Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
By allegedly lying to the SEC as to whether she had received information from an insider at Imclone (i.e., from Waksal through Bacanovich (or via FAnueil as well) and by changing phone records ostensibly to cover up evidence of those alleged lies. One can be charged with insider trading, through use of inside information, even if one is not an insider.

Understood. But I thought that they had Waksal on a direct insider trading charge and not on a tippor theory?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because state law describes who may marry, and the last time I checked the Mayor of San Francisco does not write, or for that matter even enforce, state law.

That sounds like a writ of mandamus type action then. They are just suing to get a court to order the mayor to behave in accordance with the law.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Understood. But I thought that they had Waksal on a direct insider trading charge and not on a tippor theory?

I think it was for both because he also told his daughter and his father, too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I think what's happened in San Francisco and Massachusetts lately is wonderful, except for the inevitable backlash. At this point, I don't have a good sense as to whether the folks supporting gay marriage are going to provoke a constitutional amendment that will enshrine bigotry as the law of the land, or whether what we're seeing is the leading edge of social change that will outpace the efforts of the forces of sentimentality and regression to keep pace. Things have already changed so much in recent years.* What's going to happen?

*Bonus points to anyone who illustrates a post on this subject with a hot picture of Britney and Madonna, if any

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What's going to happen?

I fear gay marriage advocates have overestimated public favor in both MA and CA by insisting on seizing the ground that lies between civil unions and the incremental symbolic value of the word "marriage." Most of the people I know are embarrassed there's no provision for equal rights, and would readily support equal rights but also are protective of the word "marriage" even if they define permissible civil unions to cover all of the ground covered by "marriage."

Maybe we can solve this by defining both marriage and civil unions as "affectional community"* or some shit like that, and using only that term in state law.

*Save it, asshat.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
will enshrine bigamy

You got that one right. Unless someone can come up with an argument as to what is so special about 2 people, now that we have decided it doesn't have to be one of each gender, bigamy is next on the agenda.

Not Britney and Madonna, but I think it still counts for bonus points:

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In federal court, they'd have a problem, I imagine, but state courts are not governed by Article III. California can (and frequently does) confer standing on any schmoe who wants to sue.

Can I sue some of the schmoes suing the newlyweds and argue that their marriage license is invalid because their spouse was clearly not of sound mind? After all, R.I.L. and all that?

Will you take the case?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Family Portrait

I think all the arguments on behalf of gay marriage also apply to inter-species marriages. So next it's going to be inter-species marriages.

I want everyone here to know, I support Not Me's right to marry her horse. I'm no speciest.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
You got that one right. Unless someone can come up with an argument as to what is so special about 2 people, now that we have decided it doesn't have to be one of each gender, bigamy is next on the agenda.

As moderator, I stipulate that we now understand that every post you write observes that you cannot discern a principled basis for distinguishing between polygamy and gay marriage, and invites anyone with the requisite patience to tell you otherwise. You no longer need to say anything to make this point. Alternatively, you could start using the following tags:

[IGNORE ME]
[/IGNORE ME]

I vote for the former.

That picture is going to cost you points. Sorry.

[Not Me]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Lots of people are going to be doing alot of reading this weekend.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Lots of people are going to be doing alot of reading this weekend.

I guess it's news now when the President does something he publicly said he would do.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That picture is going to cost you points. Sorry.

I have to say, it makes me ill, too.

On a happier note for you, the judge has refused to do anything about the marriages at least for now. And I think the courthouse will be open all weekend for the marriages.

I think you should take your wife and your babysitter by the hand and head on down to the courthouse for a ceremony of your own. Of course, only if your babysitter is above the age of consent and indeed consents.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
Lots of people are going to be doing alot of reading this weekend.

I doubt it. After all, per the MTP interview, we know that he did this in 2000 already.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe we can solve this by defining both marriage and civil unions as "affectional community"* or some shit like that, and using only that term in state law.

*Save it, asshat.

This is an elegant solution, but I still think the anti-gay marriage forces would still view this as a "debasing" of marriage.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is an elegant solution, but I still think the anti-gay marriage forces would still view this as a "debasing" of marriage.

At what point is it fair to dismiss such views as bigotry? I have yet to hear a credible explanation of how a gay marriage harms anyone else -- or harms anyone more than, e.g., Britney's Vegas marriage did? Just repeating that it debases marriage isn't very convincing in a society where a whole lot of people debase marriage without a peep from the sorts of people shrieking about SF and Massachusetts.