News Stories

[Irenicus]

Just a note, though, this particular California ruling is intentionally narrow. Basically, the argument is that because California has already implemented some form of gay marriage beforehand, the backtrack caused by Proposition 8 is considered to be depriving a pre-existing right thus violating the discrimination clause in the Bill of Rights.

States which have not implemented gay marriage are in no way obligated to implement such legislation through this ruling -- not that the District Court has the power to force such a ruling through in the first place, it can only set a precedent.

Even then someone's already appealed or planning to. Sigh.

I love gay people a lot more than I love bigots (I'm intolerant that way), and I still think that hat is sexy.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

Some never know when to quit. They lost it twice, do they expect than the third wil be the charm ?

[Vexx]

warning: currently, civil unions do not equal marriage, the implicit rights are a subset of marriage. That's one of the basic problems - until the state replaces the word "marriage" with "civil union" (or whatever), there will continue to be problems. Stories run rampant with CU spouses being denied the implicit rights of marriage.
1) not being allowed to visit sig.other in intensive care, participate in end-of-life care, "no code" revival, etc.
2) not being accepted as an authorized agent of the sig.other
3) not being allowed to take part in legal arrangements available to married spouses
4) not being considered "family" to healh insurers (though this one is lessening.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

some never know when to quit. They lost it twice, do they expect than the third wil be the charm ?

In the winter of AD180, Emperor Marcus Aurelius' twelve-year campaign against the barbarian tribes in Germania was drawing to an end. One final stronghold stands in the way of Roman victory and the promise of peace throughout the Empire...

An armour-suited Roman general stands amid a burnt and muddy forest, cloaked in a fur cape that protects him from the cold winter air. General Maximus contemplates the battle that is to take place. Turning to join his troops, a small robin catches his eye as it sits on a bare twig and then flies away. He smiles as he watches, as though remembering his life as a farmer, when life was peaceful and innocent, but he is quickly brought back to the reality of the cold day... and to the soldiers who await his signal to begin the battle.

MAXIMUS: Lean and hungry. Still nothing?
QUINTUS: Not a sign.
MAXIMUS: How long has he been gone?
VALERIUS: Nearly two hours.
VALERIUS: Will they fight, sir?
MAXIMUS: We shall know soon enough.

[In the distance, the cries of the barbarians can be heard. "Ihr seid hunde" (You are dogs!). A horse rides towards them with a headless horseman on its back...]

MAXIMUS: They say no.

[The white and bloodied horse rides within the ranks of the men. A barbarian comes to the front of the German lines, waving the horseman's head, tossing it into the mud...]

GERMAN BARBARIAN: Ihr seid verfluchte hunde! (You are damned dogs!)

[As the barbarian calls out, his mangy band of barbarians emerge from the forest, shaking and waving their spears and shields, ready to fight.]

QUINTUS: People should know when they're conquered.
MAXIMUS: Would you, Quintus? Would I?


(Source)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Some never know when to quit. They lost it twice, do they expect than the third wil be the charm ?

Maybe yes, now that the British Army is winding down due to budget cuts Argentina might have a chance to beat them. Though it is recommended that their troops pull back if the Gurkhas are in town.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Just a note, though, this particular California ruling is intentionally narrow. Basically, the argument is that because California has already implemented some form of gay marriage beforehand, the backtrack caused by Proposition 8 is considered to be depriving a pre-existing right thus violating the discrimination clause in the Bill of Rights.

States which have not implemented gay marriage are in no way obligated to implement such legislation through this ruling -- not that the District Court has the power to force such a ruling through in the first place, it can only set a precedent.

Even then someone's already appealed or planning to. Sigh.

I agree with a "setting a precedent" part. Sometimes such rulings are unnecessary when the judges have a general implied rule to allow gay CUs to be legal and similar to conventional marriages without the presence of a jury.

Too bad for the politicians who risk their votes next term.

I love gay people a lot more than I love bigots (I'm intolerant that way), and I still think that hat is sexy.

