I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
But ... it's all about the sex, right? They want to be able to have sex in front of the pope? That's what I heard.
A.
I guess that is 1,049 benefits that the preznit can say are being destroyed by those evildoers.
I think everyone should go get ordained at the Universal Life Church (www.ulc.org) so that if the Amendment passes, we can all perform free symbolic weddings for any takers as acts of protest.
But all those Gay people are looking for is to get society to tell them their behavior is ok! They want acceptance, not actual rights. [/sarcasm]
I'm sure we can find some sort of compromise that will satisfy everybody. Let'say we allow gay couples all the benefits of marriage if they stop having sex. That's the only way my wife agreed to marry me.
Visiting rights in jail- I think that's only a benefit that straight people need. No cool gay guy is gonna marry some rethug criminal afterall.
Other than that I think the sky is falling and cats are living with dogs. Also a bunch of other old testament stuff is going on.
Rights, schmights.
CNN Poll
Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to ban same-sex marriages?
Yes
No
Yes is winning.
Also, check out the "when will your diarrhea medicine stop working" photo of the Chimp.
If two mo's get married in high school, shouldn't they be allowed to have conjugal study halls?
I'm waiting for Bush to propose an anti-sodomy amendment.
"I. Thou shalt only only do it in the missionary position! All others make Georgie feel like he's Not a Man."
"II. Mr. Santorum is allowed to do it doggy-style."
It's clear at last.
The Spring Offensive will indeed surround and capture Bin Laden. Later, the Shrub and Bin Laden will hold a joint press conference to denounce gay marriage.
(Well, probably not. But I bet if they put it on pay-er-view your credit card would be out so fast your pants would catch fire.)
No was winning when I voted, by 20k or so
Kerry responds
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said in a statement.
"While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years this has been a state issue. I oppose this election-year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor."
...and again, of course, the CNN poll is worded a wee bit weirdly, in that "no" means you say "yes" to homosexual marriage.
CNN Poll
56% No
44% Yes
Just now.
So, can we finally take a stand on this, since Bush The Lesser stuck opened his big yap and stuck his foot firmly inside, saying he wants to change the goddamn Constitution to allow government to prevent people from excercising inalienable rights, even though the document was sorta set up to be against that? I mean, is it okay to actually take a stand now, or are we still hoping to swing in on the whole "meek inheriting the earth" concept?
Seriously, this would be the perfect opportunity for Kerry or Edwards to say, at the very, very least say, "Hey, we really don't think it's a good idea to change the goddamn Constitution to promote a social agenda, and we sorta groove on the idea of basic civil liberties for all."
Or would that be showing too much backbone?
Bush just sucks ass.
Now THATS eloquent.
Bush just sucks ass.
Now THATS eloquent.
changing my MT blogdescription to "same sex marriage: yes"
changing my MT blogdescription to "same sex marriage: yes"
Okay, okay, I got it now...
The Sexual Purity Amendment
I. No sodomy.
II. No divorce.
III. Nothing funny in the sack. Guys on top, do your business, then get off.
IV. No adultery.
V. No mixing of the races.
VI. No abortions or rubbers.
VII. No female orgasms.
VIII. Only Article VII applies to rich, white Republicans. Article I certainly doesn't apply, since they are, in fact, required to sodomize everyone and everything they can.
Seriously, this would be the perfect opportunity for Kerry or Edwards to say, at the very, very least say, "Hey, we really don't think it's a good idea to change the goddamn Constitution to promote a social agenda, and we sorta groove on the idea of basic civil liberties for all."
Or would that be showing too much backbone?
Backslider
How about:
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said in a statement.
Holden, I swear to god he looks like he's dreaming of a blow job (or maybe Rick Perry).
BTW, what's up with that? did they buy off Anita (or else threaten her life?)
Speaking of gay marriage, is it true that the guy who just got divorced from Liza Minelli (who was allegedly beating him up when she got drunk)is now going to marry Diana Ross? Perhaps if the Republicans would just let him marry another guy the divorce rate would slow down. But no...that would not reflect well on the sanctity of marriage.
