Pasadenan's Discussions

Besides, IRS has no authority to change their paperwork without direction from Congress.  They are only charged with implimenting the Internal Revenue CODE which is part of the Federal Code, which is written by Congress and signed into law by the President, not the Judges. But I guess you don't bother reading any of the law since you expect the Judges to make up any rules they want regardless of the law anyway? 

No, I'm "fake"; I've only posted my house on Zillow since September with 36 photos, and answers to 75 questions that were supposed to be about my house but many were not, and have only been imbossing Braille documents for the blind for 6 years, and am still trying to memorize grade 2 Braille.  I have posted well over 2000 posts on Zillow Disscussions since September. I don't know why you think I have ANYTHING against people that like to tell everyone that they have sexual relations with someone of their own gender.  I made no comments on that issue. The only issue I bring up is that elected officials are supposed to write laws, and the judges are supposed to impliment them; not the other way around, and that changing the dictonary will not resolve any of the real discrimination issues. But instead, you choose to label me a biggot. 

Besides, anyone that has bothered to read the California Code http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html already know that most of the "benifits" offered by the term "marriage" in California were also offered by the term "civil union".  The major exception is the Federal Tax Code, which technically the recent decission did not alter. Do you always assume someone is aguing against your personal beliefs without bothering to try to understand what a person is saying?  Do you always assume your beliefs must be correct without even trying to understand someone else's perspective? Why didn't you sue the state of New York since you really want the dictionary changed their rather than California?  

Maybe time is not on their side; but are they going to file for "restructuring" or what? And if so, when? Or are they holding out for inflation or a government bailout to rescue them? 

"mansionization" is defined in Pasadena in the Zoning code by a "floor area ratio" (the ratio of the buildling floor area to the land area).  The zoning code now limits the floor area ratio in the residential and central district areas to prevent overbuilding in an area. Of course this has nothing to do with the cookie-cutter "mcMansions", but as our city is primarily "built out"; we are more concerned with overbuilding on a lot than cookie cutter "McMansions". 

"Jesus as Savior usurped all the Old Testament law" Jesus states he did not come to "abolish" the law, but to "complete" or "fulfill" it. Jesus also states that until Heaven and earth pass away, nothing will change in the law until all comes to pass.  And whoever relaxes one of the commandments or teaches others to do so will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven and whoever keeps the law and teaches others to do so will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.  (Mt 5.18-19) But it is true, we live by God's grace, not by our own rightiousness nor legalism. 

And I still don't know why the original poster mentioned Mariam and her lamb named Yashua in the thread title as there was not mention in the actual post. 

I've already stated my postion multiple times but you aren't reading it:1) Elected Officials write the laws that are then signed into Law by the President for the U.S, but the Govenor for the State, or by the approval of two readings by the City Council for the city.  The County laws work similar to City laws.   No appointed nor elected "judges" write the laws; but they do write "decissions" and establish "precidence". 2) Changing things "state by state" is not an effective way to address federal issues. 3) No matter how words are "defined", the prejudice and discrimination will still exist; for example look how the blind continue to be mistreated when it comes to street intersections or U.S. currency, or website access. 4) California's so call discrimination of same-sex couples really wasn't since "civil unions" have been available in California for over 20 years and the California Legislature has continued to provide more "benifits" for that status in frequent additional legilation that affects that status, including last year and the year before. 5) State Law cannot superceed Federal Law.  Federal Law is where the major discrimination occurs, not the state law. 6) Changing the dictionary confuses historical use of terminology, and also makes implementation of certain federal laws more difficult.  This may also mean another difference for form 540 State Tax filing than the federal form 1040 tax filing.  

7) Judges that pass such rulings rarely look at the full consequences of their decissions.  Even the elected officials don't look at most of the consequences, but at least the public tries to weigh in on the decissions by addressing their representatives.8) The court decission was almost equally devided, thus it is not even clear that there was any discrimination by using a different word for same-sex couples as for couples of the opposite sex.9) There may be ramifications for 501C3 organizations and their freedom of speech and freedom of religion; but that has never been analized.10) If the aguement that "separate is not equal" is really a valid arguement to state "civil unions" need to be called "marriages", then a peeping tom should be able to use that aguement to hang out in the Women's restroom since it must be "discriminitory" to use a "separate" facility.  The school districts were forced to "bus" based on "separate is not equal", but it did not improve the education; the districts still discriminated, and the wealthier families abandoned the public schools.11) The problem is not what words are used, it is how things are implimented. 

Regarding the 12 cats; I randomly chose a number since I couldn't remember how many cats the woman that was in the news for her tax-form filing in the late 1970's declared as dependents.  My recollection is 20, but since I didn't remember and didn't feel like looking it up, I used a smaller number.  The only issue is that filing status for joint filing and dependents really needs to be reviewed by Congress and not just arbitrarily altered nor left the same, nor left to the courts and wide differences in State laws. I've been advocating for decades to allow as many adults in the same "household" to file jointly for sometime for "income averaging" purposes so that the high-income wealthy would "adopt" the homeless and actually provide for their needs rather than leaving it to the government. I've also been advocating changing the tax tables to an expodential curve function based on three numbers published each year derived from 3 other numbers:1) Gross National Product (to make sure government gets total of only 10% of all income).2) Total Population (as tax collected is propotional to number of people served)3) Standard deviation of the Mean income (to increase the steepness of the expondential curve if there is a wider disparity between high income and low income, to help bring parity across ecconomic class).