since my practice does not revolve around these issues, I'm not that
knowledgeable about different types of advantages (other than I've heard
they exist too). I know my tax guy said there would be difference when I
got married. Perhaps there might be some differences for mortgages or
allowances on taxes for mortgages.. I really don't know. Some difference
in treatment (between single people and married couples) might arise
under Federal laws, and there might be some differences that arise under
the laws of the various states (Since Utah is so family oriented,
perhaps the laws of Utah could provide some examples).

I know there is
the ability to give away a certain amount of money tax free as a gift to
someone such as a child, and if that child has a spouse, the parent can
double the amount by giving the same amount (tax free) to the child's
spouse. I'll bet there are all sorts of differences, under various laws,
for the treatment of singles vs. married people.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 What advantages to
married people get as far as "benefits under the law"? I'm not being
sarcastic either, I really don't know. I've been single most of my life
and I want to take advantage of these advantages I'm always hearing
about.

Hi Leslie,
Since I've been single most of my life,
and since my practice does not revolve around these issues, I'm not that
knowledgeable about different types of advantages (other than I've heard
they exist too). I know my tax guy said there would be difference when I
got married. Perhaps there might be some differences for mortgages or
allowances on taxes for mortgages.. I really don't know. Some difference
in treatment (between single people and married couples) might arise
under Federal laws, and there might be some differences that arise under
the laws of the various states (Since Utah is so family oriented,
perhaps the laws of Utah could provide some examples).

I know there is
the ability to give away a certain amount of money tax free as a gift to
someone such as a child, and if that child has a spouse, the parent can
double the amount by giving the same amount (tax free) to the child's
spouse. I'll bet there are all sorts of differences, under various laws,
for the treatment of singles vs. married people.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Andrew,

Good point, "Big deal. According to a lot of old church
doctrine the Earth was flat!
Despite them thinking it, religion is
often incorrect."


M. Udall,

"Since I've been single most of my life",
If you find a relationship with someone overseas, I can you use yourself
as your own immigration lawyer:)


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Andrew,

Good point, "Big deal. According to a lot of old church
doctrine the Earth was flat!
Despite them thinking it, religion is
often incorrect."


M. Udall,

"Since I've been single most of my life",
If you find a relationship with someone overseas, I can you use yourself
as your own immigration lawyer:)


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw "Since I've been
single most of my life", If you find a relationship with someone
overseas, can you use yourself as your own immigration lawyer:)


Sure, and I know each of my client's cases are important to them, so I
treat each one as if it were "my own" case (because in a very real
sense, it "is" my own case).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw "Since I've been
single most of my life", If you find a relationship with someone
overseas, can you use yourself as your own immigration lawyer:)


Sure, and I know each of my client's cases are important to them, so I
treat each one as if it were "my own" case (because in a very real
sense, it "is" my own case).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 Exactly. A friend of
mine showed up on my doorstep last night after a huge row with her
husband. The first thing she said to me was, "I knew I could come over
and crash here because you're on your own." IOW my privacy and time was
somehow less sacred than her "married with children" friends. I let her
stay the night but I told her that next time she could go to a hotel.
In one week I'm going to start using my husband as an excuse to not get
sucked into everybody's dramas anymore.

Good for you!

I'm
also pretty tired of paying for a public school system that I'll never
receive any benefit from (at least not a "direct" benefit like parents
who who use my hard earned tax dollars to subsidize their kid's
education instead of paying for it themselves. Same goes with parents
who drive up the cost of medical care by using the emergency room as
their own private doctors office instead of going to their own doctor
every time their kid blows a snot bubble :-).

I'll bet we "singles"
(straight, gay & lesbian) carry a disproportionate burden as far as
money collected to subsidize a "married with children" society.

And
while I don't like it, I also understand the argument on the other side
about needing to provide some services for the good of the society in
general, and I don't expect any significant change any time soon
(however if all of a sudden gay & lesbian singles are afforded
rights/benefits/opportunities straight singles don't have, that will
just be more upsetting).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 Exactly. A friend of
mine showed up on my doorstep last night after a huge row with her
husband. The first thing she said to me was, "I knew I could come over
and crash here because you're on your own." IOW my privacy and time was
somehow less sacred than her "married with children" friends. I let her
stay the night but I told her that next time she could go to a hotel.
In one week I'm going to start using my husband as an excuse to not get
sucked into everybody's dramas anymore.

Good for you!

I'm
also pretty tired of paying for a public school system that I'll never
receive any benefit from (at least not a "direct" benefit like parents
who who use my hard earned tax dollars to subsidize their kid's
education instead of paying for it themselves. Same goes with parents
who drive up the cost of medical care by using the emergency room as
their own private doctors office instead of going to their own doctor
every time their kid blows a snot bubble :-).

I'll bet we "singles"
(straight, gay & lesbian) carry a disproportionate burden as far as
money collected to subsidize a "married with children" society.

And
while I don't like it, I also understand the argument on the other side
about needing to provide some services for the good of the society in
general, and I don't expect any significant change any time soon
(however if all of a sudden gay & lesbian singles are afforded
rights/benefits/opportunities straight singles don't have, that will
just be more upsetting).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Well, I'm really curious who the real players are behind this banning
gay marriage thing. It was much easier for me when Bush was just
running Texas, everybody here knows who's in bed with who and why.
Andrew eluded to the health insurance industry. I could see large
insurance companies not wanting to open the flood gates. If gay couples
were able to start carrying their partner on their health insurance,
what would be next? God forbid I get to carry my aging dependent
parents. (That's actually just an example. My parents are aging but
they are far from dependent.) Truthfully, there are a lot of parallels
that run between Gay issues and Single's issues.

