Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005
President Bush FLIP-FLOPS on Torture Policy
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Susie, age 9 - 16 Dec 2005 01:44 GMT While our not-so-esteemed President George W. Bush ran against John Kerry by accusing Kerry as a "flip-flopper", let's take a look at President Flip-Flops latest flip-flop...
before: torture GOOD now: torture BAD
Geez - its getting harder and harder to figger out just what the hell the 5-gallon-Texan in the 10-gallon hat is actually standing for these days:
Bush accepts Sen. McCain's torture policy President now agrees with pact banning cruelty against terror suspects
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/
Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Dec. 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush reversed course on Thursday and accepted Sen. John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror.
Bush said the agreement will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
"It's a done deal," said McCain, talking to reporters outside the White House. Under the deal, CIA interrogators would be given the same legal rights as currently guaranteed members of the military who are accused of breaking interrogation guidelines. Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order.
"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," McCain said earlier as he sat next to Bush in the Oval Office.
An appeal from Cheney The White House at one point threatened a veto if the ban was included in legislation sent to the president's desk, and Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to all Republican senators to give an exemption to the CIA.
But congressional sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of the ban, and McCain, a former Navy pilot who was held and tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam, adopted the issue.
However, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told NBC News' Mike Viqueira on Thursday that he plans to oppose McCain's bill.
He said he would try preventing the measure from reaching a House vote unless he got White House assurances that the new rules would still allow "the same high level of effective intelligence gathering" as under current procedures.
But Sen. John Warner, R-Va., Hunter's counterpart in the Senate, was on board and appeared with Bush and McCain in the Oval Office. "We're going to get there," Warner said afterward.
The Republican maverick and the administration have been negotiating for weeks in search of a compromise, but it became increasingly clear that he, not the administration, had the votes in Congress.
Bush called McCain "a good man who's honored the values of America."
"We have worked very closely with the senator and others to achieve that objective as well as to provide protections for those who are the front line of fighting the terrorists," Bush said.
As passed by the Senate and endorsed by the House, McCain's amendment would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners in Defense Department facilities.
In discussions with the White House, that language was altered to bring it into conformity with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That says that anyone accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. No immunity Officials say the language also now includes a specific statement that those who violate the standards will not be afforded immunity from civil or criminal lawsuits.
In recent weeks, the administration had sought to add language that would offer protection from prosecution for interrogators accused of violating the provision. But McCain rejected that, arguing it would undermine the ban by not giving interrogators reason to follow the law.
Earlier this year, the Senate included McCain's original provisions in two defense bills, including a must-pass $453 billion spending bill that provides $50 billion for the Iraq war. But the House omitted them from their versions, and the bills have been stalled.
Negotiations intensified this week, with Congress under pressure to approve at least the spending bill before adjourning for the year.
Supporters of the provisions say they are needed to clarify current anti-torture laws in light of abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
They also say that passing such legislation will help the United States repair an image they say has been tarnished by the prisoner abuse scandal.
"The fog of law is finally lifting. America's moral black eye is finally healing," Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.
The White House long has contended that the United States does not engage in torture.
NBC News contributed to this report.
Death - 16 Dec 2005 04:47 GMT "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message
> While our not-so-esteemed President George W. Bush > ran against John Kerry by accusing Kerry as a "flip-flopper", > let's take a look at President Flip-Flops latest flip-flop... Yeah Fred, that is called change.
• Ninure Saunders - 16 Dec 2005 13:57 GMT -"Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message - -> While our not-so-esteemed President George W. Bush -> ran against John Kerry by accusing Kerry as a "flip-flopper", -> let's take a look at President Flip-Flops latest flip-flop... -> - -Yeah Fred, that is called change.
Only when Conservatives do it....otherwise it is called a "flip-flop" or "situational ehtics".
 Signature Pax Christi, • Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
Jesus is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Death - 16 Dec 2005 18:29 GMT ". Ninure Saunders" <Ninurenohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in message
" Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> -"Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > - [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Only when Conservatives do it....otherwise it is called a "flip-flop" or > "situational ehtics". "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
Susie, age 9 - 16 Dec 2005 20:55 GMT > ". Ninure Saunders" <Ninurenohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > tense, I would have > said no. And it would have been completely true." Thanks for raising that issue since it is important to understand the profound differences between George W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton:
1. Clinton never tortured anyone, nor did he condone it. 2. Clinton never got anyone killed anyone over a lie. 3. Clinton bought Monica the dress - Republicans would NEVER do that!
susie
Darth Dilligaf - 16 Dec 2005 21:25 GMT >>". Ninure Saunders" <Ninurenohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > susie The words "I never had sex with that woman" come to mind for some odd reason. Typical 'demon'crats always lying just like their liberal cousins.
Susie, age 9 - 16 Dec 2005 22:14 GMT >>>". Ninure Saunders" <Ninurenohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > The words "I never had sex with that woman" come to mind for some odd > reason. For some odd reason, I still believe him. And who cares?
Monica NEVER complained ... so why do the Republicans?
I think the whole thing was about Bill buying her the dress.
