**This post will be updated throughout the show. Refresh the page for additional links.**
Cabinet Agencies Propose Cuts to Meet Obama’s Call for $100 Million Trim. In a $3.5 trillion budget. Hahahahaha! As Investors Business Daily noted that’s like ordering a diet coke with your 95 eclairs.
US Supreme Court to rule on animal cruelty law
Biden will get $250 Social Security bonus from stimulus
Oh, that $250 check you Soc Sec beneficiaries are going to get? That cost you $18,000.
Iran’s leader sparks Western walkout at UN meeting
Shortages of ammo and gun accessories cropping up nationwide
The fact of the matter is that the government shouldn’t recognize marriage to begin with. Speaking as a Christian, I would argue that marriage is a religious institution and for the government to acknowledge it violates the seperation of church and state. The government should offer civil unions to all regardless of their orientation and everyone can then get married within their own religion should they choose to do so and call their relationship whatever they like. Such an approach would disarm the zealots on both sides of the argument.
I say let each state legalize whatever the people of the state decide they want.
I say that Perez Hilton needs his nose brazed for calling that gal a “B” with half a brain.
DOC I respectfully disagree. I too have a Christian background and feel that marriage is a religious institution. I also feel that while your proposal is certainly creative it is not practical. Most of the conservatives who oppose gay marriage do so because they feel the TRADITION of marriage would be compromised. Some of the most staunch conservatives are for civil unions primarily because this would appease the gay community to some extent and yet preserve marriage for those who feel it was created for heterosexuals. I get the “separation of church and state” argument but to propose civil unions for all relationships IMO would be less favorably received than the gay marriage issue itself.
DogOnCrack, I’m with you, in fact, I should have copyrighted this idea because I was saying the same thing last year – mostly because it was all about “semantics” – they can have the same rights, just don’t call it marriage, which I’m sorry to be disrespectful, made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Then I thought if it’s all about the “word” and why is the gov’t involved in marriage anyway, then yes, everybody, straight or gay, can go get a “civil union” (that way we are all technically EQUAL). If you want to add to that, then you go to your local church and “get married”.
I mean, in the Jewish religion, once the couple signs the contract, they are technically married. The ceremony is just an add-on.
I think that in the end, a majority of the rational people would agree with this. It really is that simple, IMHO.
And if the gays balk at it, then I call “foul” – in other words, then it’s really not about “equality” it really is about changing the culture and possibly trying to bring down churches and other religious institutions.
It’s kind of like the eco-nuts – they want a clean source of energy, but I’ve seen them fight against wind energy, some against solar and against nuclear. So, my next question always is – then how exactly should we get our energy?
DOGONCRACK — I have stated this same sentiment many times. I’m with you on this one. The government should not grant a right of marriage to anyone. All who seek a civil contract should be allowed to file one, and it should contain what ever terms the interested parties wish.
“I take this woman to be my partner in five year renewable terms with each term automatically renewing unless a notice of expiration is served by certied mail.” – – That kind of stuff.
Then if you have a religious service and the religion sanctions the union, you have a marriage. You can dissolve the civil contract in court, and then you can jump through whatever hoops your particular religion requires, like saying “I divorce you” three times. Whatever.
RE: Ammunition shortage.
This current shortage is coming from an internet rumor that has recently gone ballistic. The rumor is that the next federal gun control law will be to mandate that civilian ammunition must be made with primers that turn into duds in one year. You can’t find primers, or ammunition hardly anywhere.
As usuall I researched it and found grains of facts and truth mixed with lots of speculation. Here’s what I found:
After Waco, and Ruby Ridge, Janet Reno became obsessed with militia groups. Stockpiling ammunition is one aspect of some of these groups. Properly stored ammunition has nearly an unlimited life. (I, myself have some old .22 shells that are marked $.29 each that shoot fine after 34 years.) Janet R. started to develop a theory that if the ammunition had a limited life, stockpiling would be useless. She convinced Clinton to grant funds to the national labs to develop a limited life primer. It is worth noting that Bush did not stop the project. The patent was granted in 2001 and expires in 2021. There is an improvement that was granted a patent in 2005.
This avenue has not yet been purued because of possible lawsuits from self defense ammo that expired early while your house is broken into, and the black market for foriegn ammo that would surely result, and on and on.
The primers themselves aren’t reliable. If they get hot, they dud out faster, if you store them in a freezer they too may last forever.
It’s also easy to make your own primers by knocking out the dent in the primer cup and putting a couple of toy gun caps in the cup with the anvil behind them. I learned this trick when I bought some Russian ammo that was Berdan primed. You cant find Berdan primers anyplace, so I figured I would tackle the issue. Hate to waste good brass.
You can’t have too much ammunition, unless of course your house is on fire.
So far, there are no bills moving on this yet, but the rumor mill is in high gear, and people are truly panicking.
Re: Iran’s appearance at the UN
First and foremost, Ahmadinejad should not have been admitted to the UN. The mere fact that he was signifies that the UN is nothing but a joke. His appearance only legitimizes his diabolical agenda. There is absolutely no dealing with a person who promotes genocide not to mention the numerous human rights violations that occur under his authority. Having him speak at the UN makes about as much sense as having Hitler conduct a Bar Mitzvah.
