HAPe4me

Dmiller- were you under the opinion that global climate change if true, would manifest its affects suddenly? Like all at once this year? I don't think even the staunchest proponents of climate change ever suggested such a thing. If the fact of whether your tree blooms early or late this year is what you base your comment of "BS" upon, then you perhaps do not understand the concerns which many around the world are discussing. Oh,for what it is worth, my flowers are out early, my trees leafed out late, and the golfcourse greens were damaged by the dry windy winter. Oh, those observations of mine are not worth anything either. The argument for global climate change (global warming in some areas, cooling in others) is looking at long term trends not isolated anecdotes of a particular tree, flower or a bunion on someone's foot. ~HAP

oh I thought you were buying Jenna Bush's car

ok, since two have asked, I read it in the Rocky Mountain News, as an AP release. I am sure if you WERE to care, you could have found it yourself. I'll make it easy for you, from America's Election HQ at Fox: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/ca...marriage-is-ok/ Bumpere- THIS is the casual discussion setting, the forum.

Nor do I have to provide a source for a statement about what I read, in a casual setting discussion. I seem to see no reason to lambast 4 judges for what they , as is their job, interpret as the legality of a law written by laymen. It was a ballot question about which I seem to recall there was confusion as to its wording and legality when it was presented to the voters. Did not the republican governor say at the time that he felt interpretation of the initiative needed to be determined by the courts, so he would support it until they decided its legality? In any event, like is often the case with ballot initiatives, there were many who questioned its actual legal implementation well before election day. ~HAP

yeah darn activist judges said the voters had to abide by their constitution. Oh, I did read that current polls say the voters of Cali are likely going to change their own mind this next time around and agree with those activist judges. Cursed fickle voters just don't understand God's plan for civil government.

you two should get a room! :lol: :lol: :lol: :wub: :wub: :blink: :blink:

I have a picture I took somewhere of Dave Bru@beck at the ROA sitting next to VP. I understood he was there because his daughter was going into the corps. Here is Cathy Brub*ck (Yag@#izian) bio: http://www.pbs.org/brubeck/theMan/kathy.htm There was another baseball player who I think went on and played for the Expos after being on a farm team here in Denver. Bob Dona#@son was a World Champion rodeo clown/bullfighter and a great guy and a christian to boot, before he ever heard of PFAL. He was involved with TWI from 1978-1986 or early 87 when he and his family properly walked away from the Family Corps and came to live with us. I see one of his daughters every few months, a real sweetheart and great cook. ~HAP

Perhaps some would enjoy THIS sentence: a fun article on how even some religious words have changed can be found at: http://www.langmaker.com/ml0104.htm Change is not all bad!

Oh, it wasn't all that long ago that coverture was a very real part of marriage: That darn 'Women's agenda' messed with the deifintion since then.

you mean THIS one?: coverture From Jone Johnson Lewis, Your Guide to Women's History. FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! Definition: In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity. In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned. Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission. See the entry on property rights for some events in American legal history which extended women's property rights and affected coverture laws.

WhiteDove- First, I don't recall saying you or anyone was homophobic, its not my usual way to do so AND I understand your dislike if that label is applied to you under the circumstances. I am glad we agree, as I also expected, that all should enjoy equal legal rights. I do not care how this is done as much as I DO care that it is accomplished. I do not however have a problem with "diversity days". Here there are several for different groups (other cultures, earth day, etc., but as a matter of fact I do NOT recall one for gays/lesbians) and it allows everyone in the school to consider one thing at a time, which I think focuses discussion. YVMV, and I understand that. Ours generally also have an "opt out" provision (even part of our middle school sex ed section). But all that is another discussion I think and not germaine to my point at this time. I also am glad you made the effort to include Frank in the dog park group. 'It seems' (to use a disclaimer that often is being used by many posters these days) that few who oppose gay marriage would support gay civil unions, if those civil unions included all the legal ramification of legal marriages. Personally I think, as I have said before, all government unions should be civil unions and leave the word marriage out of it. Let the churches do the 'marry before God' thing without any legal ramifications at all! Regarding the controversy over the changing definition of words, personally I find this argument as being weak and I do not see it as having much merit in the argument against gay marriage/civil unions. This is NOT the first change in legal definition of marriage in "hundreds of years", or "eons" as some have suggested. Again on the definition thing, I found this quote interesting: The complete article can be found here: http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2004/02/chang...efinitions.html HAP Let's remember, the US has the phrase 'One nation UNDER God'' it does not say EQUAL to Him.

From what I know about the subject of taxes: Whether being married or not yields a tax penalty or a tax break, depends on several things. Are each of their incomes relatively equal or does one stay home without income. Do both have low incomes or both high incomes. Do they file jointly or separately. For many, there is a tax-based DISincentive to get married, as I recall, especially with seniors. For a some people there is tax break mainly when one of the partners does not work. They get to claim two people's standard deduction against one person's income. Regarding the deduction for children: that is the same whether you are married or not, gay or not. If you provide majority financial support for a child, you get a tax deduction. Of course it does not come close in most cases to the cost of raising children. Mind you, this is a deduction not a credit. I do not know what Rhino's definition of 'marriage of convenience' is, but I have not heard it as being based on tax consequences. Usually it describes a marriage where one or the other (or both) parties marry or remain married for social benefit. Occasionally it means that one of the two marry for the convenience of the other's money. I think that was one of those replies Rhino described he gives "off the cuff and in the manner of a barroom discussion", meaning he does not think them out much I think is how he described it) The main tax issues for marriage, as I understand it, is the right of surivorship benefits for SS as I and several others have said.

