Open Thread
Need a Hand?
Your Next Project Starts with BrownstonerMost Recent Articles
Need a Hand?
Your Next Project Starts with Brownstoner
But since pet insurance exists, I wouldn’t be surprised if some companies choose to offer it as a benefit. Why not?
quote:
Well rob, you could have voted against him, and voted for someone else. You didn’t. You didn’t even participate in the process. Don’t like his policies? Cry me a river.
good lord lady do you ever stop? do you think i think mccain was better? no. youre allowed to hate on people you didnt vote for duh. im allowed to say i think his policies are a bunch of crap. im sure i would be saying the same thing about any other candidate!
*rob*
Historical context only gets you so far. From 1896-1954, “separate but equal” schools did not violate EP clause. Until 1967, anti-miscegenation laws did not violate EP clause.
Forget other categories, what is it about gay marriage bans that are OK under EP clause? What evidence would you have put in the Cal. case to show that a rational basis exists for the discrimination?
Rob – Pets are property. Humans are not… at least since 1865.
The devil will be in the details. I do not underestimate the Obama administration’s ability to get it wrong.
The focus has to be in reducing monthly payments as a stimulus to the economy. otherwise it is more money down the toilet.
while i personally wouldnt want gay parents if i was a kid, im pretty sure that most kids raised by gay parents are more successful in life and are smarter than their heterosexual peers. this actually has been proven. gays have higher incomes (i am NOT an example tho) and gays have much higher IQ’s than straights (again i am NOT an example) but those are the facts… so id imagine a kid being raised by gay parents probably has a leg up compared to one being brought up by str8
*rob*
The law ALLOWS, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES special protections and privileges to heterosexual couples who have signed a marriage contract. Homosexual couples are DENIED the ability to enter into this same contractual relationship.
No, a homosexual can marry a member of the opposite sex because he or she wants to be a parent. He or she is not being denied anything. He/she wants ADDITIONAL rights.
He/she can also just be in love, have a civil union, and live with the other person.\
In any case, my threshold disgust is that a JUDGE did this; if it was voted by a majority in CA, or elsewhere, I would still be disappointed, but simply resigned to things.
Well rob, you could have voted against him, and voted for someone else. You didn’t. You didn’t even participate in the process. Don’t like his policies? Cry me a river.
And no, Dave, I’ve never even watched American Idol. That’s on Fox, isn’t it? 🙂
DIBS — If it’s using the Bush program approach as the rumor article suggested, then what you just said is probably how it will work.
I have to say, I know it would be painful for sooo many people and the ramifications are pretty huge… but the bloated real estate market and the perpetually retarded housing lending industry just needs to collapse and have a major reset. This is not the idealized 1950s — the fetish we have (as a nation, not individuals) with homeownership seems very harmful.