Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
From the language it seems to me that they are trying to ban civil unions or any other sort of special relationship between people of the same sex.

Isn't it pretty clear what they are up to?

I know what they're up to, I just don't think it's clear from what they've written.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) You misunderstand, Mr. Penske.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(b) It did not change my view of Clinton much because by the time I read the Broderick interview I had long since concluded that he was a deeply flawed and in many ways probably a lousy human being. I did not vote for him in 1996, because I had long since decided that he would do or say anything to be elected.

(c) That said, there are a limited number of choices each cycle as to who can possibly be the President of the United States. You have a choice -- who do I want to govern our country from this bunch. Whether they are shitty human beings is only part of the equation. There is also the whole party that comes with them, policy issues, etc.

(d) I am very pleased that Bill Clinton was President from 1992-2000 as opposed to any of his GOP opponents or even any of the GOP primary contenders. I would have voted for him over Bush in 2000 had he been running.

I guess it's no. I think our country is enlightened, educated and based on a communal moral foundation to be of a collective judgment, inherently, that having a man, any man, of any party, who rapes and violently beats a woman and is a serial sexual abuser of subordinate (NPI) woman in the workplace, as president or a presidential candidate is wrong. Maybe I am naive or anachronistic in my outlook but I think we should have enough collective moral clarity to look at that one and say there is no justification for someone with so little character or such a vile immoral character to be president. Unfortunately the 4th Estate punted on its duty to raise the issues in a timely manner for the electorate to truly be able to assess them. Further, the government has never truly examined the abuse of process and intimidation that the Clintons engaged in result in Broaddrick sitting on her rights at the time of the rape.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man \
(e) Let's not get into rape hypotheticals involving my family members. Of the four candidates you have listed, two of them have been violently raped.

\

And maybe I have too. You have no way of knowing. For my part regardless of whether I do or not, I have enough respect for the rule of law to advocate that an injustice and infringement of a fellow citizens rights,m such as occured with Broaddrick or Willey et al, has no place in America and I feely duly passionate about that.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(f) If you can truly summon such tremendous personal outrage over such 25 year old (alleged) crimes involving people you do not know [and which (as alleged), while very bad, were not near the extremes]) you are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life.


S_A_M

so what you saying is that any of the prosecutions in recent times for past civil rights violations (eg Byron De la beckwith et al) are the result of people who are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life? Why? We live in a country of laws, we are lawyers, why shouldn't we advocate that justice be served?

I do not understand the process by which you arrive at such conclusions. Someone was raped and the rapist not only walks around with no conseuqence but has his spokespeople mock the victim. Again I would ask how you would like it if the victim here was a close family member? And if you would be outraged, why is your outrage limited to just family members? Shouldn't our laws protect all of us, whether they are related to us or not? Should we all, and especially lawyers, advocate for such process?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


(g) If you are not truly so outraged, then your displays here are all the more tasteless, and even less excusable.

S_A_M

Interesting morality you exhibit. Clinton's a rapist, but it's been 25 years since he wasn't punished for it so I am a tasteless asshole for pointing it out. Maybe to reform my image I should emulate Clinton.

Poll: If I throw my secretary up against the wall of my office and thrust one hand up her skirt and one hand up blouse and fondle her feminine parts will all of all y'all who voted for Clinton vote for me too?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
From the language it seems to me that they are trying to ban civil unions or any other sort of special relationship between people of the same sex.

Isn't it pretty clear what they are up to?

I don't think it's clear at all that's what they're up to.

Or rather, clearly they want to ban gay marriage. I think there is also an effect in the language to ban giving martial-like status to non-marriages (i.e. extending benefits to heterosexual non-married life partners and/or common law spouses).

Unlike RT, however, I don't think this is accidental at all - I think it doesn't displease the religious right one bit to outlaw living in sin, hetero or homo. But then again, I'm more cynical than RT when it comes to Texas politics. While it is clearly possible, or even likely, that Hanlon's Razor applies, I wouldn't put it past a committee of Texas Republicans in a smokey room (actually, probably a clean as a whistle sunday school room in a church basement) having actually thought this through.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think it doesn't displease the religious right one bit to outlaw living in sin, hetero or homo. But then again, I'm more cynical than RT when it comes to Texas politics. It is clearly possible, or even likely, that Hanlon's Razor applies.