PS: every keyboard that is tapped in anger over gay marriage is NOT tapping in anger over a fraudulent war, reckless spending, and corporate cronyism.
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry
Good for Kerry. People shouldn't be concerned, they should be furious.
Its all such election year bullshit. Even if it passes the senate, it will stop dead in the states. The Resident knows that. All politics is local and I know the gays in my community will roast our state rep alive if he were to back it.
Holden,
That'll do it. Bush is definately reaching and, in doing so, trying to appeal to the worst in people's fears and doubts. No different from George Wallace running as a segregationist governor, even if he really "didn't believe it," as some have claimed. You just talkin' the talk is no better when others walk the walk for you.
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Ooh, that's a biggie. Hadn't thought of that. Might come in especially handy when bushco declares all gays terrorists and enemies of the state for their war on marriage.
You know it's really fucked up to be different in this country. It's not fair at all. 
Anita Perry has apparently, er, come to her senses and realised that she stands to make A LOT MORE in a divorce settlement if she does it quietly, after he is out of office, in another state. More's the pity.
It was 55/45 Yea when I first voted, and appears to have reversed to the current 44/56. Maybe people are reading Andrew Sullivan, a.k.a., The Broken Clock.
Kerry's pointing out that the acts of a desperate candidate should be suspect, is just the right track to take. Go after the politics of the thing.
All politics is local and I know the gays in my community will roast our state rep alive if he were to back it.
Any chance they'll do it on camera? We could sell tickets and become zillionaires.
Nah, our rep is a good guy
Prescott Bush tied his fate to the Nazi regime, and went down with them.
Looks like Prescott's grandson hasn't been listening to his Santayana-on-tape.
Okay, so hows about we roast Delay?
At this time, Yes: 44% No: 56%.
PS: every keyboard that is tapped in anger over gay marriage is NOT tapping in anger over a fraudulent war, reckless spending, and corporate cronyism.
Bodini
Not so. Frame the issue:
The preznit is trying to distract the American people from the fact that he lied to them in order to pursue an illegal war against a country that did not attack us while enrcihing his friends at Halliburton and Bechtel on the bllod our soldiers by endorsing an ammendment to the US Constitution that would deny rights to one group of citizens. We have more important issues to face, including the record breaking deficit he has created, woefully inadequate job creation, an environment that he has seriously jeopardized, the lack of affordable medical care for all, and an underfunded educational system.
Listen all you lazy motherfuckers, you better get out into the streets and start writing your goddamned representatives in Congress right fucking now or else I'm going to rise from the grave up in my crib at Montecello.
I'm about to call up some my hard-headed Founding Father homies to go all Age of Enlightenment on your ass with a pair of quills and a printing press if you don't. It'll be like Night of the Living Dead, my brother. Say I won't, I dare you.
You registered to vote yet? Is your neighbor? How about you go to the motherfucking post office and get your voter registration form on. Take a stack of them shits, hand them shits out to all kinds of people on the street. Kick it at the supermarket with a 40 oz. and a blunt for just one Saturday and register some people to vote.
It's your country. I didn't spend all of that time writing all of that long-ass shit out in fancy-ass cursive with a goddamned bird feather for nothing.
Making me turn over in my grave.
"Okay, so hows about we roast Delay?"
I would like to watch him be eaten by hungry rats. Him being an exterminator and all. You know like in Deer Hunter
Bush has a list from Rove:
Medicare Drug Plan
Raise campaign $$
Mission to Moon
Mission to Mars
Raise campaign $$
Outsourcing jobs is good
I'm a war preznit
Raise campaign $$
Bash gays
Bash Dems
Bash gay Dems
Raise campaign $$
Gonna git bin Laden
Raise campaign $$
I'm a war preznit.....
throw it at the wall -- see what sticks.
Scooter,
Does your proposed Sexual Purity Ammendment mean I have to get married? I don't wanna get married, not now, not ever. I don't see anything in there about not touching oneself impurely, so I'm confused.
