1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Dissent on a One-Way Street

Denise96 Wrote: Apr 04, 2014 9:55 PM
I do agree the firing was stupid. I am pro gay marriage. He was clearly competent to run the co. I couldn't give a fig if he was pro or con gay marriage as the mission of Mozilla is as an internet software provider and nothing to do with marriage. The issue is then half the board resigned at his hire, They were threatened with boycotts by liberal groups or liberal thinking people. Frankly this sounds like a purely corporate functional and economic decision on Mozilla's part from pressure brought to bear on the co. Boycotts and pressure from both the left and the right are nothing new and have worked in both directions. So though maybe not a smart decision from a corporate position this makes perfect sense for Mozilla,.
Pretty accurate comment. Basically arithmetic, reading, writing will remain the same whether they are taught on a chalk board or a computer.No matter the curriculum used. We need to add technical, competency science, technology(computers, electronics, etc) as this is the world today. Some testing is reasonable but is should not be determinate. Not all people are meant to be brain surgeons or nuclear physicists. As far as I am aware plumbers, electricians etc make a very good living and are needed as well. The test should be a measuring tool not the determinate of success. I also suspect common core will change to something else in a few years when textbook cos need to make the next round of money.
Global warming is a scientific theory or not depending on your belief. There person who quoted none or all had it right. Either all organizations sponsored by and having an official religious designation (ie you legally call yourself a church or part of one) are all allowed after normal hours or not at all. There is no discrimination in that case. All religious organizations are treated the same.
For the purpose of govt marriage is mainly a legal contract which requires the legal ability to give consent which a baby cannot do so by our laws the act would be child abuse and rape of a minor. We do not have the same legal code as Iran.
You still do not have to marry the same sex if you do not wish. Hw you live, what church you do or do not attend, and how you choose to believe or not believe is your decision. If you we're previously married in MA or other states as either hetero or homosexual both types of legal marriages are now recognized by the federal govt as well. If it is not legal in your state then it is still not legal.
Yes common law is exactly the example. NY does not and for. Couple from TX common law married in NY would not be married until they did the paperwork.i used to work for NY tax dept we got this question several times a year.
It is called marriage. I am not sure for tax issues if civil union applies. Actually at a state level only I believe , so from a fed level she had to be considered married and DOMA prevented that. Not anymore.
It is called boxing and the ref is there to stop serious death or damage but it still happens sometimes. No one is charged unless clear disregard is shown when ordered to stop.
This is an old and existing issue. Two examples are common law marriage and before the Supreme Ct turned it down interracial marriage. Often legal in the north not in the south. It is completely possible to married in one state and not in another. This case simply establishes presently that if a state considers you married then the fed govt must as well based on equal protection. The next case will be to make to legal everywhere and this will follow as it did with biracial marriage as the two cases are comparable. A couple f/f or m/m will apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize gay marriage and then it will run through the courts. So far when it has happened the state court has ruled as in MA the couple must be granted a license due to state legal reasons. If the license is applied for in a very conservative state say MS or such I suspect it will make it through state and then to fed ct and possibly to the Supreme ct.
In response to:

The Roberts Opinion: It's Not All Bad

Denise96 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 11:44 PM
Dissent seems to have centered around the law being a mandate and the Medicare fund denial being essential to the law. The Medicare funds was gutted by the decision. That part was ruled invalid. The other mandate Roberts claims you do not have to.buy the insurance but pay a penalty/tax if you don't that's his reasoning. So no rewrite based on that reasoning large parts of the law can stand. That's his basis whether it is solid and why he is trying to reason it so finely again like I said non idea. I really would love 5 min with the guy to understand.
1 - 10 Next