HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.224330.352@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>
>How did the state ever get involved in marriages? What possible 
>justification is there for the government laws on the subject?
>

To answer your question: there's no law saying you MUST get married
in any circumstance.  This means that people WANT to get married.  The
State comes in because, beyond a romantic/personal commitment, a "marriage"
is a _legal_ commitment.  Certain people WANT this legal commitment.
That's were the State (insofar as it arbitrates legal commitments) comes
in.

Some laws giving married couples special legal status (mostly tax laws)
really are useless (worse than useless).  Other marriage laws seem to
serve to define what a "marriage" is, and what the "contract" actually
consists of.  Often people with lots of money at stake sign suplementary
contracts ("pre-nuptual agreements") along with their marriage.  Needless
to say, anybody rich or poor can sign such contracts.

Marriage is a very convenient contract that encompasses lots of legal
ground in a simple, easily understood unit (easily understood because our
society has made it a household word).

But "marriage" is also a very traditional, very Christian kind of
institution.  People should approach it as such.  Let the Christians have
their contract (but separate church and state, dammit!).  This talk about
making the institution of Marriage more "open" seems rather
counterproductive to me--I think people would be better off creating a
secular replacement for the marriage contract and work to get that
recognized throughout our legal system.  People demanding that the current
institution of marriage be changed seems to me a lot like atheists
demanding they be allowed to be catholic priests.

Just as a side note, a "marriage replacement institution" ("publically
recognized contract") would serve a great many people, not just homosexual
couples.  The key, though, would be to "sell" this idea to the world at
large.  Remember that our current institution of marriage is popular mostly
because it's so well known.  (When you sign a "marriage license", it
doesn't say anything about what the contract entails, just the word
"Marriage").

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

"You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."
        - Lisa Simpson

Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: Recall Willie Brown
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:49:00 GMT

In article <l8jdacINNk6t@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>Let get it together here. Recall? Talk about idoitic. How many of you 
>are actually registered to vote?

I am, and I've voted in every election since '76.  That means I also voted
for that evil prop 13.  Ya know something?  I would again today.

>Willie Brown's ass is up for relection this September. I've only got one
>stone to cast but you can bet I'm pulling the other lever.

I wish I could.  I also wish I could vote against Teddy Kennedy and Dan
Rostenkowski.  If I could only find a genie to give me 3 wishes...

It seems to me Willie Brown is the most unpopular jerk in Sacramento.  The
only place he could possibly get elected is in San Fransisco.  So how is it
the guy has so much damn power?  Is it because he's got the balls to stand
up and take the heat for the screwing the dems want to give us?

jim

-- 
Lawyers Creed:  What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Harkins                         [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products               jim@pacdata.com
--------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Republicans for Clinton...
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 20:46:14 GMT

In article <7883@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> mitch@seashell.seas.ucla.edu (Robert R. Mitchell (SEAS admin)) writes:
>
>I've heard that there is an organization
>called "Republicans for Clinton" (!)
>
>Does anyone have any information on this group?

There's a group of that name in Sacramento, according to the Sac Bee.  If you
want information about that group, email me and I'll see what the Yolo County
Dem Club knows about it, or maybe I clipped that article.  If you want infor-
mation on a group of that name closer to home, call your county's Democratic
club.  If Sac and Yolo counties are any indication, you'll find yours (the
Dem Club, not the Repubs for Clinton) listed in the White Pages.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Where a man's mind is, there is his treasure."    - Clement of Alexandria |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:01:14 GMT
Organization: Systems'n'Software

In article <oo5vans@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>Given that the government sanctions unions between a man and a woman,
>what legal reason is there that they should not sanction a union
>between two men or two women?
>
>Jeff
>-FWA
>

 Well then how about marriages between a man and three or four women, or
 a woman and three or four men, or a man and a goat, or a woman and a dog,
 or you know I have this old ford I * really * love ! Humm maybe.....

 The point here is if you want to destroy the institution of marriage then
 why place any limit on it at all? Or do you just wish to press for you own
 personal agenda?

