If a mosque opens at Ground Zero on 9/11 next year,Obama can kiss the White House goodbye

[Edstock]

Gay Muslim bar to open next door.

 

http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696

 

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

 

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

 

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

 

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

 

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

[partsisparts]

Gay Muslim bar to open next door.

 

http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696

Hey!!! I thought of this a few pages ago!!! This guy stole my thunder!!

[Cocheese]

Hey!!! I thought of this a few pages ago!!! This guy stole my thunder!!

 

Actually, he posted a link to a fact story, not an opinion one. So in reality he has not "stole your thunder". The fact that you don't understand the difference between news and opinion, is disturbing.

 

 

However, I see by your signature, you still can't come up with an original thought, and have once again copied someone else.

 

Since you only ever want to show one side of the issue, here is my rebuttal

 

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009

 

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly." —commenting on a white police officer's arrest of black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge, Mass., at a news conference before hearing any of the facts surrounding the case, July 22, 2009

 

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." --in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009

 

"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009

 

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." --making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009

 

"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances." --after saying he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepared to take office, Washington, D.C., Nov. 7, 2008

 

"I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis." --speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

 

"Let me introduce to you the next President -- the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden." --slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

 

"How's it going, Sunshine?" --campaigning in Sunrise, Florida

 

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

 

"Hold on one second, sweetie, we're going to do -- we'll do a press avail." --to a female reporter for ABC's Detroit affiliate who asked about his plan to help American autoworkers

 

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

 

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" --after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

 

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." --explaining his troubles winning over some working-class voters

 

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

 

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions." --exasperated by reporters after a news conference

 

"You're likeable enough, Hillary." --during a Democratic debate

 

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

 

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

 

There is even more, but you get the picture. Again, if according to your side, if Bush was such an idiot and a horrible President, how does it feel that Obama is proving to be worse?

[grbeck]

Other than being required to refrain from discrimination, what are opponents to Gay Marriage being ask to do differently?

 

Do you have any examples?

 

No one has yet come up with a logical argument as to how Gay Marriages have any effect on Heterosexual Marriages.

 

Opponents can still believe that it is wrong for gays to marry just like racists can still believe that interracial marriages are wrong.

 

No religion will be required to marry Gays just as no religion is required to perform interfaith marriages.

 

Religious institutions will still have the right to excommunicate anyone who does not hold to the rules of the faith.

 

I never said that gay marriages would affect heterosexual marriages (again - you need to debate the posters on this thread, not people who said something in another forum).

 

And "refraining from discrimination" involves requiring someone to do something that may be against their morals or beliefs - for example, fining a wedding photographer for refusing to take photos of a gay couple, even though he or she was opposed to gay marriage (that case was referenced on the Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian-leaning site run by lawyer-bloggers).

Edited September 1, 2010 by grbeck

[rn4]

I never said that gay marriages would affect heterosexual marriages (again - you need to debate the posters on this thread, not people who said something in another forum).

 

And "refraining from discrimination" involves requiring someone to do something that may be against their morals or beliefs - for example, fining a wedding photographer for refusing to take photos of a gay couple, even though he or she was opposed to gay marriage (that case was referenced on the <i>Volokh Conspiracy,</i> a libertarian-leaning site run by lawyer-bloggers).

 

 

Should't have taken the job then.

[RangerM]

Mosque big owes 224G tax

 

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

 

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.

 

El-Gamal's company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

 

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal's lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel.

 

The lease agreement, obtained by The Post, specifies that El-Gamal's company pay taxes on the property and submit receipts to Con Ed.

 

The utility said it would have to review any possible lease violations......

[partsisparts]

Hey!!! I thought of this a few pages ago!!! This guy stole my thunder!!

 

Dear Fellow Posters,

Why I am replying to my own post,you ask? Because it seems that it has been misunderstood. The above post was meant to be a JOKE. A little one liner to bring a smile to your faces. Nothing more.

Thank You,

Partisparts

Edited August 31, 2010 by partsisparts

[Trimdingman]

I never said that gay marriages would affect heterosexual marriages (again - you need to debate the posters on this thread, not people who said something in another forum).

 

And "refraining from discrimination" involves requiring someone to do something that may be against their morals or beliefs - for example, fining a wedding photographer for refusing to take photos of a gay couple, even though he or she was opposed to gay marriage (that case was referenced on the <i>Volokh Conspiracy,</i> a libertarian-leaning site run by lawyer-bloggers).