Funny thing, though ... nobody believes George W. and his evil companion, the "Darth Vader of politics", Dick Cheney.
> Typical 'demon'crats always lying just like their liberal cousins. As for the murdering, thieving, torturing liars some call "Republicunts"....
Pick your poison, my friend.
susie
Darth Dilligaf - 16 Dec 2005 22:40 GMT >>>>". Ninure Saunders" <Ninurenohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > For some odd reason, I still believe him. And who cares? He later admitted it but yet you still believe his original lie?
> Monica NEVER complained ... so why do the Republicans? > > I think the whole thing was about Bill buying her the dress. > > Funny thing, though ... nobody believes George W. and his > evil companion, the "Darth Vader of politics", Dick Cheney. I don't like Cheney, never did, but GWB is a born leader and a man of virtue, I believe the main reason homosexuals don't like him is because he doesn't grant them the special rights and privileges they seek. For as many 'demon'crats that cried the blues over the "weapons of mass destruction" crapola did you notice how easily and single-handily he slayed them into a humiliating stance when he proved that he was going by the exact same intelligence reports that the 'demon'crats had? What a victory for our great president, he smacked them around in public like they were mosquitoes. Long live GWB, we should let him serve 2 more terms at the very least.
>>Typical 'demon'crats always lying just like their liberal cousins. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > susie Yes, what were you doing on January 16 at 6:38PM EST 1991? I was helping to liberate a country and my commander in chief was a republican whom I have the greatest respect and admiration for, something I doubt you will ever understand.
Susie, age 9 - 16 Dec 2005 22:55 GMT >>>>>". Ninure Saunders" <Ninurenohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in >>>>>message [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > He later admitted it but yet you still believe his original lie? No, dittohead ... can't you read?
sheesh!
>> Monica NEVER complained ... so why do the Republicans? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't like Cheney, never did, but GWB is a born leader and a man of > virtue, Sure he is - given his silver spoon and military AWOL record, a real American hero too!
But the cards haven't played out yet, so until the Abramnoff affair, the Delay affair and the other scandals unfold, things are only going to get more interesting for our Yale cheerleader.
> I believe the main reason homosexuals don't like him is because he doesn't > grant them the special rights and privileges they seek. Oh, you mean like the special rights afforded ONLY to heterosexuals?
> For as many 'demon'crats that cried the blues over the "weapons of mass > destruction" crapola did you notice how easily and single-handily he > slayed them into a humiliating stance when he proved that he was going by > the exact same intelligence reports that the 'demon'crats had? Isn't it interesting how two people can see the same exact thing, yet come away with completely opposing opinions of what happened?
Sheesh, what planet are YOU on, Fox News, the republi-junk network?
> Long live GWB, we should let him serve 2 more terms at the very least. Nah - we'll have to settle for Prince Jeb.
>>>Typical 'demon'crats always lying just like their liberal cousins. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, what were you doing on January 16 at 6:38PM EST 1991? I wasn't born yet.
> I was helping to liberate a country and my commander in chief was a > republican whom I have the greatest respect and admiration for, Oh, that was King George I, father of King George II.
LOL!
susie
Death - 16 Dec 2005 23:10 GMT "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message
> Oh, you mean like the special rights afforded ONLY to heterosexuals? Be a good faggot and list some of those special rights. You should have them memorized, you tout them often enough.
ps be sure to use the marriage lie also in your list of rights so I can remind you, you have the same right, to marry the opposite sex.
Susie, age 9 - 16 Dec 2005 23:22 GMT > "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message >> >> Oh, you mean like the special rights afforded ONLY to heterosexuals? >> > Be a good faggot and list some of those special rights. Marriage.
susie
Death - 16 Dec 2005 23:39 GMT "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message
> >> Oh, you mean like the special rights afforded ONLY to heterosexuals? > > Marriage. I'll wait till you complete the list of Special rightS before I trash them for the lies they are.
Continue in your honest a.s-essment, Susie age 9, LOL.
Jenn - 17 Dec 2005 00:28 GMT > ps be sure to use the marriage lie also in your list of rights so I can > remind you, you have the same right, to marry the opposite sex. And when gay people are allowed to marry each other, you will be able to marry the same sex as well. IOW, equal. Nothing changes except people's rights are expanded. God Bless America.
Death - 17 Dec 2005 12:39 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > ps be sure to use the marriage lie also in your list of rights so I can > > remind you, you have the same right, to marry the opposite sex. > > And when gay people are allowed to marry each other, That has nothing to do with the list of special rights that hets have but thanks for playing.
Bonnie Bitch - 17 Dec 2005 12:49 GMT On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:39:17 -0600, the faaaaabulous supreme deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
>That has nothing to do with the list of special rights that hets have Thank you for admitting that you and your HETEROsexual butt buddies wish to reserve special rights for yourselves, in your sick, diseased deathstyle.
Susie, age 9 - 18 Dec 2005 23:42 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That has nothing to do with the list of special rights that hets have > but thanks for playing. Nope. Marriage inequality confers a de facto litany of special rights upon the heterosexual, when the homosexual is denied the same social status.
