It will be very interesting to see how divorce law will be ultimately modified over the next decade or two. It has been very settled law for decades that the mother is given huge deference in certain areas of divorce. Certainly some states have community property (50-50) laws and also recognize alimony to be paid by the woman when she is the main bread winner, but when it comes to child custody a mother has to be proven a she-devil before she is denied at least primary custody.
So how will gay marriage affect all this? As gay marriage with children becomes main stream, the issue of child custody will certainly have to be rethought as the single maternal preference during divorce cannot exist. Eventually, this new case law will be used by fathers in hetero marriages to gain entry into a realm that has been previously mostly denied.
Of course there are many and far stronger sociological changes in the shifting of parental care lately. For example, the vanishing role of paternal influence among the poor and mostly black and the increasing influence of day care resulting in the reduction of maternal influences; all accelerated due to both parents being employed.
Whether you consider this shifting trend away from maternal care for children good or bad, it will be interesting to see this new twist due to gay marriage play out.
Way to go Vermont!!!!!! Although 3 states currently grant same sex marriage - MA, CT, and IA - all three only began to do so after a court struck down same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional.
Way to go Vermont for being the first state in the Union to legalize same sex marriage legislatively!!!!!
I can't believe non-gay people are so emotionally involved in this issue.
I guess in a way I am happy for them, but I really can't think of an issue that I care less about, except in a "government dictating personal" kind of way.
Gay people should be very careful in what they ask for, until now they have been protected from marriage. Just wait until they start getting divorced, they may rethink the whole issue. lol
You know the gays in trendy California are pissed that they have not been able to achieve what little Vermont did with gay marriage.
For some of us, it is a VERY big deal. If it was the only thing I cared about, then I'd be voting for Democrats. However, even though other issues take top priority in the voting booth, this issue is still one that is very near and dear to my heart.
Good for the gays.
Regardless of your views on the gay rights issue, this must force all to see that Democracy is a total fraud in this day of media master control.
Fact, the people in several states have voted to ban gay marriage.
This past election cycle, the issue wasn't the will of the people being heard, it was about the fact that "Whoaaa wait a minute, there will be court challenges." This is the same media that decries anyone going to court to challenge Obama's place of birth as being "ridiculous". Of course he was their candidate so no court is needed, in that case the will of the people counts.
Judges and politicians are overturning amendments that have been approved by the people. Why is Democracy always triumphed as the righteous will of the majority ruling in every case EXCEPT when the programs/candidates pushed by the media don't get enough support from the voters.
Nine out of ten times they get what they want. But then when things don't work out the way they want, then things change. The Palestinians elect Hamas through the Democratic process and their will is ignored as America refuses to recognize them. People vote to ban gay marriage and their will is stifled.
And some say that communism,tyranny,and totalitarianism is on the horizon. Newsflash, its been here for a long long time already.
Tyranny is bad enough, but it is ten times worse when you have a govenrment that tries to paint itself as "free" and "democratic" when it isn't. And people still scratch their head as to why we are hated. It's not the bombs that make people around the world hate us, it's the HYPOCRISY.
Sheesh for someone who spends as much time debating politics you'd think you would know that already.
Yes, people in several states voted against gay marriage, and people in several states have apparently voted for it. Get over it. Why should anyone really give a fuck if two little cocksuckers or carpetmunchers get married?
We've got an idiot in the White House who wants to put our national security in the hands of the United Nations, while at the same time socializing our economy and all you can worry about is the color of his skin and whether gay people want to marry?
While you are worried about immigrants of races other than white and what two adults do in the privacy of their own home, there are some real and serious issues out there. No wonder there are left wing morons out there looking for bigotry under every rock, every once in a while they turn over a rock and find someone like you to keep them looking for more just like you.
I know we are supposed to be a Republic. Then again the government is supposed to issue our money as well, not a private organization like the Federal Reserve.
I am only pointing out the media drivel about the people supposedly making the choice being total garbage.