 

I don't believe in any kind of marriage. The government has no right to stick it's nose into any kind of human relationship. You have to get a license from the government to get "legally" married. What kind of horseshit is that? It is a throwback to when the Lord got to sleep with the new bride on the wedding night. To me it is disgusting to have the government's abominable presence anywhere in my life, let alone my closest loving family relationships.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Trimdingman

[RangerM]

I don't believe in any kind of marriage.

Yet, you got married?

[Mark B. Morrow]

I don't believe in any kind of marriage. The government has no right to stick it's nose into any kind of human relationship. You have to get a license from the government to get "legally" married. What kind of horseshit is that? It is a throwback to when the Lord got to sleep with the new bride on the wedding night. To me it is disgusting to have the government's abominable presence anywhere in my life, let alone my closest loving family relationships.

 

 

Wait a minute. The government gets to sleep with your wife?

 

The marriage license protects the parties and opens the Court system to them in case it doesn't work out. If you don't want to make the commitment you don't have to get married. Lots of people don't. They pass on some of the benefits and they don't have to deal with the "intrusion".

[grbeck]

Should't have taken the job then.

 

The photographers refused to take this particular job (they ran an independent business) - that is what got them in trouble.

Edited September 1, 2010 by grbeck

[suv_guy_19]

So we should discriminate because people who live their lives based on an old book might be made to feel uncomfortable....interesting. The reality is though, if it is claimed that the discrimination is based on religious freedoms, there shouldn't be a case.

[grbeck]

So we should discriminate because people who live their lives based on an old book might be made to feel uncomfortable....interesting. The reality is though, if it is claimed that the discrimination is based on religious freedoms, there shouldn't be a case.

 

The argument was made that legalizing gay marriage will have no impact on other people, or force them to do anything.

 

Now, I do believe that gay marriage is not going to have an impact on heterosexual marriage. That point is entirely true. I don't believe that banning gay marriage somehow "protects" heterosexual marriage. Nor will gay marriage erode its sanctity. (Heterosexuals, particularly those in the entertainment industry, have done a good job of that on their own.)

 

But, the real-life example I referenced shows that people can be penalized for not recognizing a gay marriage. So the argument that legalizing gay marriage is not going to have an impact on others is not necessarily true.

 

Incidentally, opposition to gay marriage is not limited to religious people. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.When it has been submitted to a popular vote, it loses consistently. There aren't enough truly religious people to defeat these measures at the polls.

Edited September 1, 2010 by grbeck

[Deanh]

They hate us BECAUSE they do not know who we really are. They know what they are told by extremist clerics about the US. They know what extremist clerics tell them about the Qur'an, because they are illiterate and cannot read its peaceful message for themselves. There is a reason moderate and liberal Muslims are in the West and in the more modern parts of the Mid East, and it's not because of our culture - it's all education.

 

And the flood relief offered by the same American government that they have thirty years of broken promises as reasons to distrust? Hell, even I don't trust my government.

not true, a good friend of mine went back to Afganistan where he is actually a Prince....children there are raised and educated from day one to "hate" the infidels ( yep...the good old USA ) as an involuntary part of their curiculum. Anyways, in regards to the Mosque my 2 cents, this is a misguided self centered classless act with NO respect for those whom were affected or distressed by the 9/11 actions.

[Mark B. Morrow]

The argument was made that legalizing gay marriage will have no impact on other people, or force them to do anything.

 

Now, I do believe that gay marriage is not going to have an impact on heterosexual marriage. That point is entirely true. I don't believe that banning gay marriage somehow "protects" heterosexual marriage. Nor will gay marriage erode its sanctity. (Heterosexuals, particularly those in the entertainment industry like Rush Limbaugh, Politicians like Newt, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, John Ensign, David Vitter, have done a good job of that on their own.) Fixed.

 

But, the real-life example I referenced shows that people can be penalized for not recognizing a gay marriage. So the argument that legalizing gay marriage is not going to have an impact on others is not necessarily true. It has no more impact than the civil rights of any other group would have to be free fron discrimination. If discrimination on the basis of race or religion would not be protected, why should discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

Incidentally, opposition to gay marriage is not limited to religious people. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.When it has been submitted to a popular vote, it loses consistently. There aren't enough truly religious people to defeat these measures at the polls.

 

Once again, the equal protection of Constitutional Rights isn't up for a vote. It does not matter that a majority of voters opposes gay marriage any more than it would matter that a majority of voters might decide that Mormonism isn't a religion.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[grbeck]

(Heterosexuals, particularly those in the entertainment industry like Rush Limbaugh, Politicians like Newt, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, John Ensign, David Vitter, have done a good job of that on their own.) Fixed.

