The Watcher wrote:
Madalyn Murray O'Hair used to call those licenses "Sex Licenses",
since that was
all they really allowed you to do that you couldn't do before. You
could live
together without being married and it wasn't a problem, and you could
eat
together, and you could pretty much do everything else together, as
long as you
didn't have sex, so all you needed the license for was to have sex.

If that were their only value, who'd care?

A marriage license, once it's recorded a wedding actually took place,
allows you to get tax breaks, share health insurance and other employer
provided benefits, and inherit property without taxes, just to name a
few things.

My wife and I lived together for a number of years before getting
married. It wasn't long after we got married that she died. Had we not
gotten married, even with a will that said everything would go to me,
the situation would have been very different. Not only would I have been
emotionally devastated, I would have been facing legal and financial
problems that I would have been in no condition to deal with. If
children were involved, and I wasn't the biological father, well, it
would have been outrageous what could have happened.

That "sex license" was far more important than that.

My wife had been divorced, and had a medical condition that prevented
her from having children within our marriage. If we allowed certain
churches to control marriage, they would have objected to our union. Our
childless marriage after her divorce was every bit as endangering to
their concept of the sanctity of marriage as same-sex marriage is. Those
churches aren't fighting to defend marriages like ours was. Given the
right political atmosphere, they would be trying to prevent the state
from allowing people like my late wife and I from getting married.

But the political climate of today won't allow an attack on women who
can't get pregnant. The political climate of today won't allow an attack
on divorced people getting remarried. The political climate of today (in
most places) won't allow an attack on inter-racial marriage. The
political climate of today won't allow an attack on inter-faith
marriage. But it is okay to attack homosexuals.

If that's as far as they can get today, the churches will take it. And
maybe they'll find during the fight that there are enough people willing
to go the next step right away. And then the next step after that. And
pretty soon, many of us will find that we're in marriages that the
oppressive churches with political power oppose.

Separation of church and state. It's the only way to protect our
marriages. If that means some states will allow same-sex marriages,
that's fine. But we need to protect our existing marriages. (Isn't it
ironic that the folks who say they're "defending" marriage are actually
moving us down the highway that could ruin our current legal concept of
marriage?)

"Sex license", my foot.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgarden/index.html

The Watcher wrote:
Madalyn Murray O'Hair used to call those licenses "Sex Licenses",
since that was
all they really allowed you to do that you couldn't do before. You
could live
together without being married and it wasn't a problem, and you could
eat
together, and you could pretty much do everything else together, as
long as you
didn't have sex, so all you needed the license for was to have sex.

If that were their only value, who'd care?

A marriage license, once it's recorded a wedding actually took place,
allows you to get tax breaks, share health insurance and other employer
provided benefits, and inherit property without taxes, just to name a
few things.

My wife and I lived together for a number of years before getting
married. It wasn't long after we got married that she died. Had we not
gotten married, even with a will that said everything would go to me,
the situation would have been very different. Not only would I have been
emotionally devastated, I would have been facing legal and financial
problems that I would have been in no condition to deal with. If
children were involved, and I wasn't the biological father, well, it
would have been outrageous what could have happened.

That "sex license" was far more important than that.

My wife had been divorced, and had a medical condition that prevented
her from having children within our marriage. If we allowed certain
churches to control marriage, they would have objected to our union. Our
childless marriage after her divorce was every bit as endangering to
their concept of the sanctity of marriage as same-sex marriage is. Those
churches aren't fighting to defend marriages like ours was. Given the
right political atmosphere, they would be trying to prevent the state
from allowing people like my late wife and I from getting married.

But the political climate of today won't allow an attack on women who
can't get pregnant. The political climate of today won't allow an attack
on divorced people getting remarried. The political climate of today (in
most places) won't allow an attack on inter-racial marriage. The
political climate of today won't allow an attack on inter-faith
marriage. But it is okay to attack homosexuals.

If that's as far as they can get today, the churches will take it. And
maybe they'll find during the fight that there are enough people willing
to go the next step right away. And then the next step after that. And
pretty soon, many of us will find that we're in marriages that the
oppressive churches with political power oppose.

Separation of church and state. It's the only way to protect our
marriages. If that means some states will allow same-sex marriages,
that's fine. But we need to protect our existing marriages. (Isn't it
ironic that the folks who say they're "defending" marriage are actually
moving us down the highway that could ruin our current legal concept of
marriage?)

"Sex license", my foot.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgarden/index.html

Warren wrote:

Sometimes the bottom line is served best by having an outrageously
liberal return policy that is obviously abusable. Sometimes the bottom
line is served best with a "no returns" policy. The bigger the company,
the more they've likely pondered the return policy, and it's big-picture
effects.

