Well, this is kinda depressing.

But thank Jebus them queers ain't a-marryin'.

From the article;



This is exactly why I opposed issue 1 so strongly. Anyone who voted for issue 1, and is now shocked to see this kind of thing happening, you are now officailly being declared a complete idiot.

I'm not saying that people who voted for issue one are all closet girlfriend beaters who want to get off the hook. What I am saying is that the people who voted for issue 1 let their hatred of gay people consume them so completely that they were willing to ignore the inevitable girlfriend beater trying to get off the hook. Which is worse, much worse.

[sarcasm mode on] No guys, don't you get it, this is promoting marriage! Follow me....if you don't have equal protection under the law as, say, the victim of domestic violence, because you've just lived together for five years and not gotten married, this encourages you to get married to the person you're living with (and who is beating your ass) so that once it's official, you can run down to your local police station and officially be recognized as someone who is worth protecting.[sarcasm mode off]

While driving home from work one day flipping through the AM channels, I stumbled upon a right-wing talk show host (Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Beck, one of the b-leaguers) who was arguing that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage. A caller said "what about divorces," and the host argued that divorce "strengthens" the institution of marriage. None of his babbling after that made sense, and my tolerance for that sort of noise is low, so I had to change the channel quickly.

of course i got riled up when reading this, but upon discussion with my co-workers, one of them pointed out that if you couldn't call it domestic violence, that would make it fall under assault and battery, which i was told is a stiffer crime than domestic violence... but we will have to see how the law is interpreted by idiots... probably the same idiots who supported it...

Actually, the thinking behind this move is this.....

If yer not married, you can move out.

Of course it's not that easy, as we all know. There's names on leases, kids are involved often times. There's the money situation, if he's making more it might be way harder for her to leave. There's a lot of elements that go into this kind of thing that I'm not so sure are being allowed for. Obviously, with the new laws in place, the state government isn't going to assist a single mother that needs to desperately move her and her kids out of Wife Beater Central.

So the question becomes this: Does this mean that men who abuse their girlfriends won't be charged at all?
I would think not. In fact, depending on the severity, it is not unreasonable to see men getting slapped with Battery, Assault, or even aggrevated assault.

Domestic violence is something of a sham anyways. Basically the law says, "It ain't as bad as assaulting someone you don't know". Personally I think it is. If anything, it's worse.
The problem is that often times women would not prosecute their live-ins/husbands with a higher charge like assault(see reasons above) and that's why domestic violence was created in the first place. Nowadays DV can be punishable by state run anger management courses and counseling. At the expense of the offender usually.

Which brings us back to the original problem. Getting women, who most likely suffer some form of battered wife syndrome, to charge men that hit them. If we were successful in doing this, domestic violence laws wouldn't even be in effect. Often times, DV is very grey. If wife and hubby go at it for three rounds, the first one to call the cops is the one who is the victim, the other one is the aggressor...no matter who started it, what it was about, or who got it the worst.

One of the most soft spoken and gentle dudes I have ever known in my life was subject to this when he found out his wife was cheating on him. A couple of weeks later they were in a heated arguement, she takes a swing at him with a lamp, cuts his head, he pushes her away, takes the kids and makes haste to momma's. The cops show up at the door and arrest his ass.

Guess who called em first?

I've never been a big fan of DV laws, because they don't make much sense. Unless it is straight up abuse it's always a case of he said/she said, emotions run high and someone ends up with something on their permanent record. I can tell you as a former apartment manager that anyone with a DV on their record simply wasn't allowed to live in any of the thousands of places we had to offer. Yer still allowed to discriminate against criminal records.

Not only that, but with a pussy-assed little penalty that comes with a DV conviction, what's the fucking point? This law doesn't discourage this kind of behavior in any way shape or form. Which is a major difference between liberal and conservative thinking when it comes to the penal system.
Liberals tend to be about punishing acts that occur, not the individuals that commit them. Conservatives want to use the punishment of others as a deterrent to those that would do the same.

Beat your wife a lot? How's 12 months in the pokey sound? Literally. Sounds like a good reason to not beat your wife.

Then of course, if we just worked harder on the education system this kind of thing would happen a lot less.

But that would entail actually funding the education system. No Child Left Behind is the biggest turd to ever come down the education system. It was based on very skewed statistics out of Texas.

All of this is true.

There is only one way to fix the education system. Treat is like a business. Treat the kids like employees. No Child Left Unprepared.
Standardized tests are OK, but not if teachers teach the test all year long and that's what all the focus is on.

Funding is given out based on test results by district. Bad idea.

Take our current head of the Columbus Public School board, Gene Harris;

She has a phd in Child Development and a slew of other certifications a degrees pertaining to teching...but NOT ONE FUCKING CREDIT BEYOND BASIC REQUIRED BUSINESS COURSES.

