This week's news spotlight was captured by the judiciary, with the Senate's confirmation of Elena Kagan as the Supreme Court's 112th justice (and fourth woman), and federal judge Vaughn Walker's decision overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage. His 136-page ruling landed with the force of history being made. It felt less like a legal finding than another milestone on the road to a more perfect union -- another step in the long journey that has included the Emancipation Proclamation, the 19th amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage are not just standing against the right of gays and lesbians to marry -- they are standing against the inevitable. When the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, will John Roberts' court want to position itself as a roadblock in the way of historic inevitability?
<->Watch Arianna discuss her forthcoming book, Third World America, which examines how the American economy has been savaged and offers a practical guide for improving our situation. :
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Here is my answer. I have moved my money, (Local Credit Union) I shop only at farmers markets, or a market near, that supports locally grown foods. I am blind, so I need few lights, when it is hot, I open a window, when it is cold I close the door and put on a sweater. I only use heat on the coldest of nights and when the snow is deep. I own no cars and don’t buy gasoline. I take my walker to the store, 2 blocks away and this laptop takes less energy than a 100 watt light bulb. Most of my veggies, I raise in a community garden, about 50% of what I eat.
I have a carbon footprint smaller than a bug.
A SLAVE NO MORE!
Here,,, this song says it all.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuzdTHOE67k
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
Jim B.
Is this court not more shamelessly conservative and partisan than the court which gave us Bush v. Gore?
'Nuff said.
I am bald--'tis my natural state--and would object strenuously to anyone who demanded I wear a toupe' or have implants. Do not do unto others as you would not want them to do unto you.
I grew up on a small island, and my mother was asked to testify in an "adultery" divorce case, she refused because she knew all the family members and just didn't want to be thrown into the middle of it. Your nostalgic view of "fault" divorce laws ignores the awful consequences it had on families, communities, and innocent non-party individuals.
That does not diminish either movements. On the contrary it has been acknowledged that we sit on the shoulders of giants.
It is time to stop using "Judeo-Christian-Taliban" terminologies and put the dark ages behind us.
"marriage" is a legal term, stitched into uncountable laws and contracts. that's why if you have a "civil union" or a "civil partnership" you miss out on ~1300 specific benefits that you and your SO would have access to otherwise.
You'd think our society was one inch from full communism the way some people have resisted the idea that fair means inclusive. If I'm going to claim a specific right under the law, I must claim it for all.
So I guess we should all incorporate ourselves, break the rules and then state it was the company in general, not us personally, who transgressed?
The Tyranny of Anarchy--destroying the rule of law for my own satisfaction thus forcing everyone to live in chaos VS. The Anarchy of Tyrants--forcing others to live under the rule of exclusive rights thus destroying the equality (balance) that keeps chaos (lack of control) at a distance.
Are we closer still to the Tyranny present prior to the American Revolution, or the slippery slope of full-on Communism?
It's kind of a trick question, because last I checked Civil Rights aren't a priority in either case.
It's also the case you don't need religious approval to get married, but you do need a civil license before any religious union is legal.
What, you don't like the term "religious union?" Why not? Sounds fair to me.
In the undeveloped world, that is still true. Marriages are arranged and forced, it is not the choice of the woman.
Defending traditional marriage is like defending slavery.
So you are suggesting that people should fight for your causes, before you will legitimize theirs? That's a bit petty, don't ya think? I could tell you the same thing. Strangely enough though, I absolutely agree with your assessment of the past 40 years. I have protested both wars. Insurance companies are the root of all evil in this country IMO. The American worker is definitely overworked and underpaid, especially compared to our European counterparts. Genetically modified food freaks me out too, and video game drone warfare is despicable to me. (But at least we and the Japanese are the best at it.)
None of my various political causes however prevent me from demanding to be treated equally under the law. I'm not advocating for special rights or even your approval. I just want the government to treat my relationship like it treats yours.
