|
Grex > Agora46 > #47: Supreme Court strikes down antisodomy laws in "Lawrence v. Texas | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 191 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 107 of 191:
| 
Jul 3 23:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 108 of 191:
|
Jul 4 00:48 UTC 2003 |
Re #81: I doubt it. "State's rights" originated as a code-phrase
for denying individual rights; I'm all about telling government
that huge areas are None Of Their Freaking Business, and "Congress
shall make no law..." applies to their capitols too. States don't
have rights, anyway; they have powers.
And you mean "regression to the mean".
|
janc
|
|
response 109 of 191:
|
Jul 4 01:27 UTC 2003 |
(I'm no expert, but I believe that the risks of genetic defect in children
of incestuous couples is not nearly as high as popularly believed. I'd
readily believe that doing substantial smoking or drinking during pregnancy
are compariable risks. I think basing an argument against incest solely
on the risk of defects in children would be a dubious proposition.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 110 of 191:
|
Jul 4 03:47 UTC 2003 |
Re #107: Well, then the Feds won't enforce the FMLA for gays taking care of
their partners, now will they?
|
russ
|
|
response 111 of 191:
|
Jul 4 12:23 UTC 2003 |
Re #109: Drinking, definitely. A friend of mine reports that some
large fraction of Inuit children in the far north are born with FAS
or FAE (and I am not talking about 2%, I recall something like 30%).
I understand that Everclear now comes laced with a bit of an emetic,
to prevent people from overdosing on it quite so easily. Perhaps
the same would justify adding RU-486 to all alcohol; I cannot see a
coherent claim that a right to reproduce includes the right to
damage one's children prenatally, and the people who cannot control
their consumption probably wouldn't make good parents anyway.
The current situation is already selecting against susceptibility
to alcoholism, but damn, would that put evolution into overdrive!
|
slynne
|
|
response 112 of 191:
|
Jul 6 20:43 UTC 2003 |
Um. I have a feeling that RU-486 isnt really all that safe for men or
even for women to take on a regular basis. I do get your point though.
If there were a safe substance to put in alcohol that prevented
pregnancy, it would be an interesting idea.
|
drew
|
|
response 113 of 191:
|
Jul 6 22:53 UTC 2003 |
What about RU-Pentium?
|
keesan
|
|
response 114 of 191:
|
Jul 7 06:19 UTC 2003 |
How about a safe substance to put in alcohol that eliminated any interest in
sex?
|
pvn
|
|
response 115 of 191:
|
Jul 7 08:11 UTC 2003 |
Its called ethanol.
|
keesan
|
|
response 116 of 191:
|
Jul 7 10:47 UTC 2003 |
It takes too long to start working.
|
gull
|
|
response 117 of 191:
|
Jul 7 13:52 UTC 2003 |
Re #93: I've favored something like that for a long time, and I think
I've suggested it before on Grex. I think the contract issues would
have to be made much easier than they are now -- perhaps something along
the lines of a "civil union" law. Right now getting just some of the
legal benefits of marriage without actually marrying (you can't get them
all) involves about half a dozen different legal documents. Only a
lawyer could love that situation.
I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, though.
The religious right would spin it as an "anti-Christian" move.
Re #114: <hums "Too Drunk to Fuck" by the Dead Kennedys>
|
jazz
|
|
response 118 of 191:
|
Jul 7 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Hahahaha.
I don't think Sindi meant in the quantities the Kennedys drank.
|
tod
|
|
response 119 of 191:
|
Jul 7 17:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 120 of 191:
|
Jul 7 21:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #112: RU-486 is a relatively simple HCG antagonist. I seem to
recall that it has found use in cancer treatment (in men), to name
one thing that drives the anti-abortion crusaders nuts - if it is
approved for any medical use, doctors can prescribe it "off label".
|
gull
|
|
response 121 of 191:
|
Sep 19 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Well, this was predictable:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/18/gay_customs030918
Canadian gay couple barred from U.S.
Last Updated Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:32:16
TORONTO - A married gay couple say they were refused entry into the U.S.
because an American customs officer wouldn't accept their clearance
forms as a family.
Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell said they ended their trip to Georgia
because the customs official at Toronto's Pearson airport insisted they
fill out separate forms as single people.
Bourassa said he complained to a customs supervisor and was told the
couple wouldn't be allowed to enter the U.S. as a family because the
country doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.
Bourassa, who works as an advocate for same-sex marriage, said the
couple made the decision not to fill out separate forms because they
felt it was an insult to their dignity.
Bourassa and Varnell were heading to Braselton, Ga., to speak at a human
rights conference.
The couple married in 2001, before last June's Ontario court decision
that recognized the right of gays to wed.
Their marriage was recognized as a legal union in light of the Ontario
Court of Appeal decision.
The couple's lawyer, Doug Elliott, said he has spoken to Ottawa on the
issue and is investigating whether legal action can be taken against the
governments of Canada and the U.S.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 122 of 191:
|
Sep 19 16:59 UTC 2003 |
Canadian citizen legal action against the US goverment for *this*? BS!
You don't get to dicate another country's rules for entry. Don't like it,
stay away. Wounded dignity? Get over it, and just fill out separate forms,
if you're really more interested in entering the US than playing the martyr.
|
gull
|
|
response 123 of 191:
|
Sep 19 17:07 UTC 2003 |
Granted, though I bet if it were another country not recognizing U.S.
marriages the U.S. government would make a big stink about it.
|
klg
|
|
response 124 of 191:
|
Sep 19 18:03 UTC 2003 |
The same "big stink" that our noble Department of State has made over
legal issues such as custody disputes over children who have been
abducted by their fathers to Saudi Arabia?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 191:
|
Sep 19 18:45 UTC 2003 |
They should have tried to enter via Vermont. Then a State's rights issue
would also be involved, since same-sex "marriages" are recognized there.
(I recognize that immigration is a federal matter, but having a state
involved might lead sooner to a better resolution.)
It has been the international norm to recognize the legal forms of other
nations for many things - including different-sex marriages, driving
licenses - lots more. There is no good reason not to recognize Canada's
laws in this respect.
|
tod
|
|
response 126 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:05 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 127 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:17 UTC 2003 |
I think it was Customs because they were only coming to the U.S. for a few
days, not trying to relocate here.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 128 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:18 UTC 2003 |
had bruse been accounted for?
|
tod
|
|
response 129 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 130 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:47 UTC 2003 |
/crosses arms in haughty and righteous fundamentalist christian
indignation
THEY DERSERVED IT!
><
--
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 131 of 191:
|
Sep 19 19:52 UTC 2003 |
LOL. Even if they were coming in for a few days, I'd still think they had to
go through INS? Or is it different with Canadian citizens? They don't go
through an INS checkpoint at all at the border, where their passports are
checked?
|