 

Odd point you are making there, Mark.

 

Are you saying that John Edwards and Bill Clinton are primarily entertainers? Granted, their private lives could provide fodder for All My Children or a version of 90210 set in D.C., but they are not known primarily as entertainers. Nor are they conservatives or Republicans.

 

The entertainment community is, however, overwhelmingly liberal.

 

It has no more impact than the civil rights of any other group would have to be free fron discrimination. If discrimination on the basis of race or religion would not be protected, why should discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

Because one of these things isn't necessarily like the other.

 

The important point is that you insisted that legalizing gay marriage would not affect anyone else or require them to do anything different. I've proven you incorrect. You can't dismiss it changing the topic to discrimination. If you get your way, you are forcing them to change their beliefs, and forcing YOUR beliefs on them.

 

Which is not what you originally said.

 

Once again, the equal protection of Constitutional Rights isn't up for a vote. It does not matter that a majority of voters opposes gay marriage any more than it would matter that a majority of voters might decide that Mormonism isn't a religion.

 

Once again, we aren't dealing with a constitutional right. The state has long been able to restrict just who gets married to whom, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says it can't.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Odd point you are making there, Mark.

 

Are you saying that John Edwards and Bill Clinton are primarily entertainers? Granted, their private lives could provide fodder for All My Children or a version of 90210 set in D.C., but they are not known primarily as entertainers. Nor are they conservatives or Republicans.

 

You missed the word Politicians after Rush Limbaugh (who is primarily an entertainer by his own admission and certainly not a liberal). My point was that it isn't just the entertainment industry. Moreover, the politicians mentioned with the possible exception of Clinton, all held themselves out as Family values guys. At least most entertainers don't try to make laws for others to live by that they don't obey. See Newt Gingrich.

The entertainment community is, however, overwhelmingly liberal.

 

 

 

Because one of these things isn't necessarily like the other.

 

The important point is that you insisted that legalizing gay marriage would not affect anyone else or require them to do anything different. I've proven you incorrect. You can't dismiss it changing the topic to discrimination. If you get your way, you are forcing them to change their beliefs, and forcing YOUR beliefs on them.

 

Not forcing them to believe anything. Requiring business to refrain from discrimination doesn't mean the owners or employees have to change their beliefs. It just means that if they are in the public market place they must not engage in illegal discrimination. The same applies to discrimination based on religion or race. Are you against outlawing such discrimination?

 

Which is not what you originally said.

 

 

 

Once again, we aren't dealing with a constitutional right. The state has long been able to restrict just who gets married to whom, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says it can't.

 

See Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is a fundemental civil right.

[grbeck]

You missed the word

 

You are correct. My mistake. Sorry about that.

 

Politicians after Rush Limbaugh (who is primarily an entertainer by his own admission and certainly not a liberal). My point was that it isn't just the entertainment industry. Moreover, the politicians mentioned with the possible exception of Clinton, all held themselves out as Family values guys. At least most entertainers don't try to make laws for others to live by that they don't obey. See Newt Gingrich.

 

As someone once said, politics is show business for ugly people, and both Democrats and Republicans prove that one a regular basis.

 

Entertainers regulary champion laws that will restrict the behaviors of others. They may not MAKE laws, but they do use their celebrity status (which gives them a platform that regular people don't have - I doubt that either you or I will be interviewed by People or Access Hollywood because of what we post here) to push for their pet causes or laws. How many celebrities have come out against Proposition 8 in California? Have you noticed how much coverage they receive? Do they bother to interview any of the "average" Joes or Janes who voted for it, even though they greatly outnumber the celebrity advocates?

 

Celebrities also give lots of money to favored candidates, and can hold fundraisers for them, using their fame to gain a platform and direct access to candidates that most of us will never have.

 

Not forcing them to believe anything. Requiring business to refrain from discrimination doesn't mean the owners or employees have to change their beliefs. It just means that if they are in the public market place they must not engage in illegal discrimination. The same applies to discrimination based on religion or race. Are you against outlawing such discrimination?

 

You are forcing them to change their actions or behave in ways that contradict their beliefs.

 

 

See Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is a fundemental civil right.

 

It doesn't follow that the freedom to marry whomever we want is a civil right.

 

The Loving case specifically stated that marriage is a fundamental right because of procreation. Procreation is not possible for same-sex couples without outside intervention; marriage cannot therefore be construed as a fundamental right for same-sex couples under the Loving ruling.