Lowlife,
It's odd, but when I tell folks I am sincere about my complete lack of desire to ever wed, they inevitably ask, "Well, what about sex"? I've had a good share of nookie over the years without being married, and despite a general dislike of humanity and an overall inability to be around most people long enough to poon 'em, I reckon lightning will strike and I shall make the sign of the double-backed aardvark again. If marriage was all about sex, I doubt my parents would still be hitched after 35 years. I love 'em dearly, but neither are handsome folks in their dotage.
Shorter rights and benefits: stuff that matters if you get sick, if you die, or if you break up (especially if you have children)
PS -- see the encouraging new Annenberg Survey. 48/41% OPPOSED to an FMA; only Repubs, Southerners, and seniors support it.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicy...e-2_2-
24_pr.pdf
Holden - need anything more than "well said" be posted about your response to my earlier post? I think not. Framing the issue is indeed the key. Kerry is off to a good start! I am heartened....
Prescott Bush tied his fate to the Nazi regime, and went down with them.
Looks like Prescott's grandson hasn't been listening to his Santayana-on-tape.
Seraphiel
Not quite so according to Keven Phillips recent appearence on C-SPAN.
Might want to check that out.
Jesus Christ, do we really need to have this conversation and amend the constitution just because a few wingnuts get chubbies watching Will & Grace?
Backslider sez: "Does your proposed Sexual Purity Amendment mean I have to get married? I don't wanna get married, not now, not ever. I don't see anything in there about not touching oneself impurely, so I'm confused."
Oooh, good catch.
Yes, "No wanking" needs to be added. And sorry, but a good Republican Sexual Purity Amendment would definitely require everyone to get married to a member of the opposite sex and start birthin' babies.
"Yes, "No wanking" needs to be added."
Thats it!!! You realize of course that this means war?
Scooter -
What about bestiality? A certain senator from PA wants to know.
Is it possible to have a constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional?
Backslider,
Your folks may be old, but everybody looks the same in the dark. My granparents are in their 70s and they still get it on. It is really weird to hear the bumps and thumps from their bedroom when we stay over for the holidays.
I cannot imagine them bumping it, but they seem to do well.
Backslider,
Your folks may be old, but everybody looks the same in the dark. My granparents are in their 70s and they still get it on. It is really weird to hear the bumps and thumps from their bedroom when we stay over for the holidays.
I cannot imagine them bumping it, but they seem to do well.
"Is it possible to have a constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional?"
Nope. Thats why they are so fucking dangerous.
Holden - on that picture of Chimpy on CNN (I've voted 4 times now - no cookies) I have a little personal touchstone for when a prez is doomed - the pictures that the media start running. When they are mostly really unflattering, like that one, which makes him look like the church lady trying to keep her knees together while she passes a watermelon, then the prez is doomed. I've seen some gawd-awful pictures of Chimpy lately.
As I pointed out on an earlier thread, the Dems are actually showing some balls on this:
Top Democrats excoriated President Bush on Tuesday for announcing support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, accusing him of using the issue for political gain and trying to draw attention away from his record.
"Since he can't run on his record of shipping jobs overseas, failing schools and rising health-care costs, he has to change the subject," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a written statement.
"President Bush came to the White House pledging to unite us and is now seeking to divide the country for his own political gain..."
"It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy," he said.
"It appears that the conservative compassion he [Bush] promised to deliver in 2000 has now officially run out."
The party also accused the president of changing his mind, saying he originally said this matter should be left up to the states...
U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said Bush will "go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution."
In a written statement, Kennedy said, "The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects the enduring principles of our country. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times. ... [It] has often been amended to expand and protect people's rights, never to take away or restrict their rights."
Aren't those rights being extended to non-married heterosexual couples now? Isn't that what "domestic partners" is all about?
In my experience the damage to marriage is being done by non-married heterosexual couples. They play at being married, but the kids they produce are real, but deprived of the benefits they would receive if their parents were married.
After 30 years of seeing marriage denigrated by straights ("it's just a piece of paper") and demolished by divorce, the depth of hypocrisy required to "defend" marriage from G&L's leaves me flabberghasted.
And the fact that America loves and admires hypocrisy leaves me little room for hope.
