twowls

It is a federal issue. Federal judges have repeatedly overturned laws that discriminate people's civil liberties regarding marriage (not just for homosexual marriages, but in the past for interracial marriages, etc). The federal government has not made a distinction between marriage and civil unions for the purpose of laws (such as in other countries, where you're in a union according the government and a marriage according to your faith), and as such, citizens are guaranteed equal protection under federal law. States may not violate equal protection.
You can continue to argue this, but the precedent on this matter is pretty clear. It doesn't become less of a federal issue just because you wish it wasn't.

You knew it was an American woman because only an American woman would be so desperate, foolish and reckless. Right?
Seriously, I have had enough of your skirting around the TOS with these misogynistic, anti-American rants. If I or anyone else on here were to spout off on something vaguely derogatory about Ukrainian women, you'd be reporting my ####### quicker than you can say Jack Robinson. I'm not reporting you -- I'm calling you out publicly. I should know better than to get into a slanging match with you, Gary, but I think today I have to say I am sick to my eye teeth of this BS.

In the USA, absolutely ! But the regs are local, not national. You might want to study the regs for yer locale. Soonish!?!?

For those of us who actually love the U.S. Constitution and all that stands for, we care about the encroachment of our civil rights.
As for what the Judge blocked: Under SB1070, a local law officer was given authority to ask for papers of anyone in a car during a routine traffic stop, if they suspected any or all of the passengers were illegal. All the police need is suspicion, according to SB1070.

You're the one who can't come to grips with Judge Bolton's ruling. She ruled just as I believed she would. Calling me clueless just shows you're a sore loser.

I told you so

I think, from the picture your posts are gathering to form, that you're coming from some sort of pseudo-libertarian Rand Paulian hands-off-my-bidness kind of place. Like, another logical step would be to maintain the rights of business owners to bar minorities. Like, that's not the government's business either. Which, we're done if that's the case.

But I didn't ask whether a cell phone costs the average person money. I'm not developmentally disabled so I already know the answer to that. My question went to the attitudes on these boards regarding distinctly non-average people, specifically, those with the very least.
Therefore I gave you sh*t, because you didn't attempt to answer.
These repeating posts, ostensibly on disparate topics, run the same theme over and over, and that theme is what I was trying to get at. The routine back and forth over the specific issue is useless at best. My question was articulated because I find the inexhaustible drumbeat of intolerance for the most desperate and struggling among us to be pretty indefensible. And so I thought to inquire about the thinking behind that intolerance. I won't ever agree with it, but I do genuinely want to know the terrain of the conservative mind. And yes, you're all unique snowflakes, just to preempt that one. But still. I want to get it and, even if I never agree with it, find a way to consider it more deeply than I can now. For now it just seems hateful.

Do you apply that logic equally to ramps for the handicap, or specially designated parking spaces? How about veterans' hospitals? I don't understand this concept that in order to be fair to everyone, we must all be treated exactly the same because it doesn't take a stretch of the imagine to see that in real world situations, that logic falls apart.

Thanks for your thoughts. What I'm hearing is an aversion to taxes and to being told where your money's going without your say. I share that frustration. But it still doesn't explain why the target of the frustration is the poorest of the poor, rather than the things our government uses our money on that suck up so, so much more of it. It seems like if all things were equal, the greater proportion of ire would go to the greater proportion of dedicated funds. So, are all things not equal? Does it piss you off more when money goes to a homeless person than when it goes to a bridge you don't see a need for? Or a war? If so, why?

But I didn't ask whether a cell phone costs the average person money. I'm not developmentally disabled so I already know the answer to that. My question went to the attitudes on these boards regarding distinctly non-average people, specifically, those with the very least.
Therefore I gave you sh*t, because you didn't attempt to answer.
These repeating posts, ostensibly on disparate topics, run the same theme over and over, and that theme is what I was trying to get at. The routine back and forth over the specific issue is useless at best. My question was articulated because I find the inexhaustible drumbeat of intolerance for the most desperate and struggling among us to be pretty indefensible. And so I thought to inquire about the thinking behind that intolerance. I won't ever agree with it, but I do genuinely want to know the terrain of the conservative mind. And yes, you're all unique snowflakes, just to preempt that one. But still. I want to get it and, even if I never agree with it, find a way to consider it more deeply than I can now. For now it just seems hateful.