 This is just a another example of an abnormal fringe group trying to get
 the rest of society to consider them normal!!!!!!!!!
___________________________________________________________________________
                                   \ /        \  /
I had a seat in the very first row +-------------+ 
I heard it all on my radio         | 0 -(....) 0 |    uunet!jack!jsb
                                   +-------------+                         
___________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6844 talk.politics.misc:39995 misc.legal:16065
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: ABA membership is voluntary, right?
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 00:57:41 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug16.000653.8472@panix.com>

>>> How can the ABA call themselves non-partisan?  How are the rest of
>>> us supposed to feel when we know any lawyer we hire is sworn to
>>> uphold the principles of political correctness?
>>
>>Given that I'm in my last year of law school, I'm a bit embarrassed to
>>have to admit that I don't know this for sure, but I _believe_ that
>>membership in the American Bar Association is voluntary, not
>
>It's entirely optional.  Arthur Hu's comment proceeds from a certain
>boundless ignorance.

Note that "real" law schools have to be accredited by the ABA.  If
Arthur Hu's complaint had been that law schools were required to
"uphold the principles of political correctness," would there actually
be some cause for concern here?  Do accrediting organizations in other
fields take positions on political issues such as abortion?

--Tim Smith
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Specific plan on stopping the ethnic cleansing
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:29:30 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, Ca.

Recently Mr. Cramer accused "the liberals" of possibly preventing
the U.S. from being willing to get involved with the current
Serb/Croat/etc situation, and contended the U.S. should in fact be 
trying to halt the atrocities.

It was later noted that we would love to see what *SPECIFICALLY*
is the right way to intervene to stop the horrors.

My netnews feed must have been down at some point because I have
been watching for "the plan" and haven't seen it yet.  But I can't
imagine that anyone who is strongly for the U.S. intervening not
simply posting a followup to clear us all up on the matter.  Could
someone please email me the article(s) I must have missed outlining 
exactly what it is the U.S. should be doing?

Thanks,
jb
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:24:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.171522.3923@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
>
> Rather than recall any particular politician, ... Allow me to suggest just
> a couple measures which would go a long way toward ensuring timely passage
> of a budget in future years.
>
> 1)  Any fiscal year in which a budget is not in place by the Constitutional-
> ly mandated July 1, the Legislature and the Governor will LOSE 2% of their
> yearly salary for each day that passes without a budget.  
>
> 2)  There shall be NO "per diem" or any other "expense" payments to members
> of the Legislature or the Governor while there is no budget.  These pay-
> ments, like the salary, will be forfeit (i.e., won't be paid back once the
> budget is in place). 

How about what the RC Church did once to cardinals who were spending over a
year to elect a new pope?  Lock the legislature and the governor into the
Chamber and not allow anyone out or in (i.e., no bathrooms, no meals, and
worst of all, no photo-ops or sound bites!) until a budget is passed.  THEN
dock everyone's pay if any unusual housecleaning is required afterwards. ;o)


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Other sports exist only to keep you occupied until baseball season comes |
| around again."					- Dave Barry	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:20:10 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <193194@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <11702@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > In article <192971@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
# ## Let it die, Clayton.  You're really making an ass of yourself and have
# ## succeeded in destroying whatever reputation you had acquired.  I've been
# # 
# # If I've made an ass of myself, why do I keep getting supportive
# # email on this subject?
# 
# I don't know, Clayton, since I haven't seen any of that supportive e-mail.
# Why do you not get any public support on this subject?  And why have you
# been attacked by gays, straights, conservatives, liberals; in short, a
# cross-section of the readers of these groups?  Incidentally, how much

I've also received quite a bit of support here as well, but except
for you and a few others who just can't bear to part with illusions
about homosexuality, most don't engage in a continuous stream of
it.

# e-mail has your postmaster gotten regarding your inappropriate postings
# on this subject (remember when you cross-posted to the .kids newsgroup?).

