yawn

[zackbass]

 

I knew it!  I knew it!  It was bound to happen - one of these days one of these States was going to have to fuck up, and hallelujah praise godamighty it was NEW HAMPSHIRE!

NH is about to be the freest State in the nation!  It's gonna happen, the Governor has said he will sign this bill!

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HB0437.html
"... civil unions shall only be allowed between one unmarried man and another unmarried man both of whom are at least 18 years of age or one unmarried woman and another unmarried woman both of whom are at least 18 years of age, subject to the prohibitions in RSA 457-A:3 and RSA 457-A:4 and provided that they are not in another civil union."

Don't worry about the fact that this gives special Rights to same-sex couples that are not available to normal people (since it does not allow straights to enter into Civil Unions).  The important thing here is this:  This bill allows a Civil Union between a person who is MARRIED and someone else of the same gender, as long as the other person is not IN A CIVIL UNION - either or both may be MARRIED though.
And each member of a Civil Union may marry, and each of them may enter enter a Civil Union, and each of them may marry, etc. ad infinitum.

NH is set to legalize Line Marriages - A.K.A. ClusterFucks!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_marriage

[money dollars]

lol

457-A:3 Civil Unions Prohibited; Men. No man shall enter into a civil union with his father, his grandfather, his father?s brother, his mother?s brother, his son, his brother, his son?s son, his daughter?s son, his brother?s son, his sister?s son, his father?s brother?s son, his mother?s brother?s son, his father?s sister?s son, or his mother?s sister?s son.

457-A:4 Civil Unions Prohibited; Women. No woman shall enter into a civil union with her mother, her grandmother, her father?s sister, her mother?s sister, her daughter, her sister, her son?s daughter, her daughter?s daughter, her brother?s daughter, her sister?s daughter, her father?s brother?s daughter, her mother?s brother?s daughter, her father?s sister?s daughter, or her mother?s sister?s daughter.

[zackbass]

Oh darn, it doesn't allow Married people to enter into Civil Unions.  Still, it does allow a short Line Marriage, since it allows members of a Civil Union to MARRY OTHERS - AFTER they enter into the Civil Union.

[zackbass]

What's more, the Statute has no provision for punishing those who violate the provisions!!!

[zackbass]

Here's how it goes:

A and B enter into a Civil Union.
C and D enter into a Civil Union.
E and F enter into a Civil Union.
G and H enter into a Civil Union.
I and J enter into a Civil Union.
K and L enter into a Civil Union.
M and N enter into a Civil Union.
O and P enter into a Civil Union.
Q and R enter into a Civil Union.
S and T enter into a Civil Union.
etc.

Then B marries C, and D marries E, etc.
CLUSTERFUCK!

And... what if, at the end of the line, T marries A (do I have the genders right?)?  Some kind of snake-eating-its-tail thingie.

[Rosie the Riveter]

Here's how it goes:

A and B enter into a Civil Union.
C and D enter into a Civil Union.
E and F enter into a Civil Union.
G and H enter into a Civil Union.
I and J enter into a Civil Union.
K and L enter into a Civil Union.
M and N enter into a Civil Union.
O and P enter into a Civil Union.
Q and R enter into a Civil Union.
S and T enter into a Civil Union.
etc.

Then B marries C, and D marries E, etc.
CLUSTERFUCK!

And... what if, at the end of the line, T marries A (do I have the genders right?)?  Some kind of snake-eating-its-tail thingie.

If a snake wants to eat its own tail that's cool with me

[Dreepa]

civil unions shall only be allowed between one unmarried man and another unmarried man both of whom are at least 18 years of age or one unmarried woman and another unmarried woman both of whom are at least 18 years of age, subject to the prohibitions in RSA 457-A:3 and RSA 457-A:4 and provided that they are not in another civil union

quoted from your original post.
They can't be married or be in another civil union.

[MaineShark]

Uh, one problem...

RSA 645:3 Adultery. ? A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married.

While I haven't heard much by way of enforcement of that particular law, I do expect that the State would "make an example" of a group such as you describe.

Why not simply tell the State to get lost? They have no business performing marriages or "civil unions" of anyone, regardless of the chromosomes/genders of the participants. There is no impediment to civilly contracting with others for that purpose, and it keeps the State out of your bedroom. Denise and I haven't found it to be an issue that we don't have a "license" to be married. Even when talking to insurance companies and financial companies and telling them point-blank that we don't have a State-sponsored marriage, they don't take issue. We get more nonsense over our son not having a SSN (we figure, if he gets older and wants one, it's his choice; we're not going to saddle him with one) than over us not having a marriage license. Plus, the calligraphed certificate we had made up looks much nicer.