As for the public
schools, I'll have to split the sheets with you on that one, Matt. I
went to public school and received a decent education for free. Coming
from a working class family with 5 children, if my parents would have
had to pay for my education, I would never have received one. I don't
mind paying back into the karmic bank for that.

I really wonder what
"benefits" I'll start to see from simply being married. I'm skeptical,
to say the least. I think that the most immediate and tangible benefit
(other than warding off my ditsy drama queen friends) will be the "two
incomes one household" benefit. That is not a benefit I am due under
any law though, that's a benefit that we are giving each other as part
of our own marriage contract.


Originally posted by Matthew
Udall Good for you! I'm also pretty tired of paying for a
public school system that I'll never receive any benefit from (at least
not a "direct" benefit like parents who who use my hard earned tax
dollars to subsidize their kid's education instead of paying for it
themselves. Same goes with parents who drive up the cost of medical care
by using the emergency room as their own private doctors office instead
of going to their own doctor every time their kid blows a snot bubble
:-). I'll bet we "singles" (straight, gay & lesbian) carry a
disproportionate burden as far as money collected to subsidize a
"married with children" society.
And while I don't like it, I also
understand the argument on the other side about needing to provide some
services for the good of the society in general, and I don't expect any
significant change any time soon (however if all of a sudden gay &
lesbian singles are afforded rights/benefits/opportunities straight
singles don't have, that will just be more upsetting).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Well, I'm really curious who the real players are behind this banning
gay marriage thing. It was much easier for me when Bush was just
running Texas, everybody here knows who's in bed with who and why.
Andrew eluded to the health insurance industry. I could see large
insurance companies not wanting to open the flood gates. If gay couples
were able to start carrying their partner on their health insurance,
what would be next? God forbid I get to carry my aging dependent
parents. (That's actually just an example. My parents are aging but
they are far from dependent.) Truthfully, there are a lot of parallels
that run between Gay issues and Single's issues.

As for the public
schools, I'll have to split the sheets with you on that one, Matt. I
went to public school and received a decent education for free. Coming
from a working class family with 5 children, if my parents would have
had to pay for my education, I would never have received one. I don't
mind paying back into the karmic bank for that.

I really wonder what
"benefits" I'll start to see from simply being married. I'm skeptical,
to say the least. I think that the most immediate and tangible benefit
(other than warding off my ditsy drama queen friends) will be the "two
incomes one household" benefit. That is not a benefit I am due under
any law though, that's a benefit that we are giving each other as part
of our own marriage contract.


Originally posted by Matthew
Udall Good for you! I'm also pretty tired of paying for a
public school system that I'll never receive any benefit from (at least
not a "direct" benefit like parents who who use my hard earned tax
dollars to subsidize their kid's education instead of paying for it
themselves. Same goes with parents who drive up the cost of medical care
by using the emergency room as their own private doctors office instead
of going to their own doctor every time their kid blows a snot bubble
:-). I'll bet we "singles" (straight, gay & lesbian) carry a
disproportionate burden as far as money collected to subsidize a
"married with children" society.
And while I don't like it, I also
understand the argument on the other side about needing to provide some
services for the good of the society in general, and I don't expect any
significant change any time soon (however if all of a sudden gay &
lesbian singles are afforded rights/benefits/opportunities straight
singles don't have, that will just be more upsetting).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 As for the public
schools, I'll have to split the sheets with you on that one, Matt. I
went to public school and received a decent education for free. Coming
from a working class family with 5 children, if my parents would have
had to pay for my education, I would never have received one. I don't
mind paying back into the karmic bank for that.

Good
point, Leslie. After posting, I thought of that too. I too went to
public school so I "did" receive a direct benefit of the taxes my
parents were paying into the system (as well as the taxes paid by their
single friends).

I was thinking more along the lines as the taxpayer,
who won't ever be sending a child to public school, but again, I also
see the benefit I'll derive "indirectly" by living in a society where at
least this minimum level of education is provided to the newest members
of this society.

But the emergency room thingÂ… that one burns me. I
actually became aware of this problem issue at very young age. My father
was a medical doctor (General Practitioner) who also worked the
emergency room at Mercy Hospital in my hometown. Even way back then he
would comment how some people were really abusing that system instead of
simply going to their own doctor.

Of course, as an adult who now pays
"way" too much for medical insurance (and I've only went in for one
office visit during all of that timeÂ…what a rip-off) I can sort of see
why this happens now. Last time I was sick with a bad cold (the one that
has been going aroundÂ… and of course I know I did not need to see a
doctor for just a cold), I could have called my Doctor and waited 2
weeks for a scheduled appointment (and I would have been better by that
time) or go to the emergency room and let everybody else pay for my
care.

Heck, one of my neighbors who works illegally as an unlicensed
contractor and who has not paid a cent in State and Federal taxes for
years now (and they are starting to come after him on that) goes to the
ER all the time whenever he has a problem.

Originally posted
by Leslie66 I really wonder what "benefits" I'll start to see
from simply being married.

Yes, I'm also interested in what
those benefits are. I'll bet there are quite a number of examples. And
if your older parents are getting to the point where they want to start
shifting their assets to their kids tax free, that is a big one (benefit
due to marriage) where having a spouse can really lead to a huge amount
of extra money in your (and your husband's) pockets. I think its
currently somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000.00 per year (I'm
probably off on the total here) and when you marry, they could double
that and transfer those assets tax free.

