On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 20:19:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>>>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>
>>>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>>>
>>>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>>>
>>> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article. He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with what he would like to be the case. Marriage is over 4500 years old and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of ignorance.
>>
>> And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
>> derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
>> CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>>
>> But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
>> blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
>> frequently do.
>>
>
>??
>It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium
Yes, I know that, but Tom doesn't (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >> >> >> Really?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> John B.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >> >> officially
> >> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
> >> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >> >> license ~ noun
> >> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >> >>
> >> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >> >> "license"
> >> >
> >> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >> or
> >> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >> >
> >> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >>
> >>
> >> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >> actually tie the knot.
> >
> >Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses.. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >> identity cards.
> >
> >You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)

Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.

> >>
> >> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
> >> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
> >> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
> >> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
> >> bank each month.
> >
> >In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
> paid!"
>
> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
> Paid vacation and so on.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >> >> >> Really?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> John B.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> >> >> officially
>> >> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
>> >> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> >> >> license ~ noun
>> >> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> >> >> "license"
>> >> >
>> >> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>> >> or
>> >> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>> >> >
>> >> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>> >> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>> >> actually tie the knot.
>> >
>> >Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>> >> identity cards.
>> >
>> >You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>
>Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.

Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
at the U.S. :-)

Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
(:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/25/2022 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:00:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2022 3:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> That rather proves my original supposition that you poor oppressed
>>> people have to pay "through the nose" just to get married.
>>> San Francisco county marriage license - $108 plus $75 for the ceremony
>>> = $183 to be married legally.
>>
>> Not that much in Tom's county. He certainly spent around that much
>> driving to Reno and back on fuel, food, and the cost of the wedding. He
>> went to Reno because he wanted to, not to save money.
>>
>>> Or "live in sin" and as soon as the
>>> first child is born your "partner" will; start receiving a "salary"
>>> from the government.
>>
>> Hmm, how does that salary thing work?
>
> Aid to Unwed Mothers.
>
> I'm not knowledgeable about it other then I had a bloke worked for me,
> in the Air Force, that was bragging about getting drunk the night
> before and someone commented that "Hey! It's the middle of the month
> and you don't have enough money to get drunk". The bloke replied, "Oh
> my girlfriend bought the beer", so I asked him what his girlfriend did
> for work and he tells us that because she has three kids she doesn't
> have to work and "the government gives here enough to buy my beer
> too".
>

No better indictment of the present system.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>
>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>> or
>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>
>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>> identity cards.
>>>
>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>
> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>>>> bank each month.
>>>
>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
>> paid!"
>>
>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
>> Paid vacation and so on.

I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.

Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
trade.

Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 3:25:12 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 5:01 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:01:15 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >> We do not disagree.
> >>
> >> Whether a small band or tribe, an established church or some
> >> governmental entity, the public declaration of a marriage
> >> contract is very important to secure one's estate and to
> >> define progeny.
> >>
> >> Were it not for children and property no one would much care
> >> who shacks up with whom.
> >
> > Andy, have you been completely oblivious to everything for the past 20-30-40 years? Who shacks up with who is a daily conversation for most politicians. We have that Florida case about the US Representative taking a 17 year old minor across state lines for illicit purposes. And men shacking up with men or women and women shacking up and being officially recognized as married is a daily talking point by many. And very recently a Republican member of Congress said black and white people should not be officially married according to the Federal government. States should decide if different races can marry or not. Seems to me shacking up with whom is a daily topic of conversation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> (A case could be made that publicly defining pairings
> >> should, in theory, reduce homicide in lovers' triangles.
> >> That's a social benefit. Theory and practice, as always, may
> >> differ)
> >
> > WOAH!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!!! WOAH!!!!!! Now Andy, I will admit we (ME) do go off topic a bit in these discussions. But "homicide in lovers' triangles" is maybe a little out there. As in over the wall, across the pond, jump the creek, swim across the ocean, climb atop the mountain, out there. I'm not sure "homicide in lovers' triangles" fits in a bicycling discussion. Unless they were bicyclists and RAAM or Tour racers and used a Park pedal wrench or chain whip in the act. Maybe Fox will license this and make a TV series on it.
> >
> >
> >
> OK, that was a reach, I admit.
>
> There is quite a bit of theory that public marriage
> contracts and officially dissuading sleeping around makes
> for a more stable less violent society. Results vary.

Remember when I assumed that Russell was queer because of his comment and he said he was married? Why do you suppose he knows absolutely nothing about marriage were that the case?

