There is hope.!

[red_october]

No offence meant, Oxy

I too extend my appology. There is no need for trivial squabling, especially under the happy announcement that sense has struck another community (or at least another judge).

 

[washertalk]

What a cute couple, both of them.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070901/D8RCARCO0.html

 

[goprog]

'"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Culver said.'

So, you may PERSONALLY believe sex after 30 is a sin for all
I know. Big deal. What's your point?

"House Democrats need to start leading or get out of the way."

And what difference would it make? If they "led" towards a
fair and honest treatment of all individuals, I wonder where
the Repugnicans would be.

GRRR

 

[Unimatic1140]

The date bug has been with us since the Discuss-o-Mat went live. It happens for two hours one the last day of every month. I know how to fix it, it will take some reprogramming work, it's just a real low priority and I always forget about it.

Isn't that couple cute!!! Congratulations to them, how exciting to be the first couple to tie the knot legally outside of MA since the MA Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all.

 

[petek]

My guess is that the US will have to wait the same as what happened in Canada until the federal Supreme court basically over-rules the state Supreme courts as they did the provincial Supreme courts in Canada. What happened here is that Ontario,the largest by population along with a few others started granting SS marriages. Provinces and I'm not sure about States in the US do not have the authority to "define" what is a marriage..ie one man/one woman, that is a federal jurisdiction. The provinces are/were only granted the right to issue marriage certificates etc. The federal Supreme court didn't actually change the wordings what they did was "read into, the Canadian Charter of Rights regarding marriage being solely between one man/one woman was against the charter,,ie unconstitutional and that it must also apply to SS couples. Once they announced that finding it sent out a clear message to the rest of the provinces fighting it that try as they might to stave off SS marriage in their respective provinces they would lose the battle on the first case to make its way up the ladder to the federal courts.
Of course this created a brouhaha all it's own with the anti-crowd screaming that judges were making the laws and not elected officials. The pro side claiming as did the Supreme Court that they were NOT creating new laws only defining the existing laws in a non discriminatory manner

 

[petek]

What I also find most interesting when drawing parallels between Canada and the US since historically they have always been close and similar is how far Canada has progressed in the past 30 years socially whereas the US has not, other than the black/white issue. We went from almost puritanical, pre 1970's, to a point where I think we even out swede the Swedes who if you're old enough to recollect were always the country that seemed to be at the forefront of social equality and blase attitudes about nudity, sex etc. What's interesting is that in the year or so since the SS ruling it has pretty much become a non-issue anymore and people carry on carrying on as they always have.
I'm also surprised that the UK didn't actually "go all the way" and legalize SS marriage but went the "civil union" route which is just that a "civil union" not a marriage. Canada was even more puritanical than the UK ever was not that long ago.