;)
We need a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status. No extra SS benefits, no tax breaks, all of that stuff. If you look at each one, there is a way to solve the same problems without marriage. For example, hospital visitation rights: who says you get more visitors because you're married or have a bigger family? Why not say 10 visitors per patient, he/she gets to choose?
I believe Swedish law is pretty much like this. There is no legal discrimination against unwed mothers or their children for example, no difference between married and unmarried couples.
I worry too, about the Roberts Court.
Roberts argued with Elena Kagan, if she thought it was the responsibility of the Court to see to it that the American Citizenry was to be protected by a “Paternal-Like” oversight of financial institutions?
I thought to myself at the time,,, “Oh NO! Justice Roberts”. “Let’s just let the RICH and the POWERFUL and Corporations, do what ever they like without punishment, oversight, protections or punitive damages, while they bend the MOST VULNERABLE of our society over the BENCH and take whatever they want with TOTAL impunity”.
It would seem that Roberts might try to go back to the old sodomy laws. Well, unless it is “Corporate Sodomy” that is in question, that would probably be,,, OK!
All the best
Knute
TR Knudtson
I don't diminish the sacredness of marriage. When a man and woman discover each other, fall in love and form a union -- it's positively beautiful - even spiritual. That being said, the respect for the "sanctity" of marriage has decayed in the last 50 years. Divorce has become commonplace. The vows of marriage virtually meaningless. That speaks to the greater issue. Many of the far right leadership have been married, divorced, remarried. While they wave the Christian banner, they themselves violated their own marriage vows along the way. Enough pontificating. When TWO people -- regardless of gender -- discover each other and want to form that union so be it. And let's apply standards in an homogeneous fashion. When two people marry, make it difficult to dissolve the same. Marriage must not be a disposable commodity, even among same sex couples.
because that's made such a difference for heteros.
Fortunately we have a volunteer army, and too few recruits to fight the existing wars without using Reserves and over-extended deployments.
So, why are we so anxious to give the Army more soldiers? More soldiers mean more wars.
We should "starve the beast", not feed it. The fewer soldiers, gay or straight, the better.
If the institution of marriage is so precious to them then why don't they outlaw divorce? What's the divorce rate these days; 50, 60%? How about all the spousal abuse (men beating on women)? Or child abuse that takes place in the homes of these sacredly married ones?
If you really hate homosexuals why not MAKE THEM get married (at least once)? That and join the Army.
It's all about state sanctioned superiority: heteros over gays, men over women, whites over everybody else.
Anyway we got a war with Iran to get ready for. No time to waist on love, for Christs' sake.
As to war with Iran, the only reason it hasn't already happened, and won't happen, is because we have a volunteer army and can't get enough recruits to fight the wars we have.
On the other hand, the more soldiers available to the Army, the more likely war is. So I would suggest that pushing for more gays in the military is a bad idea. We need to "starve the beast", not give it more cannon fodder, gay or straight.
And yes we should leave Afghanistan now and Iraq as well and clearly state we do NOT support an Israeli air attack on Iran (Period).
Call me a peace nut.
what of those thoughts which we know ahve caused problems if nothing is outside the range of laws of nature then no thought can violate any laws of nature no crime no sickness no problem would exist
assuming that the purpose of the universe is no problems ; peopel who beleif in God must beleif in perfection
problems are the result of violations of natural law [ 333 000 000 books to follow about nuances; simply put the fact that humans ha ve violated the inviolable proves that man is made in the image of God but lacking the full intelligence of god] laws of nature are invincible and inviolable e.g. gravity
if they are violated then the result is stress [ entropy , humpty dumpty] which accumalates into sickness , hatred , conflicts ......
making man in man's image [ human shortcomings ] is not a solution ; dwelling only in manmade laws is making things worse
gravity, electromagnetism [ including photons in the brain] , strong, weak force, biochemical laws [ including neurotransmitters ] laws of thermodynamics etc
are not manmade laws
conclusion to follow