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 6:20:01 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >>>>> Really?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John B.
> >>>>
> >>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
> >>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
> >>>>
> >>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
> >>> better.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
> >>>
> >>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
> >>
> >> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article. He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with what he would like to be the case. Marriage is over 4500 years old and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of ignorance.
> >
> > And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
> > derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
> > CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
> >
> > But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
> > blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
> > frequently do.
> >
> ??
> It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium

It would appear that John simply cannot stop himself from gaining any and all of his intellectual training from Google and since he doesn't even know how to use Google correctly, he blows it time after time.

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >>>>>> officially
> >>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
> >>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >>>>>> license ~ noun
> >>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >>>>>> "license"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >>>> or
> >>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >>>> actually tie the knot.
> >>>
> >>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >>>> identity cards.
> >>>
> >>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >
> > Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
> >>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
> >>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
> >>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
> >>>> bank each month.
> >>>
> >>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
> >> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
> >> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
> >> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
> >> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
> >> paid!"
> >>
> >> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
> >> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
> >> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
> >> Paid vacation and so on.
> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
>
> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
> trade.
>
> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.

On 3/25/2022 9:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the
>>>>> 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world,
>>>>> meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs
>>>>> and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need
>>>>> for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law
>>>>> was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done.
>>>>> Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies,
>>>>> everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's
>>>>> brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of
>>>>> the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters
>>>>> and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife
>>>>> inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife
>>>>> owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned
>>>>> intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife
>>>>> property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>>>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>
>>>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>>>
>>>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>>>
>>> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article.
>>> He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with
>>> what he would like to be the case.  Marriage is over 4500 years old
>>> and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always
>>> argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love
>>> they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of
>>> ignorance.
>>
>> And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
>> derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
>> CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>>
>> But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
>> blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
>> frequently do.
>>
>
> ??
> It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium

Which, I'm sure, had even older roots. If we had the means, we might
trace it back to Cro Magnon times. Or if you prefer, to the Tower of Babel.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/26/2022 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>
>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>>>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>>>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>>>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>>>>>> bank each month.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
>>>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
>>>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
>>>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
>>>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
>>>> paid!"
>>>>
>>>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
>>>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
>>>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
>>>> Paid vacation and so on.
>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
>>
>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
>> trade.
>>
>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
>
> To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?

On 3/25/2022 9:21 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Aid to Unwed Mothers.
>
> I'm not knowledgeable about it other then I had a bloke worked for me,
> in the Air Force, that was bragging about getting drunk the night
> before and someone commented that "Hey! It's the middle of the month
> and you don't have enough money to get drunk". The bloke replied, "Oh
> my girlfriend bought the beer", so I asked him what his girlfriend did
> for work and he tells us that because she has three kids she doesn't
> have to work and "the government gives here enough to buy my beer
> too".

Well why should not being knowledgeable about something stop you from
commenting? It doesn't stop Tom.

Actually single mothers can get additional SNAP (food stamp) credits but
SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) be used to purchase
alcohol or most non-food items. I guess you could argue that the extra
SNAP benefits free up other money that can be used to buy beer.

Anyone, regardless of the marital status or dependents can apply for
general assistance if they are indigent.

There are also private charities that often will help provide assistance
to single mothers.

On 3/26/2022 11:22 AM, sms wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 9:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Aid to Unwed Mothers.
>>
>> I'm not knowledgeable about it other then I had a bloke
>> worked for me,
>> in the Air Force, that was bragging about getting drunk
>> the night
>> before and someone commented that "Hey! It's the middle of
>> the month
>> and you don't have enough money to get drunk". The bloke
>> replied, "Oh
>> my girlfriend bought the beer", so I asked him what his
>> girlfriend did
>> for work and he tells us that because she has three kids
>> she doesn't
>> have to work and "the government gives here enough to buy
>> my beer
>> too".
>
> Well why should not being knowledgeable about something stop
> you from commenting? It doesn't stop Tom.
>
> Actually single mothers can get additional SNAP (food stamp)
> credits but SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
> be used to purchase alcohol or most non-food items. I guess
> you could argue that the extra SNAP benefits free up other
> money that can be used to buy beer.
>
> Anyone, regardless of the marital status or dependents can
> apply for general assistance if they are indigent.
>
> There are also private charities that often will help
> provide assistance to single mothers.

You should get out more.