In fact, in nearly every catergory, homosexuals are treated as second-class citizens.
susie
Death - 19 Dec 2005 05:07 GMT "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message
> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nope. Marriage inequality confers a de facto litany of special > rights upon the heterosexual, Same ole lie by faggots in denial, yawn
>when the homosexual is denied > the same social status. faggots have the right to marry the opposite sex, the same right straights have.
> In fact, in nearly every catergory, homosexuals are treated as > second-class citizens. you Passed on the list of Special rightS straights have that faggots Don't, so I expect you to Pass on the list of (nearly every category).
But I'll still give you the opportunity to list those here: 1. 2. 3.
RamRod Sword of Baal - 19 Dec 2005 05:22 GMT > "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > But I'll still give you the opportunity to list those here: Here are a list of this that straight people take for granted, that are denied to gays and lesbians.
1. Marry the one they love. 2. Get taxed as a couple with the one they love. 3. Have their loved one get their property when they die. 4. Be allowed to decide about funeral arrangments for their partners when they die. 5. Be allowed to visit their loved ones in hospital. 6. Legal recognition of gay peoples committment to each other. 7. In fact most things that married couples take for granted as couples are denied to gay people who have a committed relationship.
Death - 19 Dec 2005 07:54 GMT <Susie, Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> Here are a list of this that straight people take for granted, that are > denied to gays and lesbians. > > 1. Marry the one they love. wrong, that isn't taken for granted
> 2. Get taxed as a couple with the one they love. LOL, a 3some ?
wrong, you don't have to love them to get taxed as a couple
> 3. Have their loved one get their property when they die. wrong, you can leave property to a stranger, school, church, etc.
> 4. Be allowed to decide about funeral arrangments for their partners when > they die. partner is not a term married couples use to refer to their spouse. Here is something I'll tell you, when the husband/wife dies, he/she isn't a husband/wife any longer. That title ended at his/her death, legally. The funeral is days later, therefore, again you are wrong.
> 5. Be allowed to visit their loved ones in hospital. wrong, you can visit complete strangers in a hospital.
> 6. Legal recognition of gay peoples committment to each other.
> 7. In fact most things that married couples take for granted as couples are > denied to gay people who have a committed relationship. faggots should be committed and I don't mean in a relationship. but back to your statement, wrong...........a committed relationship is not a marriage and should not be considered as one. A stone is not a diamond no matter how bad you wish it to be.
next
RamRod Sword of Baal - 19 Dec 2005 18:13 GMT > <Susie, Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> >> Here are a list of this that straight people take for granted, that are >> denied to gays and lesbians. >> >> 1. Marry the one they love.
>wrong, that isn't taken for granted Are you saying that a Gay person can marry who they want? IE another Gay person?
I am saying that a gay person cannot marry the one they want to marry in most of the world
Hetrosexuals can so therefore Gays are discrimminated against.
>> 2. Get taxed as a couple with the one they love.
> wrong, you don't have to love them to get taxed as a couple But in most of the USA you cannot marry the person of your choice if you both happen to be gay, hence you cannot be taxed as a couple.
>> 3. Have their loved one get their property when they die.
> wrong, you can leave property to a stranger, school, church, etc. Yes and the family can challenge the will can win, if they were married then this would be a very hard thing for the family to challange a will
If there is no will then the partner has no way of inheriting his partners estate, as it goes to the family, often a family that hated the son because he was gay. Again if two Gays were married then the other Gay person would have the estate.
>> 4. Be allowed to decide about funeral arrangments for their partners when >> they die. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > therefore, again > you are wrong. I am not wrong, if a Gay person dies without a will, their partner (calling them that because in many cases they are prohibited by law from getting married) has no say how the person funeral arrangments are caried out.
This is simply not the case if you are married.
>> 5. Be allowed to visit their loved ones in hospital.
> wrong, you can visit complete strangers in a hospital. Many hospitals limit people to next of kin and close family memembers if a person is in a critical condition. IE a Gay lover is not included as one of these, if they were married it would be different.
>> 6. Legal recognition of gay peoples committment to each other. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and should not be considered as one. A stone is not a diamond no matter > how bad you wish it to be. And IMHO bigots should be locked up and the key thrown away, but we are not talking about stupid bigots here, rather the rights of people who have committed relationships, some spanning 40 years or more and cannot have them legally recognized because of the bigot brigades objections.
The strange thing is how the very same bigots rave on how gays are so promiscuous, and yet when they get the chance of letting them have recognized legal standing, they scream blue bloody murder against it. Seems they want it both ways.
The other point is how they rave on how marriage is a Christian institution, yet marriage was around yonks before Christianity came into being, and in all countries and religions. IE it is not solely a Christian thing
Death - 19 Dec 2005 19:19 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Are you saying that a Gay person can marry who they want? > IE another Gay person? nope. as per your statement, I said straight people do not take for granted
1. marry the one they love.
Death - 19 Dec 2005 19:33 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> > <Susie, Sword of Baal> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But in most of the USA you cannot marry the person of your choice if you > both happen to be gay,... wrong, you just can't be of the same sex in most of the us of A. you have the right to marry a lesbone and be taxed as a couple. As I said, you don't have to love them to be taxed as a couple.