However, I am comforted by the fact that if my marriage breaks up (Heaven Forfend) I can blame it on the gays and everybody will be very sympathetic and understanding; "Yeah, they got my marriage too, buddy"
Hopeless.
Holden Caulfield sez: "What about bestiality? A certain senator from PA wants to know."
Mr. Santorum may continue to safely kiss his dog Woogums full on the lips.
Goddammit! Not only would I have to get married and have to have kids - which scares the shit out me honestly, considering the damage I've done to my body over the past decade via various chemicals - no more rasslin' the ol' One-Eyed Avenger.
And I suppose a truly Republican Sexual Purity Ammendment wouldn't require me to actually take of any kids I have nor work to build a better future for them via protecting the environment and resources or better funding of education. I might could live with that, I suppose.
Go: http://austin.indymedia.org/news...15722/
index.php
ned,
only Repubs, Southerners, and seniors support it.
You know they will be voting as a block for Bush anyway - why should Kerry and Edwards pander to them?
personally, I just wish one of those two pansies would get up and say, "Dammit, you don't have to agree with it, but you cannot deny people's rights to be who they are. Gay people are not some scourge on society, they are just normal everyday tax-paying, patriotic Americans. To deny them the right to marry one another is the same thing as denying people's right to marry a person of a different race, religion, or nationality. George Bush wants to make the Republican party the party of hate, but America is not a country based on hate. In America, all people are created equal."
Scott,
I have no desire to have that mental picture lodged in my head, thank you very much, but it's also nice to know your grandparents still grab life by the lapels, as it were, and yank hard when they get the chance. Couldn't tell you about my parents, though; they got more a fishing buddy relationship, but it works for them and has so for quite a while. Still, I would assume under the Republican Sexual Purity Act, no more nookie once you've popped out your mandatory 2.3 sprouts.
Scooter,
Excellent Bloom County reference. It's weird how history repeats itself in satire. My brother and I watched the Marx Brothers' classic "Duck Soup" the other night - medicated, of course - and funny as it is, it's pretty damn disturbing in its satire of a completely unconcerned government.
That being said, I think I'd rather live under a Groucho administration than the one we have now. His interviews would be more entertaining, anyway.
Thank you thank thank you for posting these here. The facts are of course available in many places, but I am continually amazed by the number of people who just scratch their heads (or something else), and grumble, "Hey, what the hell do these people want,anyway?"
For those interested in the continuing saga of Gov. Goodhair, click here.
Holden - any ideas on why that link won't load for me? Dammit - what a teaser
Nevermind Holden, it finally worked for me. Thanks. People certainly have gotten ahold of this rumor and won't let go of it. I wish something would come of it, but it is looking like Anita got paid off in a big way.
Shit.
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said in a statement.
Okay, Johnny, there you go, down the bunny slope. Very good!
Tomorrow you take the ski lift all the way up to the top of the hill and you ski down screaming "I LOVE GAY MARRIAGE!"
It's a good start.
A.
If you want to vote more than once in the CNN poll, simply exit CNN.com, and then delete the cnn.com cookies from your browser (in Internet Explorer, go to Edit/Preferences/Receiving Files/Cookies).
never to take away or restrict their rights - my right to drink was taken away, but I don't care anymore.
J. Puma: I think everyone should go get ordained at the Universal Life Church (www.ulc.org) so that if the Amendment passes, we can all perform free symbolic weddings for any takers as acts of protest.
Got my ULC ordination last week. I feel ... uh, official. Officious? Still works. 0
Notice the official divine halo?
I don't know--maybe some lawyer frequenting this blog can tell me--how many of those rights and benefits can be arranged entirely by private contract, without a license from the state. I suspect it is a large part of them, although some big ones (like parent rights and immunity from testifying in court) are excluded.
It seems to me that, between religious marriage ceremonies already being performed without a marriage license, the right to unlicensed private contract, and the freedom of individual businesses to offer same-sex spousal benefits, most of the specific incidents of marriage are already available without the government's intervention.
