When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
OT
All I know about it is that my son is a fourth generation plumber, my husband was third, and they do have to carry a Certificate of Competency from the city they are working in. I'm looking at my husbands as we speak. A St. Paul plumber who is working for a contractor must first be approved by the Mpls union before he can work there. Otherwise they are fined. Ted had been sent home from several jobs in his career because it hadn't been approved before hand.
A St. Paul plumber who is working for a contractor must first be approved by the Mpls union before he can work there.
now that doesn't surprise me in the least. i've heard from my brother (who's in the carpenter's union) that the plumber's union is incredibly territorial like that. :) although they're not nearly as bad as the guys who operate the sky cranes. they'll walk off the job if the guy in the crane can see a banner somewhere :)
Employment and marriage have not been treated the same by the courts. The problem will arise and people like Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will vote to requrie recognition under the full faith and credit clause.
ares: you must have missed what i wrote about common law marriages then, eh?
No, I didn't miss it. I don't think it has any application to the topic at all.
I don't know, however I'm assuming so. In that situation, the parent, along with medical experts choose the sex for the child based on what predominant sex the child is.
you understand that they are included in the "any person" part of the amendment, right?
No it's not. You're not putting it into context of the day.
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
My point is/was, the Amendment wasn't about abolishing religion totally from government
crabs: it was about the State not respecting establishments of Religion...or prohibiting their free exercise. It's ALL ABOUT keeping Religion out of the State and vice versa.
The states were allowed to have established religions and some did well into the 19th century.
One of the evening news specials, Dateline or something like that, had a show a week or so ago about a husband who had a sex change operation and is now living with his wife as a woman. Are they man and wife now? Are they wife and wife? I don't know. The male claims he's not gay by the way.
Did you miss the part where I wrote that marriage and employment have not been treated the same by the courts?
whoopty fucking doo. how has common law marriage been treated by the courts. last time i checked, common law marriage wasn't universally recognized in this country although there are a few states that recognize them from other states without recognizing those that were "performed" within that state.
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
It doesn't mean they were either. It also isn't the same as saying they intended to totally abolish religion entirely from Govt.
No it's not. You're not putting it into context of the day.
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
They were concerened about the a federal government sponsored church imposing its view on the states.
Are they man and wife now? Are they wife and wife?
I sort of watched that, and if I recall correctly, the wife no longer considered herself his/her spouse. She was staying together simply for the children, and they no longer had a married relationship.
No it's not. You're not putting it into context of the day.
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
They were concerened about the a federal government sponsored church imposing its view on the states.
whoopty fucking doo. how has common law marriage been treated by the courts. last time i checked, common law marriage wasn't universally recognized in this country although there are a few states that recognize them from other states without recognizing those that were "performed" within that state.
Do you know whether the issue has has ever come up? You want to make the point I say go for it. But you do the research.
Me: They were concerened about the a federal government sponsored church imposing its view on the states.
JT: Well, I did say that even if I agreed with Crabby, it would only apply to the Federal level, and the separate states could do what they wanted.
That wasn't my point. I think there may have been concern that a federall sponsored church could possibly be used to overcome the limitations of the Constituion it self in respect to state rights.
Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement -- and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists.
Jethro, you were talking earlier about taking into context what was intended when the 14th amendment was passed. That it was about treatment of blacks. Yeah, it came about because of the treatment of blacks. But give the people credit for broader thinking than just making legislation directed towards blacks. I look at it as the government wanting to not have discrimination of any kind against anyone.
Jethro, you were talking earlier about taking into context what was intended when the 14th amendment was passed. That it was about treatment of blacks. Yeah, it came about because of the treatment of blacks. But give the people credit for broader thinking than just making legislation directed towards blacks. I look at it as the government wanting to not have discrimination of any kind against anyone.