In my old neighborhood a beer six pack or cigarettes paid
with a relief card is normal. The clerk scans the baby
formula UPC taped next to the cash register.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/26/2022 6:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:00:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2022 3:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> That rather proves my original supposition that you poor oppressed
>>>> people have to pay "through the nose" just to get married.
>>>> San Francisco county marriage license - $108 plus $75 for the ceremony
>>>> = $183 to be married legally.
>>>
>>> Not that much in Tom's county. He certainly spent around that much
>>> driving to Reno and back on fuel, food, and the cost of the wedding. He
>>> went to Reno because he wanted to, not to save money.
>>>
>>>> Or "live in sin" and as soon as the
>>>> first child is born your "partner" will; start receiving a "salary"
>>>> from the government.
>>>
>>> Hmm, how does that salary thing work?
>>
>> Aid to Unwed Mothers.
>>
>> I'm not knowledgeable about it other then I had a bloke worked for me,
>> in the Air Force, that was bragging about getting drunk the night
>> before and someone commented that "Hey! It's the middle of the month
>> and you don't have enough money to get drunk". The bloke replied, "Oh
>> my girlfriend bought the beer", so I asked him what his girlfriend did
>> for work and he tells us that because she has three kids she doesn't
>> have to work and "the government gives here enough to buy my beer
>> too".
>>
>
> No better indictment of the present system.

If it were true. Which it isn't.

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >> >> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >> >> >> >> Really?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >> >> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >> >> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >> >> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> John B.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >> >> >> officially
> >> >> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
> >> >> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S..
> >> >> >> license ~ noun
> >> >> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >> >> >> "license"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people.. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >> >> or
> >> >> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters.. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >> >> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >> >> actually tie the knot.
> >> >
> >> >Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >> >> identity cards.
> >> >
> >> >You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >
> >Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
> at the U.S. :-)

I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you want with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?

>
> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
> (:-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 10:35:56 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Actually I'm not sure about the "establish progeny" as I'm fairly sure
>that the U.S. birth certificate has the name of both the mother and
>father listed which I think might well be the determining factor.
>Rather then who was married to whom.

Things get rather complexicated in group marriages, consensual
nonmonogamy, and polyamory, which are legal in some states:
<https://polyamorylegal.org/faqs>
"Multiple U.S. states (including California, Washington, Louisiana,
and Rhode Island) have explicitly recognized the families with
multiple parents, such as step-families, adoptive families, and
families with CNM parents. The Uniform Parentage Act (a recommended
uniform legal framework for establishing parent-child relationships in
the US) allows for the legal recognition of more than two parents."

Uniform Parentage Act FAQ:
<https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=c4f37d2d-4d20-4be0-8256-22dd73af068f>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 3/26/2022 3:24 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 9:34:15 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Remember when I assumed that Russell was queer because of his comment and he said he was married? Why do you suppose he knows absolutely nothing about marriage were that the case?
>
> Tommy, you are LYING or imagining things again. You can search this forum and everywhere on the internet, until the cows come home and jump over the moon, and you will never ever find me claiming I am/was married. Nope. As for the term "queer", I like girls. I am a man in case you did not know. Heterosexual. You're not educated, so that word means boys liking girls. Why Tommy would you use this term for me? Have you been watching the supreme court nominations and Fox News and seeing your idols use CRT, and Liberal, and Woke, and ???? So you think making up lies and derogatory words about people is the right thing to do? OK.

We still don't know if Jackson likes beer. I can't believe that they
would ask a white male that vital question, but not a black female. She
might be drinking some commie beer from Berkeley, like Trumer pilsner
<https://www.trumer-international.com/>.

Love this cartoon on Jackson's hearing: <https://i.imgur.com/vZpmyIL.jpg>.

On 3/26/2022 5:14 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>
>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>> at the U.S. :-)
>
> I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you wa
nt with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Government retirement? Government assisted medical care? Government
>> education loans? Government assisted housing? Government unemployment?
>> (:-)
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

'Capitalism' is a mythical bugaboo.
The term was invented by Marx as a pejorative for a free
market. Free markets, as you note, do not exist in most
areas of human endeavor now (regardless of geography).

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/26/2022 5:40 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 3:24 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 9:34:15 AM UTC-5,
>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Remember when I assumed that Russell was queer because of
>>> his comment and he said he was married? Why do you
>>> suppose he knows absolutely nothing about marriage were
>>> that the case?
>>
>> Tommy, you are LYING or imagining things again. You can
>> search this forum and everywhere on the internet, until
>> the cows come home and jump over the moon, and you will
>> never ever find me claiming I am/was married. Nope. As
>> for the term "queer", I like girls. I am a man in case
>> you did not know. Heterosexual. You're not educated, so
>> that word means boys liking girls. Why Tommy would you
>> use this term for me? Have you been watching the supreme
>> court nominations and Fox News and seeing your idols use
>> CRT, and Liberal, and Woke, and ???? So you think making
>> up lies and derogatory words about people is the right
>> thing to do? OK.
>
> We still don't know if Jackson likes beer. I can't believe
> that they would ask a white male that vital question, but
> not a black female. She might be drinking some commie beer
> from Berkeley, like Trumer pilsner
> <https://www.trumer-international.com/>.
>
> Love this cartoon on Jackson's hearing:
> <https://i.imgur.com/vZpmyIL.jpg>.