The problem is, for that minority of benefits specifically reserved to married people by the state, marriage licensing constitutes a special grant of privilege to favored groups within the population. In fact, that's the original purpose of marriage licenses. They were introduced during the religious conflicts in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as a way for the government to deny recognition to marriages performed outside the officially established church. In England, marriages licenses were refused unless the sacrament was performed in the Anglican Church; and vice versa for the Catholic countries.
The solution is to eliminate the marriage license, and go back to the days when marriage was a social institution defined by the public itself, without the intervention of the state. Then people could make whatever arrangements they wanted, back it up with a civil contract, have a religious ceremony, or whatever. Each church could decide for itself whom to perform marriage rites for, and religious traditionalists could refuse at will to recognize a given marriage as a "real" one.
Backslider sez: "And I suppose a truly Republican Sexual Purity Ammendment wouldn't require me to actually take of any kids I have nor work to build a better future for them via protecting the environment and resources or better funding of education."
Whaddya think this is? A nanny state?!
"Is it possible to have a constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional?"
Generik
It's possible to repeal an amendment. That's what happened with Prohibition.
CNN Poll
56% No
44% Yes
Just Now.
It's possible to repeal an amendment. That's what happened with Prohibition.
MoniCA
From today's gaggle (full Obsession posted on the "Thanks Archbishop" thread):
Q Also, this would be the first time since the Prohibition era that a constitutional amendment had been sought that would actually restrict rights in America. Though there may be some people in this room who remembers how well the Prohibition amendment went down, does the President really want to be the first President since the Prohibition era to deny people rights?
"Q Also, this would be the first time since the Prohibition era that a constitutional amendment had been sought that would actually restrict rights in America."
And distinctly only the rights of a certain group...at least prohibition was to effect everyone. This crap from GW "Ass-hammer" Bush, is worse than prohibition ever thought of being.
I guess aWol want to be the president of the party which supports guys driving pickups with confederate flags on the back.
which of Colin Powell's daughters likes to crunch cooter?
is it Linda or Annmarie?
"Crunch cooter"...man, that doesn't sound fun at all.
chica,
Sure her does. Long as they're not gay.
which of Colin Powell's daughters likes to crunch cooter?
I dunno about his daughters. But his kid Michael seems to enjoy the affections of several large, well-endowed media corporations, if ya know what I mean...
you guys know what santorum also means, right? I've seen his name come up a few times, but I haven't seen anyone mention it. I apologize if this is already widely known to you all.
Santorum:
1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes
the byproduct of anal sex.
2. Senator Rick Santorum.
www.spreadingsantorum.com
I was just reading Josh Marshall, who reminded us that this whole damn thing is just Poppy's "flag-burning amendment" all over again. Wedge issues that Bushes invariably use when their popularity inevitably starts plummeting (which we knew).
It suddenly occurred to me that when Poppy's popularity started plummeting... IT DIDN'T WORK THE SECOND TIME. Did it?
Sure, Amurca has its morons, but unless I'm mistaken, don't we always, ultimately, get hip after the first bout of mass hypnosis with these fuckwads?
A little optimism is a good thing.
Little known fact:
Three of the four "activist judges" from Massachusetts, including the chief justice, were named to the bench by Republican governors.
Realizing I am very late to the party (and won't be able to stay long), has anyone else noted yet that Tom DeLay (Loonie Party, TX)(news courtesy of Josh Marshall) is backing away from a Constitutional amendment?
As Marshall asks, what does it say when even DeLay won't support your right-wing position on a social issue?
(And I love that question from the gaggle: going down (is there a better metaphor now?) as the President who backed an amendment restricting individual rights? Glorious. One begins right away to understand DeLay's hesitation.)
Bodini: PS: every keyboard that is tapped in anger over gay marriage is NOT tapping in anger over a fraudulent war, reckless spending, and corporate cronyism.
Just because we bitch here and there about the FMA and the attending, disgusting howling over the loss of "sanctity" doesn't mean we have to give short shrift to the other issues. I think we're all capable enough to write about one issue and then turn tables and wax angry poetic about the others.