A little history:
The Federal Reserve was created by Congressional Legislation in 1913. Since then, there have been several pieces of individual legislation outlining requirements in the direction of Fed policy. The Federal Reserve Board is appointed by the president, and confirmed by the Senate. The Chair has to report to Congress every year to prove the Fed is following its mandate in order to get re-confirmed for the rest of his normal 14-year term (or longer as he can first serve out the remainder of his predecessor's term before officially starting his own). All profits are returned to the Federal Treasury. Thus, it is not private at all. The Federal Reserve is what's known as an "independent government agency."
Only the 12 regional banks are private, and they do not control the money supply.
Thus, as of 1913, the Fed is officially in charge of the money supply (which is different from "issuing" money). So it *is* governmental, and the Federal Reserve Act determined who is now in direct control (subject to Congressional rules) of the money supply.
Perhaps you mean to indicate "supposed" to by way of the original Constitution, as if that can never be changed or a central bank somehow violates the Const. That is wrong on many levels.
One, the Constitution is allowed to be changed by Amendment, as I'm sure you know.
Two, the Federal Reserve Act is not in violation of the Constitution regardless.
Three, the Constitution never gave government the right to issue money in the first place. The states were explicitly banned from issuing their own currency. But a vote at the Const. Convention passed to explicitly strike the words "and emit bills" from a clause listing the explicit powers of the federal government (this became Art I, Sec 8). Thus, nowhere in the Const does it state "the government is supposed to issue our money" or anything of the kind.
Four, a central bank was chartered by the Sec of Treasury (Hamilton) in 1791, almost immediately after the last state (RI) ratified the Const in 1790 (although only 9 states were needed). This central bank was known as The First National Bank. Its charter was not renewed, but later a Second National Bank was established by the federal government, which Jackson refused to renew its charter. Eventually (much much later) the Fed Reserve System was created in 1913. So the idea of central banking is hardly unprecedented, and can be traced back to the founding of the nation.
Because I didn't get my way in the last elections. When I get my way, we will be a democracy again!
Pretty outlandish statement considering the last 8 years of incompetence.
Geeez.
The form of government in the United States of America is NOT a democracy and never has been. It is a representative republic.
Shout a little louder. Nobody pays attention to your inane shit anyway.
Trying to educate the morons again. Did not realize you were a special ed teacher GG
but a matter of degree. We are still one of the most democratic and most free countries in the world. To point out where the democratic processing is failing, does not mean we do not have a democracy, but shows us where we need to improve it.
Sorry Slim, you got it all wrong. Not one single constitutional amendmend has been overturned. In the case of CT, MA, and IA, all three had passed LAWS that banned same sex marriage. In all three cases, the courts overturned those LAWS because they were deemed to be unconstitutional per the state's constitution. This is EXACTLY what our courts are designed to do.
California is the perfect example between an law and an amendment. California passed a LAW, which the courts reviewed and found to be unconstitutional. The result was that same sex marriages commenced in CA. Then in this previous election, Prop 8 was passed, which amended the state constitution itself, and halted same sex marriage. See the difference? Laws are subject to review, have ALWAYS be subject to review, and will always be subject to review. Constitutional amendmendments however, are NOT subject to review, save by a higher court - ie the USSC. States can add any amendments they want to their state constitution, provided that they do not grant or restrict rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Regarding the nonsense about Obama's birth certificate, I am NO supporter of Obama, but the fluff about his birth certificate is ridiculous. Its right up there with the loons who still believe 9/11 was an inside job. Just proves that ignorancen and lunacy, unfortunately, is not limited to liberals.
The point I am making is not whether the country was supposed to be a Democracy or a Republic or a discussions about laws compared to amendments.
The point is that the media parrots this idea that voting is what determines policy and who the leaders are, and for the most part when the agenda peddled by the media gets voter approval there is no issue. It is only when their propaganda fails to sway the vote in their favor that then the voters voice doesn't count.
