Nightingale

Sure you can. That's largely the way the gay folks and the "shacking up" folks have been operating for years. You buy a house together, it works the same way any kind of joint real property deal works. You can manage a lot of the details that go along with a "marriage" through various forms and contracts. What you can't do is deal with stuff like spousal dependents, tax issues, etc. But if it's just coming down to who owns what, who can sign what, and who can make what decision for who if they're incapacitated, there are legal forms for that. This is not legal advice and laws vary from state to state, and legal counsel from your state should be consulted regarding anyone's particular situation.

Ooooh! I started a thread that got that flame icon. Cool! Don't think that's happened before. Uhoh. is that beer?

The federal government is (or is SUPPOSED to be) a government of limited jurisdiction, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Certain rights are protected specifically in the Constitution, to prevent federal, state, or local governments from stepping on those rights (speech, religion, etc...), but things that aren't specifically constitutionally protected or specifically designated as a federal power can be regulated by the states. Since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to ban drug use, they shouldn't be able to ban it. I think the recent rulings giving them that power under the commerce clause were a stretch, and completely beyond the intention of the commerce clause. This is evidenced by looking at the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol. In 1919, the government was aware that without an amendment, they lacked the authority to ban a substance, and went through the proper amendment process to do so. It is logical to conclude that the current drug laws would also be unconstitutional without an amendment giving the federal government the power to act in this manner.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, December 15, 1791 "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." -DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 478 F. 3d 370 June 26, 2008

As long as all parties are consenting adults, I have no issue with any kind of marriage. I do, however, think that the government should step out of the business of recognizing relationships, so we can end this entire mess of deciding what kinds of relationships are worthy. Keep marriage where it belongs: between the consenting adults, the community, and their deity if applicable.

I like the idea, I just wasn't too sure about the phrasing of the proposition and it looks like it may have some unintended consequences for local governments, so I went with my standby of "when in doubt, vote no". I think tax procedures for local governments should be left more in control of the residents of those areas. If the measure just addressed state issues only, I probably would've voted for it.

That kid needs to check this out. http://worldjoust.com/index.htm Medieval Times it isn't. This stuff is real.

This is what I'm thinking when I go vote this afternoon. If you see a flaw in my reasoning, please let me know. Proposition 19: YES Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed I just don't see a reason to tell other people what they can and can't put into their bodies. Existing DUI laws protect us from drivers who are under the influence, so as long as they don't put me in danger, this sounds fine to me. Proposition 20: YES Redistricting of Congressional Districts Letting elected officials draw districts seems an awful lot like asking a fox to design a henhouse to me. An independent committee sounds like a better idea. Proposition 21: NO Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles I like our state parks. I really do. I use them myself. The thing is, I am hesitant to hand the state more money when they have been so fiscally irresponsible. I would like to see them spend what they have responsibly before I trust them with any more, and it's probably fair to fund the parks from admission fees so the cost is born by those that use them. Proposition 22: YES Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services The state has been balancing its budget on the backs of tax money intended for cities and local agencies. I work for a city, and I've seen the impact it's had on our fire services, police services, and our ability to provide basic services to the people who live here. The state needs to spend responsibly within its budget, not write IOUs to local agencies when it can't meet its bottom line. Proposition 23: YES Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year California already has very strict environmental regulations compared with the rest of the nation. Cars here are different, gasoline is different, and Prop 23 wouldn't change that. It would prevent stricter regulations from going into effect until the economy is better, and that seems like a good idea, because making it more difficult for businesses to operate here means that it's more difficult to work and live here, which makes it harder on everyone. There has to be a balance, and with the economy the way it is right now, that needs to be taken into account. Proposition 24: NO Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income Again, lets not make it more difficult to do business here. Proposition 25: NO Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes This makes it way too easy for one side to run away with its agenda. A 2/3 vote requires that the minority view be taken into account and makes some compromise mandatory. Proposition 26: NO Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited Exceptions While I like the idea, I think this is badly written and the implementation would be entirely too messy. Proposition 27: NO Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives Again, letting elected officials draw districts seems problematic.

Laws vary by state. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-07/living/diamond.not.forever_1_ring-family-law-engagement?_s=PM:LIVING

If she loves you, she won't care about the ring. If you love her, you won't feel the need to test her.

We have "synthetic fabric", but it's certainly not linen, cotton, or wool. Just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing.

Cultured diamonds (apollo, gemesis) are real diamonds, indistinguishable from the ones that come out of the ground. They're not simulated or synthetic and they're chemically the same, and the cultured diamonds are flawless because they're not exposed to the uncertainties of nature. There was quite the rumbling in the jewelry business when apollo came out with their diamonds, because there was absolutely no way to tell them apart until apollo started laser engraving a serial number on them. WRT diamond substitutes, yes, you're correct as far as I know.