My comments regarding "way of life" were in response to Dove's statement: My way of life is unchanged due to "their agenda"

Wayside- Well, we didn't pay them, we covered their specific expenses, and ONLY for those specifically invited "headliners". I saw it as just like what any church who invited a special speaker would be expected to do. Bo and Duke must have been covered by HQ I suppose. Oh, VP also paid for his son and daughter-in-law's $12 banquet ticket and their room. I am certain that in the not so distant future, things changed dramatically concerning visits like these. Sorry if I was off-topic, the thread question just made me reminisce. Humor an old guy trying to recall yesterday's events. LOL ~HAP

I am not denying changes have occurred, only that they do not affect my life-STYLE

I am sorry some kids are fettered with reading, although I know of no curriculum where this book is required reading, maybe it is somewhere. Around here, books similiar to that are available, but not required reading, to fill a need for thse children who need to understand something relevant to them. I applaud that they are available. I didn't know that was a negative life change for myself. Dictionary definitions change all the time. It still doesn't change my way of life. I am mostly unaffected by what you call this "agenda", far less than I am affected by the agenda of certain other groups who wish to impose their own beliefs into the political spectrum. Any group/class/religion seeks to make thier ideas be treated with respect, and themselves to be treated like well...... humans. I don't have a problem with that. I reject some people's ideas all the time but I still treat them the same as I would anyone else. My lifestyle goes on just the same. Now and then I actually learn from another viewpoint. That's not all bad.

Back in October of 1972 a few of us younguns in Peoria decided we should have a get together for all the wayfers in IL. We decided to label it "The First Illinois Limb Meeting" and chose Dec 22 and 23. (IL was not a limb yet, and wouldn't be for another year or so, but we didn't know all that legal mumbo jumbo, we were just kids who wanted to get together.) The first Peoria WOWs had just left in August, and as I recall we from their first class were pretty much on our own, minus Sweet Becky Bel#h^r who had gone WOW and that left us silly goofballs to fend for ourselves (Dave Pet&it, John Wy-n , Mike Br-wn and a few others. We didn't know any better, and John Desm*nd up north sorta laughed and said "sure we will all come down." He had put together quite a wonderful group of folks up in Antioch. To make the big event all the more memorable we figured lets invite Wierwille and his wife, and shoot, let's see if he will bring Ted and Mardelle and Claudette. I was charged with writing the invite. I still have a copy of that letter. I set the date and the program, and wrote and asked if Wierwille would come, and perhaps he could bring some of those music ministry folks. A couple of weeks later, very early in the morning I got a call from someone who said she was Dr. Wierwille's secretary and he wished to talk with me. Being still barely awake I thought it a joke, and said ""riiiiight", and hung up. Moments later the phone rang again with the MOGFOT himself laughing and introducing himself. (whew). He said he and Mrs. @Wierwille would be arriving on the 22nd and stay until the 24th. Ted, Mardelle and Claudette would also attend, and also Stevie Kay. We were thrilled....... then reality set in. "What were we thinking?????????" This wasn't like renting a room for a PFAL class, this was huge! Why, there must be 200 people in IL, how does one make arrangements for something like THAT! all us 20-something-year olds set to work, and somehow pulled it off. We had arranged to have a a twig leader's meeting the first night at the Way Home on Callendar Street, a typical old 1890ish two story Illinois house, not particularly well kept. Fortunately, Bo Reah*rd came in a day early. He had a painful look on his face when he saw where we were gonna have that meeting, and said, "well, it looks like we have some work to do tonight." He quickly developed a plan, tolds us what needed to be done, rolled up his sleeves and said "let's get to it". I think we finished up cleaning about 2 am. Bo was impressive in that he worked as hard as any of us. Friday afternoon Bo and I waited in the lobby of the Pere Marquette Hilton for the arrival of our guests. Finally a car and a truck drove up front. (Dr.s car and Ted's truck) I was under the impression that Dr. had driven himself, but now in my notes I see that Duke Cl%rk was there too, so maybe he drove. Bo escorted them up to the suite, after asking me to run down to the corner and get a bottle of Drambouie. (He first asked if I was old enough to buy liquor) :) I said "yes, but what is Drambouie?" When I returned, Dr. invited me to sit and have a drink with them. The weekend went well, with only two glitches. The "teacher's" chair at the Way Home, EVERY one who taught the Word sat was rather worn. When VP sat down, he gave a laugh, slapped his hand on the arm, and something fell of of the chair. Crestfallen, I wondered what he would say. Another laugh came from him, and he said something about "better get Harry's Upholstery out here". The other incident involved Don's German short-hair. VP had invited Don and his wife to come down from Beloit to join them, and asked if we could find a place to keep the dog for the night. Dallas and Rosemary Sumpt&r raised Afghans and Shi-tzus, so we figured their kennels were a great choice. Little did we know what an escape artist that dog was. The next morning Sammy Wi^son and I went to fetch the dog and bring him to Don. uh oh...... Relief was large about an hour later when we found him a mile away. I don't think we ever fessed up to that scare. I have a letter dated Christmas Dec. 25th from Wierwille, congratulating us for successfully bringing the believers of IL together. It goes on to list the expenses for him and the music people, all detailed out, as I had previously said we would pay those expenses. The total, with the rooms (Royal, Wierwille, Ferrell), mileage (one car, one truck 770 miles), traveling food (Wierwille and Ferrel groups), tips, and Wierwille "full dress" for the occasion ($17.68) totaled $425.40. Tickets for the banquet were $12 and we had taken in $1734. After paying for the banquet and other bills, and the bill from Wierwille, we were only $60 short. I considered that my ABS for the next month. Oh well, we were young and so alive, and had a fun time. Fortunately, that was before the motor coach or it might have been 2 months ABS I would have had to cover. Those were the days my friends.