The right to apply for expedited citizenship if married to a U.S. citizen. A couple who are friends of mine have now left the country because one man is a foreign national and his work visa has expired. He is also HIV positive, so his chances of ever being allowed entry to the U.S. again are slim. These men have been together for 9 years and own a home in the U.S. The week they left, I read an article about a creep in Oregon who murdered his mail-order Russian bride after she tried to leave him. She was his second Russian rent-a-wife; the first had to file an order of protection against him.
Logansquare,
Yeah, but imagine what horrid evils that Oregon dude might've committed had he been gay! Think of the children. Besides, he was killing foreigners, and that's okay, too.
Actually, now that I think about it, how ball-slapping re-goddamn-diculous that this country has its panties in a twist over gay marriage when I can order a damn Ukranian bride just as easily as I can order a Mickey Jupp CD off eBay. If you think I'm being facetious, you try buying Mickey's stuff these days.
A few months back, Atlanta's Creative Loafing - a weekly alt-news-entertainment magazine - ran a cover story on mail-order brides. Down the line, every cat who sent off for a little woman said he did it because "American women are too independent and not interested in families". Got me to thinking that dudes what lust in their hearts over postal marriages are just too cheap to pop for a Real Doll.
Backslider - that, plus the Real Doll doesn't cook or clean.
They like the idea of having a woman who can't even speak the language, has no family or friends nearby, etc. Makes them easier to control.
...and of course Ukranian woman don't want to get married in order to get automatic US citizenship.
Riiiiight!
Addition to the Preznidential Drinking Game: 1 shot whenever he says "activist judges."
Jennifer,
Indeed. From the story, the guys all come off - if a bit subtlely - like they think "man's rules" runs the household. I find the whole concept of marriage a bit creepy anyway, but they go above and beyond the call of duty. Basically boils down to, "I got my wife that does what I want her to do, because I don't control a goddamn aspect of my life otherwise."
In any event, here's the story if anyone's interested:
http://tinyurl.com/2433g
My rage has been at a pretty steady boil for the past thre-plus years.
But I was watching CNN today, and believe me when I tell you it was a non-stop parade of people I'd pay money to punch in the face.
Hate-mongering bastards. Sanctimonious asswipes. Worthless, the lot of them.
God, give me five minutes in a room with Jerry Falwell and a small shovel. What a gloating prick he is.
Robert M Jeffers - I saw that story about DeLay and couldn't believe my eyes when i read it. I mean DeLay is against amending the Constitution - that's just too much. Now, what were people saying about how the Repugs will win with this issue? LOL
After seeing the preznit on TV, I went out and had my Bush Flight Suit action figure married to a G.I. Joe doll.
Robert M Jeffers - I saw that story about DeLay and couldn't believe my eyes when i read it. I mean DeLay is against amending the Constitution - that's just too much. Now, what were people saying about how the Repugs will win with this issue? LOL
Yes DeLay would be *troubled* since Bush, yesterday, said he was insisting that voters had to choose between Dems and him, and he was committed to *individual* freedom.
Also, I wonder, Tena, if that Rick Perry rumor showed up at exactly the wrong time. Ohhhh, baby.
The right to apply for expedited citizenship if married to a U.S. citizen. A couple who are friends of mine have now left the country because one man is a foreign national and his work visa has expired.
A just found out a friend of mine whose partner of 10+ years had married a lesbian friend in order to stay in the U.S. because his student visa had expired. They can divorce after something like 7 years, but it still stinks that they couldn't just get married and be together!
A good Republican Sexual Purity Amendment would definitely require everyone to get married to a member of the opposite sex and start birthin' babies.
Scooter | Email | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 4:47 pm | #
A modest proposal: Bush should revive the Emperor Augustus (27 BC - AD 14)'s marriage legislation.
The Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus and Lex Papia Poppaea required all citizens (probably above a certain income / class boundary) between 20 and 50 (60 for women) to be married (to a member of the opposite sex, natch) "for the purpose of begetting children." Financial incentives were provided; those who remained single or married but childless suffered disincentives (all pertaining to inheritance law, as making wills and receiving legacies were a big thing in the Roman elite).