And she's in charge of a budget over 10 mill.

Also a bad idea. And I'm not citing just her, I wouldn't care if it was a white male....with the same credentials it's STILL a bad idea.

In order to manage money, you have to have money managers in charge. When you put politicos and people with Child Psychology degrees in charge....well, we get what we have today, a new bond bill every fucking year.

Ask South Western City Schools how that's going.

yeah, treat everything like a business.... I can see it now.

this just in: Columbus City Schools had a Reduction In Force of 200 children. Even though they were getting the grades they needed, the Superintendent decided it was the best solution in order to make more money.

On a related note, the Superintendent was awarded 200 shares of Columbus City School (CCS) stocks, worth over $2 million for his efforts to outsource education to India where the students can pay attention.




maybe we should privatize everything: the military, fire departments, police, roads, education.... I mean, come on, those lazy people on that street have no rights, do they? They are practically stealing my tax money!!!11! They don't pay the same road tax I do, yet they get to drive on the same roads!!1!! How unfair!

EDIT:
back on topic - anyone surprised that this will affect many aspects of unmarried hetero couples as well is an idiot. The info was out there, unless you watch FAUX News.

Grover Norquist just popped the biggest boner after reading that.

well, I forgot to close my sarcasm tag the other day, so ....

I can see it now... "uh, we need to put in another road through your back yard to compete with that other one" or "and today, The Army of General Electric engaged the Microsoft Marines in a brutal war....."

yeah. great ideas.

My dad voted for issue 1, knowing full well that his daughter lives with her boyfriend in a spousal-equivalent type relationship.

So I asked him, "You'd put your own daughter in danger by voting for this thing?" And he responded, "If it meant two women couldn't get married, then yes."

thanks dad. love you too.

I guess I still do not understand something about the gay marriage issue:

will someone please explain:

1 - how two people who love each other getting married hurts marriage?

2 - why people think it is ok to be prejudiced about this issue? Is it different from when black people were not allowed to marry (then later, to marry white people)?

my dad explains it this way:

1. It's unnatural. As in, "There's a book right over there (points to family Bible) that says it's wrong."
I replied: "And that book was rewritten by kings to fit their whims and it also says you can sell your daughter into slavery." My dad ignored this.

2. Letting two men or two women get married will lead to people being able to marry more than one person or animals or inanimate objects.

These are his two objections. One, the Bible says it's wrong so there and two, it'll lead to all kinds of craziness.

My father also says that it should be more difficult to get divorces. That couples should have to go through extensive counseling before marriage, should have to sign a lot of paperwork and then, if they want to get a divorce, have to go through more counseling and pay about a million dollars.

Unfortunately, this would not help out people who get married and then find out their spouses are abusive or criminals or sexual predators.

because like ken blackwell, rick santorum, and the other "proponents" of marriage say, if you let gay people get married, what's to stop people from marrying animals and lawn furniture?



because A) their "god" tells them it's ok (leviticus, I believe) and B) ethnicity isn't a choice, being gay is.

yes - I am familiar with both arguments and they are bunk. Anyone have a real reason?

I could use the bible to support any number of things (slavery, war, polygamy) or to oppose any number of things (killing - thus making war "illegal" by the same argument). Last time I checked, we are not officially a Christian Nation although it seems we are getting closer to that every day.

Bullshit, I say.

The real reason, of course, is fear of the unknown. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and if it's something different, then people are scared.

Most people have gotten over the fear of letting blacks and whites and other ethnic groups married; some have not. My dad doesn't believe blacks and whites should get married. Or at least not have children. His reasoning? Biracial children will be declared minorities and will get government money that they don't 'really' deserve.

My dad is a crazy crazy man.

Well it's very BIG in the animal kingdom. How more natural can you get than two lesbian monkies bump'n uglies in the friggin rainforrest?

You'll have to check with a certain resident non-lawyer on the board, but as far as I know if there are no witnesses (as there may not be in a domestic case) there's no assault - just he said/she said.
That, in my understanding, is one way in which DV charges differ. And perhaps why the DV punishments are lighter?

if by "natural" you mean "hot".... uh... never mind. I've said too much and revealed the deeper agenda.... criminey!

Sounds legit. However, physical evidence is still physical evidence.

And as to gay marriage.
I have to agree it should be legal. But not for the reasons you idiots list. This is the essential problem that the gay rights movement has had since its inception. You're always pushing the emtional side of the issue, trying to appeal to people's sense of morality. This is not a good idea when the morality you are trying to affect often stems from a religious tome that specifically states that homosexuality is bad. You are never going to win that war. And despite what all of you may think, this is still a primarily christian nation. Sure, a lot of christian folks may only be christian on Sundays and whenever else it suits them, but its a real easy way of not having to admit that they personally don't like gays. It's a free pass to be discriminatory.