My folks did that a long time
ago (and back then, the limit was "much" lower) with my brother, my
sisters and I. I was the only unmarried one, so of course I received
half as much (but hey, anything I got for free was gravy and I did not
complain one bit). And as the unmarried one, I never received help with
a down payment on a home (and of course that was a private decision made
by a family that has nothing to do with benefits under the law).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 As for the public
schools, I'll have to split the sheets with you on that one, Matt. I
went to public school and received a decent education for free. Coming
from a working class family with 5 children, if my parents would have
had to pay for my education, I would never have received one. I don't
mind paying back into the karmic bank for that.

Good
point, Leslie. After posting, I thought of that too. I too went to
public school so I "did" receive a direct benefit of the taxes my
parents were paying into the system (as well as the taxes paid by their
single friends).

I was thinking more along the lines as the taxpayer,
who won't ever be sending a child to public school, but again, I also
see the benefit I'll derive "indirectly" by living in a society where at
least this minimum level of education is provided to the newest members
of this society.

But the emergency room thingÂ… that one burns me. I
actually became aware of this problem issue at very young age. My father
was a medical doctor (General Practitioner) who also worked the
emergency room at Mercy Hospital in my hometown. Even way back then he
would comment how some people were really abusing that system instead of
simply going to their own doctor.

Of course, as an adult who now pays
"way" too much for medical insurance (and I've only went in for one
office visit during all of that timeÂ…what a rip-off) I can sort of see
why this happens now. Last time I was sick with a bad cold (the one that
has been going aroundÂ… and of course I know I did not need to see a
doctor for just a cold), I could have called my Doctor and waited 2
weeks for a scheduled appointment (and I would have been better by that
time) or go to the emergency room and let everybody else pay for my
care.

Heck, one of my neighbors who works illegally as an unlicensed
contractor and who has not paid a cent in State and Federal taxes for
years now (and they are starting to come after him on that) goes to the
ER all the time whenever he has a problem.

Originally posted
by Leslie66 I really wonder what "benefits" I'll start to see
from simply being married.

Yes, I'm also interested in what
those benefits are. I'll bet there are quite a number of examples. And
if your older parents are getting to the point where they want to start
shifting their assets to their kids tax free, that is a big one (benefit
due to marriage) where having a spouse can really lead to a huge amount
of extra money in your (and your husband's) pockets. I think its
currently somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000.00 per year (I'm
probably off on the total here) and when you marry, they could double
that and transfer those assets tax free.

My folks did that a long time
ago (and back then, the limit was "much" lower) with my brother, my
sisters and I. I was the only unmarried one, so of course I received
half as much (but hey, anything I got for free was gravy and I did not
complain one bit). And as the unmarried one, I never received help with
a down payment on a home (and of course that was a private decision made
by a family that has nothing to do with benefits under the law).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I don't want to completely hijack this thread because I think it is a
very good one, but..................................

I did not respond
to your comment about emergency room care because I have nothing valid
to add to the argument, one way or the other. I can tell you this much
though, based on my experience working in public healthcare for 8+
years, the entire healthcare system in this country completely sucks.
The good guys are punished and the snakes are rewarded. If your dad was
a General Practitioner, he was one of the good guys and one of a dying
breed. If he worked in the ER he was probably a saint. Some of the
other good guys are the patients that pay their medical bills, pay their
insurance premiums, and don't abuse the system. The snakes are the
specialists (some) that over-treat and then over-bill, drug companies
that over-charge, and con artists that over-seek medical treatment.
I've know people that use the emergency room as their own private
doctor's office and I have no patience for that nonsense.

I wouldn't
mind seeing healthcare in this country approached the way that we have
approached public schooling. If only there could be a basic level of
healthcare that was free to the public and subsidized by the taxpayers.
We are already inadvertantly paying for it with our taxes anyway. We're
just not reaping any benefit. No spa treatment, just the bare
necessities. No malpractice insurance would be necessary for these
entities because it should be impossible to "sue" them. If citizens
wanted "private" healthcare (and there would be plenty of the affluent
that would) they could purchase it, just like the wealthy currently pay
for private schooling. But alas, as long as there are drug companies,
as well as the other healthcare cronies, lobbying the politicians, this
will never happen.


Originally posted by Matthew Udall
Good point, Leslie. After posting, I thought of that too. I too went
to public school so I "did" receive a direct benefit of the taxes my
parents were paying into the system (as well as the taxes paid by their
single friends). I was thinking more along the lines as the
taxpayer, who won't ever be sending a child to public school, but again,
I also see the benefit I'll derive "indirectly" by living in a society
where at least this minimum level of education is provided to the newest
members of this society. But the emergency room thing… that one
burns me. I actually became aware of this problem issue at very young
age. My father was a medical doctor (General Practitioner) who also
worked the emergency room at Mercy Hospital in my hometown. Even way
back then he would comment how some people were really abusing that
system instead of simply going to their own doctor. Of course, as
an adult who now pays "way" too much for medical insurance (and I've
only gone in for one office visit during all of that time…what a rip-
off) I can sort of see why this happens now. Last time I was sick with a
bad cold (the one that has been going around… and of course I know I did
not need to see a doctor for just a cold), I could have called my Doctor
and waited 2 weeks for a scheduled appointment (and I would have been
better by that time) or go to the emergency room and let everybody else
pay for my care. Heck, one of my neighbors who works illegally as
an unlicensed contractor and who has not paid a cent in State and
Federal taxes for years now (and they are starting to come after him on
that) goes to the ER all the time whenever he has a problem.
Yes, I'm also interested in what those benefits are. I'll bet there are
quite a number of examples. And if your older parents are getting to the
point where they want to start shifting their assets to their kids tax
free, that is a big one (benefit due to marriage) where having a spouse
can really lead to a huge amount of extra money in your (and your
husband's) pockets. I think its currently somewhere in the neighborhood
of $20,000.00 per year (I'm probably off on the total here) and when you
marry, they could double that and transfer those assets tax free.
My
folks did that a long time ago (and back then, the limit was "much"
lower) with my brother, my sisters and I. I was the only unmarried one,
so of course I received half as much (but hey, anything I got for free
was gravy and I did not complain one bit). And as the unmarried one, I
never received help with a down payment on a home (and of course that
was a private decision made by a family that has nothing to do with
benefits under the law).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I don't want to completely hijack this thread because I think it is a
very good one, but..................................