I wouldn't say a thing if the media just told the truth and said that voting is a total waste of time and energy. But then people would act on better and more realistic ways of bringing sanity and honor back to the land and that is the last thing they want people to do. So even as it is proven more and more to be a fraud, the media will continue to peddle this idea that voting makes a difference when it doesn't.
No, YOU still don't get it. You think that 50.1% of the vote on ANY issue should settle that issue. That is how things work in a direct democracy, but we are NOT a direct democracy. We have this thing called the Constitution. Furhtermore, each individual state has a state constitution as well. It boils down to this. Just because 50.1% of the population votes on a particular issue does NOT, and has NEVER meant that what they voted on automatically becomes law. Laws are STILL subject to the consitutions under which they are passed. If that law violates the constitution, then the law is deemed to be invalid.
How do you think segregation was ended? How do you think interracial marriage became legal? At the time segregation was ended and interracial marriage was allowed, the majority of Americans were opposed to them. That is precisely why we have a Constitution. To protect against what Thomas Jefferson called the "tyranny of the majority". But they also left us mechanisms by which we could amend the Constitution itsel. But amending the constitution requires not just a simple majority, but a super majority. The manner in which a state constitutional amendment is passed varies from state to state, but in general, takes more than a simple majority to pass.
So basically what it comes down to is, if you really truly want to ban same sex marriage, you can do that. Just pass an amendment to the US Constitution banning it. Then no court in the land can strike it down. Good luck iwth that though. In our history, nearly 2,000 Amendments have been proposed. Only 27 have actually passed.
I don't even fucking like the idea of a Democracy running the affairs of a nation, ok, I am just saying most people on the street would tell you that if a majority votes for it they get it. Why the hell do you think these propositions are put together in the first place???
Funny how you bring up that fellow Jefferson. Would you say that he would have advocated all the changes to that pissed on document called the US Constitution? You might want to do some research, he had much to do with the Naturalization Act Of 1790. Don't think that he would have been too supportive of all the changes made to the Constitution with regard to his support of the Act.
There is a tyranny of the majority out there for sure and their thoughts and minds are controlled by the media masters, and those media masters would literally piss on the document if they had the chance.
This seems to be a common retort by you. I think people miss "the point," because you keep moving it on them.
Well if your going to bring up the Constitution, then you have to talk about the entire thing. Just like with Lincoln, the media has taken what they have wanted to and distorted history based on their agenda,not the truth.
It will be very interesting to see how divorce law will be ultimately modified over the next decade or two. It has been very settled law for decades that the mother is given huge deference in certain areas of divorce. Certainly some states have community property (50-50) laws and also recognize alimony to be paid by the woman when she is the main bread winner, but when it comes to child custody a mother has to be proven a she-devil before she is denied at least primary custody.
So how will gay marriage affect all this? As gay marriage with children becomes main stream, the issue of child custody will certainly have to be rethought as the single maternal preference during divorce cannot exist. Eventually, this new case law will be used by fathers in hetero marriages to gain entry into a realm that has been previously mostly denied.
Of course there are many and far stronger sociological changes in the shifting of parental care lately. For example, the vanishing role of paternal influence among the poor and mostly black and the increasing influence of day care resulting in the reduction of maternal influences; all accelerated due to both parents being employed.
Whether you consider this shifting trend away from maternal care for children good or bad, it will be interesting to see this new twist due to gay marriage play out.
opportunity laws etc. will all be eventually be modified. For example:
(1) Here in California court cases are in the pipeline when a lesbian in San Francisco married her partner from another country.
(2) Whatever people think of the Bible, but will teaching scripture that runs contrary to homosexuality be considered hate speech. There is case in San Diego addressing this issue.
(3) Will companies now have to deal with potential liabilities in regards to discrimmination laws.
I can go on, but you get the picture.
Your 2nd scenario is a reality in Canada. Of course the people in this country who stress that these laws are coming here are dismissed as wackos,no they are coming.
Basically this country has gotten to the point where anything is tolerated except those who would say that there should be a line drawn someplace.
Excess will be its own undoing.