http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4811030.stm

The Czech Republic has become the first former communist country in
Europe to grant legal recognition to same-sex partnerships.

[rest of news item on the URL]

This is good news. I suspect it will become a pattern, despite missives
from certain nasty USAishers in this newsgroug. I exclude "The RTE Finn
(TM)" as I suppose he's indisposed, and not USAan.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

You know... there just might be something to this notion of Womanly
attributes being trapped in Men's bodies... <g>

Thank You for the solicitation, but I'm really not interested.

Tim K

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:1hc9jao.1knlt921utogyzN%this_address_is_for_s [email protected]...
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4811030.stm
    > The Czech Republic has become the first former communist country in
    > Europe to grant legal recognition to same-sex partnerships.
    > [rest of news item on the URL]
    > This is good news. I suspect it will become a pattern, despite
missives
    > from certain nasty USAishers in this newsgroug. I exclude "The RTE
Finn
    > (TM)" as I suppose he's indisposed, and not USAan.
    > --
    > David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
    > usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
    > http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.

    > I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women
    > getting 'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.

Re-educate yourself about pension rights and inheritance. That's
what it's really about.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

citizen142 wrote:
    > I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
    > 'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.

Come to San Francisco! Your mind will be manipulated into acceptance,
possibly approval.


Jack Campin wrote:
    > pension rights and inheritance. That's what it's really about.

Only partly:
More immediate concerns are being able to visit and/or make decisions
when one's in hospital, income tax advantages, savings on vehicle
insurance, employer health coverage, etc.

-- __________________________________________________ ______________
A San Franciscan in 47.452 mile² San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ -<->- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 -------> IClast at Gmail com






































[Content below asterisks not mine.]
************************************************** *****************






































.
















*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Following up to "citizen142" <[email protected]> :

    >I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
    >'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.

No need. It's got nothing to do with you. It's got everything to do with
the couples though.
--
Tim C.

Icono Clast <[email protected]> wrote:

    > citizen142 wrote:
    > > I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
    > > 'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.
    >
    > Come to San Francisco! Your mind will be manipulated into acceptance,
    > possibly approval.
    >
    >
    > Jack Campin wrote:
    > > pension rights and inheritance. That's what it's really about.
    >
    > Only partly:
    > More immediate concerns are being able to visit and/or make decisions
    > when one's in hospital, income tax advantages, savings on vehicle
    > insurance, employer health coverage, etc.

While all true, health coverage is less of a pressing issue in countries
with socialised systems.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

What has this to do with travelling ?
or else you are gay and want to live over there ??
good for you but we aren't interested, thank you.

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans
le message de news:
1hc9jao.1knlt921utogyzN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com...
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4811030.stm
    > The Czech Republic has become the first former communist country in
    > Europe to grant legal recognition to same-sex partnerships.
    > [rest of news item on the URL]
    > This is good news. I suspect it will become a pattern, despite missives
    > from certain nasty USAishers in this newsgroug. I exclude "The RTE Finn
    > (TM)" as I suppose he's indisposed, and not USAan.
    > --
    > David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
    > usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
    > http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

"Runge" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >What has this to do with travelling ?
    >or else you are gay and want to live over there ??
    >good for you but we aren't interested, thank you.
Who is this "we" on whose behalf you write?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Icono Clast wrote:

    > citizen142 wrote:
    >
    >> I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
    >> 'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.
    >
    >
    > Come to San Francisco! Your mind will be manipulated into acceptance,
    > possibly approval.
    >
    >
    > Jack Campin wrote:
    >
    >> pension rights and inheritance. That's what it's really about.
    >
    >
    > Only partly:
    > More immediate concerns are being able to visit and/or make decisions
    > when one's in hospital, income tax advantages, savings on vehicle
    > insurance, employer health coverage, etc.

Exactly! Most of the "gay" couples I've known were far more
committed to each other than many heterosexuals. Why should
they not have the same rights? (Like "citizen142", I can't
quite imagine myself in such a relationship, but we're not
all alike, and IMO "love" is "love" - the world could do
with a lot more of that emotion.)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:55:18 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Icono Clast wrote:
    >> citizen142 wrote:
    >>
    >>> I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
    >>> 'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.
    >>
    >>
    >> Come to San Francisco! Your mind will be manipulated into acceptance,
    >> possibly approval.
    >>
    >>
    >> Jack Campin wrote:
    >>
    >>> pension rights and inheritance. That's what it's really about.
    >>
    >> Only partly:
    >> More immediate concerns are being able to visit and/or make decisions
    >> when one's in hospital, income tax advantages, savings on vehicle
    >> insurance, employer health coverage, etc.
    >Exactly! Most of the "gay" couples I've known were far more
    >committed to each other than many heterosexuals. Why should
    >they not have the same rights?

