Proposition 2
 

I know what they're up to, I just don't think it's clear from what they've written.

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

Maybe yes, maybe no.



I guess it's no. I think our country is enlightened, educated and based on a communal moral foundation to be of a collective judgment, inherently, that having a man, any man, of any party, who rapes and violently beats a woman and is a serial sexual abuser of subordinate (NPI) woman in the workplace, as president or a presidential candidate is wrong. Maybe I am naive or anachronistic in my outlook but I think we should have enough collective moral clarity to look at that one and say there is no justification for someone with so little character or such a vile immoral character to be president. Unfortunately the 4th Estate punted on its duty to raise the issues in a timely manner for the electorate to truly be able to assess them. Further, the government has never truly examined the abuse of process and intimidation that the Clintons engaged in result in Broaddrick sitting on her rights at the time of the rape.

And maybe I have too. You have no way of knowing. For my part regardless of whether I do or not, I have enough respect for the rule of law to advocate that an injustice and infringement of a fellow citizens rights,m such as occured with Broaddrick or Willey et al, has no place in America and I feely duly passionate about that.

so what you saying is that any of the prosecutions in recent times for past civil rights violations (eg Byron De la beckwith et al) are the result of people who are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life? Why? We live in a country of laws, we are lawyers, why shouldn't we advocate that justice be served?

I do not understand the process by which you arrive at such conclusions. Someone was raped and the rapist not only walks around with no conseuqence but has his spokespeople mock the victim. Again I would ask how you would like it if the victim here was a close family member? And if you would be outraged, why is your outrage limited to just family members? Shouldn't our laws protect all of us, whether they are related to us or not? Should we all, and especially lawyers, advocate for such process?

Interesting morality you exhibit. Clinton's a rapist, but it's been 25 years since he wasn't punished for it so I am a tasteless asshole for pointing it out. Maybe to reform my image I should emulate Clinton.

Poll: If I throw my secretary up against the wall of my office and thrust one hand up her skirt and one hand up blouse and fondle her feminine parts will all of all y'all who voted for Clinton vote for me too?

Proposition 2
 

I don't think it's clear at all that's what they're up to.

Or rather, clearly they want to ban gay marriage. I think there is also an effect in the language to ban giving martial-like status to non-marriages (i.e. extending benefits to heterosexual non-married life partners and/or common law spouses).

Unlike RT, however, I don't think this is accidental at all - I think it doesn't displease the religious right one bit to outlaw living in sin, hetero or homo. But then again, I'm more cynical than RT when it comes to Texas politics. While it is clearly possible, or even likely, that Hanlon's Razor applies, I wouldn't put it past a committee of Texas Republicans in a smokey room (actually, probably a clean as a whistle sunday school room in a church basement) having actually thought this through.

Proposition 2
 

Where are you getting this from the language? It talks about gov't's creating/recognizing certain relationships, not about where people live.

Proposition 2
 

"a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage"

i.e., "You, City of Round Rock, may not grant health care benefits to the non-spousal heterosexual domestic parters of your employees, because they are FORNICATORS."

ETA: Yeah, I'm a little slow. Whiff. Sin, Texas. That's just outside of Brady, right?

Proposition 2
 

do any companies grant benefits to non-spousal heterosexual domestic partners?

Proposition 2
 

I seem to recall Apple doing so in Austin, which I think also pressured Dell to do so, since they fish in the same talent pool. Of course, that was back in the heyday. I'm not sure Apple still has a significant Austin presence. And you can't swing a dead pair of Tevas in Austin these days without hitting an unemployed computer geek.

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

What am I technically?

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

One of the babyjesi. S_A_M has just presciently identified that you are in denial but your inner little Sebby is calling out to be saved.

Let the Lord hug you Sebby......

http://www.bismarcksda.org/Jesus-hug.jpg

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

Dogs go to heaven? And if so, don't other animals? And if so don't they have to be thinking beings? and if so, should we be eating them?

Proposition 2
 

According to this study, some 200 of the Fortune 500 offer domestic partner benefits, and while many limit the benefits to homosexual couples who can not marry, many do not limit the benefits.

BSR Link

Companies including benefits for heterosexual non-married domestic partners include Bank of America, Hyatt and Levi Strauss & Co.

Meat is MUrder!
 

Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge.
When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.

All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor. Those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by. The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind.
They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent. His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster.

You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart.

Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together....




http://www.dottielliott.com/images/6...inbowtext6.jpg

Proposition 2
 

Yes, I've never worked somewhere that offered benefits to gay couples without expanding it to all domestic partners. Which drives me nuts, as an aside (the domestic partners part, not the gay part).

Proposition 2
 

FWIW, as a personal aside, fyi, I don't like the use of the word "partner" and have started boycotting it. It's too businessy. I am going with "lover" from here on out. More personal.

Proposition 2
 

It may be that they feel they can't discriminate and offer it to unmarried gay, but not to unmarried str8.

We run a small firm here with great benefits. Marrieds take our's over the spouse's- and that sucks. I'm trying to figure a way to offer a few grand to convince them to go the other way.