What in your life has been forced to change to fit their agenda? I am at a loss to think of how it has changed what I do.

From Merriam Webster Dictionary- on-line Main Entry: mar·riage Function: noun Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons Like it or not, the definition of words change. I would think that the word itself has meant different things in different places at different times. Language is not static. If the state is going to confer a legal civil identification on the relationship between two people, whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman why not call that legal identification a civil union, without discrimination against any two consenting adults. If couples wish to have their religion further sanction it, they can do so and call it whatever their church wishes. For that matter, if a couple wishes to ONLY have their church sanction it, they should be able to do so. In the latter case, none of the legal benefits which might accrue do to a civil union by the State would apply, i.e tax benefits, survivorship, SS benefits etc. On the other hand, as Ron suggests, maybe the government should not be in the role of sanctioning ANY relationships, but then it would have to do away with any tax relief (if there is any) and do away with the current structure of SS benefits given to the surviving spouse. That might tick off some widows or widowers who would no longer get the higher of the two individual spouse's benefit when the other person dies. They would only continue to get the SS retirement benefit they themselves earned, even if their deceased spouse had been getting a larger benefit. If the government ceased giving legal sanction to relationships, churches could still sanction them, but this would have NO standing regarding any legal definitions. Marriage would simply be a feel good thing that the church does. The way people leave their churches, that would certainly not bode well for marriage longevity.

Imagine THAT! Integrity from judges. Many yell that they want STRICT interpretation of their beloved Constitutions by the judges, but when they get it, they hate the idea. Congratulations to the 4 who stood by their vow to make thier rulings be based on legal merit. A pox on the 4 who did not. (I ma just kidding, of course those 3 felt they too were ruling on the legal merit. sometimes legal minds DO disagree on what that is. Oh, referring to my "German law" comments above: ~HAP

As I understand it, the CA Supreme court rulled on the basis of one thing ONLY! - Did the statute violate the CA STATE Constitution. It is not a matter of them over-ruling the 'will of the people', but whether the 'will of the people' violated the Constitution. IT IS THEIR JOB, under the law, to make that decision. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200.../15/california/ There is much more of an explanation in the link above, including this: CONSTITUTIONAL law ALWAYS supercedes STATUATORY law. This is always a major problem with citizen initiated referendums.... they often violate contitutional law. and in fact become a crude form of 'judicial activism' initiated by citizens, and OFTEN are found to violate the legal and mandatory precedence of constitutional law, which is the very essence of the recent Supreme Court ruling. Those who scream about activist judges, generally have a very POOR understanding of the legal system when they go off on their emotional tirades. In my opinion, if people want to limit marriage WITHIN A CHURCH DOCTRINE to 'a man and a woman', FINE! However it is not the legal constitutional right of the government to do so. Why not have ALL marriages be allowed by the government (or none) and let those who choose to make their commitment before their God do so within their church without legal sanction. In Germany, as I understand it, the ONLY marriages that have legal binding are those sanctioned by the government. If a couple wishes to further make their vow before their God, that is welcome, but has no standing in law. The church wedding has no legal standing. ~HAP

hey Brush- I thoroughly enjoyed your writing. It was thought provoking and an easy read. The story-line in it can be applied to many topics from politics, personal life trials, TWI and on and on. I am not qualified to critique it other than to say I think you should followup on getting your stories out there. There are a few folks here who have written things and had them published, and I am bumping this up to the top in hopes a few of them might see it and offer some advice. ~HAP

threads where you are looking to find people are generally in the "FriendTracker" forum: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showforum=17 It also works best to list the name in the subject, rather than "looking for people"

there is more discussion on this in the thread "38 years ago" also here in Open. Poignant recollections you found White Dove. I cannot find the author's name? Peace and heart, ~HAP

WW- Thanks for reminding us of another "what must not be forgotten" period. Peace and heart, HAP edited to add a link to an earlier CS Cafe remembrance of this day: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=10011