Comments on: Accepting cash to advance discrimination

By: Going Here

Going Here — Thu, 02 May 2013 09:30:46 +0000

I do trust all of the concepts you have offered to your
post. They are really convincing and will certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are too short for starters.
May just you please prolong them a little from subsequent time?
Thank you for the post.

By: Peter Rosenstein

Peter Rosenstein — Sun, 08 May 2011 17:07:56 +0000

Great Column

By: dynarrific

dynarrific — Sat, 07 May 2011 15:24:20 +0000

To bad, so sad that you are out of touch with “human rights.” There is constitutional protection for “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” But you know that, you just like stirring up trouble, homophobe.

By: JerryA

JerryA — Sat, 07 May 2011 15:13:19 +0000

“what it is to be married” ??
Americans have redefined civil marriage any number of times since 1776. We used to allow “common-law” marriage (and a few states still do); California doesn’t. We used to require that brides have the permission of their parents or male guardian to contract marriage; we don’t any more. We used to enforce coverture– the subsumption of a woman’s legal identity in that of her husband, which meant that married women couldn’t sue, couldn’t sign contracts in her own name, couldn’t hold sole title to property. We don’t recognize coverture any more. Family law used to define the duties of husband (financially support wife and children, provide a home) and wife (provide sexual accomodation, care for kids, maintain the home)– today family law defines the duties and responsibilities of spouses: both are responsible for financial support, both for caring for children. The legal assumption that in a divorce the wife gets the home and the kids and the husband gets to pay alimony and child support no longer exists. The redefinition of marriage has been a constant over the last couple of centuries; this certainly isn’t the first time that a change has been proposed to the legal definition of civil marriage, and it probably won’t be the last.

By: Randy King

Randy King — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:42:51 +0000

Marriage: The union of opposites

There happens to be no constitutional right to pervert the definiton of what it is to be married.