Good point. I'd love to chat, but I need to run to HD and buy a conduit
bending tool for a once in a lifetime outdoor electrical wiring project.
Sure hope it's not the wrong color or I'll have to return it.

Seriously, I understand your point. I guess that HD and others have
evaluated their policy and decided its just too darned liberal.

The blame is squarely on the shoulders of those who abuse the liberal
policy, not those who are forced to rescind it because of jerks.

Warren wrote:

Sometimes the bottom line is served best by having an outrageously
liberal return policy that is obviously abusable. Sometimes the bottom
line is served best with a "no returns" policy. The bigger the company,
the more they've likely pondered the return policy, and it's big-picture
effects.

Good point. I'd love to chat, but I need to run to HD and buy a conduit
bending tool for a once in a lifetime outdoor electrical wiring project.
Sure hope it's not the wrong color or I'll have to return it.

Seriously, I understand your point. I guess that HD and others have
evaluated their policy and decided its just too darned liberal.

The blame is squarely on the shoulders of those who abuse the liberal
policy, not those who are forced to rescind it because of jerks.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:40:29 -0400, "Joe Sandlin"
wrote:

Warren wrote:

Sometimes the bottom line is served best by having an outrageously
liberal return policy that is obviously abusable. Sometimes the bottom
line is served best with a "no returns" policy. The bigger the company,
the more they've likely pondered the return policy, and it's big-picture
effects.

Good point. I'd love to chat, but I need to run to HD and buy a conduit
bending tool for a once in a lifetime outdoor electrical wiring project.
Sure hope it's not the wrong color or I'll have to return it.

Seriously, I understand your point. I guess that HD and others have
evaluated their policy and decided its just too darned liberal.

The blame is squarely on the shoulders of those who abuse the liberal
policy, not those who are forced to rescind it because of jerks.

There is another consideration. All product in HD is placed there on
consignment by the manufacturers. Returns do not hurt HD's bottom
line, they affect the manufacturers who supplied and bankrolled the
product. I suspect that quite a few are bitching. Worked for one who
was placing product from Canada, heard all about, had to design
packaging for a situation where people need to touch the stuff, but we
don't want too many opened.

Costco indulges in similar practices.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontaro
"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:40:29 -0400, "Joe Sandlin"
wrote:

Warren wrote:

Sometimes the bottom line is served best by having an outrageously
liberal return policy that is obviously abusable. Sometimes the bottom
line is served best with a "no returns" policy. The bigger the company,
the more they've likely pondered the return policy, and it's big-picture
effects.

Good point. I'd love to chat, but I need to run to HD and buy a conduit
bending tool for a once in a lifetime outdoor electrical wiring project.
Sure hope it's not the wrong color or I'll have to return it.

Seriously, I understand your point. I guess that HD and others have
evaluated their policy and decided its just too darned liberal.

The blame is squarely on the shoulders of those who abuse the liberal
policy, not those who are forced to rescind it because of jerks.

There is another consideration. All product in HD is placed there on
consignment by the manufacturers. Returns do not hurt HD's bottom
line, they affect the manufacturers who supplied and bankrolled the
product. I suspect that quite a few are bitching. Worked for one who
was placing product from Canada, heard all about, had to design
packaging for a situation where people need to touch the stuff, but we
don't want too many opened.

Costco indulges in similar practices.

Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontaro
"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor

Shirley Hicks wrote:

There is another consideration. All product in HD is placed there on
consignment by the manufacturers. Returns do not hurt HD's bottom line,
they affect the manufacturers who supplied and bankrolled the product.

I had not considered that at all, but I suspect that you are correct.
Thanks!

"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."

....and a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Shirley Hicks wrote:

There is another consideration. All product in HD is placed there on
consignment by the manufacturers. Returns do not hurt HD's bottom line,
they affect the manufacturers who supplied and bankrolled the product.

I had not considered that at all, but I suspect that you are correct.
Thanks!

"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."

....and a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:47:44 GMT, "Warren" wrote:

The Watcher wrote:
Madalyn Murray O'Hair used to call those licenses "Sex Licenses",
since that was
all they really allowed you to do that you couldn't do before. You
could live
together without being married and it wasn't a problem, and you could
eat
together, and you could pretty much do everything else together, as
long as you
didn't have sex, so all you needed the license for was to have sex.

If that were their only value, who'd care?

A marriage license, once it's recorded a wedding actually took place,
allows you to get tax breaks, share health insurance and other employer
provided benefits, and inherit property without taxes, just to name a
few things.

My wife and I lived together for a number of years before getting
married. It wasn't long after we got married that she died. Had we not
gotten married, even with a will that said everything would go to me,
the situation would have been very different. Not only would I have been
emotionally devastated, I would have been facing legal and financial
problems that I would have been in no condition to deal with. If
children were involved, and I wasn't the biological father, well, it
would have been outrageous what could have happened.