 

Incidentally, the United States Supreme Court has already considered and rejected the idea that the rationals used in the Loving case can be extended to same-sex couples.

 

Six years after Loving, in the case of Baker v. Nelson, a homosexual couple in Minnesota attempted to use the Loving decision to gain the right to marry. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against them, and the United State Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal.

 

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. There is no constitutional BAN on gay marriage, either. States can decide to legalize it, or ban it. It's entirely up to the voters.

Edited September 2, 2010 by grbeck

[Trimdingman]

Wait a minute. The government gets to sleep with your wife?

 

The marriage license protects the parties and opens the Court system to them in case it doesn't work out. If you don't want to make the commitment you don't have to get married. Lots of people don't. They pass on some of the benefits and they don't have to deal with the "intrusion".

 

Government interferrence is what causes many divorces and family tragedies. Government doesn't care if children are caught in the middle. Families should be forced to work out their differences without government involvement. Children should be a big reason for the family to remain intact. Government just sees dollars and cents. Children who go with the mother grow up weak. Seeing their father rendered gender neutral, also does not do much for their self esteem. If one partner wants to go, let him/her go. The kids stay and so does the house and it's contents. If you go, you are on your own.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Government interferrence is what causes many divorces and family tragedies. Government doesn't care if children are caught in the middle. Families should be forced to work out their differences without government involvement. Children should be a big reason for the family to remain intact. Government just sees dollars and cents. Children who go with the mother grow up weak. Seeing their father rendered gender neutral, also does not do much for their self esteem. If one partner wants to go, let him/her go. The kids stay and so does the house and it's contents. If you go, you are on your own.

 

 

Now you are addressing my area of expertise. Having spent most of the last 22 years as a divorce lawyer, I can tell you that government interference has nothing to do with divorce. The possible exception is where one party is convicted of a crime and goes to prison. I suppose you could call that government interference.Keeping a miserable couple or one in which there is abuse, together for the children does not work. Children in unhappy homes will be unhappy.

 

Many families cannot work out their differences. The Court acts as an equalizer in many cases keeping the stronger (either financially or physically) spouse from running roughshod over the weaker party. The Court and its "government" enforcement mechanism is all that keeps parties in compliance with their agreements and responsibilities. I can assure you that without enforcement we would have chaos.

 

I represent many fathers who have custody of their children and many who have shared custody. I also have cases where one party has no interest at all in the children. The Court is responsible for seeing to the best interests of the child. The Judges I appear before are very committed to their work. They are not perfect, no human being is, but they are very good.

 

Divorce law is about equity and fairness.. Taking the law away would be a disaster.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You are correct. My mistake. Sorry about that.

 

 

 

As someone once said, politics is show business for ugly people, and both Democrats and Republicans prove that one a regular basis.

 

Entertainers regulary champion laws that will restrict the behaviors of others. They may not MAKE laws, but they do use their celebrity status (which gives them a platform that regular people don't have - I doubt that either you or I will be interviewed by People or Access Hollywood because of what we post here) to push for their pet causes or laws. How many celebrities have come out against Proposition 8 in California? Have you noticed how much coverage they receive? Do they bother to interview any of the "average" Joes or Janes who voted for it, even though they greatly outnumber the celebrity advocates?

 

During the debate leading up to the vote on Prop 8 I saw many interviews with "Joes and Janes" who opposed gay marriage. Most of them offered religious reasons for supporting Prop 8. Others offered vague buzzwords about protecting marriage without any explanation as to how their right to marry would be inhibited by giving the same rights to gays.

 

Celebrities also give lots of money to favored candidates, and can hold fundraisers for them, using their fame to gain a platform and direct access to candidates that most of us will never have.

 

There are Conservative Celebrities as well. Perhaps you've heard of Chuck Norris who went on a nationwide tour with Mike Huckabee? Bruce Willis, Ted Nugent.

 

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/hollywoodconservatives/a/HollywoodCons.htm

 

There have been several conservative celebrities who have been candidates ...Ronald Reagan, Arnold, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy etc.

 

In addition there are many business people who endorse and hold fundraisers for politicians of both parties gaining the same level of access far above regular Joes..

 

 

You are forcing them to change their actions or behave in ways that contradict their beliefs.

 

They are free to have their beliefs. When they act in the public sphere they must conform their actions to the law. Are you argueing that discrimination on the basis of religion or race should be legal? Being forced to refrain from such discrimination contradicts the strongly held beliefs of some people.