You'll regret that statement in the future, when you bring your daughter to Comiket and all she does is hang out at the BL doujin stands and start squealing at the sigh of male cosplayers taking photos together.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I agree with a "setting a precedent" part. Sometimes such rulings are unnecessary when the judges have a general implied rule to allow gay CUs to be legal and similar to conventional marriages without the presence of a jury.

Ah, I should clarify: the Court which ruled on this case has no legal authority beyond the 9th Circuit (a judicial division encompassing several states in the United States). When I meant precedent I do not mean a legally binding one, but that legal scholars and the Supreme Court may take the ruling and its reasoning into account if the issue reaches the Supreme Court in some form.

Judges (and Qur'anic scholars :P) have a fetish for precedent, it makes their job less about their own moral opinions and more about continuity, so having such a precedent established even in a lower court is useful, if not decisive, in turning a decision at the highest level a certain way.

Vexx also raised a worry: by separating Civil Union for same-sex couples and Marriage, you basically force a separate policy on both. Remember that in the United States, like much of the world, the institution of marriage is tied with a vast array of policies, rights, privileges, and obligations in both the public and private spheres. Rather than creating a compromise Civil Union and then forcefully apply anti-discrimination laws to harmonize it with Marriage in thousands of specific cases, it's much, much simpler to just define same-sex marriage as Marriage itself, legally, and be done with it.

You'll regret that statement in the future, when you bring your daughter to Comiket and all she does is hang out at the BL doujin stands and start squealing at the sigh of male cosplayers taking photos together.

My lil' sis, while not exactly a fujoshi, knows BL. I'm sure I can take it.

Actually, I think the BL and the smaller Yuri subcultures do not reflect even a majority of same-sex relationships in Japan. They are overtly constructed fantasies applied to a very specific culture, like, say, the Takarazuka venue.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Ah, I should clarify: the Court which ruled on this case has no legal authority beyond the 9th Circuit (a judicial division encompassing several states in the United States). When I meant precedent I do not mean a legally binding one, but that legal scholars and the Supreme Court may take the ruling and its reasoning into account if the issue reaches the Supreme Court in some form.

Judges (and Qur'anic scholars :P) have a fetish for precedent, it makes their job less about their own moral opinions and more about continuity, so having such a precedent established even in a lower court is useful, if not decisive, in turning a decision at the highest level a certain way.

Vexx also raised a worry: by separating Civil Union for same-sex couples and Marriage, you basically force a separate policy on both. Remember that in the United States, like much of the world, the institution of marriage is tied with a vast array of policies, rights, privileges, and obligations in both the public and private spheres. Rather than creating a compromise Civil Union and then forcefully apply anti-discrimination laws to harmonize it with Marriage in thousands of specific cases, it's much, much simpler to just define same-sex marriage as Marriage itself, legally, and be done with it.

What I actually meant about enforcing the name of a QSU (Queer Social Union) to distinguish between same sex and different sex marriages, whereas they actually have the civil rights. Those who want it separate, it is separate in name; those who want it to be similar, they are similar in working.

In actuality, the legal definition of marriage is often "is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship." The additional stuff attached to that definition can be just done away, only to include minors, children of legal relation (stepchildren) or illegitimacy, or animals.

Just calling it a "social union" should solve plenty of problems. A civil union is a partnership that does not create kinship, but a social union does because it is announcement to society that you are accepting someone else to be part of your family.

My lil' sis, while not exactly a fujoshi, knows BL. I'm sure I can take it.

Actually, I think the BL and the smaller Yuri subcultures do not reflect even a majority of same-sex relationships in Japan. They are overtly constructed fantasies applied to a very specific culture, like, say, the Takarazuka venue.

The problem is that, are you sure you want your daughter to be a dirty little fujoshi? As her father, think about her future!

[Tom Bombadil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16940146

A top Chinese policeman - in charge of a major crackdown on organised crime - has gone on leave, amid rumours that he is under investigation for corruption.

Some rumours suggest Mr Wang had sought asylum at the US consulate in Chengdu, a city near Chongqing. The US embassy in Beijing has declined to comment on that issue.

Pretty big news. The political drama is on its full gear.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16940146

Pretty big news. The political drama is on its full gear.

