Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[halfwise]

So once again if the state has nothing to say on marriage, all the problems are solved. All the state regulates is legal guardianship of children.

• The state shouldn't care if one or six people file for legal guardianship, so long as stability of the child's home life is secured.
• If these one or six people consider themselves 'married', it has no bearing on the state's consideration of guardianship, except as one of the several demonstrations of commitment.
• Whether or not two men for example are considered fit to raise a child has nothing to do with whether or not they can be married, to which the state should be legally blind. I expect this battle will end up being fought more along sociological lines, even if religion may be hidden behind the sociology.

Anyway, that's my current view on how things should be dealt with.

[halfwise]

Oh, and civil union should be a legally binding contract centered on guardianship of the kids. Marriage will have zero legal recognition. Divorces will only center on what's best for the kids, which of course will impact on the parents financial settlements but with a different slant than what we now have.

[Pettytyrant101]

If that place of worship doesn't want to marry gay people, I really don't mind.- Edlo

But its on what grounds are they being exempted from laws everyone else has to obey- thats what I dont get.
If they wanted to sell the daughters of their parishneers into slavery abroad (but not to a neighbouring country of course, God says no to that, as allowed under Leviticus, should they therefore be allowed to?
And if not why is it different for discrimination?
I dont get it.


Halfwise Id add keeping the legal age of consent in there to protect against predatory types.
But in general I agree.
In the UK marriage is taxed differently too- Tories in particular like to give tax breaks to married couples to support that insituion- I have nothing against this- but I doubt they will be as keen if it apples to all forms of marriage.
I suspect the opposite will happen and married couples will end up paying more in tax.

[halfwise]

"Halfwise I'd add keeping the legal age of consent in there to protect against predatory types."

Statutory rape still applies. Since the state would be blind to marriage there is no need to worry about such things: anything that's not legal for a non-married couple is still not legal for a married couple since there's no legal difference.

There may be drawbacks to eliminating all reference to marriage from the law and only retaining/clarifying child guardianship laws, but I'm too blinded by my own brilliant inspiration to see it right now.

[Pettytyrant101]

but I'm too blinded by my own brilliant inspiration to see it right now.- Halfwise

I understand fully Halfwise.

[David H]

I'd love to see one or two states try this and see how it works, Halfwise! Maybe you could get started on the initiative process? (I'd try it here, but we're in the middle of the legal marijuana experiment right now so our Attorney General is a bit busy )

Of course this would probably be the only issue on which the pro- and the anti-same sex marriage could agree. It would be rather hard on the newly married gay couples to take away the rights they've been fighting for so soon...

[halfwise]

Ah...we'd have to grant, say, a three year period in which marriage is still recognized so people can get married just on principle. Then it's all over. Wouldn't it be fun to see the rush of people for the alter just for the no strings attached joy of it? Lots of last minute one night stand weddings....

[halfwise]

On thinking it over, civil unions can't be just about kids. There are arrangements where one partner earns money and the other does non-monetary things: holding a household together is no simple task. If they split it would not be right for the money earner to get everything.

But this would still be legal stuff separate from marriage.

[Eldorion]

It sounds like you're describing the current institution of civil marriage but just don't want the M-word attached to it...

[halfwise]

pretty much it. Have to admit it weakens my argument considerably. Except that the government should only be required to step in where kids are involved, and the legalities of 'marriage' only apply if people actually make a civil contract. And the government part should be seen as a contract only, not touching on the emotional partnership.

Okay, so here goes:
• Government provides child guardianship regulation, not intrinsically tied to marriage.
• People can enter into a civil partnership, but is viewed as contract law only. No government ceremonies or vows, just a signature.
• Marriage is seen as something personal and outside government purvey.

[Orwell]

By the way, I'd like to clarify that our state just legalized same sex marriage and that I voted for it. I just think it's fair to recognize that marriage law is a complex and emotionally charged issue.

Marriage = partnership. I don't see the need for it to be legally recognized one way or the other. If you separate, then you can start a Civil Action to divvy up your goods.

[halfwise]

The question is what the law recognizes as a partnership. I advocate striking the word "marriage" from the law entirely. Reduces a lot of crap if people just think about it as a simple partnership then put their own legal protections in as needed.

[David H]

The other big issue any plan needs to address is all the end-of-life issues. It can sometimes be important who does or doesn't have access to your medical records and the power to unplug you. Then there's inheritance....

[Orwell]

How about there being a "Commonsense Law." If someone transgresses it, sue them, or charge them with a criminal offence if it applies. I just just think if you can prove things were dealt with fairly (and with commonsense), then it doesn't matter if you've got a Wedding Certificate or not. The Law is an Ass. It's only for people who don't undertsand that civilized life is about respecting others and acting fairly - or else! Laws are for the selfish and seedy and the (basically) anti-social. The Law just gives us power to lock people away (or sting them with fines) if they become too 'Me-ist" and at an unfair cost to others.

[Orwell]

Two things have caught my attention and made the hackles rise.

(1) That woman in India who was gang raped and left for dead. Hang the offenders? Nah - do a public emasculation, then put in prison for ever. (An upside for me in episode: Indian Men and Women as one protesting in the streets against the treatment of Women . Good on 'em!)


(2) The Taliban killing those poor people vaccinating against polio. The only good Taliban (man) is a dead Taliban (man)! (A further downside: the CIA faking an hepatitis vaccination campaign as aruse to root out info on Osama Bin Laden. If true, how fucking arrogant and stupid was that!!!!)

[Orwell]

Two things have caught my attention and made the hackles rise.