The Lex Julia de adulteriis made adultery a public crime; those who committed adultery were required to divorce their spouses and undergo trial, and if convicted the adulterous pair were punished with exile to islands -- different islands. Part of their property was confiscated for the imperial treasury.
A father who caught his married daughter in the act of adultery with her lover was allowed to kill them both; this right was not extended to the wife's husband. (Unfortunately there are almost no instances of this being carried out in real life.)
The legislation was supposedly meant to restore ancient Roman sexual propriety and promote procreation (of the elite), but it was a no-lose proposition, since the more people remained unmarried and committed adultery, the more money accrued to the state.
Oops, it should read, "between 20 and 60 (50 for women)"
Damn Haloscan, no preview.
pie - I just wish that rumor had sprouted some backup and taken off on it. I think it's going to go away now - apparently Anita Goodhair has been paid off.
Oops, it should read, "between 20 and 60 (50 for women)"
Damn Haloscan, no preview.
Anything titled "A Modest Proposal" is satirical, for those who don't catch the reference to Swift. He proposed solving the problem of Irish poverty (caused by British colonialism) by eating the children of the Irish.
A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public By Jonathan Swift (1729)
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
sara - Augustus had to banish one of his daughters due to that act, I believe.
i never realised what terrorists gays were.
"Yes, "No wanking" needs to be added."
Thats it!!! You realize of course that this means war?
Bing Crosby | Email | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 4:49 pm | #
I have never actually laughed out loud here before this.
Thanks for your support, Mr Crosby
Anyone who really believes that there are exactly 1,049 rights and benefits of marriage is on the fast track to Divorce Court.
If you wrote a computer program that had 1,049 processes, and if the answer to all 1,049 questions of benefit was No - "I can't visit him in jail. I want a divorce!" - that computer still wouldn't be as unhappy as the poor GAO guy was when his wife found out what he'd written.
Marriage isn't for tax purposes. It's about L-O-V-E. And if the only reason you get married is to satisfy the IRS and buy an SUV or rent a bigger server, you are very far from love, and very far from reality.
Of course it's about love - but it doesn't hurt if you're actually able to live and work in the same vicinity as your spouse, does it??? As a gay American living in France with my partner of 16 years, I do appreciate the PACs law (civil unions) that was passed here a few years back - they gave me legal residency, working papers, and full medical coverage. The L-O-V-E part we take care of ourselves...
Actually, marriage isn't so much about love as it is a commercial transaction. It's really only been in the past 100, 150 years or so that it has come to be a matter of love at all, and that only in industrialized areas that can afford that kind of conceit. (Not only that, but the widespread belief that love is and should be the sole foundation of all marriage is part of the reason the divorce rate is so high. Only a fortunate few people remain "in love" with one another throughout the entire course of their lives.) If love was all there was to it, no government would touch it with a ten-foot pole, and yet there are civil statutes governing marriage from the Code of Hammurabi on down through history.
Historically, in fact, love has often been considered something that could only exist between people who weren't married--at least to each other. In many places and times more open to homoeroticism than the modern US (ancient Greece and feudal Japan, for starters), there is a common belief that love can only thrive between equals. Women, not being equal, thus couldn't be true objects of love. And in mediaeval Europe, it was long accepted that true love, courtly love, could only exist between a gentleman and a lady who was already married to someone else. The ideal was that their (unconsummated) would spur him on to great acts of valour.
Love is about love. Marriage is (and from a historical perspective, always has been) about providing the commercial and contractual inducements for a couple to stay together and provide for the next generation. (I'm all for gay marriages. It's our accepting attitude toward no-fault divorce that I think we need to take a good hard look at.)
oops. "...(unconsummated) love would spur him on..." that should read.
How about if, until the FMA supporters pass their amendment, they have the guts to re-write all the laws to say "married people are entitled to... unless they are of the same sex".
Writing that into legislation a hundred or so times will make them realize more consciously what they're doing.
since we've had civil unions here in vermont, my zuchini crop was way down.............and I gained 10 pounds.
you tell me,civil unions=garden disaster
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