That "sex license" was far more important than that.

My wife had been divorced, and had a medical condition that prevented
her from having children within our marriage. If we allowed certain
churches to control marriage, they would have objected to our union. Our
childless marriage after her divorce was every bit as endangering to
their concept of the sanctity of marriage as same-sex marriage is. Those
churches aren't fighting to defend marriages like ours was. Given the
right political atmosphere, they would be trying to prevent the state
from allowing people like my late wife and I from getting married.

But the political climate of today won't allow an attack on women who
can't get pregnant. The political climate of today won't allow an attack
on divorced people getting remarried. The political climate of today (in
most places) won't allow an attack on inter-racial marriage. The
political climate of today won't allow an attack on inter-faith
marriage. But it is okay to attack homosexuals.

If that's as far as they can get today, the churches will take it. And
maybe they'll find during the fight that there are enough people willing
to go the next step right away. And then the next step after that. And
pretty soon, many of us will find that we're in marriages that the
oppressive churches with political power oppose.

Separation of church and state. It's the only way to protect our
marriages. If that means some states will allow same-sex marriages,
that's fine. But we need to protect our existing marriages. (Isn't it
ironic that the folks who say they're "defending" marriage are actually
moving us down the highway that could ruin our current legal concept of
marriage?)

"Sex license", my foot.

To tell the truth, I don't bother with their little euphemisms like "Marriage
Protection Act" and all that nonsense. I think we should call a spade a spade. I
think those gutless people should just step right up and name their bills what
they really are, I suggest they call it the "**** Faggots and Dykes Amendment".
If they can't stand the language, maybe they shouldn't be trying to pass it. :/

(paghat) in
news
In article 0oRNc.177875$IQ4.133533@attbi_s02, "Warren"
wrote:



Don't buy from Home Depot if the stuff they have is junk.

Home Depot has a better grade of lumber than Lowes because Home Depot
is intentionally less careful about the source of their lumber. I'll
settle for a couple extra chinks in a board if I can be better assured
Lowes isn't also encouraging the clear-cutting of old-growth, & paying
off a right-wing government to let them get more of it. Sometimes the
choicest cut for the lowest price is NOT the better choice if it was
carved off someone's child.


and since neither sells lumber longer than 16 ft (or whatever), buy your lumber at lumber yards.

Don't buy from
Home Depot if they're too expensive. But if you're not buying from
Home Depot because the CEO is a Republican, you're not accomplishing
anything.

Effectiveness of boycotts varies, but your statement in general is
incorrect. If enough of the public is alarmed that the founder & CEO
is buying legislation to permit clearcutting of the national forests,
& stopping the funding of OSHA so that workers & customers continue to
be injured & killed (two things Home Depot has gotten from Bush), if
enough people won't shop there because of that, there will be changes
to get the customers to return.

-paggers

Think things through before boycotting. What are you *trying* to
accomplish, and how does this fit in with what you *could* accomplish
if you're successful, and what *will* happen if you're only partially
"successful". Also consider that calling for boycotts has become so
prevalent that these calls are now falling on deaf ears. Calling for
a boycott is now like calling wolf.

neither will get you a wolf

If a successful boycott really
has a chance of getting the desired results before causing too much
collateral damage, then do it right. Organize. Spend some money
promoting it. Be professional. Don't think that "send this e-mail to
all your friends" is going to be a useful tool to promote your
boycott.

In article 5JONc.185677$JR4.63603@attbi_s54,
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
th.net...


How very narrow-minded and bigoted of you. Just like a
Liberal.

Now there's an oxymoronic statement for you!!

Exactly how so?

What part of that statement is an oxymoron?

--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

In article 5JONc.185677$JR4.63603@attbi_s54,
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
th.net...


How very narrow-minded and bigoted of you. Just like a
Liberal.

Now there's an oxymoronic statement for you!!

Exactly how so?

What part of that statement is an oxymoron?

--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

In article 5JONc.185677$JR4.63603@attbi_s54,
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
th.net...


How very narrow-minded and bigoted of you. Just like a
Liberal.

Now there's an oxymoronic statement for you!!

Exactly how so?

What part of that statement is an oxymoron?

--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

In article ,
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
pamfree says...


How very narrow-minded and bigoted of you. Just like a
Liberal.


Pot, Kettle, Black.

Truth hurts, eh?
--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

In article ,
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
th.net...
In article ,
pamfree says...


How very narrow-minded and bigoted of you. Just like a
Liberal.


Pot, Kettle, Black.

Truth hurts, eh?
--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.