RamRod Sword of Baal - 19 Dec 2005 21:48 GMT > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you have the right to marry a lesbone and be taxed as a couple. > As I said, you don't have to love them to be taxed as a couple. ........But with Gays, as I said, it would be a person of your choice, and for most if not all Gays (male) it would not be a woman, hence Gays cannot marry the person of their choice, whereas heterosexuals can. So Gays are denied the right to marry the person of their choice, and thus they cannot be taxed as a couple.
To make it simple for you, if the law was the other way around, would you marry a man so you could be taxed as a couple.................
Yes I know, you do not play 'what if' how convenient.
Death - 20 Dec 2005 00:18 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> ........But with Gays, as I said, it would be a sex* of your choice, and > for most if not all Gays (male) it would not be a woman, hence Gays cannot > marry the sex* of their choice, whereas heterosexuals can. So Gays are > denied the right to marry the sex* of their choice, and thus they cannot > be taxed as a couple. I changed 3 words in your statement. person for sex
Some choices Ramrod are the wrong ones. What would you have, everyone making up rules for themselves according to their personal wants?
Why not allow students to bring guns to school to shoot perverted teachers. Hey shoot the priest or scoutmaster that molested them because students can not control their wants.
Lets allow straights to drag faggots behind their trucks because straights can not control their wants.
Why not just allow faggots to run freely through the population spreading a deadly disease because they can not control their wants.
Death - 19 Dec 2005 19:48 GMT > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes and the family can challenge the will can win, if they were married then > this would be a very hard thing for the family to challange a will wrong, straight singles, never married, divorced or widowed leave wills all the time. they are at times challenged as are wills of married couples.
> If there is no will then the partner has no way of inheriting his partners > estate, as it goes to the family, ... straights also have that problem when no will is involved. you seem to forget straight men live with straight women, they are not a married couple.
so, wrong, that is not exclusive to faggots or lesbones
RamRod Sword of Baal - 19 Dec 2005 21:53 GMT >> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > so, wrong, that is not exclusive to faggots or lesbones I do not know what the law is in the US, but here if a man and women live together for 2 years in a defacto relationship, then she (and he) gets the same rights as a married couple, so they would have a claim on the estate, and in case of a split up a claim on the others property, it is not the case where two Gay guys live together in a realtionship, no matter how long they live together. So again there is a denial of rights to Gay people.
Death - 20 Dec 2005 00:35 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> I do not know what the law is in the US, but here if a man and women live > together for 2 years in a defacto relationship, then she (and he) gets the > same rights as a married couple, so they would have a claim on the estate, > and in case of a split up a claim on the others property, it is not the case > where two Gay guys live together in a realtionship, no matter how long they > live together. So again there is a denial of rights to Gay people. Common Law Marriage in part
Prior the advent of modern domestic relations statutes, parties became married by a variety of means that developed from ancient custom. These became the elements of a "common-law marriage," or one that arose by operation of law through the parties' conduct, rather than pursuant to a ceremony. In many ways, the theory of common-law marriage is one of estoppel - that parties who have themselves told the world they are married should not be heard to claim that they are not married in a dispute between the parties themselves.
Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990). Common-law marriages were recognized in some of the colonies prior to independence, and in many states after independence.
Death - 19 Dec 2005 20:03 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > This is simply not the case if you are married. One more time. If my wife dies we are not married when I arrange for her funeral. The obligation of, till death do you part, has been fulfilled.
number 4 is bullshit, therefore again...........wronG
never argue this again with an undertaker ( . ) ( . )
RamRod Sword of Baal - 19 Dec 2005 22:54 GMT > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > never argue this again with an undertaker ( . ) ( . ) Well then if you do not have the power by law to decide how your wife's remains are to be treated, then you have strange laws in the USA, it is quite different here.
Death - 20 Dec 2005 00:39 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> Well then if you do not have the power by law to decide how your wife's > remains are to be treated, then you have strange laws in the USA, it is > quite different here. Perhaps. But power wasn't the issue, marriage was.
RamRod Sword of Baal - 20 Dec 2005 01:10 GMT > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Perhaps. But power wasn't the issue, marriage was. So are you saying if your wife dies you do not have the power to decide what to do with her remains according to the law in the USA?
Death - 20 Dec 2005 02:01 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >
> So are you saying if your wife dies you do not have the power to decide what > to do with her remains according to the law in the USA? What I have said in the past, what I say again now and properly will have to say again in the future is:
after she has died, she is no longer my wife. the obligation of death do us part has been fulfilled.
When a person dies, the coroner has complete authority over the body. In the majority of cases, the coroner releases the body to family for burial.
How is that different in Oz?
RamRod Sword of Baal - 20 Dec 2005 19:15 GMT > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > In the majority of cases, the coroner releases the body to family for > burial. After the Coroner releases the body, who has the say as to how her remains are handled?
You keep saying after death, she is no longer your wife, does that mean you have no say in how she is cared for?