Some rumours suggest Mr Wang had sought asylum at the US consulate in Chengdu, a city near Chongqing. The US embassy in Beijing has declined to comment on that issue.

Predicted headlines :

1. Top Chinese crimebuster an US intelligence agent
2. Top police officer heads US spy ring to destabilise Chinese economy?
3. Economic warfare goes underground : the dirty things Americans do to hold onto their dissipating hegemony

Someone make a movie out of this and name it Infernal Affairs 4 : Death With A Grievance (無間道 : 死不冥目)*.

* - For those who can read Chinese, pun unintended.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Well, the definition of "sin" is defined in their own perspective and words. Note that if money is the root of all evil, why are they asking for it at the church?

Actually, the quote is wrong, it's "The love of money is the root of all evil". Money itself is an inanimate object, with no moral loading.

[konart]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Actually, the quote is wrong, it's "The love of money is the root of all evil". Money itself is an inanimate object, with no moral loading.

And the church LOVES money

[AnimeFan188]

"The city of Tyler, Texas is better known as the nation’s “rose capital” than as a
hotspot of the technology industry. It’s a quiet, conservative city of about 100,000,
full of wide streets and big trucks.

This week, though, Tyler is the site of a remarkable battle over the history of the
World Wide Web—a trial that could affect the future of e-commerce. The federal
courthouse downtown is packed to the brim with dozens of lawyers, representing
the world’s biggest internet companies, including Yahoo, Amazon, Google and
YouTube.

A succession of pioneers of the early Web—including the Web’s father Tim
Berners-Lee himself—have flown in from around the world to denounce two
software patents they believe threaten the future of Web innovation. East Texas
has transformed itself into something of a haven for patent suits over the past
several years, but by any standard, the trial now underway is an extraordinary
circus of dark-suits."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...t-troll-trial/

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"The city of Tyler, Texas is better known as the nation’s “rose capital” than as a
hotspot of the technology industry. It’s a quiet, conservative city of about 100,000,
full of wide streets and big trucks.

This week, though, Tyler is the site of a remarkable battle over the history of the
World Wide Web—a trial that could affect the future of e-commerce. The federal
courthouse downtown is packed to the brim with dozens of lawyers, representing
the world’s biggest internet companies, including Yahoo, Amazon, Google and
YouTube.

A succession of pioneers of the early Web—including the Web’s father Tim
Berners-Lee himself—have flown in from around the world to denounce two
software patents they believe threaten the future of Web innovation. East Texas
has transformed itself into something of a haven for patent suits over the past
several years, but by any standard, the trial now underway is an extraordinary
circus of dark-suits."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...t-troll-trial/

shouldn't this sort of crap be under Federal instead of State overview?

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

shouldn't this sort of crap be under Federal instead of State overview?

I think it is a federal district court. It is well-known for favoring plaintiffs in patent disputes.

[ganbaru]

Signs build that Iran sanctions disrupt food imports
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8170Q420120208

Iran says can hit U.S. interests worldwide if attacked
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8170TM20120208

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Iran says can hit U.S. interests worldwide if attacked
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8170TM20120208

Are they incredibly stupid or what? If they hit US interests, it isn't just US that is against them, it is the country bearing US's interests too. The country will only cut ties with US AFTER they joined US in hammering out Iran - sovereignity issues first; so they are not allowed to have interests with whoever they want?

And US has interests everywhere. How do they like to have the whole world against them?

Take off your chador Mr Ambassador. The hot air buildup in your head is frying your braincells.

[Vexx]

Send a squadron of tanuki to Iran... after all, since this is ultimately about waving testicles at the other critters at the watering hole, we might as well send the Ultimate Weapons.

[ganbaru]

Let's hope tha it stay a the ''waving testicles'' level, given the current situation, if thing go real, damage might be heavy on all side.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Send a squadron of tanuki to Iran... after all, since this is ultimately about waving testicles at the other critters at the watering hole, we might as well send the Ultimate Weapons.

better then waving testicle, a old viking test for manhood would work better

[Ithekro]

Would that be kosher? (I doubt it so a Jew or Muslim couldn't eat that)