I did not respond
to your comment about emergency room care because I have nothing valid
to add to the argument, one way or the other. I can tell you this much
though, based on my experience working in public healthcare for 8+
years, the entire healthcare system in this country completely sucks.
The good guys are punished and the snakes are rewarded. If your dad was
a General Practitioner, he was one of the good guys and one of a dying
breed. If he worked in the ER he was probably a saint. Some of the
other good guys are the patients that pay their medical bills, pay their
insurance premiums, and don't abuse the system. The snakes are the
specialists (some) that over-treat and then over-bill, drug companies
that over-charge, and con artists that over-seek medical treatment.
I've know people that use the emergency room as their own private
doctor's office and I have no patience for that nonsense.

I wouldn't
mind seeing healthcare in this country approached the way that we have
approached public schooling. If only there could be a basic level of
healthcare that was free to the public and subsidized by the taxpayers.
We are already inadvertantly paying for it with our taxes anyway. We're
just not reaping any benefit. No spa treatment, just the bare
necessities. No malpractice insurance would be necessary for these
entities because it should be impossible to "sue" them. If citizens
wanted "private" healthcare (and there would be plenty of the affluent
that would) they could purchase it, just like the wealthy currently pay
for private schooling. But alas, as long as there are drug companies,
as well as the other healthcare cronies, lobbying the politicians, this
will never happen.


Originally posted by Matthew Udall
Good point, Leslie. After posting, I thought of that too. I too went
to public school so I "did" receive a direct benefit of the taxes my
parents were paying into the system (as well as the taxes paid by their
single friends). I was thinking more along the lines as the
taxpayer, who won't ever be sending a child to public school, but again,
I also see the benefit I'll derive "indirectly" by living in a society
where at least this minimum level of education is provided to the newest
members of this society. But the emergency room thing… that one
burns me. I actually became aware of this problem issue at very young
age. My father was a medical doctor (General Practitioner) who also
worked the emergency room at Mercy Hospital in my hometown. Even way
back then he would comment how some people were really abusing that
system instead of simply going to their own doctor. Of course, as
an adult who now pays "way" too much for medical insurance (and I've
only gone in for one office visit during all of that time…what a rip-
off) I can sort of see why this happens now. Last time I was sick with a
bad cold (the one that has been going around… and of course I know I did
not need to see a doctor for just a cold), I could have called my Doctor
and waited 2 weeks for a scheduled appointment (and I would have been
better by that time) or go to the emergency room and let everybody else
pay for my care. Heck, one of my neighbors who works illegally as
an unlicensed contractor and who has not paid a cent in State and
Federal taxes for years now (and they are starting to come after him on
that) goes to the ER all the time whenever he has a problem.
Yes, I'm also interested in what those benefits are. I'll bet there are
quite a number of examples. And if your older parents are getting to the
point where they want to start shifting their assets to their kids tax
free, that is a big one (benefit due to marriage) where having a spouse
can really lead to a huge amount of extra money in your (and your
husband's) pockets. I think its currently somewhere in the neighborhood
of $20,000.00 per year (I'm probably off on the total here) and when you
marry, they could double that and transfer those assets tax free.
My
folks did that a long time ago (and back then, the limit was "much"
lower) with my brother, my sisters and I. I was the only unmarried one,
so of course I received half as much (but hey, anything I got for free
was gravy and I did not complain one bit). And as the unmarried one, I
never received help with a down payment on a home (and of course that
was a private decision made by a family that has nothing to do with
benefits under the law).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 Some of the other good
guys are the patients that pay their medical billsÂ….

This
comment of yours also brings up a memory of my Father. He had his own
private practice as well as doing his ER shifts (he was also the FAA
approved Doctor in the area and did all of the medical exams for the
pilots at Castle Air Force BaseÂ… My Father was also an Air Force pilot
and flew B-24's in WWII). He passed away in March 01 after fighting
Parkinson's for a number of years.

While still in practice, he had
patients from all walks of life and all economic strata. There was many
a time when he'd come home with boxes full of tomato or red peppers, or
a bunch of home made tamale's that he accepted in lieu of monetary
payments. He'd also sometimes come home with a cigar in his teeth after
delivering a baby (he delivered probably the majority of my class mates
in my home town).

But just like my practice (you would not believe how
many times people call saying they are willing to pay my $75.00
consultation fee, and after I render that service [usually taking 45
minutes to over an hour] I get stiffed), he would sometimes never get
paid for the services he rendered. I recall him saying there was not
much he could do about it since "one cannot repossess another's good
health" :-).

My Dad was very fortunate to have practiced in the
"golden age" of medicine. Can you imagine surviving WWII, getting
married to a nice Mormon girl at BYU, graduating from Harvard medical
school, and then starting a private practice all at a time when
something as basic as "antibiotics" were transforming medicine (golden
bullets :-). He had quite a life, and I'm very proud of him. He was the
smartest guy I've even known, always studyingÂ… and was also the most
honest person I've even known (I think that part of him rubbed off on
me to a good extent).