Joe

[Raineyrocks]

Uh, one problem...

RSA 645:3 Adultery. ? A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married.

While I haven't heard much by way of enforcement of that particular law, I do expect that the State would "make an example" of a group such as you describe.

Why not simply tell the State to get lost? They have no business performing marriages or "civil unions" of anyone, regardless of the chromosomes/genders of the participants. There is no impediment to civilly contracting with others for that purpose, and it keeps the State out of your bedroom. Denise and I haven't found it to be an issue that we don't have a "license" to be married. Even when talking to insurance companies and financial companies and telling them point-blank that we don't have a State-sponsored marriage, they don't take issue. We get more nonsense over our son not having a SSN (we figure, if he gets older and wants one, it's his choice; we're not going to saddle him with one) than over us not having a marriage license. Plus, the calligraphed certificate we had made up looks much nicer.

Joe

That is awesome Joe!  I wish I would've known so much more when my kids were born, I would've made different choices that's for sure.

[Raineyrocks]

I just read somewhere that when you register your children that makes them state property or something like that.  Has anyone heard of something like that before?

http://www.thinkfree.ca/images/childorlife.pdf

(I think it's on the last couple pages)

[zackbass]

civil unions shall only be allowed between one unmarried man and another unmarried man both of whom are at least 18 years of age or one unmarried woman and another unmarried woman both of whom are at least 18 years of age, subject to the prohibitions in RSA 457-A:3 and RSA 457-A:4 and provided that they are not in another civil union

quoted from your original post.
They can't be married or be in another civil union.

Doesn't say that!  Says someone who is Married cannot enter into a Civil Union. and someone who is already in a Civil Union can't enter into another.  Does NOT, however, say that someone who is in a Civil Union can't MARRY!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[MaineShark]

I just read somewhere that when you register your children that makes them state property or something like that.  Has anyone heard of something like that before?

I don't know about that, but I do know that once you have an SSN, you're stuck with it.  People have written letters demanding that their files be removed since they never signed up (their parents signed them up), and the SSA tells them they're out of luck.  Once you have it, you're stuck with it.  Sort of like herpes or something, I guess...

Joe

[error]

Yes, the SSN was the first backdoor national ID.

[powerchuter]

I just read somewhere that when you register your children that makes them state property or something like that.  Has anyone heard of something like that before?

I don't know about that, but I do know that once you have an SSN, you're stuck with it.  People have written letters demanding that their files be removed since they never signed up (their parents signed them up), and the SSA tells them they're out of luck.  Once you have it, you're stuck with it.  Sort of like herpes or something, I guess...

Joe

This is one of the most egregious acts our supposed "government" takes...and it's one that surely proves their illegitimacy...from the local level all the way through the federal level and the robed witches and warlocks...

That somehow our parents can "enter" us into a lifelong contractual commitment, without our consent, and that we can "never" get free of this "number of the beast"!?!?!

This is exactly why I can't tolerate anyone who directly or indirectly approves of or initiates aggression against others...

And why I've come to the conclusion that "they" won't stop until superior defensive force is used upon them...

The short reply is...
Of course...

Shoot The Bastards!
Each and every single one of them!

I am so very tired of fighting people's ignorance and their consent and complacence with respect to their direct and indirect approval of the aggression against others...

I hear people all the time trying to justify such actions...but it still comes down to aggression and the initiation of force...

Unacceptable!
Totally!

Live Free!
Stay Armed!
Never Give-Up!
Never Surrender!

Semper Fidelis

[Rosie the Riveter]

This is one of the most egregious acts our supposed "government" takes...and it's one that surely proves their illegitimacy...from the local level all the way through the federal level and the robed witches and warlocks...

That somehow our parents can "enter" us into a lifelong contractual commitment, without our consent, and that we can "never" get free of this "number of the beast"!?!?!

This is exactly why I can't tolerate anyone who directly or indirectly approves of or initiates aggression against others...

And why I've come to the conclusion that "they" won't stop until superior defensive force is used upon them...

The short reply is...
Of course...

Shoot The Bastards!
Each and every single one of them!

I am so very tired of fighting people's ignorance and their consent and complacence with respect to their direct and indirect approval of the aggression against others...

I hear people all the time trying to justify such actions...but it still comes down to aggression and the initiation of force...

Unacceptable!
Totally!

Live Free!
Stay Armed!
Never Give-Up!
Never Surrender!

Semper Fidelis

Respectfully, I must state, your post is totally contradictory..... advocating force when you say that you can't tolerate force?