> We still don't know if Jackson likes beer.

Now there's a missed opportunity.

Someone who cannot define the term 'woman' might have been
able to make something up impromptu if asked to define
'beer'. I suppose we'll never know. More's the pity.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 09:56:04 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/26/2022 6:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:00:27 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/25/2022 3:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> That rather proves my original supposition that you poor oppressed
>>>>> people have to pay "through the nose" just to get married.
>>>>> San Francisco county marriage license - $108 plus $75 for the ceremony
>>>>> = $183 to be married legally.
>>>>
>>>> Not that much in Tom's county. He certainly spent around that much
>>>> driving to Reno and back on fuel, food, and the cost of the wedding. He
>>>> went to Reno because he wanted to, not to save money.
>>>>
>>>>> Or "live in sin" and as soon as the
>>>>> first child is born your "partner" will; start receiving a "salary"
>>>>> from the government.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, how does that salary thing work?
>>>
>>> Aid to Unwed Mothers.
>>>
>>> I'm not knowledgeable about it other then I had a bloke worked for me,
>>> in the Air Force, that was bragging about getting drunk the night
>>> before and someone commented that "Hey! It's the middle of the month
>>> and you don't have enough money to get drunk". The bloke replied, "Oh
>>> my girlfriend bought the beer", so I asked him what his girlfriend did
>>> for work and he tells us that because she has three kids she doesn't
>>> have to work and "the government gives here enough to buy my beer
>>> too".
>>>
>>
>> No better indictment of the present system.
>
>If it were true. Which it isn't.

"A single parent with a couple kids can easily get $35,000 a year in
total benefits between the health care and the earned income credit
and the FoodShare and the low-income housing and what have you. …
That’s after taxes.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-single-parents-welfare
"The amount in total annual benefits that a single parent with two
kids can receive, pegged at $35,000, is “in essence a bribe not to
work that hard or a bribe not to marry somebody with a full-time job,”
he said.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:37:58 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 6:20:01 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >>>>> Really?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> John B.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>> >>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>> >>>>
>> >>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>> >>> better.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>> >>>
>> >>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>> >>
>> >> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article. He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with what he would like to be the case. Marriage is over 4500 years old and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of ignorance.
>> >
>> > And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
>> > derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
>> > CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>> >
>> > But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
>> > blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
>> > frequently do.
>> >
>> ??
>> It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium
>
>It would appear that John simply cannot stop himself from gaining any and all of his intellectual training from Google and since he doesn't even know how to use Google correctly, he blows it time after time.

No Tommy, I was simply trying to simplify the term so that you might
be able to understand it. But if you want the full bottle then:

The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first
appears in 1250–1300 CE.

This, in turn, is derived from Old French, marier

Ultimately Latin, maritare, meaning to provide with a husband or wife
and maritari meaning to get married.

The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word
matremoine, which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from
Latin matrimonium, which combines the two concepts: mater meaning
"mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or
condition"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:20:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/25/2022 9:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the
>>>>>> 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world,
>>>>>> meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs
>>>>>> and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need
>>>>>> for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law
>>>>>> was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done.
>>>>>> Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies,
>>>>>> everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's
>>>>>> brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of
>>>>>> the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters
>>>>>> and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife
>>>>>> inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife
>>>>>> owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned
>>>>>> intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife
>>>>>> property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>>>>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>>>>
>>>> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article.
>>>> He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with
>>>> what he would like to be the case.  Marriage is over 4500 years old
>>>> and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always
>>>> argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love
>>>> they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of
>>>> ignorance.
>>>
>>> And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
>>> derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
>>> CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>>>
>>> But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
>>> blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
>>> frequently do.
>>>
>>
>> ??
>> It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium
>
>Which, I'm sure, had even older roots. If we had the means, we might
>trace it back to Cro Magnon times. Or if you prefer, to the Tower of Babel.