But that wasn't the intent of those that drafted the amendment and those that approved it. The Congress drafted it for the protection of blacks after they were freed. The states approved it on that basis. Now it maybe reasonable to say that it applies to all races. But to say it applies to behavior, as in the case of homosexual marriage, is to give the amendment a broader scope than was intended by the people. To give it that scope would take the issue out of the political debate without the public approval. That would be legislating from the bench. The matter has yet to be decided by the people and in a democratic society. The people are the ones to make that decision not the judges. Of course, the other argument is that there is not an equal protection violation at all because everyone is treated the same.
So putting the two together the Court should rule that the 14th Amendment does not apply to gay marriage but even if it did there is no equal protection violation. But this would not end the debate as a ruling the other way would virtually do. The states could still address the issue through their legislatures or through the amendment process set forth through the US Constitution. That is the democratic process as it should be applied in this matter.
I have always said that what people do behind closed doors is their business
uh...you are basing who can and cannot marry who based on it.
Sexual behavior is just that behavior
One's sexual behavior and one's sexuality are not the same thing.
you want to deny rights to two people because of their sexual behavior in order to avoid admitting that you are descriminating against them because of their sexuality or their sex itself.
Abstinence is just that the lack of the behavior
uh...not doind something is also behavior. When you tell a child to behave, you are telling them to not do certain things. You want to play semantics, maybe you need to think it out first. Not having sex is a behavior.
me: I have always said that what people do behind closed doors is their business
crabs: uh...you are basing who can and cannot marry who based on it.
Sometimes I think you just play dumb, crabs, other times like I think you really are. Don't you see a difference between private behavior and public records?
you want to deny rights to two people because of their sexual behavior in order to avoid admitting that you are discriminating against them because of their sexuality or their sex itself.
There is no discrimination. They are treated like everyone else. But if you insist on calling it discrimination, the law is full of it. Drugs is a good example. Are we discriminating against those that possess illegal drugs? How about those that steal? Murder? The fact is society has a legitimate interest in regulating behavior. If this is one that society wants to allow they can.
All I know about it is that my son is a fourth generation plumber, my husband was third, and they do have to carry a Certificate of Competency from the city they are working in. I'm looking at my husbands as we speak. A St. Paul plumber who is working for a contractor must first be approved by the Mpls union before he can work there. Otherwise they are fined. Ted had been sent home from several jobs in his career because it hadn't been approved before hand.
A St. Paul plumber who is working for a contractor must first be approved by the Mpls union before he can work there.
now that doesn't surprise me in the least. i've heard from my brother (who's in the carpenter's union) that the plumber's union is incredibly territorial like that. :) although they're not nearly as bad as the guys who operate the sky cranes. they'll walk off the job if the guy in the crane can see a banner somewhere :)
Employment and marriage have not been treated the same by the courts. The problem will arise and people like Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will vote to requrie recognition under the full faith and credit clause.
ares: you must have missed what i wrote about common law marriages then, eh?
No, I didn't miss it. I don't think it has any application to the topic at all.
is it okay for a hermaphrodite to marry someone?
I don't know, however I'm assuming so. In that situation, the parent, along with medical experts choose the sex for the child based on what predominant sex the child is.
you understand that they are included in the "any person" part of the amendment, right?
What does their birth certificate say?
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
ares: you must have missed what i wrote about common law marriages then, eh?
jethro: No, I didn't miss it. I don't think it has any application to the topic at all.
it has every application to the topic. we're discussing marriage here, aren't we?
for the same reason that Wisconisn would have to recognize that the plumber is licensed in Missneota.
ares: but that doesn't mean that the plumber is allowed to perform plumbing work in wisconsin, does it?
Did you miss the part where I wrote that marriage and employment have not been treated the same by the courts?
A St. Paul plumber who is working for a contractor must first be approved by the Mpls union before he can work there.
I think that's only if you're union, working for a union contractor.
My point is/was, the Amendment wasn't about abolishing religion totally from government
crabs: it was about the State not respecting establishments of Religion...or prohibiting their free exercise. It's ALL ABOUT keeping Religion out of the State and vice versa.