> How is that different in Oz? The coroner does not come into it unless the Doctor does not sign a reason for Death certificate.
So the body is sent to the undertakers, and the person who has the say is, in order of power is:-
The Executor named in the will. If no will then the surviving spouse If no surviving spouse, the eldest living sibling.
So if someone is Gay and has a permanent partner, the partner cannot decide what to do with their partners body, unless they are the Executor named in the will.
So they are disadvantaged as not having any sort of legal standing, as they would have if they were a spouse, or part of a legally recognized union.
Death - 19 Dec 2005 20:44 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Many hospitals limit people to next of kin and close family memembers if a > person is in a critical condition. True a vigil is different from a visit.
RamRod Sword of Baal - 20 Dec 2005 21:32 GMT > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > True a vigil is different from a visit. Therefore a Gay persons partner is prohibited by some hospitals from seeing their partner in their hour of need, something that would not happen if they had a legal standing.
Death - 19 Dec 2005 20:50 GMT <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message
> >> 6. Legal recognition of gay peoples committment to each other. > > > >> 7. In fact most things that married couples take for granted as couples
> >> are denied to
>>> gay people who have a committed relationship. You just named your own poison. I rest my case.
L. Michael Roberts - 17 Dec 2005 01:42 GMT >>>>> ". Ninure Saunders" <Ninurenohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in >>>>> message >>>>> >>>>> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> -"Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message <snip>
>> Monica NEVER complained ... so why do the Republicans? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't like Cheney, never did, but GWB is a born leader and a man of > virtue, Really? Then let him prove his virtue and show us the WMD!
> I believe the main reason homosexuals don't like him is because > he doesn't grant them the special rights and privileges they seek. Please list the "special rights and privileges" you believe that homosexual are seeking/ Feel free to take as much space and be as detailed as you wish to make your case. Here, I will help you get started:
Homos are seeking the following special rights and privileges:
1/
2/
3/
4/
<snip>
 Signature +==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+ This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition" +================================================================+
James Riske - 17 Dec 2005 01:52 GMT > Please list the "special rights and privileges" you believe that >homosexual are seeking/ Feel free to take as much space and be as >detailed as you wish to make your case. Here, I will help you get started: > >Homos are seeking the following special rights and privileges: 1/Minority status because of sexual behaviour.
2/Any right or privilege beyond what they and heterosexuals currently enjoy is known as a special right or privilege.
3/Legally sanctioned protected class status, creating a distinction in the law to protect faggots.
4/Special rights and concessions that choke heterosexual values and morality.
How embarrassing it must be for Liar Michael Roberts to be humiliated on this over and over again.
And I'm certain this wont be the last time...
"The anus is so etched onto the minds of homosexuals that even mental illness does not prevent them from focusing on it." -- Erik Holland
Death - 17 Dec 2005 13:06 GMT "James Riske" <james.riske@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
> > Please list the "special rights and privileges" you believe that > >homosexual are seeking/ Feel free to take as much space and be as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 4/Special rights and concessions that choke heterosexual values and > morality. 5. the special right to marry the same sex
6. the special right for faggots (same sex) to adopt
> How embarrassing it must be for Liar Michael Roberts to be humiliated > on this over and over again. > > And I'm certain this wont be the last time... > > "The anus is so etched onto the minds of homosexuals that even mental illness does not prevent them from focusing on it." -- Erik Holland Jenn - 17 Dec 2005 18:34 GMT > "James Riske" <james.riske@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
> 5. the special right to marry the same sex The ignorant bigots STILL don't understand the meaning of the word "special". How sad.
Darth Dilligaf - 17 Dec 2005 19:39 GMT >>"James Riske" <james.riske@h0tmail.com> wrote in message > >>5. the special right to marry the same sex > > The ignorant bigots STILL don't understand the meaning of the word > "special". How sad. Don't you understand that if you are adding something to an already existing establishment, and that something is being added specifically for the benefit of a particular group of people, it is a special right? Sounds pretty cut and dry to me, special rights for homos.
What I fail to understand is why all the denials? are you people really that ashamed of your own demands?
Jenn - 17 Dec 2005 20:59 GMT > >>"James Riske" <james.riske@h0tmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for the benefit of a particular group of people, it is a special right? > Sounds pretty cut and dry to me, special rights for homos. Then you would have to admit that marriage, as it stands, is a "special right" for heteros.
> What I fail to understand is why all the denials? are you people really > that ashamed of your own demands? Nope, not it all. I'm just in favor of truth in advertising. When we can marry those of the same sex, you will be able to as well; therefore they are not "special rights."
Darth Dilligaf - 18 Dec 2005 00:39 GMT >>>>"James Riske" <james.riske@h0tmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Then you would have to admit that marriage, as it stands, is a "special > right" for heteros. I would think that calling marriage a special right for heteros would be impossible since it has been around in one form or another since the beginning of mankind and has always been primarily a heterosexual act though that doesn't mean homosexuals are not allowed to marry someone also as long as the person they are marrying is the opposite sex, a rule which heteros adhere to.
