Letters to the Editor
Jeffrey P. Harrison
Published Letters: 354 Editor's Choice: 39
-
I'll wait for tonight, thanx
[Read the article: The early line on tonight's results]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whatever's going to happen will happen. It's not likely to be a blow out for Three Names which means that she still won't close the gap in delegate count by much, if at all. It is possible that the gap will widen. None of that will make any difference to Miss Entitlement's campaign who clearly plans to go all the way to the convention. So why are you guys bloviating about it?
-
My God, Andrew, I agree with you
[Read the article: Now, Paul Krugman throws economists off the bus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a dollars and cents issue this is chump change for both the government and the consumer. The real issue here is the insight into how the respective candidates plan to govern.
-
The Golden Thread that runs through English Common Law
[Read the article: Has our reverence for DNA gone too far?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are innocent until proven guilty.
Until such time, the state has nothing that they have the right to demand from you and nothing you should be giving them.
OBTW, the line that the innocent have nothing to fear is bullshit. We now have so many and so many overlapping laws, we are all always guilty of something weather we realize it or not.
-
I think RobMac's comments need a little clarification
[Read the article: Tom Friedman's latest declaration of war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is certainly true that Persia had empires at various times in the last few millennia but the last time they actually attacked anybody was about 250 years ago. As opposed to say 250 days ago for the Israelis. I think Shrub has done well, we haven't invaded anybody in about 5 years. Can you remember the last time we went for a whole five years between invasions or attacks?
-
I gotta admit
[Read the article: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the religious zealots are giving the classic line. But here's another line that's even more classic. The role of any constitution is to provide and define the rights of the people. One of the roles of the courts is to ensure that those rights are not trod upon by one of the various organs of government - i.e. to prevent a tyranny of the majority. It seems to me that the California SC did just that. The clause says that the citizens of California should expect to receive equal protection under the law. It doesn't say that you shouldn't expect that equal protection if you're homosexual.
I wouldn't have a problem with a conservative court if they actually were conservative - i.e. applying constitutional clauses as they were written. But they don't. If they did, for example, then the laws passed mandating random drug testing would be struck down. But because of THE SCOURGE OF DRUGS the courts allow the most personal of searches without any probable cause or judicial order. And that's just one example.
I wish two things: (1) that someone would tell these religious fanatics that marriage has nothing to do with religion today. You're not legally married if you don't have a mother-may-I from the state (called a marriage license). Your union can be consecrated by a dozen faiths and without that little piece of paper they don't mean squat. (2) that someone would force these Christian fanatics to demonstrate/justify/prove their assertion that homosexual marriage is "a threat" to heterosexual marriage. As a person in a heterosexual marriage, I don't feel threatened by it. But I guess that they all gave Shrub a pass on all his claims that he didn't have a hope in hell of proving. Why shouldn't they get the same kind of pass?
-
I'm confused, Glenn ...
[Read the article: California's marriage ruling -- what it means and what it doesn't mean]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I got married (in Missouri), we had to go down to city hall (to the recorder of deeds, of all places) and get something called a marriage license. Without said license, the state would not recognize you as married. You could go through a marriage ceremony as part of a Te Deum mass celebrated by the Pope himself and if you didn't have the piece of paper, it would be just so much pomp and circumstance.
So. Confusion #1. Since the state has the monopoly on designating who is married and who isn't, what the hell does religion have to do with it?
Now, as I said, I got a marriage license. The State of Missouri requires that the officiant at the ceremony wherein the male relinquishes his right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness be either (a) minister of a recognized religious order which in Missouri includes most of the mail-in U R a minister "religious orders" and it is not limited to Christian religious orders or (b) a judge/justice of the peace.
So. Confusion #2. If one creates a "civil union" as distinct from "marriage", does that mean that if you are married before a judge that you have a civil union and not a marriage since the rules have to be the same for homo/heterosexual marriage? Would you need a different piece of paper? Inquiring minds want to know.
And finally, confusion #3. You said that this so-called 'Defense of Marriage' act allows states to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages from other states. Now I am not a lawyer, constitutional or otherwise, and I've never been in a law school (and wouldn't be caught dead in one anyway), BUT I seem to remember that the US constitution contains a clause that requires the States to give full faith and credit to the laws of other states which, as I always understood it, was to prevent State A from refusing to recognize something created in State B even if that something was not permissible in State A. Precisely the sort of circumstance we have here. And precisely the circumstance we used to have where many States required that both partners had to agree to a divorce and when one or the other partner refused, the partner desiring the divorce simply went to Vagas and got one anyway and the original State had to recognize it. So explain please how the Congress can pass a law that essentially nullifies the full faith and credit clause and still have that law be constitutional.