Where are you getting this from the language? It talks about gov't's creating/recognizing certain relationships, not about where people live.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Where are you getting this from the language? It talks about gov't's creating/recognizing certain relationships, not about where people live.

"a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage"

i.e., "You, City of Round Rock, may not grant health care benefits to the non-spousal heterosexual domestic parters of your employees, because they are FORNICATORS."

ETA: Yeah, I'm a little slow. Whiff. Sin, Texas. That's just outside of Brady, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
"a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage"

i.e., "You, City of Round Rock, may not grant health care benefits to the non-spousal heterosexual domestic parters of your employees, because they are FORNICATORS."

do any companies grant benefits to non-spousal heterosexual domestic partners?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do any companies grant benefits to non-spousal heterosexual domestic partners?

I seem to recall Apple doing so in Austin, which I think also pressured Dell to do so, since they fish in the same talent pool. Of course, that was back in the heyday. I'm not sure Apple still has a significant Austin presence. And you can't swing a dead pair of Tevas in Austin these days without hitting an unemployed computer geek.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I do not assume malice in Penske, but asshole is asshole and there's nothing wrong with calling him on it. (I know, begs the question, doesn't it.)

That said, I'm not an eggshell plaintiff.

Also -- I know this was not your point, but --

I don't think I ever made jokes about Ms. Schiavo -- and I don't remember seeing any/many on here (but I had no reason to be too sensitive to the issue).

While there were certainly sharp clashes of opinion, the lovely photoshops, et al. and hyperbolic rhetoric demonizing the other side seemed to flow mostly from one direction as usual. [Except for the days when Sebby posted -- but he's technically one of yours.]

S_A_M

What am I technically?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What am I technically?

One of the babyjesi. S_A_M has just presciently identified that you are in denial but your inner little Sebby is calling out to be saved.

Let the Lord hug you Sebby......

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
One of the babyjesi. S_A_M has just presciently identified that you are in denial but your inner little Sebby is calling out to be saved.

Let the Lord hug you Sebby......

Dogs go to heaven? And if so, don't other animals? And if so don't they have to be thinking beings? and if so, should we be eating them?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I seem to recall Apple doing so in Austin, which I think also pressured Dell to do so, since they fish in the same talent pool. Of course, that was back in the heyday. I'm not sure Apple still has a significant Austin presence. And you can't swing a dead pair of Tevas in Austin these days without hitting an unemployed computer geek.

According to this study, some 200 of the Fortune 500 offer domestic partner benefits, and while many limit the benefits to homosexual couples who can not marry, many do not limit the benefits.

BSR Link

Companies including benefits for heterosexual non-married domestic partners include Bank of America, Hyatt and Levi Strauss & Co.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dogs go to heaven? And if so, don't other animals? And if so don't they have to be thinking beings? and if so, should we be eating them?

Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge.
When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.

All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor. Those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by. The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind.
They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent. His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster.

You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart.

Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together....

[nononono]

Originally posted by baltassoc
According to this study, some 200 of the Fortune 500 offer domestic partner benefits, and while many limit the benefits to homosexual couples who can not marry, many do not limit the benefits.

BSR Link

Companies including benefits for heterosexual non-married domestic partners include Bank of America, Hyatt and Levi Strauss & Co.

Yes, I've never worked somewhere that offered benefits to gay couples without expanding it to all domestic partners. Which drives me nuts, as an aside (the domestic partners part, not the gay part).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Yes, I've never worked somewhere that offered benefits to gay couples without expanding it to all domestic partners. Which drives me nuts, as an aside (the domestic partners part, not the gay part).

FWIW, as a personal aside, fyi, I don't like the use of the word "partner" and have started boycotting it. It's too businessy. I am going with "lover" from here on out. More personal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
According to this study, some 200 of the Fortune 500 offer domestic partner benefits, and while many limit the benefits to homosexual couples who can not marry, many do not limit the benefits.

BSR Link

Companies including benefits for heterosexual non-married domestic partners include Bank of America, Hyatt and Levi Strauss & Co.

It may be that they feel they can't discriminate and offer it to unmarried gay, but not to unmarried str8.

We run a small firm here with great benefits. Marrieds take our's over the spouse's- and that sucks. I'm trying to figure a way to offer a few grand to convince them to go the other way.