But I didn't ask whether a cell phone costs the average person money. I'm not developmentally disabled so I already know the answer to that. My question went to the attitudes on these boards regarding distinctly non-average people, specifically, those with the very least.
Therefore I gave you sh*t, because you didn't attempt to answer.
These repeating posts, ostensibly on disparate topics, run the same theme over and over, and that theme is what I was trying to get at. The routine back and forth over the specific issue is useless at best. My question was articulated because I find the inexhaustible drumbeat of intolerance for the most desperate and struggling among us to be pretty indefensible. And so I thought to inquire about the thinking behind that intolerance. I won't ever agree with it, but I do genuinely want to know the terrain of the conservative mind. And yes, you're all unique snowflakes, just to preempt that one. But still. I want to get it and, even if I never agree with it, find a way to consider it more deeply than I can now. For now it just seems hateful.

Thanks for your thoughts. What I'm hearing is an aversion to taxes and to being told where your money's going without your say. I share that frustration. But it still doesn't explain why the target of the frustration is the poorest of the poor, rather than the things our government uses our money on that suck up so, so much more of it. It seems like if all things were equal, the greater proportion of ire would go to the greater proportion of dedicated funds. So, are all things not equal? Does it piss you off more when money goes to a homeless person than when it goes to a bridge you don't see a need for? Or a war? If so, why?

But I didn't ask whether a cell phone costs the average person money. I'm not developmentally disabled so I already know the answer to that. My question went to the attitudes on these boards regarding distinctly non-average people, specifically, those with the very least.
Therefore I gave you sh*t, because you didn't attempt to answer.
These repeating posts, ostensibly on disparate topics, run the same theme over and over, and that theme is what I was trying to get at. The routine back and forth over the specific issue is useless at best. My question was articulated because I find the inexhaustible drumbeat of intolerance for the most desperate and struggling among us to be pretty indefensible. And so I thought to inquire about the thinking behind that intolerance. I won't ever agree with it, but I do genuinely want to know the terrain of the conservative mind. And yes, you're all unique snowflakes, just to preempt that one. But still. I want to get it and, even if I never agree with it, find a way to consider it more deeply than I can now. For now it just seems hateful.

I know!!!!! It's like, I obviously approve of all the billion other ways a far greater proportion of my tax dollars are used without my having personally advocated that usage, but this is where I HAVE TO draw the line: putting a few measly safeguards in place to prevent the deaths of humans. It must cost me--God, I don't know--a cent or two annually AT LEAST. How dare they, really!?! I'm growing faint--somebody get me a glass of water that I worked and paid for, please. If it isn't rightfully mine just let me wither and meet my maker, thanks.
Okay I'm back and fully rejuvenated--I mean, think about it! With how they're screwing me of those pennies to keep people from dying I could, say in fifty years or so, have bought myself an ice cold can of Coca-Cola! Not the big bottle, but a can for sure. Do you know how hot it can get? It's like a damn desert sometimes!! Honestly, a person could die.

No way! I'm only pro-chuckling at fellow humans who die excruciating deaths. And unintentional irony, of course. I am always in favor of that. Oh also, root vegetables. So, in order: laughing smugly at agonizing deaths; unintentional irony; and beets. A lot of people just don't know how good beets are.

Boy, are ever. Speak not English well and deserve death so, then for make me to laugh and laugh at those stupid and also superior feel.

Here's the actual Tina Griego clarifying the above column, which slides clumsily from invocation of her name into the cherry-picked collection of sourceless assertions that follow, if anyone's interested.
Another illegal-immigrant-bashing e-mail is going around, a column filled with the usual mix of fear-laden generalization - Crime! Disease! Invaders! Destroyers of Civilization as We Know It! While such things, when sent to me, are destined for the delete folder, this one apparently has caused some confusion as some folks - clearly not my regular readers - believe it was penned by me.
The author's byline is obvious, but some people were thrown because the first sentence refers to a recent interview I did with Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez. Hernandez told me the Mexican government was failing its poorest citizens and therefore losing its "best hands." But, she argued, it is ignorant to suggest illegal immigrants do not contribute to our economy. They buy groceries, food, pay rent and taxes, she noted, asking "and what happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"
A good question, the cyber-column's author responds. He then answers it by apparently pulling numbers from the air. The column is a one-sided statistical slam, equal parts fiction and fear, not a single source reference. I especially like the part about the 12,000 gang members disappearing in Denver alone, as well as "Denver's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage."
I don't normally waste time on this kind of nonsense, but I received an e-mail from an old family friend on the matter. She, too, believed I had written the column, and she applauded my courage. She said more people needed to speak the truth. She said my mom and dad would be proud. With that, the misunderstanding moved from comical to sad.

