cannot make the payment, and the effect of nonpayment will be to trigger a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 petition by the co-debtor, which may have a ripple effect on other parties as well. For these reasons, separate classification is often practically necessary. Id. The amendment, therefore, expressly allows separate classification of co-signed obligations, despite the absence of any “theoretical difference” from other claims. At no time does the report indicate any desire to address the second condition for separate classification, that the discrimination not be unfair. This Court realizes that several learned judges view the 1984 amendment to section 1322(b) as creating an exception to the prohibition against unfair discrimination. See In re Domon, 103 B.R. 61 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. 1989) (<HOLDING>); In re Riggel, 142 B.R. 199 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio
holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss holding that an officers statement id like to see some id was a request holding that the amendment constitutes a carve out to the unfair discrimination standard id at 64 holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard