but what IS to prevent a woman who gets PO'd at a man from obtaining one of these kits after sex and then claiming he raped her?

If there's nothing, then I DO have problem with this. I see this as ASSUMING the guy is guilty until proven innocent...which is against everything our current legal system is based.

Now if there is a way for her to show brusing and forced rape, then I'm all for it.

First, thank you for serving!

Second, I in no way am saying OR implying a military member should remain politically ignorant or have no constitutional rights...I am saying that you do not have the right to verbally

Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.

DOD defines "partisan political activity" as "activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations."

A "Nonpartisan political activity is defined as "activity supporting or relating to candidates not representing, or issues not specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.

"We volunteered to serve and protect our country, not act as flypaper." Or as political commentators.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm

This shows what military personnel can and cannot do when it comes to politics.

"That didn't stop you from blathering your opinion in previous letters. You're a fraud, boy. Pack it up."

I didn't say we couldn't talk about politics...just certain things in politics.

"Oh and @chiefpayne . . . you are one colossal dumbass.

Keep up that mouth breathing, will you, it slows down the drooling."

Don't worry about it Lewis...I have a LOT of years left in me so I'll be breathing for some time to come.

but I suspect California will be called "the People's Republik of Kalifornia the land of fruits, nuts and flakes" a WHOLE lot more in Red state country.

that a group is getting a petition together to make a state constitutional amendment to change this.

As I recall they need at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

I wonder if they will be able to get the needed signatures?

Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes.

The number needed to get this to a vote is about 41% of these votes!!!

"Perhaps, but as others note, due to Republican imperialism and the consequent Republican debt, those Red State folks will be mostly worried about feeding their families."

I wouldn't bet the house on that just YET! Remember these are areas of people who are used to doing without but who will hold to their principles thru thick and thin. This COULD be bad news...COULD be.

rw,

"What are Californians going to do: Emigrate to the Red States and force the citizens to marry someone of their own gender?!

We should be going to the Red States and forcing them to return all the Federal tax money WE Blur Staters are pouring into THEIR states, and getting NOTHING in return other than grief and stupidity."

Um, the Blue States SETUP the system we now live under...hence the Red States are obtaining money from them.

Well, logically, the next step IS for the Californians to emigrate to the Red States, then try to FORCE them to ACCEPT the gay marriage thru federal fiat. I expect, however, this to be a catalyst for a great deal of vulgarity, strife, and perhaps violence in those states chosen to be the test states.

In the meantime, I expect Californians to be ridiculed much the way Massachusetts is. It will not be pretty and the timing could have been better.

"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. "

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one...there IS such a thing as Common Law Marriage. Granted it IS different in each state, but the point is the same...if a man and a woman live together as man and wife for a specified period of time, they are married by common law...and if the man wants to leave the woman, she CAN divorce him and get alimony and child support.

"(2) that someone would force these Christian fanatics to demonstrate/justify/prove their assertion that homosexual marriage is "a threat" to heterosexual marriage."

The point is, THEY feel threatened by it...as such, they will not accept it nor will they recognize it. You can force the state to accept it and you can even give them a piece of paper showing it...but those who's faith will not recognize or support this marriage will now accept it.

You cannot change a man's faith...you would have an easier time stopping the tide coming in.