I don't know anything about rings and diamonds (I have heard Jareds and some of the other chains can be pricey though), but honestly, talk to your girlfriend, about getting something you can afford now because starting off in a lot of debt isn't good for a relationship. Later on when you guys are more financially stable and have your lives together, you can get her the ring or stone of her dreams for your anniversary. Because really, it's not about the ring or the rock, it's about spending your lives together. I know of people who have put a cheaper stone in a ring they loved and replaced the stone later on, too. It's getting trendy to use something other than a diamond (my cousin's stone is pink...barf...not sure what it is tho, she told me but I forgot. not a diamond tho), and that ring you posted would look gorgeous with an aquamarine, emerald, ruby, garnet, or sapphire too, if she's willing to go the untraditional route. Diamonds have only been common as an engagement stone for the last century or so. You may also want to check out Apollo Diamond and Gemesis. They make cultured diamonds in a lab that are usually of better quality than what comes out of the ground, and they're sometimes cheaper. Some women don't like this, though, so check with your girl. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/diamonds-on-demand.html?c=y&page=1 http://www.apollodiamond.com/ http://www.gemesis.com/ - colored diamonds If your friend in the jewelry business is a good friend, you'll probably get better advice on the actual stones there than from us. Otherwise, ask your family if there is a local jeweler they trust (and let them know what you're planning! sometimes relatives have jewelry they've inherited with a stone they may want to pass on to you if they know what you have in mind). But ultimately, if your girl wants a pricey ring, you two should sit down and have a talk about finances and figure out how much you can afford. Unromantic, I know, but marriage isn't all wine and roses, and while there should be that, there's often a lot of bills and stuff that go along with that.

I support legalization of all drugs, but that argument just doesn't fly. Use of any drug potentially endangers a third party, especially alcohol. If not endangering a third party was the requirement then all drug use would need to be illegal. Yes, this is why driving under the influence of a mind-altering substance is illegal. You can't drive under the influence of alcohol. You can't drive under the influence of many prescription drugs. Driving under the influence of marijuana will also be illegal.

My point is that it shouldn't matter whether or not the Bible condemns it. The law should permit one choose whether or not to use it as long as one isn't endangering a third party, just like we permit one to choose whether or not to use alcohol even though some religions prohibit it. If you think it's wrong, don't do it, and feel free to say why, but allow others the right to make their own choices on the matter.

Just because it's here doesn't mean you should smoke it. Digitalis is here, but that doesn't mean eating it is a good plan. Both have their uses, though.

Should you want to witness some of it, and experience being a target of it so you know how it feels, you are more than welcome to join our AIDS Walk team next year. The Christian group is standing on the same corner every single year, spewing the same venom with the same nasty signs telling everyone walking that God hates us. I am curious as to how they know. On the upside, the rest of the route is lined with wonderful people cheering for us and thanking the walkers for bringing awareness and much needed funds to the community. Over the last 26 years, AWLA has raised over $69 million dollars for AIDS awareness, testing, research, and community assistance programs here in Los Angeles. And while all those cheering people are wonderful, the ones I really remember are the ones that were cursing at me. And someone can encounter a million wonderful Christians, but the negative experiences tend to stand out far more than the positives, and one awful experience can undo a lot of bridge building.

A lot of people keep pictures of their family or significant others on their desk, or receive letters or make phone calls home. It would probably be an advantage not to have to keep the identity of these people a secret.

A marine I dated in college, when DADT was pretty new and we were discussing it over beer with my friends, had this to say about gays in the military: "I don't care if he's gay as long as he shoots straight." Everyone in the military I've personally talked to has expressed similar views, but the news seems to say otherwise, so I am curious to hear from the other side.

I am curious about the opinions of the military folks here. I was talking with a friend in the army who told me about a buddy of his from boot camp. Apparently someone important to that unit got booted for DADT, and it had a very negative effect on morale, because this was a person who had a high level of training and helped keep the unit safe (I have no idea what it was that they did. I was told but don't remember.), and they felt they were at a disadvantage with that person gone. When I hear things like this, it sounds like the military may be weaker for the enforcement of such a policy. It seems silly to spend all that time training someone who can be dismissed with the words "I'm gay." It also seems that our military can't afford to turn down those able to do the job. My friend in the above conversation agreed, but I'm curious what the rest here who serve think, and why.

Or that.

Reading everything about her, I'm seriously wondering if this woman is somehow mentally ill. I'd really rather believe that than think a sane human could do things like that to a child.

Compassion, great! But people aren't complaining that Christians showed them compassion. They're complaining about the extraordinary lack thereof. That's not an attempt to spread a message. It's an excuse to point fingers and vent your anger on people who have done nothing to you. We don't scream in church at the twenty-somethings who are living together and not married. We don't spit at unwed mothers. We don't curse at people who are divorced. We invite them in to sit down, hear the message, and do the best they can with it. Why should gay folks be treated any differently? Christians would do well to remember that nobody ever found Jesus while being screamed at, cursed at, spit at, or any of the other nasty behavior I saw on Sunday. I thought the mission of Christians was to bring people closer to Jesus, not push them farther away. Am I wrong?

CNN has an interesting analysis today. http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/19/miron.prop.19/index.html?hpt=T2