(1) That woman in India who was gang raped and left for dead. Hang the offenders? Nah - do a public emasculation, then put in them prison for ever. (An upside for me in episode: Indian Men and Women as one protesting in the streets against the treatment of Women . Good on 'em!)


(2) The Taliban killing those poor people vaccinating against polio. The only good Taliban (man) is a dead Taliban (man)! (A further downside: the CIA faking a hepatitis vaccination campaign as a ruse to root out info on Osama Bin Laden. If true, how fucking arrogant and stupid was that!!!!)


A further thought. Obama as Person of the Year doesn't really bother me, but I would have preferred it to be that brave Afghani girl...

[David H]

I think the fact that we even hear a news story about a rape victim in India shows how much the world's values are changing. Even a dozen years ago we almost certainly wouldn't have heard this story on the US news. And you know that's not because it wasn't happening!

[Orwell]

Been watching a bit more on the India story. Made me think on the feminist view of the late 60's early 70's of women being treated as objects. Objects, of course, are things you own. If you own an object that is also a woman, then you have slavery - or the Taliban even - and other manifestations too including (naturally of course!) the Hindu religion (and Christianity too) - lots of them - worldwide. Indian women are standing up though - and good luck to them.

[halfwise]

A further thought. Obama as Person of the Year doesn't really bother me, but I would have preferred it to be that brave Afghani girl...

One must remember that the person of the year is not awarded to the most deserving person, but to the person who had the largest impact on the news. They really should change the title to newsmaker of the year.

[Orwell]

Good one Centurion.

[Pettytyrant101]

Something which proves once again the truth in David Camerons -"We are all in this together!"

As we are told austerity measures must be taken- everyone has to tighten belts. Hard times are upon us and we simply have to weather it ect

The Communities and Local Government Office, headed by Cabinet Minister and professional fatty Eric Pickles have run up a bill of £42,225 in just seven months, on BISCUITS!

The average annual salary of a care worker in my area is £12,000 -£13,000 a year and we are told the minimum cannot be increased further, even though it is below what the 'living wage' minimum the government pays its own employees is at.
And they are spending 4 times as much as a whole years wages on bloody BISCUITS!! Is he getting them imported from the moon? Does his department refuse to shop anywhere but Harrods? Why the fuck to they need so many biscuits? We have to bring our own in to work, the company dont lay biscuits on for us in our breaks.

[Orwell]

Maybe they just like biscuits?

[Mrs Figg]

maybe they are Jaffa Cakes? they are flipping expensive.

[Pettytyrant101]

Well they get paid well enough- they can buy their own bloody jaffa cakes.
Why should the tax payer be buying them £42,000 worth of biscuits?! And thats just one department- what the hell is the enitre government biscuit budget? Its probably more than for Health.

[Mrs Figg]

Lega reaches end of road

Toby Abse reports on the scandal that has engulfed the main Italian far-right regionalist party
Political Part

communist party of great britain.
Thursday April 19 2012


The Lega Nord has been a major force in Italian politics since 1992, claiming to represent the honest citizens of the north in opposition to the corruption of Rome and the parasitism of the south - in 1996 it took over 10% of the vote in a general election. However, it now seems to have entered a downward spiral of irreversible decline, sparked by one of the biggest corruption scandals to hit an Italian political party since the downfall of Bettino Craxi and the disintegration of the Partito Socialista Italiano in 1992-93. The last couple of weeks have seen the resignation of Lega leader Umberto Bossi, together with the departure of other senior officials accused of misappropriating party funds.

The situation in which Europe’s most successful group of xenophobic and Islamophobic racists find themselves is rich with irony. Every single accusation that the Lega, usually with very ample justification, made against the old political parties of the so-called First Republic (1946-94) can now be thrown back at the Lega itself. Clientelism, nepotism, bribery, corruption, abuse of public office, misappropriation of taxpayers’ money, systematic and longstanding links with organised criminals based in southern Italy - in short every type of crime and misdemeanour once associated with Christian democracy or Italian socialism in its last degenerate, Craxian phase[2] is now revealed as the habitual practice of the erstwhile moralists of Padania.

The Lega has quite clearly been exposed as misusing vast sums from state funds drawn from general taxation, and given to it as reimbursements of election expenses, for purposes which have absolutely no connection with the normal activities of a political party. Whilst all the major Italian political parties have used these reimbursements for purposes other than those specified, it seems unlikely they have done so in so obvious a fashion as the Lega (although there is an ongoing scandal about the behaviour of the treasurer of the now defunct Christian Democratic fragment known as the Margherita, most of whose members subsequently joined the ex-‘official communist’-dominated Partito Democratico). In the case of the Lega, it is not just a matter of key officers using the money for the day-to-day administrative expenses of running a party rather than for the strictly electoral campaigning for which the reimbursements are officially intended. The Lega stands accused of attempting - successfully or otherwise - to take millions out of the country to destinations as unusual as Tanzania or Cyprus, speculating in foreign currencies like Australian dollars and Norwegian crowns and making large-scale purchases of gold and diamonds - activities which could not be construed as necessary to subsidise a low-circulation daily paper (La Padania) or a separate Padanian trade union (Sindacato Padano), widely believed to have fewer than 50 members.

The most serious allegations are that treasurer Francesco Belsito took from the Lega’s account €300,000 in gold bars and diamonds, Senate vice-president Rosy Mauro €100,000 in diamonds, and Piergiorgio Stiffoni - until last week one of a committee in charge of auditing the Lega’s accounts - a further €200,000 in diamonds. While Mauro has publicly denied all the allegations against her in the strongest possible terms, Belsito has announced he has handed back everything-


kind of puts biscuits in the shade.