I read that
"The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman
and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia."
https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/26/2022 7:36 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:20:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2022 9:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:04:44 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/24/2022 6:55 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the
>>>>>>> 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world,
>>>>>>> meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs
>>>>>>> and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need
>>>>>>> for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law
>>>>>>> was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done.
>>>>>>> Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies,
>>>>>>> everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's
>>>>>>> brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of
>>>>>>> the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters
>>>>>>> and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife
>>>>>>> inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife
>>>>>>> owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned
>>>>>>> intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife
>>>>>>> property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to officia
>>>>>> lly say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think an historian could help you to understand this area
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few thousand similar examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to explain anything to Russell is pretty much a dead article.
>>>>> He simply looks things up and accepts any source that agrees with
>>>>> what he would like to be the case. Marriage is over 4500 years old
>>>>> and contrary to the many statements of non-believers who have always
>>>>> argued that marriage was an ownership without the requirement of love
>>>>> they weren't there and are speaking totally from a position of
>>>>> ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> And, as usual Tommy gets it wrong again. The word "The word "marriage"
>>>> derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300
>>>> CE. So "Marriage", per se, can only be about 700 years old.
>>>>
>>>> But what is wrong with looking things up. It is far better then
>>>> blundering around not knowing what one is talking about as you so
>>>> frequently do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ??
>>> It's Latin and ancient, from matrimonium
>>
>> Which, I'm sure, had even older roots. If we had the means, we might
>> trace it back to Cro Magnon times. Or if you prefer, to the Tower of Babel.
>
> I read that
> "The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman
> and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia."
> https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
>

Was she hot?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:49:51 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 23:20:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >> >> >> >> >making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >> >> >> >> Really?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >> >> >> >> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >> >> >> >> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >> >> >> >> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> John B.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> >> >> >> officially
>> >> >> >> >say the wife was married to the man.
>> >> >> >> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> >> >> >> license ~ noun
>> >> >> >> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> >> >> >> "license"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> >not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>> >> >> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>> >> >> actually tie the knot.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>> >> >> identity cards.
>> >> >
>> >> >You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>> >
>> >Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>> Re-read my friend's description of Hungarian communism and then look
>> at the U.S. :-)
>
>I have never ever claimed the USA is not a communist, socialist, fascist, capitalist, etc. type of country. It is. Just like most other countries in the world. China for instance. We portray them as a communist, socialist, dictatorship in the USA. They are. But they are also very very very CAPITALIST too. JD, Alibaba, Bidu. All Chinese tech companies. All sort of private. Capitalist companies. And of course the USA has many many many socialist programs. Medicare, Social Security are both take from the masses to give to the few type programs. That is how socialism works. Or is it take from all to give to all? Something like that. But of course being a socialist, communist, capitalist, dictatorship type of country has more than just the economic side to deal with. Governance is important too. Singapore is more or less a dictatorship, socialist country. Just like China. One party rules all. But it is very capitalist too. And free, sort of. So do whatever you want
>with your money in Singapore, just make darn sure it does not influence or involve the government. In the USA the capitalists can buy the government. Is that capitalism?

I've lived in about every form of government ranging from totalitarian
dictatorships to rather loose democratic systems and overwhelming the
people, the commonality, feel that "This" government is better then
the "Old" government. And, at least from an outsider's view, it is.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>> >>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>> >>>>>>>> Really?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>> >>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>> >>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>> >>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> John B.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>> >>>>>> officially
>> >>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>> >>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>> >>>>>> license ~ noun
>> >>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>> >>>>>> "license"
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>> >>>> or
>> >>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>> >>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>> >>>> actually tie the knot.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>> >>>> identity cards.
>> >>>
>> >>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>> >> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>> >> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>> >> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>> >> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>> >
>> > Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>> >>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>> >>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>> >>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>> >>>> bank each month.
>> >>>
>> >>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
>> >> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
>> >> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
>> >> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
>> >> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
>> >> paid!"
>> >>
>> >> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
>> >> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
>> >> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
>> >> Paid vacation and so on.
>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
>>
>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
>> trade.
>>
>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
>
>To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?

On 3/26/2022 8:33 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
>>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
>>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
>>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
>>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
>>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
>>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
>>>>>>>>> "license"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
>>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
>>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
>>>>>>> identity cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
>>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
>>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
>>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
>>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
>>>>
>>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
>>>>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
>>>>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
>>>>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
>>>>>>> bank each month.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
>>>>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
>>>>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
>>>>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers.
>>>>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
>>>>> paid!"
>>>>>
>>>>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
>>>>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
>>>>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
>>>>> Paid vacation and so on.
>>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
>>>
>>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
>>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
>>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
>>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
>>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
>>> trade.
>>>
>>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
>>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
>>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
>>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
>>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
>>
>> To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?
>
> Tom, that is how a socialistic system works. First they grab your
> money in taxes and next they give it back when you need it.
>
> In the case of the U.S. Social Security I believe the original theory
> was that it would actually make money as in many, maybe most, cases
> the participants would pay in more then they would draw out.
>
>