>>What I fail to understand is why all the denials? are you people really >>that ashamed of your own demands? > > Nope, not it all. I'm just in favor of truth in advertising. When we > can marry those of the same sex, you will be able to as well; therefore > they are not "special rights." But it is a special right, I think it is pretty cut and dry but yet you homosexuals seem so vehemently against admitting it, why the shame? just be honest about it.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 00:52 GMT > >>>>"James Riske" <james.riske@h0tmail.com> wrote in message > >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > But it is a special right, Except that it is, by your own definition. You stated that something that is geared toward the benefit of a particular group of people is a special right. Since current marriage laws are geared that way, they are "special rights."
> I think it is pretty cut and dry but yet you > homosexuals seem so vehemently against admitting it, why the shame? just > be honest about it. I AM being honest. You say that I am allowed to marry as long as I marry someone of the opposite sex. You also claim that I have equal rights to hetero people in regards to marriage. Fine. But then logically, you must agree that in turn, if people are allowed to partake in SSM, it's not "special" for gay people,because hetero people will ALSO be able to marry those of the same sex. Why are you afraid to give up the bogus claim of "special rights"?
Death - 17 Dec 2005 21:43 GMT "Darth Dilligaf" <apathypower@not_yahoo_nope_nosir.com> wrote in message
> Don't you understand that if you are adding something to an already > existing establishment, and that something is being added specifically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What I fail to understand is why all the denials? are you people really > that ashamed of your own demands? Two percent of population have 60% of aids and you think they have shame, LOL. In an attempt to alter the percentage, they accuse everyone of being a faggot.
Death - 17 Dec 2005 20:53 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "James Riske" <james.riske@h0tmail.com> wrote in message > > > 5. the special right to marry the same sex > > The ignorant bigots STILL don't understand the meaning of the word > "special". How sad. True. Let me try again to educate the filthy faggot bigots. Heterosexuals do not marry same sex. To add something that we don't do, would be a "special" right (exclusive) to faggots.
Jenn - 17 Dec 2005 21:04 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Heterosexuals do not marry same sex. To add something that > we don't do, would be a "special" right (exclusive) to faggots. Logically therefore, marriage as it now stands is a special right for heteros, and your argument that gay people are asking for "special rights" because we can marry those of the opposite sex is bogus. Can you think logically that way?
Death - 17 Dec 2005 22:08 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > 5. the special right to marry the same sex > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rights" because we can marry those of the opposite sex is bogus. Can > you think logically that way? You have the right to marry the opposite sex, same as I do, equal protection.
Jenn - 17 Dec 2005 22:12 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You have the right to marry the opposite sex, same as I do, equal protection. Then I'll use exactly the same argument that you use three paragraphs up: Homosexuals do not marry the opposite sex. Therefore, there is unequal protection.
GMCarter - 17 Dec 2005 22:33 GMT >Then I'll use exactly the same argument that you use three paragraphs >up: Homosexuals do not marry the opposite sex. Therefore, there is >unequal protection. Careful dear. You'll make his brain explode if he actually has to wrap it around genuine logic instead of his bigot-sophistry-tripe.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 00:48 GMT "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> Jenn <jennconducts@hotmail.com> > > > Homosexuals do not marry the opposite sex. ... > > Careful dear. ... Do you also support that lie Carter?
GMCarter - 18 Dec 2005 11:59 GMT >Do you also support that lie Carter? LOL...Of course I don't support your lies, dear.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 00:46 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Then I'll use exactly the same argument that you use three paragraphs > up: Homosexuals do not marry the opposite sex. What did you hope to achieve with that intentional lie?
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 00:57 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Then I'll use exactly the same argument that you use three paragraphs > > up: Homosexuals do not marry the opposite sex. > > What did you hope to achieve with that intentional lie? It's not a lie. Sure, there is the rare gay person who marries the opposite sex due to societal pressure, etc. But in general, OBVIOUSLY gay people don't partake in HETEROSEXUAL marriage. The point stands.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 01:12 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's not a lie. Sure, there is the rare gay person who marries the > opposite sex ... equal protection
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 01:16 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > equal protection And what becomes unequal (and therefore "special") when SSM is legal?
Death - 18 Dec 2005 01:22 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> And what becomes unequal (and therefore "special") when SSM is legal? I don't play what if.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 01:24 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > And what becomes unequal (and therefore "special") when SSM is legal? > > I don't play what if. LOL Surrender accepted.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 01:37 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-
> > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LOL Surrender accepted. only in your what if world
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 01:49 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > only in your what if world It's not "what if". It's a clearly logical question, which you are obviously afraid to answer.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:00 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
> > > > I don't play what if. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not "what if". Perhaps I did read it wrong, lets see...
> "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > And what becomes unequal (and therefore "special") when SSM is legal? ...(what if) ssm were to become legal? Is it legal? Noooooooo. Is it make-believe, pretend, and a fantasy? Yesssssssss
Surrender? I'm just warming up.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:05 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Surrender? I'm just warming up. So answer the very logical question. Why are you afraid?
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:11 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.
> > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So answer the very logical question. Why are you afraid? the "logical" (what if) question, LOL, pass
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:16 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > the "logical" (what if) question, LOL, pass Stop being chicken! The question and logical and it shows up your weak argument, and that's why you won't answer it. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:19 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Stop being chicken! The question and logical
>and it shows up your weak argument, and that's > why you won't answer it. >Feel free to prove me wrong. Done
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:22 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Done LOL Weak, and everyone sees it.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:22 GMT > > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LOL Weak, and everyone sees it. Be more specific about the ways you want to be abused
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:28 GMT > > > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Be more specific about the ways you want to be abused For clarity: I've presented you with a very logical question which would reveal the weakness of your argument if you answered it truthfully. No one here is surprised that you refuse to answer it. Keep bringing it up: it continues to reveal how much of a coward you are.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:42 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> For clarity: I've presented you with a very logical question A what if question
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:53 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > For clarity: I've presented you with a very logical question > > A what if question Which is perfectly logical.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 03:00 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news
> > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which is perfectly logical. No, it is not.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 03:03 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, it is not. Of course it is.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 03:50 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-
> > > Which is perfectly logical. > > Of course it is. Lets pretend I answered your question. Logical?
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 03:56 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts- > > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Lets pretend I answered your question. > Logical? Nope.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 06:02 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts- > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nope. LOL, exactly.
Boy Toy - 18 Dec 2005 03:57 GMT On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:03:51 GMT, Jenn <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message <jennconducts-F5F308.19042917122005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>
>> "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Of course it is. ROFL! Of course it is. In fact, *every* question is a "what if" question, because every question has a premise, even if it is not specifically enunciated. These idiots have ZERO knowledge of elementary logic. Debate is futile with such an ignorant fool.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 04:01 GMT > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:03:51 GMT, Jenn <jennconducts@hotmail.com> > wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > specifically enunciated. These idiots have ZERO knowledge of > elementary logic. Debate is futile with such an ignorant fool. Exactly. As long as they try to make bogus statements that they won't/can't support, I'll continue to point that out. The impressionable might be looking on.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 06:14 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Exactly. As long as they try to make bogus statements that they > won't/can't support, I'll continue to point that out. How did you intend to support a bogus pretend outcome to a bogus pretend question? And then claim it was logicial, LOL
> The impressionable might be looking on. Now you think you are a circus monkey playing to the peanut gallery?
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 06:17 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to a bogus pretend question? > And then claim it was logicial, LOL Your lack of willingness to answer a perfectly logical question is noted. Again.
> > The impressionable might be looking on. > > Now you think you are a circus monkey playing to the peanut gallery? You left out the words "playing with". They come right before the word "a".
Death - 18 Dec 2005 06:48 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Your lack of willingness to answer a perfectly logical question is > noted. Again. make believe is not logical. Reality is.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 06:06 GMT "Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
> ROFL! Of course it is. In fact, *every* question is a "what if" > question, because every question has a premise, even if it is not > specifically enunciated. Really?
Enunciate that question.
These idiots have ZERO knowledge of elementary logic. Debate is futile with such an ignorant fool.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:22 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Done Any of you repulsive bigots who want to argue the logic of my point, feel fee. Death isn't up to it, obviously.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:25 GMT > > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Any of you repulsive bigots who want to argue the logic of my point, > feel fee. Death isn't up to it, obviously. Please somebody, play (what if) with me, LOL
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:29 GMT > > > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Please somebody, play (what if) with me, LOL Please somebody, tell Jenn to stop asking logical questions.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:43 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Please somebody, tell Jenn to stop asking logical questions. where exactly is the logic in a lets pretend question?
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 02:53 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Please somebody, tell Jenn to stop asking logical questions. > > where exactly is the logic in a lets pretend question? Are you honestly stating that there can be no logic in such a question?
Death - 18 Dec 2005 02:59 GMT "Jenn" <
> > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you honestly stating that there can be no logic in such a question? Just answer the question. Stop being a chicken.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 03:04 GMT > "Jenn" < > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just answer the question. Stop being a chicken. LOL The logic is apparent. For example, without "what if questions" there is no scientific investigation.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 03:46 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Jenn" < > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > LOL The logic is apparent. For example, without "what if questions" > there is no scientific investigation. There is no scientific investigation going on here, that is apparent. Just your lets pretend ssm exists. It doesn't, equal rights do.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 03:58 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > There is no scientific investigation going on here, that is apparent. > Just your lets pretend ssm exists. It doesn't, equal rights do. Poor try at distraction. The question remains. You won't answer it. That which unique for a group CAN'T be "special rights".
Death - 18 Dec 2005 06:19 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Poor try at distraction. But you tried anyway with some bogus scientific investigation strawman.
> That which unique for a group CAN'T be "special rights". Exactly, heterosexuals have no special rights as I have said. I'm glad you agree.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 06:25 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > But you tried anyway with some bogus scientific investigation strawman. Another attempt at distraction. It's not a straw man, as the point was apt.
> > That which unique for a group CAN'T be "special rights". > > Exactly, heterosexuals have no special rights as I have said. > I'm glad you agree. Then what we are asking is not a request for special rights either. Thanks for admitting this.