My oldest brother, Marc carries on in his
footsteps and is a general practitioner in Provo, Utah (and did a stint
as BYU's football team doctor for a number of years), and my sister
Sara is a nurse in Jackson, WY.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 Some of the other good
guys are the patients that pay their medical billsÂ….

This
comment of yours also brings up a memory of my Father. He had his own
private practice as well as doing his ER shifts (he was also the FAA
approved Doctor in the area and did all of the medical exams for the
pilots at Castle Air Force BaseÂ… My Father was also an Air Force pilot
and flew B-24's in WWII). He passed away in March 01 after fighting
Parkinson's for a number of years.

While still in practice, he had
patients from all walks of life and all economic strata. There was many
a time when he'd come home with boxes full of tomato or red peppers, or
a bunch of home made tamale's that he accepted in lieu of monetary
payments. He'd also sometimes come home with a cigar in his teeth after
delivering a baby (he delivered probably the majority of my class mates
in my home town).

But just like my practice (you would not believe how
many times people call saying they are willing to pay my $75.00
consultation fee, and after I render that service [usually taking 45
minutes to over an hour] I get stiffed), he would sometimes never get
paid for the services he rendered. I recall him saying there was not
much he could do about it since "one cannot repossess another's good
health" :-).

My Dad was very fortunate to have practiced in the
"golden age" of medicine. Can you imagine surviving WWII, getting
married to a nice Mormon girl at BYU, graduating from Harvard medical
school, and then starting a private practice all at a time when
something as basic as "antibiotics" were transforming medicine (golden
bullets :-). He had quite a life, and I'm very proud of him. He was the
smartest guy I've even known, always studyingÂ… and was also the most
honest person I've even known (I think that part of him rubbed off on
me to a good extent).

My oldest brother, Marc carries on in his
footsteps and is a general practitioner in Provo, Utah (and did a stint
as BYU's football team doctor for a number of years), and my sister
Sara is a nurse in Jackson, WY.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Leslie66 wrote:
Well, I'm really curious who the real players are behind this banning gay marriage thing. It was much easier for me when Bush was just running Texas, everybody here knows who's in bed with who and why. Andrew eluded to the health insurance industry. I could see large insurance companies not wanting to open the flood gates. If gay couples were able to start carrying their partner on their health insurance, what would be next? God forbid I get to carry my aging dependent parents. (

Why would insurance companies care? In fact, they want you to insure as
many people as possible. In fact, many insurance companies permit
carrying your domestic partner or parents on your policy. And, in some
cases they are subsidized by employers. In fact, regarding the domestic
partners, the only difference between their premiums and mine are that
my share of the premium comes off my check BEFORE taxes are calculated
and the premiums for "partners" is are paid from AFTER tax income.

From the insurance company perspective, more insured people=more profit.

Leslie66 wrote:
Well, I'm really curious who the real players are behind this banning gay marriage thing. It was much easier for me when Bush was just running Texas, everybody here knows who's in bed with who and why. Andrew eluded to the health insurance industry. I could see large insurance companies not wanting to open the flood gates. If gay couples were able to start carrying their partner on their health insurance, what would be next? God forbid I get to carry my aging dependent parents. (

Why would insurance companies care? In fact, they want you to insure as
many people as possible. In fact, many insurance companies permit
carrying your domestic partner or parents on your policy. And, in some
cases they are subsidized by employers. In fact, regarding the domestic
partners, the only difference between their premiums and mine are that
my share of the premium comes off my check BEFORE taxes are calculated
and the premiums for "partners" is are paid from AFTER tax income.

From the insurance company perspective, more insured people=more profit.

headmaster wrote:
Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

So, do you agree with this?

Knowing that myself and I am sure others on this forum have been
divorced, maybe you can give us the biblical view on divorce and remarriage.

headmaster wrote:
Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

So, do you agree with this?

Knowing that myself and I am sure others on this forum have been
divorced, maybe you can give us the biblical view on divorce and remarriage.

headmaster wrote:
Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

What an idiot! And people complain about the Islamic "death to the
infidels" cry. More people die in the name of religion than any other
plague every hit this world and yet it persists. Amazing.
--
.... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

headmaster wrote:
Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

What an idiot! And people complain about the Islamic "death to the
infidels" cry. More people die in the name of religion than any other
plague every hit this world and yet it persists. Amazing.
--
.... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

Matthew 5
32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital
unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries
the divorced woman commits adultery.


Matthew 19

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man
to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made
them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has
joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a
certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your
hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you
that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and
marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and
wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom
it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way;
others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3]
because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept
it."

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering
himself [ 2:16 Or [ his wife ] ] with violence as well as with his garment,"
says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break
faith.

"mrraveltay" <a.a@a.a.a> wrote in message
news:B10Vb.10324$3R2.1854@newssvr29.news.prodigy.c om... headmaster wrote: Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be
on their own heads So, do you agree with this? Knowing that myself and I am sure others on this forum have been divorced, maybe you can give us the biblical view on divorce and
remarriage.

Matthew 5
32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital
unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries
the divorced woman commits adultery.


Matthew 19

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man
to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made
them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has
joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a
certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your
hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you
that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and
marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and
wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom
it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way;
others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3]
because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept
it."

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering
himself [ 2:16 Or [ his wife ] ] with violence as well as with his garment,"
says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break
faith.

"mrraveltay" <a.a@a.a.a> wrote in message
news:B10Vb.10324$3R2.1854@newssvr29.news.prodigy.c om... headmaster wrote: Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be
on their own heads So, do you agree with this? Knowing that myself and I am sure others on this forum have been divorced, maybe you can give us the biblical view on divorce and
remarriage.

You are calling God an idiot.


"Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:12136$402493d1$44a7886c$14952@msgid.meganewss ervers.com... headmaster wrote: Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. What an idiot! And people complain about the Islamic "death to the infidels" cry. More people die in the name of religion than any other plague every hit this world and yet it persists. Amazing. -- ... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

You are calling God an idiot.


"Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:12136$402493d1$44a7886c$14952@msgid.meganewss ervers.com... headmaster wrote: Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. What an idiot! And people complain about the Islamic "death to the infidels" cry. More people die in the name of religion than any other plague every hit this world and yet it persists. Amazing. -- ... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

headmaster wrote:
You are calling God an idiot.

If I was - Big deal! Can't you tell when you are dealing with an
atheist? You rubbish wields no power with me.

But I wasn't. I was calling you an idiot... idiot! Don't you have any
thoughts in of your own or must you blindly follow such mythical rubbish!

I know you're kind and you ain't worth my time - kill filed!
"Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message news:12136$402493d1$44a7886c$14952@msgid.meganewss ervers.com... headmaster wrote: Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. What an idiot! And people complain about the Islamic "death to the infidels" cry. More people die in the name of religion than any other plague every hit this world and yet it persists. Amazing. -- ... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

--
Demons are a Ghouls best Friend.

headmaster wrote:
You are calling God an idiot.

If I was - Big deal! Can't you tell when you are dealing with an
atheist? You rubbish wields no power with me.

But I wasn't. I was calling you an idiot... idiot! Don't you have any
thoughts in of your own or must you blindly follow such mythical rubbish!

I know you're kind and you ain't worth my time - kill filed!
"Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message news:12136$402493d1$44a7886c$14952@msgid.meganewss ervers.com... headmaster wrote: Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. What an idiot! And people complain about the Islamic "death to the infidels" cry. More people die in the name of religion than any other plague every hit this world and yet it persists. Amazing. -- ... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)

--
Demons are a Ghouls best Friend.

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria headmaster wrote:
You are calling God an idiot. If I was - Big deal!
Can't you tell when you are dealing with an atheist? You rubbish
wields no power with me. But I wasn't. I was calling you an
idiot... idiot! Don't you have any thoughts in of your own or must
you blindly follow such mythical rubbish! I know you're kind and
you ain't worth my time - kill filed! "Andrew DeFaria"
<Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message news:12136$402-
493d1$44a7886c$14952@msgid.meganewsservers.com"]news:12136$402493d1$44a-
7886c$14952@msgid.meganewsservers.com[/url]... headmaster
wrote:> Leviticus 20> 13 " 'If a man lies
with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them> have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. What an idiot! And
people complain about the Islamic "death to the infidels"
cry. More people die in the name of religion than any other plague every hit this world and yet it persists. Amazing. -- ... File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
-- Demons are a Ghouls best Friend.

Come on guys.
Don't feed the troll. You KNOW he won't listen :)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

As a "straight" Roman Catholic I totally support gay marriage. In fact
the two witnesses at my own wedding will be my best friend who's gay and
her partner.

I really can't see why people feel remotely threatened by
it. Off at a tangent but at the stables where I used to keep my horse,
there was a gay goat!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I URGE all our regular posters (travel, andrew) to PLEASE just ingore
Dave Wilkerson's posts here. Please. He stayed away almost two weeks,
but he is back

Just don't take the bait please.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

DCMark wrote:
I URGE all our regular posters (travel, andrew) to PLEASE just ingore Dave Wilkerson's posts here. Please. He stayed away almost two weeks, but he is back Just don't take the bait please.

He's been killfiled.

--
It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

headmaster wrote:
I did not write the bible, so you are only arguing with those that did. The day is coming when every knee will bow and every mouth will admit that Jesus Christ is Lord. you can chose to believe your vanity, or you can seek the wisdom of God. Only a fool will say that there is no God.

I didn't say that, I only commented on whether everything in the Bible
was what God intended, especially saying that gays should be killed,
which seems to go against the commandment that says "Thous shall not kill"

Rete wrote:
Just love when people quote the bible and tell us that it is the word of God. The bible is nothing more than the written version or recollections of others who purported these words, thoughts and directives to have been said or decreed by a person they believed to be the human incarnation of a supreme being. These accounts were often written tens of years after the so-called actual occurrence. One knows what happens to memory when it is distorted by time and altered by discussions with others. Liken it to the game of telephone.

Not only that but it was written in ancient languages and transcribed
many, many times. The potential for transcription errors is enormous,
yet bible thumpers will try to convince you of it's 100% authenticity.
And not only transcription errors but one must thing of cultural errors
(something we all know about having foreign spouses) and time
differences (things way back then don't translate well even if the
language remains the same).
Heaven, if there is one, must be one heck of a lonely place. I don't know one person, past or present, who could claim entrance.

Oh there are millions who would "claim" entrance. Claiming it and
attaining it are two entirely different things. Don't believe it exists
at all personally.
--
Shin: A device for finding furniture in the dark.

Originally posted by sibsie Same here! I'm in the
middle of a really good book called Under The Banner of Heaven that
deals with the Mormon religion. Gripping but very distrubing reading.


Hi Sibs,

Which continent are you posting from? I've missed
your posts here lately.

Since I know you're an avid reader, have you
ever read any of the Joseph Campbell stuff? This whole thread has
become about religion so I don't feel bad going even more OT. It was
after reading The Power of the Myth, I actually stopped feeling stupid
for believing in God. Campbell's publications clearly and concisely
articulated what I had been attempting to put together for myself. I
had never felt comfortable in (any) church, didn't buy any of the crap I
was being fed, but for some reason always felt spiritual and connected
to God. There are real and important reasons for all of the religions
and belief systems that have emerged. It is not necessary for any one
person to accept any of them, they stand on their own and do not require
a "fan club". So the idiots that say, "You'll go to Hell if you don't
do this or that...." are essentially blowing smoke up our collective
asses. If someone tells me, "This is what I believe I need to do
......" in order to obtain entrance into heaven, or spiritual
enlightenment, or whatever their particular goal for the after-life or
next-life, is someone I am always interested in listening to.