The states were allowed to have established religions and some did well into the 19th century.
I think the State, by granting marriages in the first place, discriminates against those who do not believe in the idea of marriage.
How so? No is required to participate and no one is kept out.
One of the evening news specials, Dateline or something like that, had a show a week or so ago about a husband who had a sex change operation and is now living with his wife as a woman. Are they man and wife now? Are they wife and wife? I don't know. The male claims he's not gay by the way.
Did you miss the part where I wrote that marriage and employment have not been treated the same by the courts?
whoopty fucking doo. how has common law marriage been treated by the courts. last time i checked, common law marriage wasn't universally recognized in this country although there are a few states that recognize them from other states without recognizing those that were "performed" within that state.
You're right THX. I should have said a union plumber.
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
It doesn't mean they were either. It also isn't the same as saying they intended to totally abolish religion entirely from Govt.
No it's not. You're not putting it into context of the day.
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
They were concerened about the a federal government sponsored church imposing its view on the states.
Are they man and wife now? Are they wife and wife?
I sort of watched that, and if I recall correctly, the wife no longer considered herself his/her spouse. She was staying together simply for the children, and they no longer had a married relationship.
No it's not. You're not putting it into context of the day.
that they were concerned about the C of E doesn't mean that they weren't also worried about the more puritanical people on this side of the pond enforcing their beliefs on everyone else as well.
They were concerened about the a federal government sponsored church imposing its view on the states.
They were concerened about the a federal government sponsored church imposing its view on the states.
Well, I did say that even if I agreed with Crabby, it would only apply to the Federal level, and the separate states could do what they wanted.
what does their driver's license say...what does their U.S. passport say?
you could make a law that says you get a tax break if you pray every day and say the same thing.
you are required to participate if you want the same legal benefits.
whoopty fucking doo. how has common law marriage been treated by the courts. last time i checked, common law marriage wasn't universally recognized in this country although there are a few states that recognize them from other states without recognizing those that were "performed" within that state.
Do you know whether the issue has has ever come up? You want to make the point I say go for it. But you do the research.
what does their driver's license say...what does their U.S. passport say?
It could say pork-chop-charlie for all I care.
What does their birth certificate say.
I can color my skin and die my hair, it doesn't mean I'm a black haired Chinese instead of a blonde Swede.
and yet bodine thinks that it's the action that defines the person's sexuality.
Me: They were concerened about the a federal government sponsored church imposing its view on the states.
JT: Well, I did say that even if I agreed with Crabby, it would only apply to the Federal level, and the separate states could do what they wanted.
That wasn't my point. I think there may have been concern that a federall sponsored church could possibly be used to overcome the limitations of the Constituion it self in respect to state rights.
again, do you think that this document is what defines what a person is?
again, do you think that this document is what defines what a person is?
No I don't.
What they are defines what their birth certificate says.
Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. But that hasn't stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement -- and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20040308.shtml
so, people cannot change?
Jethro, you were talking earlier about taking into context what was intended when the 14th amendment was passed. That it was about treatment of blacks. Yeah, it came about because of the treatment of blacks. But give the people credit for broader thinking than just making legislation directed towards blacks. I look at it as the government wanting to not have discrimination of any kind against anyone.
Jethro, you were talking earlier about taking into context what was intended when the 14th amendment was passed. That it was about treatment of blacks. Yeah, it came about because of the treatment of blacks. But give the people credit for broader thinking than just making legislation directed towards blacks. I look at it as the government wanting to not have discrimination of any kind against anyone.
But that wasn't the intent of those that drafted the amendment and those that approved it. The Congress drafted it for the protection of blacks after they were freed. The states approved it on that basis. Now it maybe reasonable to say that it applies to all races. But to say it applies to behavior, as in the case of homosexual marriage, is to give the amendment a broader scope than was intended by the people. To give it that scope would take the issue out of the political debate without the public approval. That would be legislating from the bench. The matter has yet to be decided by the people and in a democratic society. The people are the ones to make that decision not the judges. Of course, the other argument is that there is not an equal protection violation at all because everyone is treated the same.