Because marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. Why can't gays
simply create another word for marriage, and use that instead?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

"Dubiously Fragrant Muffin" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:55:18 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Icono Clast wrote:
    >>> citizen142 wrote:
    >>>> I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
    >>>> 'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.
    >>> Come to San Francisco! Your mind will be manipulated into acceptance,
    >>> possibly approval.
    >>> Jack Campin wrote:
    >>>> pension rights and inheritance. That's what it's really about.
    >>> Only partly:
    >>> More immediate concerns are being able to visit and/or make decisions
    >>> when one's in hospital, income tax advantages, savings on vehicle
    >>> insurance, employer health coverage, etc.
    >>Exactly! Most of the "gay" couples I've known were far more
    >>committed to each other than many heterosexuals. Why should
    >>they not have the same rights?
    > Because marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. Why can't gays
    > simply create another word for marriage, and use that instead?

Ok, fine, 'Joining', 'Union', whatever. It's not about the word, it's about
the 'rights' conferred with the word as an understanding that those who are
in a union have special privileges.

    > --
    > ---
    > DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
    > ---
    > --

Dubiously Fragrant Muffin wrote:

    > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:55:18 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Exactly! Most of the "gay" couples I've known were far more
    >>committed to each other than many heterosexuals. Why should
    >>they not have the same rights?
    >
    >
    > Because marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. Why can't gays
    > simply create another word for marriage, and use that instead?

I don't think it's the TERM that concerns them, but the
rights it implies! (Any "creating" of a "separate but equal"
terminology would have to be done by government, to insure
equality before the law.)

In article <[email protected]>, DC <dragoncarer@woops> wrote:

    > "Dubiously Fragrant Muffin" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote
    > in message news:[email protected]...
    > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:55:18 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Icono Clast wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> citizen142 wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> I can never get my mind around two men or indeed two women getting
    > >>>> 'married'. Perhaps I need re-educating.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Come to San Francisco! Your mind will be manipulated into acceptance,
    > >>> possibly approval.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Jack Campin wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> pension rights and inheritance. That's what it's really about.
    > >>>
    > >>> Only partly:
    > >>> More immediate concerns are being able to visit and/or make decisions
    > >>> when one's in hospital, income tax advantages, savings on vehicle
    > >>> insurance, employer health coverage, etc.
    > >>
    > >>Exactly! Most of the "gay" couples I've known were far more
    > >>committed to each other than many heterosexuals. Why should
    > >>they not have the same rights?
    > >
    > > Because marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. Why can't gays
    > > simply create another word for marriage, and use that instead?
    >
    > Ok, fine, 'Joining', 'Union', whatever. It's not about the word,


In the U.S. it is about the "word" for many. At present the only real
(so-called) "Rights" that can not be conveyed by contract deal with the
Federal laws pertaining to federal tax status and far more important
Social Security spousal death benifits and (in some) death benifits to
dependant children.

It is not a "Right" to demand who your employer covers or not for
health care.

jay
Thu Mar 16, 2006
mailto:[email protected]



    > it's about
    > the 'rights' conferred with the word as an understanding that those who are
    > in a union have special privileges.
    >
    > > --
    > > ---
    > > DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
    > > ---
    > > --
    >

Dubiously Fragrant Muffin <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:

[]
    > Because marriage is the joining of a man and a woman.

No- marriage is what people say it is. I know people in civil
partnerships (UK law) who just call themselves married. It's easier, and
the legal situation is almost the same. The argument about the word
mostly comes from religious and whacko right-wing types that prefer to
see a minority of their population continuously repressed. I don't think
there's any really compelling arguments. In the US, the language often
talks about the notion of 'defending' marriage. 50% of US marriages (and
increasing elsewhere) end in divorce.

    > Why can't gays
    > simply create another word for marriage, and use that instead?

What do you suggest?

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org