Anyway,
about that gay goat.....................


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ray6 I am on a "peace to all"
kick today..(well nearly all) and after reading all this thread ...an
old Donavan song just came in to my mind... which I though was apt:


Really? I'm on a pissed off about people that make fun
of other people kick today. The Devil isn't a horned guy residing in a
burning pyre at the center of the earth. The Devil is the guy/girl
right next door. He/she smiles to your face while secretly hating
anybody that doesn't look, act, or think just like him. He plots to
shave away your rights and does it all in the name of God. I thought
this old Rolling Stones cut was apt:

Please allow me to introduce
myself
IÂ’m a man of wealth and taste
IÂ’ve been around for a long, long
year
Stole many a manÂ’s soul and faith
And I was Â’round when jesus
christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that pilate

Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess
my name
But whatÂ’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around
st. petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and
his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a generalÂ’s
rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, whatÂ’s puzzling you
Is the nature
of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens

Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
Who killed
the kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce
myself
IÂ’m a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours

Who get killed before they reached bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you
guessed my name, oh yeah
But whatÂ’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my
game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my
name, oh yeah
But whatÂ’s confusing you
Is just the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is
tails
Just call me lucifer
Â’cause IÂ’m in need of some restraint
So if
you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use
all your well-learned politesse
Or IÂ’ll lay your soul to waste, um yeah

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But whatÂ’s
puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down
Woo, who
Oh
yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, whatÂ’s my name
Tell me
honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, whatÂ’s my name
I tell you one
time, youÂ’re to blame
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo,
who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
WhatÂ’s me name
Tell me,
baby, whatÂ’s my name
Tell me, sweetie, whatÂ’s my name
Ooo, who, who

Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who

Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I'm kind of behind on this topic, and it's shifted a bit since the first
few pages, but here's my input...

I'm not sure why the gay issue is
still such a big deal. You would think that in this day and age the
"Equal Rights" movement wouldn't be necessary anymore. After all the
fighting that has already taken place, such as black's rights, women's
rights, etc that the gay issue would automatically fall in that category
(and not be an issue anymore). If this country really did have a
seperation of church and state then this wouldn't even be an issue.
Obviously the church does have influence, otherwise gay's would
be treated as equal's. I also don't understand how gay's having the same
rights is hurting anyone. You're not forced to marry them, so how are
they a problem?
So if you can't bare the sight of seeing gay's kiss,
can you also not bare the sight of straight's kissing?
In case you
haven't been able to tell, I think gay's should have the same rights as
straight's. And of course that would include immigration. So much about
equality for all...


Leslie, the only pro that Patrick and I have
noticed as far as a married benefit goes is the fact that our car
insurance went down. :D At first we were scared to add me because we
thought it would go up, but instead it went down. Aparently being
married means you're less likely to take risks. ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Steffi wrote:
I'm not sure why the gay issue is still such a big deal. You would think that in this day and age the "Equal Rights" movement wouldn't be necessary anymore. After all the fighting that has already taken place, such as black's rights, women's rights, etc that the gay issue would automatically fall in that category (and not be an issue anymore).

I think the way that they think is this: What if some radical group,
what that you really believe is evil (examples might be the Jim Jones',
David Koresh's and that cult up in Oregon) wishes to have "equal
rights". You'd probably not want to see that happen because you really
believe that they are evil and if left unchecked will cause a decay of
the social structure (note I'm not saying that I believe this at all,
rather it's how I think that they see it. Of course they could explain
it themselves but they get too washed up in thumping the bible).
If this country really did have a seperation of church and state then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Change the word country to society and I'd agree with you.
Obviously the church does have influence,

Of course they do - just like any other group of people.
otherwise gay's would be treated as equal's. I also don't understand how gay's having the same rights is hurting anyone.

I think they think (again it's me playing devils advocate here) that if
allowed it would become too prevalent and contribute to that awful
"decay in moral values". Look at it this way. When I grew up the media
was a lot more censored and things like divorce where frowned upon.
Today we have boobs a flying on the tube and I hear all sorts of what
were once considered "bad words" freely spoken on the TV and radio. In a
sense young people today get bombarded a lot more with such images and
spoken words, etc. Is this hurting our society? I'd say somewhat. So I
think they see it as yet another thing decaying society.
You're not forced to marry them, so how are they a problem? So if you can't bare the sight of seeing gay's kiss, can you also not bare the sight of straight's kissing?

I don't know about you but seeing straights kiss doesn't bother me. I
remember the first time I saw gays kiss and yes it bothered me. It was
odd or different. I realize that this is based on my upbringing and I
can understand that gays might have a similar feeling seeing straights
kiss. As such all I can say is that I'll have to bear it and get used to
it - no biggie.
In case you haven't been able to tell, I think gay's should have the same rights as straight's. And of course that would include immigration. So much about equality for all...

I agree that gays should have the same rights as straights.
--
Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out.

Andrew: The cult in Oregon was the Bog-wan-shri-rashnish, bunch of
nutcases. I grew up in Portland and remeber their hotel in downtown
Portland:)

Scott


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Change the word
country to society and I'd agree with you.
That works for me.


