[Vision2020] Lobbying Activity

[Phil Nisbet]

Don

That is exactly my point.  What is marriage?  Do you see marriage as a 
contract between two people to live in one household and share finances and 
occasional sex?  Because if it is a contract authorized by the state under 
civil law, all it is is another form of business partnership.  We could just 
as easily switch from a marriage license to having people go down and file 
Joint corporation papers.

What I see, I will grant you as a single divorced father of three, are 
benefits being handed to heterosexual couples simply because they file the 
proper paperwork to incorporate them selves under the guise of a state 
sanctioned special interest Partnership.  Single parents, both men and women 
and other non-incorporated couples who are not able to fit into the states 
benefit package end up paying for benefits that they do not receive.

What I keep hearing is that we need to extend those corporation benefits to 
include homosexual couples, but it is simply adding to the list of benefit 
soaking state authorized corporations.

As a single parent, I am put at a financial disadvantage because I do not 
chose to enter into a corporate agreement with some other person, either 
because I chose (Which I do) to be single or because no sane woman would 
have me (Which is also the case).  Close to half the households in this 
country are not those of 'married people', so what we have going on is a 
select group putting its hands into the other half’s pockets to fund 
benefits for themselves.

If we want marriage to be about loving somebody else, then we need to take 
the state and its corporate marriage out of the equation.

As an example, I am in agreement that Joan and Melynda are indeed married, 
regardless of what the state may chose to claim.  Having the state stick its 
nose into what ever personal agreement they have between themselves for life 
together or how they raise their kids is anathema to me.  Its is as anathema 
to me that two 'properly' married state sanctioned people with a double 
income and no kids can hold a gun to my head and insist that I owe them tax 
breaks, extra insurance and other goodies just because they have a piece of 
paper blessed by the government, while I pay extra to raise my three sons 
without the benefit of a second income or assistance at home.

Phil Nisbet



>From: DonaldH675 at aol.com
>To: pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lobbying Activity
>Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:08:07 EST
>
>I would heartily disagree with you. In a secular nation (we are governed by
>the rule of law not theology) the contractual agreement between two people 
>who
>  agree to get married is in fact the province of government. And don't 
>forget
>  that those who are not religious also have the right to get married. Many
>married people in this country were married by a JP not a rev or pastor or
>father and never saw the inside of a church. And just to be the fly in the
>ointment church marriages are not binding unless they are registered with 
>the
>state and accompanied by a state license.
>
>Don  Huskey
>
>"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight  you, then
>you win." Mahatma Gandhi

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/