Death - 18 Dec 2005 07:02 GMT "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > > > > > > > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Then what we are asking is not a request for special rights either. > Thanks for admitting this. faggots already have the right to marry, that is what I admit. anything more is make believe on your part.
Jenn - 18 Dec 2005 18:02 GMT > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > faggots already have the right to marry, that is what I admit. > anything more is make believe on your part. You're unable to follow a bit of elementary logic. Yes, gay people have a right to marry. When gay people are allowed to marry each other, no "special right" will have been granted, as EVERYONE will be allowed to marry those of the same sex. I hope that you understand now, moron.
L. Michael Roberts - 17 Dec 2005 15:38 GMT >> Please list the "special rights and privileges" you believe that >>homosexual are seeking/ Feel free to take as much space and be as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > 1/Minority status because of sexual behaviour. Please post proof from verifiable, mainstream sources that homos seek "Minority status because of sexual behaviour".
> 2/Any right or privilege beyond what they and heterosexuals currently > enjoy is known as a special right or privilege. Since heterosexual currently enjoy the right to marry the unrelated, consenting adult of their choice, by your definition above, same-sex marriage is NOT a "special right".
> 3/Legally sanctioned ”protected class“ status, creating a distinction > in the law to protect faggots. Please post proof from verifiable, mainstream sources that homos seek "Legally sanctioned ”protected class“ status". Please post verifiable copies of any laws which only protect faggots.
> 4/Special rights and concessions that choke heterosexual values and > morality. IT is difficult to address this point until you provide a definition of your claimed "heterosexual values and morality" and show how faggots are seeking to "choke" them.
> How embarrassing it must be for Liar Michael Roberts to be humiliated > on this over and over again. I await your posting of the relevant citations and laws to back up the claim you have made above.
<snip>
 Signature +==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+ This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition" +================================================================+
Death - 17 Dec 2005 16:08 GMT "L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
> Please post proof from verifiable, mainstream sources that homos seek > "Minority status because of sexual behaviour". Did you really think to foul the waters that way? Too bad such a clever faggot is always the last to know. Here ya go,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 93-11 Honorable Mary Lou Reed Honorable Dennis M. Davis Minority Leader Assistant Minority Leader Idaho State Senate Idaho State Senate 10 Giesa Road 816 Sherman Avenue Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Honorable Mary Ellen Lloyd Minority Caucus Chair Idaho State Senate 162 Hawthorne Pocatello, ID 83204 Per Request for Attorney General Opinion Regarding the Idaho Citizens Alliance's Revised Initiative Dear Senators Reed, Davis and Lloyd: QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Section 67-8002 addresses minority status of those who engage in homosexual behavior as well as special classifications based upon homosexuality or sexual orientation. What would be the effect of this section and does it violate the United States Constitution? 2. Section 67-8003 addresses same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships. What, if any, is the legal effect of this provision and what does the term "domestic partnership" mean? 3. Section 67-8004 limits the discussion of homosexuality in the public elementary and secondary schools. Does this provision violate the United States Constitution? 4. Section 67-8005 limits expenditure of public funds and access to library materials discussing homosexuality. Does this provision violate the United States Constitution? 5. Section 67-8006 addresses consideration of private sexual behavior in the public employment context. What does this section mean? What is its scope and how would a court likely construe this provision in context with the balance of the initiative's provisions? 6. Does the initiative violate any rights guaranteed under the Idaho Constitution? 7. If certain provisions of the initiative are unconstitutional, can the other provisions be given effect by employment of the initiative's severability clause? CONCLUSION 1. Section 67-8002 essentially authorizes discrimination against homosexuals in such contexts as employment, housing, education and health care. This provision violates equal protection guarantees of the United States Constitution by officially condoning discrimination against homosexuals and by denying them equal access to the political process. 2. Section 67-8003, addressing same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships, is merely a statement of the current law already in place in Idaho. The term "domestic partnership" presumably means an arrangement whereby two homosexuals have agreed to share their home, financial resources and life together. Because the provision simply restates current law, it has no legal effect. 3. Section 67-8004 violates First Amendment protections. A state may reasonably restrict school-endorsed curriculum-related speech in elementary and secondary schools to further legitimate pedagogical concerns. Significant discretion is given to the state and local authorities in determining whether such restrictions are reasonable and whether the concerns they further are, in fact, legitimate pedagogical ones. Nevertheless, there are limits. Suppression of a viewpoint not based on legitimate pedagogical concerns but because the state disagrees with it falls outside the bounds of the state's permitted discretion. As to curriculumrelated speech, section 67-8004 goes beyond the bounds of the state's discretion and violates the First Amendment. Further, the section restricts some noncurriculum- related speech as well as advice a counselor may offer a student/ patient. These restrictions are also violations of free speech rights. 4. Section 67-8005, addressing expenditure of public funds and access to library materials for minors, is unconstitutional. The government can place some restrictions on the expenditure of public funds to ensure those funds are not spent on speech which falls outside of the scope of the parti
|
|