So putting the two together the Court should rule that the 14th Amendment does not apply to gay marriage but even if it did there is no equal protection violation. But this would not end the debate as a ruling the other way would virtually do. The states could still address the issue through their legislatures or through the amendment process set forth through the US Constitution. That is the democratic process as it should be applied in this matter.
one's sexuality isn't a matter of behavior.
if it was, that would mean bodine might just be a homosexual with good self-control
a homosexual who practices abstinance is still a homosexual.
abstinance is a behavior, sexuality is not.
But to say it applies to behavior
one's sexuality isn't a matter of behavior.
Yes it does.
if it was, that would mean bodine might just be a homosexual with good self-control
Maybe I am. How would you know? And is it any of your business?
abstinance is a behavior, sexuality is not.
Abstinence is the lack of the behavior. As usual you get thing backwards.
is your behavior any of my business?
how ironic of you to ask. you are the one deciding if people can or cannot marry each other based on what you think is their behavior.
you honestly think that people have no inherent sexuality?
we are naturally sexual creatures...abstinance is a behavior, and a not particularly natural one.
me: And is it any of your business?
crabs: is your behavior any of my business?
Yes, dip, that is what I asked.
how ironic of you to ask. you are the one deciding if people can or cannot marry each other based on what you think is their behavior.
Irony? No. You are just one stupid jackass. I have always said that what people do behind closed doors is their business.
me: Abstinence is the lack of the behavior. As usual you get thing backwards.
crabs: we are naturally sexual creatures...abstinance is a behavior, and a not particularly natural one.
Sexual behavior is just that behavior. Abstinence is just that the lack of the behavior. Damn you are dumb.
Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" issue.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml
uh...you are basing who can and cannot marry who based on it.
One's sexual behavior and one's sexuality are not the same thing.
you want to deny rights to two people because of their sexual behavior in order to avoid admitting that you are descriminating against them because of their sexuality or their sex itself.
uh...not doind something is also behavior. When you tell a child to behave, you are telling them to not do certain things. You want to play semantics, maybe you need to think it out first. Not having sex is a behavior.
me: I have always said that what people do behind closed doors is their business
crabs: uh...you are basing who can and cannot marry who based on it.
Sometimes I think you just play dumb, crabs, other times like I think you really are. Don't you see a difference between private behavior and public records?
you want to deny rights to two people because of their sexual behavior in order to avoid admitting that you are discriminating against them because of their sexuality or their sex itself.
There is no discrimination. They are treated like everyone else. But if you insist on calling it discrimination, the law is full of it. Drugs is a good example. Are we discriminating against those that possess illegal drugs? How about those that steal? Murder? The fact is society has a legitimate interest in regulating behavior. If this is one that society wants to allow they can.
one of these things is not like the other
what I see is your desire to base the allocation of public records on private behavior.
so, people cannot change?
I'm sure I could have an operation to give myself a trunk. That doesn't make me an elephant.
abstinance is a behavior, and a not particularly natural one.
Is homosexual intercourse a natural behavior?
for homosexuals, of course.
bullshit argument, men and women are both human
bullshit argument, men and women are both human
Sorry, I should have said female elephant.
I see, so you think female elephants are human?
I think I see the problem
for homosexuals, of course.
Yeah.
of course bodine doesn't think there are such things as homosexuals or hetrosexuals.
I see, so you think female elephants are human?
I think I see the problem
Hehehe, no.
In either case, I'm merely changing physical traits. Whether it be removing a penis, or adding a trunk.
I gotta run.
Catch ya later, Crabby.
and when you change the phyical traits that define your sexuality, what does that do?
I understand that bodine doesn't think that there are any physical traits that define sexuality, but do you?