Quite a bit.  Much of it harrassment, with asshole homosexuals setting
up mail loops that kept throwing trash at us.  Mike Batchelor edited
one of my postings, then emailed to the postmaster implying that I
was the original poster of a child pornography poem that appeared
originally in soc.motss, and which I crossposted to show people that
the child molestation defense brigade was still at work in soc.motss.

Fortunately, my postmaster has a child, and seems to understand that
child molestation is a bad thing.

# Right now, Clayton, *you* are probably NAMBLA's biggest reason for support
# in the Usenet gay community.  You have attacked them for over a year now

Sorry, but when I first asked the question, soc.motss was already
getting postings in which child molestation figured prominently.

# and have said a number of vicious things about them.  Right now, you could

I've said vicious things about a group that is devoted to molesting
children.  I guess I should just hang my head and cry for being such
a nasty person.

# Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:59:16 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <193236@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <11720@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # # There's a LOT more to life than spending your life trying to incite
# # # hatred against a group of people who want nothing but to be allowed to
# # # live their private lives in private.
# # # 
# # # || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC#     || "Only love
# # 
# # You really are dense, aren't you?  It's because homosexuals insist
# # on using the government to tell consenting adults what to do in
# # private that so many people are pissed.  When homosexuals stop trying
# # to force themselves onto straight people in private, we can talk
# # about this.  In the meantime, homosexuals need to get the government
# # out of straight people's lives.
# 
# You really are dense, aren't you?  It's only in your fevered imagination
# that homosexuals are insisting on "using the government to tell consenting
# adults what to do in private."  The converse is actually true, by the

AB 101.  You know about it.  Yet you continue to make statements that
you know are false.  Liar.

# way, or hadn't you remembered all the statutes on the books prohibiting
# homosexual behavior (remember the Texas and Georgia sodomy laws)?
# 

# Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of

Those laws are wrong, as I have always said.  But the problem is
that the homosexual community isn't intent on being free of those
laws, but intent on imposing their views on others.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:20:31 GMT
            <1992Aug13.030755.24573@oracle.us.oracle.com>
            <19607@fritz.filenet.com>
            <1992Aug17.220901.23067@aero.org>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Aug17.220901.23067@aero.org>
 by foy@aero.org (Richard Foy):

: In article <19607@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com 
:    (The Chipmunk) writes:
:>
:> I'm still waiting for someone to propose that we back the high tax down
:> to match the low tax.  That should be about as "fair" as fair can get,
:> whilst still being used in the same paragraph as "tax."
:>
:> I'll happily support such a change.
:
: If you really want to do this, I would suggest that you get some people
: together and start the initiative process.

Nope.  I'm not the one trying to "reform" prop 13.  I realize it has
flaws, but they don't concern me.  And I'm one its "victims."

: However, I would hope that you
: would be a little more responsible than were the Proposition 13 people.
: They promised people a tax cut. They didn't couple specific reduced spending
: with the tax cut.

Well, in defense of the prop 13 writers, I can only presume that they
didn't expect the legislature to get as creative as it did.

Fundamentally, the state differs from the feds in that they can't print
money.  If they want to spend it, they have to get it from somewhere 
other than the ether.  Which means that, in general, if they ain't got 
it, they can't spend it.

But, as I said, the legislature got creative.  Prop 13 forbids creating
specific taxes for specific purposes without a 2/3 popular vote.  So, 
they came up with "bond issues."  Bonds need only the simple majority 
(50.1%) to pass.  We won't have to pay for today's pork until tomorrow, 
or next tuesday, wonderful.  How are we going to pay for it tomorrow,
without increasing taxes?

In not anticipating borrowed money to support increased spending, yes, 
prop 13 was certainly deficient.  But I don't necessarily blame the
writers of the prop.

: You see proposition writers are just like other polticians.
: They promise what their constituents want to hear. They avoid saying
: anything that will offend.

I can't argue with that, but again, in defense of the writers, I really
don't think they anticipated everything, such as 900% price increases.
The spiralling home prices certainly helped increase revenues, allowing
increased spending.