Here's the actual Tina Griego clarifying the above column, which slides clumsily from invocation of her name into the cherry-picked collection of sourceless assertions that follow, if anyone's interested.
Another illegal-immigrant-bashing e-mail is going around, a column filled with the usual mix of fear-laden generalization - Crime! Disease! Invaders! Destroyers of Civilization as We Know It! While such things, when sent to me, are destined for the delete folder, this one apparently has caused some confusion as some folks - clearly not my regular readers - believe it was penned by me.
The author's byline is obvious, but some people were thrown because the first sentence refers to a recent interview I did with Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez. Hernandez told me the Mexican government was failing its poorest citizens and therefore losing its "best hands." But, she argued, it is ignorant to suggest illegal immigrants do not contribute to our economy. They buy groceries, food, pay rent and taxes, she noted, asking "and what happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"
A good question, the cyber-column's author responds. He then answers it by apparently pulling numbers from the air. The column is a one-sided statistical slam, equal parts fiction and fear, not a single source reference. I especially like the part about the 12,000 gang members disappearing in Denver alone, as well as "Denver's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage."
I don't normally waste time on this kind of nonsense, but I received an e-mail from an old family friend on the matter. She, too, believed I had written the column, and she applauded my courage. She said more people needed to speak the truth. She said my mom and dad would be proud. With that, the misunderstanding moved from comical to sad.

I am guessing more like anti-death, but hey!

I know!!!!! It's like, I obviously approve of all the billion other ways a far greater proportion of my tax dollars are used without my having personally advocated that usage, but this is where I HAVE TO draw the line: putting a few measly safeguards in place to prevent the deaths of humans. It must cost me--God, I don't know--a cent or two annually AT LEAST. How dare they, really!?! I'm growing faint--somebody get me a glass of water that I worked and paid for, please. If it isn't rightfully mine just let me wither and meet my maker, thanks.
Okay I'm back and fully rejuvenated--I mean, think about it! With how they're screwing me of those pennies to keep people from dying I could, say in fifty years or so, have bought myself an ice cold can of Coca-Cola! Not the big bottle, but a can for sure. Do you know how hot it can get? It's like a damn desert sometimes!! Honestly, a person could die.

I know!!!!! It's like, I obviously approve of all the billion other ways a far greater proportion of my tax dollars are used without my having personally advocated that usage, but this is where I HAVE TO draw the line: putting a few measly safeguards in place to prevent the deaths of humans. It must cost me--God, I don't know--a cent or two annually AT LEAST. How dare they, really!?! I'm growing faint--somebody get me a glass of water that I worked and paid for, please. If it isn't rightfully mine just let me wither and meet my maker, thanks.
Okay I'm back and fully rejuvenated--I mean, think about it! With how they're screwing me of those pennies to keep people from dying I could, say in fifty years or so, have bought myself an ice cold can of Coca-Cola! Not the big bottle, but a can for sure. Do you know how hot it can get? It's like a damn desert sometimes!! Honestly, a person could die.

Know what you mean. I put a bird feeder out and all the songbirds turned up. Next minute an America Kestrel was standing on the top of my solar garden lamp and was tearing the head off the song bird.
I felt I had lured it to it's death
It's a dilemma
I wouldn't mean anyone any harm so giving water would seem right, but luring people into the desert by doing that ? Like giving money to an alky - same dilemma.
I go with illegal by the way and anyone who has had to go through the USCIS would not shy away from saying illegal

No way! I'm only pro-chuckling at fellow humans who die excruciating deaths. And unintentional irony, of course. I am always in favor of that. Oh also, root vegetables. So, in order: laughing smugly at agonizing deaths; unintentional irony; and beets. A lot of people just don't know how good beets are.

Boy, are ever. Speak not English well and deserve death so, then for make me to laugh and laugh at those stupid and also superior feel.