 

It doesn't follow that the freedom to marry whomever we want is a civil right.

 

The Loving case specifically stated that marriage is a fundamental right because of procreation. Procreation is not possible for same-sex couples without outside intervention; marriage cannot therefore be construed as a fundamental right for same-sex couples under the Loving ruling.

 

Loving was not decided on the basis of procreation;

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

 

II.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

 

 

It is so ordered.

 

The citation to Skinner v. Oklahoma was not the rationale for the holding in Loving. See the highlighted portion.

 

[ Footnote 1 ] Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

Incidentally, the United States Supreme Court has already considered and rejected the idea that the rationals used in the Loving case can be extended to same-sex couples.

 

Six years after Loving, in the case of Baker v. Nelson, a homosexual couple in Minnesota attempted to use the Loving decision to gain the right to marry. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against them, and the United State Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal.

 

Baker was decided in 1972. A lot has changed in our society in almost 40 years. The Supreme Court has a long history of reversing old decisions to expand individual rights against government intrusion. Brown v. Board of Ed, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v. Wade. Interestingly, Roe was decided in 1973. I doubt many of the same social conservatives who oppose gay marriage would argue that Roe was the final word on abortion. Maybe it's only the precedent one agrees with that is final.

 

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. There is no constitutional BAN on gay marriage, either. States can decide to legalize it, or ban it. It's entirely up to the voters.

 

I guess we will find out in the next couple of years. It will be interesting to see how the small government individual freedom conservatives on the Court will square marriage equality with their world view on the rights of the individual. If corporations have inalienable rights why not gays?

 

Gay Marriage is becoming a Conservative Value. Ted Olson former Bush Solicitor General was one of the lawyers who tried the Prop 8 case Perry v. Schwarzenegger on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman former Bush campaign manager and RNC chairman and Dick Cheney all support marriage equality.

[Ron W.]

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. There is no constitutional BAN on gay marriage, either. States can decide to legalize it, or ban it. It's entirely up to the voters.

 

 

And that in my opinion is the "bottom line"

[Trimdingman]

Now you are addressing my area of expertise. Having spent most of the last 22 years as a divorce lawyer, I can tell you that government interference has nothing to do with divorce. The possible exception is where one party is convicted of a crime and goes to prison. I suppose you could call that government interference.Keeping a miserable couple or one in which there is abuse, together for the children does not work. Children in unhappy homes will be unhappy.

 

Many families cannot work out their differences. The Court acts as an equalizer in many cases keeping the stronger (either financially or physically) spouse from running roughshod over the weaker party. The Court and its "government" enforcement mechanism is all that keeps parties in compliance with their agreements and responsibilities. I can assure you that without enforcement we would have chaos.

 

I represent many fathers who have custody of their children and many who have shared custody. I also have cases where one party has no interest at all in the children. The Court is responsible for seeing to the best interests of the child. The Judges I appear before are very committed to their work. They are not perfect, no human being is, but they are very good.

 

Divorce law is about equity and fairness.. Taking the law away would be a disaster.

 

 

Just keep on believing that to justify your distasteful line of work. I went though a divorce, and I went through my parents' divorce when I was a child. My parents didn't get along too well sometimes, but I was a lot happier when we were a family than after we split. I was 9 years old and I was never more devastated before or since. Courts and lawyers make it too easy for families to split, and there is no consideration for the feelings of the children, whose main goal is to please and be considered good people by their parents. To them, their parents can do no wrong, so they try to hide their pain so their parents will not feel the guilt that they so richly deserve to feel. People who divorce are self centred. They only care about themselves. Let them battle it out themselves.

[Edstock]

there is no consideration for the feelings of the children, whose main goal is to please and be considered good people by their parents. To them, their parents can do no wrong

Just keep on believing that to justify your delusions.

[rn4]

Just keep on believing that to justify your distasteful line of work. I went though a divorce, and I went through my parents' divorce when I was a child. My parents didn't get along too well sometimes, but I was a lot happier when we were a family than after we split. I was 9 years old and I was never more devastated before or since. Courts and lawyers make it too easy for families to split, and there is no consideration for the feelings of the children, whose main goal is to please and be considered good people by their parents. To them, their parents can do no wrong, so they try to hide their pain so their parents will not feel the guilt that they so richly deserve to feel. People who divorce are self centred. They only care about themselves. Let them battle it out themselves.

 

 

So your saying, you are self centered and only care about yourself.