But hey, if I had a correctly functioning crystal ball, I'd be tremendously
fabulously wealthy.  (I do have one, but it's cracked and I can't ever 
get it to focus!)

: Richard Foy

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
For an idea to be fashionable is ominous, since it must afterwards be
always old-fashioned.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:45:13 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: phz@cadence.com's message of 12 Aug 92 05:35:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.053528.3263@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

> Yeah, so I've got equity -- what gives you the right to "tap" it?

[...]

> If you want a FAIR tax, tax eveyone based on INCOME -- and make
> it progressive.

Yeah, so I've got income -- what gives you the right to "tap" it?

If you want a FAIR tax, tax everyone based on what they use, or
on their proportional share of indivisible benefits.  Sort of
like in the Constitution, before it got butchered in 1913.

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Homosexual marriages
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:19:16 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


Given that the government sanctions unions between a man and a woman,
what legal reason is there that they should not sanction a union
between two men or two women?

Jeff
-FWA
From: labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Announcing Quayletool V1.0!
Date: 18 Aug 1992 00:11:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berzerkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: e260-3g.berkeley.edu

Yes folks! It has finally arrived! The complete tool to go along with our
VP.  Features :

	o Dozens of quotations from Dan-o
	o You can have a different quote come up every 2 minutes (or every
	  second, or every day, whatever you want)
	o A picture of Dan Quayle
	o When you press "talk" his mouth moves and reads of the quotes!
	o Sorry, no sound :-(
	o You can edit Danny's picture (draw Moustaches, change hair-do), etc.
	
NOTE : THIS WILL ONLY WORK ON SYSTEMS RUNNING OLIT & OPENLOOK

Quayletool V1.0 is available from soda.berkeley.edu by anonymous ftp.
Look for the directory : ~ftp/pub/quayletool.
This is a public domain program

Mail complaints, bugs, suggestions, etc., to :

	eric@soda.berkeley.edu

Enjoy !

-- 
"And do you know what's inside ? A priiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiize !" - Stimpy
"You gave away ... FORTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ?" - Ren Hoek
Ren & Stimpy: On Nickolodeon,Sunday mornings @ 11 AM.  Watch it, you eediot !
Eric van Bezooijen - eric@soda.berkeley.edu, evb@logrus.eng.sun.com
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:21:56 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <11724@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <11723@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:

[excellent refutation of Clayton's statement about "lying homosexuals" deleted]

> # If you made a similiar statement about blacks based on the same
> # evidence I would say you are a racist.  Since you instead
> # made the statement about homosexuals what should I deduce
> # about your thought processes?

> That I am tired of homosexuals telling lies, repeatedly.

'Attaway, Clayton, ignore the argument since you can't refute it.  Instead
come back with another lie.  Now you know why we're tired of you telling
lies, repeatedly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6673 talk.politics.misc:39088
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Is the ABA liberal-biased:Abortion/Hill
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 09:47:20 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The ABA gives Anita Hill an award for telling a story that most Americans
don't believe, and for taking a stand that most Americans think she is lying
about. Hillary Clinton gives a big speech. They take a position on abortion
than can be nothing but political, and is so extremem that they believe that
NO restrictions on abortion should be allowed.

How can the ABA call themselves non-partisan? How are the rest of us supposed
to feel when we know any lawyer we hire is sworn to uphold the principles of
political correctness?
From: howard@hasse.hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Summary: Do-nothing better than do-something.
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:21:55 GMT
Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Distribution: ca
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: hasse.hal.com
In-reply-to: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)

In article <19468@fritz.filenet.com>, asylvain@felix (The Chipmunk) writes:
> This is what we're paying for,
>do-nothing burocrats.  Do we really need this?  I think not.

I think do-nothing bureaucrats would be a tremendous improvement
over what we have now, especially if they worked for the IRS.
--
Howard Gayle
HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
howard@hal.com
Phone: 408-379-7000 ext. 1080
FAX  : 408-379-5022