Re: Perez Hilton – As a judge, shouldn’t Perez have been (ideally, anyway) impartial? Judging Miss California based on her answer and not on her beliefs? And by implying that he based his vote on her beliefs, does that go against pageant rules (if there are any rules about this sort of thing) and disqualify his vote?
“All who seek a civil contract should be allowed to file one, and it should contain what ever terms the interested parties wish.”
The problem with this is that marriage has always had legal effects on others, while a contract cannot be binding on those who are not a party to it. What immediately comes to my mind is the law of intestate succession, i.e., the law governing the disposition of an estate in the absence of a will. Now, as someone who’s drafted probate legislation, I believe everyone SHOULD have a will, but most people don’t, and in a world where government didn’t recognize marriage at all, would a “spouse” just be SOL when the decedent’s heirs take everything, and leave them without even standing to contest it?
Strangley, I’m not at difference between the two approaches of DOGONCRACK, Tamala, Ladykrystyna and many others of even differing split-offs.
Simply enough a filed legal document defining an association would be sufficient – if one could find a lawyer capable of writing one.
People marry each other; neither the state, nor the church does. Churches, within their ritual role serve as witnesses to the state that a marriage occurred.
This drama queen, ‘Hilton’, has done his campaign no good; either his image (ugh), the community he has deigned himself to represent, and the good-faith effort by people to resolve this issue. Clearly his very common, vulgarity will now be the reference point, not only in the issue of same-sex unions, but homosexual men and women.
Frankly, he might, by this recent episode alone become a bump in the cultural toboggan slide down-hill.
As a queer, a veteran, a practicing (well, scrimmaging) Roman Catholic, American Legion Member, former intelligence officer, I know my opinion is seen as subversive by DHS (Department of Holeless Speculation).
Also, As gays can organize a great party and demonstration, but that’s it, it will be a government that will have to implement the mechanism (I can just imagine them doing something like forcing unions for statistical acrobatics); So project this:
*the health insurance coverage of this pair of same-sex doves – project 3-4 years, and parting; who gets right of first refusal on the premium?
*should one of the party be military, think of the extensive dependent benefits (presuming OhMan will order the end of DODT).
*Secondary victim, survival status.
*last name identificvaion (maybe pitched out of late, but watch how quickly backward the Cindy or Charlie Hyphen-Hyphen identity will go.
Is Perez Hilton hitched, or even in a relationship?
DOGONCRACK, I have to disagree with your opinion. Separation between Church and State in the U.S. Constitution has only one meaning and that is the Government will not establish a National Church. Gay marriage is a Social issue, not a Government issue, so Government has every right establishing a rule that disallows Gay marriage. There are laws of nature that cannot be changed, one of them being procreation is performed between male and female. For the survival of a civilization, gay marriage should not be allowed and should be stated so by the Government. Gay marriage is unnatural and only a choice, not a culture.
Think about marriage this way:
When you die, does the Government perform your funeral, or does your church? Unless you are a Government official, it is probably the latter.
But who signs your death certificate? The Government.
When you get married, unless you request a civil marriage, who performs the ceremony? Your church.
But who signs your marriage licence? The Government.
Why do we even need the Government to give us a licence to be married? Does your spouse have a gear shift or a trigger lock?
Marriage is like a funeral not just because it makes you dead inside but because it is a personal milestone which has heavily religious significance. But unlike a funeral, one gains certain legal benefits from civil marriage according to current law.
So, let’s kill this stupid debate – and it really is stupid the way it is currently framed – by ending Government licencing of marriage and shifting the rights of marriage into private, civil contracts. If you want a marriage ceremony, you can have it on your own time.
Marriage licencing originated from two needs. The feudal lords collected “head taxes” on all subjects, including children. The church recorded marriages, births and deaths, and wrote them in a ledger. Churches burn down, or get ransacked by marauders, or what ever. The accurate records are then lost. The Crown decided to tax marriages, and issue licences and certificates, for marriages births and deaths. The crown through magistrates, recorded these events and kept records for the tax collector. Ledgers were mantained and those records were kept by the crown, which helped make the records more secure. To encourage everyone to participate, the crown granted special priveledges to the “legally married” like inheritale titles (to land) that passed to the sons and spouse. I understand that most of these conventions grew from the fact that the population was growing rapidly, and concepts like land titles and inheriances, were preceded by a “what ever you can control or take is yours” mentality that went with the small bands of people that roamed the continent earlier.
Dave J.: Not being a laywer myself, but having a family law practitioner in the family, the civil union in California, does exactly what a marriage does, just as an adopted child has the exact same rights under probate law as a biological child does. In the absence of a will an adopted child has equal rights to a natural child, and under a civil union the partner has the same rights as a spouse. It’s worth noting that the civil union certificate used for all “unions” performed by the state between men and women, the word marriage does not appear anywhere on the certificate. As far as I am concerned, there is no problem with the State maintaining records of birth, death, civil unions, and divorces (or dissolutions might be a better term). That said, if two gay people who want to make that commitment, and belong to a church that will grant a “marriage” under their rules, fine. But I think there would be less wear and tear on the public concience if church and state were truly kept separate on this issue. After all, you can have a pre-nuptual aggreement that holds up in a divorce, so why could you not incorporate that into the civil covenant? It seems logical to me, but I realize that lawyers and judges might see it differently.