Originally posted by Andrew Defaria I think they
think (again it's me playing devils advocate here) that if allowed it
would become too prevalent and contribute to that awful "decay in moral
values". Look at it this way. When I grew up the media was a lot more
censored and things like divorce where frowned upon. Today we have boobs
a flying on the tube and I hear all sorts of what were once considered
"bad words" freely spoken on the TV and radio. In a sense young people
today get bombarded a lot more with such images and spoken words,
etc. Is this hurting our society? I'd say somewhat. So I think they see
it as yet another thing decaying society.
Hmmm....well you have
to remember that times are always changing. Remember when it was
"shocking" for women to show an ankle? I'm sure people said society is
decaying back in those days as well.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw Andrew: The cult in
Oregon was the Bog-wan-shri-rashnish, bunch of nutcases. I grew up in
Portland and remeber their hotel in downtown Portland:) Scott


Bog-wan-shri-rashnish is not a town, it is the kind of racks
I get at scrabble.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by doctor scrumpy Bog-wan-shri-
rashnish is not a town, it is the kind of racks I get at scrabble.



Doctor,

The Bog-wan was not a town but an occult which was
located in Oregon. I probably got the spelling wrong, but if anyone is
interested the correct spelling is, "Bhagwan Shri Rashneesh" and I
assume that google might have some info. I am pretty sure that the group
has since been disbanded.

Steffi,

There are still parts of this world
were a showing a little ankle not be tolerated. Not sure where, but I
think that Janette Jackson is going to be doing a concert there soon:)


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Rockgurl wrote:
What about all those others that don't have my professional skills? Who will look out for them?

I've already said that I believe the law should be changed.

Why do you think somebody needs to look out for somebody else?

--
Why are people willing to get off their *** to search the entire room
for the TV remote because they refuse to walk to the TV and change the
channel manually?

Originally posted by Steffi Leslie, the only pro
that Patrick and I have noticed as far as a married benefit goes is the
fact that our car insurance went down. :D At first we were scared to add
me because we thought it would go up, but instead it went down.
Aparently being married means you're less likely to take risks. ;)


Thanks Steffi, that's good to know. We'll be dealing with
that pretty soon. :)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"1. The Bhagwan Shri Rashneesh were trying to poison a whole town with
salmonella in order to fix a local election. "

Really, I did not know
that. When I lived in Portland at the time, I was only about 14 years
old or so... I knew that their elevator did not go to the top, but did
not know that they put poison in the water system:(

Scott


--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

In 1984, followers of Bhagwan Shri Rashneesh sprinkled homegrown
salmonella bacteria on supermarket produce, door handles, and restaurant
salad bars in Oregon. Nobody died, but 751 people became ill. The
poisonings were preparation for attacks meant to keep voters home during
a local election in which a cult member was running for a county
judgeship.
Prosecution of cult leaders led to the dispersement of the
organization.
There was a program on TV all about it recently


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ScottHenshaw "1. The Bhagwan Shri
Rashneesh were trying to poison a whole town with salmonella in order to
fix a local election. " Really, I did not know that. When I lived
in Portland at the time, I was only about 14 years old or so... I knew
that their elevator did not go to the top, but did not know that they
put poison in the water system:( Scott

Scott, this was
after they bought the ranch. The targeted town was The Dalles and they
put the bacteria in a local salad bar. Their Grand Plan(tm) was to make
enough people so sick as to miss voting in the local election with the
intended result of Sheila and the rest of the heavies getting elected to
local gov't to control zoning. (sektcy memories...maybe I should look it
up, but this is how I remember it)
Remember how they rounded up and
trucked in homeless folk to add to the voting rolls out there too?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Leslie66 wrote: Originally posted by SteffiLeslie, the only pro that Patrick and I have noticed as far as a married benefit goes is the fact that our car insurance went down. :D At first we were scared to add me because we thought it would go up, but instead it went down. Aparently being married means you're less likely to take risks. ;)

Unless you marry a 16 year old... Then I would guess it would go up.

Originally posted by supernav Fact is ---they could
care less about rights, and this is just a dumb ploy to *make a point*
in the public eye. In which case they are wasting valuable government
resources and time with their campaigning. -= nav =-


Really? Don't you think that gay people vote? Don't you think that
every gay person is someone's child, brother, sister, mother, father, or
friend? All of those people vote. That is why this issue won't go
away. It is an election year. Homophobic, bigoted, nazis are not the
only ones that vote.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

In article <weQYb.14463$oH7.5423@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
a.a.a@aaa.aaa says... Leslie66 wrote: Originally posted by SteffiLeslie, the only pro that Patrick and I have noticed as far as a married benefit goes is the fact that our car insurance went down. :D At first we were scared to add me because we thought it would go up, but instead it went down. Aparently being married means you're less likely to take risks. ;) Unless you marry a 16 year old... Then I would guess it would go up.
hmm.... In our case car insurance went down after adding me to the
policy

AP

meauxna wrote:
Scott, this was after they bought the ranch. The targeted town was The Dalles and they put the bacteria in a local salad bar. Their Grand Plan(tm) was to make enough people so sick as to miss voting in the local election with the intended result of Sheila and the rest of the heavies getting elected to local gov't to control zoning. (sektcy memories...maybe I should look it up, but this is how I remember it)

So did anybody get convicted? Making allegations is easy. Proving it in
court is another matter...
Remember how they rounded up and trucked in homeless folk to add to the voting rolls out there too?

I remember that charge too. But really, is it illegal? I mean a homeless
person by definition doesn't have a home. Who's to say that they weren't
simply trying to help homeless people and provide them a home.

(Of course election laws may dictate that they cannot vote until they
are a resident for some time...).

--
Copywight 1994 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.