tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823911281339597149.post7451457124234838651..comments2023-03-06T00:28:01.073-08:00Comments on Majority of One: Marriage is a Civil RiteJeff in Sylmarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11556059560863781955noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823911281339597149.post-47325869472225023622022-12-02T20:41:39.217-08:002022-12-02T20:41:39.217-08:00The information introduced in this investor lette...The information introduced in this investor letter is confidential and <a href="https://choego.app/" rel="nofollow">바카라 사이트</a> particularly ready to supply information to present and prospective investors in SVN Capital. This letter doesn't purport to be all-inclusive or to include all the information a prospective or present investor might want. The information herein just isn't meant for use as a common information to investors or as a supply of any particular funding suggestions. Based on current evidence3, I expect laws that enable jurisdictions to increase their tax base, as opposed to impeding gaming operators' businesses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823911281339597149.post-22860812168081528532009-12-16T14:47:31.391-08:002009-12-16T14:47:31.391-08:00I completely agree with you, Ashley. I just want ...I completely agree with you, Ashley. I just want them to go all the way, in one direction or the other. Separate is not equal... we all know that.<br /><br />Actually, there are churches we can go to NOW and have a "marriage" performed. MCC, many Episcopal congregations, Unitarians... heck even the Quakers. The fact that the government recognizes some church weddings but not others is religous discrimination.Jeff in Sylmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11556059560863781955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5823911281339597149.post-45289414598281368322009-12-16T14:34:12.465-08:002009-12-16T14:34:12.465-08:00If the government is going to continue providing b...If the government is going to continue providing benefits and protections relating to marriage, I'm all for having the government issue "civil unions" to all couples, gay and straight, and allow whatever legal benefits that stem from a legal partnership (insurance, inheritance, etc) flow as they currently do for legal "marriage."<br /><br />Then, if the couple in question wants to have that legally-recognized "civil union" blessed in the religious institution of their choice and call it "holy matrimony," so be it. The religious institutions in question can continue to exclude whomever they choose from their institution's rites.<br /><br />I think the word "marriage" is so charged with religious meaning in this country that it's actually become a distraction in the debate -- one that hasn't helped gay people at all. The numbers are pretty favorable for equal legal rights for gay people, as long as we don't call it "marriage," and quite honestly I think it's not a bad idea for the government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether -- just as it isn't in the baptism business or the bar mitzvah business.Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286255652879182122noreply@blogger.com