The only way you chowderheads will ever get anywhere with this issue is to appeal to what you consider an enemy; nationalism, and to a degree patriotism.

This goes straight back to the Preamble of the Constitution. American Nationalism always does. Fact is, if there is no "Gay Hunting Season", if there are no "Straight's only" drinking fountains, and gays don't have to sit at the back of the bus, then they therefore must be considered legal US citizens and therefore must have the same rights as every single other legal US citizen. Getting married is one of those rights.

Also, you can add to this arguement that the government, federal, state, or otherwise, has no business "marrying" anyone. The only thing the government should have to do with people getting married is dealing with the taxation shift. It is not in the best interests of a "free democracy" for the government to be legislating morality.

And there is a bulletproof arguement that can withstand a 50 megaton blast. Much better than that tug-on-your-heartstrings horseshit that you fucknipples perpetrate.

You must face this fact: In order for gay marriage to stop being an issue, you have to get the religious right to begrudgingly tolerate it. Not accept it. You can't be perceived to have "won." You can't rant about it, you can't get all huffy about it. A softly, yet strongly stated, "I'm an American, I just want the same rights that you have" will go a long way in this debate. I cite the Civil Rights movement of the late 50's-early 60's as proof that this approach works.

And that's all I've got for today.

YAYYYY! Deuce is here!!! YAYYYYYY!

"I'm an American and I deserve the same rights as you."

That can totally be argued. The people who wrote letters to the editor in my hometown newspaper have argued the shit outta that one. Wanna hear it?

Directed to a gay male: "You have exactly the same rights as me. You can marry a woman just like I can."

Come up with another. I bet I can produce a counter argument for everyone. I agree that just playing up the emotional side of it doesn't work, but arguing that gay people have the right to marry someone of the same sex can be argued just as easily as the emotional side.

ironic to claim someone is using an 'emotional' argument (which is yet another tired and typical Rush Limbaugh tirade, but I digress) and call people names in the same post and to use an emotion-based argument. Pride is an emotion, national or gay.

Also, we are a nation of mostly Christians but we are not a Christian Nation - big difference.

New York court says yes to gay marriage
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... l#marriage

In a circular arguement that works. In a constructionist arguement it doesn't. Here's why:
For a straight male to say "You have the same rights that I have, you can also marry a woman" does not hold up against the, and I'll say it again, Preamble. In the Pursuit of Happiness, a gay man may want to marry another gay man. The effect of such a union on someone else's morality is of no conseqeunce. The only time the government should be concerned is when it effects someone else's money, which gay marriage would have a miniscule affect upon, much less than that of abortions or unwanted children, national security (laff), or things of such high importance.

To block a gay man or woman from being married is to deny them their pursuit of happiness. This is a single case of two US citizens, age 18 (or lower applicable to particular states) consenting to be wed in the ceremony of their choice.

Now, while the Founding Fathers would have found the concpet of gay marriage appalling, they were smart enough to realize that times would change and wrote a flexible document. Times have changed. For the better, I do not know. But they have changed. And that single line, "the pursuit of happiness..." should be honored.

Now of course, this opens a whole new can of worms. "But what if my pursiut of happiness means I want to smoke pot all day and watch Litfetime?" Tough shit. Pot is a gateway drug, it leads to worse things, which lead to even worse things. Are there those that smoke the shit all day every day, never harm anyone, never steal a dime and never move on to anything harder? You bet. Is it a majority? Depends on what you read. Some say yes, some say no. I've seen enough expousing both to the point I have to call it 50-50. Even that being said, 50% is a lot. Anyone know any upstanding crack addicts? Me niether. Drug use is detrimental to society in a lot of ways in terms of lost monies, lost time, and lost lives. Thus, your "pursuit of happiness " is detrimental to the nation, and thus, is treated the way it is.

However, I do not see where gay marriage could possibly fall under the same heading. Some people scream "AIDS!!!, what about the AIDS???" In reality, the most dangerous group in terms of spreading AIDS in America are black males and females 16-20something (forget the true number). This probably has something to do with down-lowism and you can always throw the odd prison reference in there, but the point is, no one single group of people in America have been hammered home about AIDS prevention than gay males.

Outside of this arguement, there is no arguement. Well, at least not between people that read and understand the spirit of the US Constitution.

Which presents a problem. Because at some point in time, there has to be some kind of discussion about the following:


As Americans, what do we we value more? Our Faith, or our Countr?.

Because on this issue, the two directly conflict.