Da Senate

[Nightingale 0]

um... I answered your question.

No, the law already states that that is not ok.

[rehmwa 2]

support civil unions - no problem, but don't call it 'marriage'

protect a woman's right to choose - no problem, but the father is part of it and should have some legal say when the situation isn't exceptional

maintain separation of church and state - yup

protect the environment - yup, but within reason and don't kill off the companies as a result of overkill

fund public education and oppose school vouchers - nope, why can't someone take their money to any school of their choice if the public system in their area is not up to their personal expectations

oppose government funding of discriminatory groups ("faith based") - agree with the first part, don't understand why you'd single out "faith-based" instead of all discriminatory groups though, still agree, don't need to preference faith based over any other discriminatory group

oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation - yup - but opposing discrimination is much different than codifying preferences

pick the party most in line with how I feel about those issues (important to me) - yup, except not 'party', but individual candidates

only two of the above stated 'fund' in some way or the other, but they all come down to spending in those areas. Still, money.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

um... I answered your question.

No, the law already states that that is not ok.

um (I love that response) - the question was "is it ok" not "is it legal". I'm just wondering what your 'choice' would be regardless of the law. Not whether you should have that choice - different subject and too escalatory. If it's too situational, then what if that choice was today? (I do think the circumstances matter, but I'm rather self-centered)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

I think ALL marriages/unions should be civil unions in the eyes of the government. If people want to get married, they can do it in a church, which should have no legal standing. That way, you protect marriage in the religious sense, and get rid of discrimination by the government as to who can join their life with another person.

how can the father have a legal say, and still maintain the right of a woman to have a say in what goes on inside her own body? How would you work this? are you going to force a woman to carry a child to term that she doesn't want?

I specified "faith based" as an example, because its been on the republican agenda.

regarding vouchers: its the job of the government to fund PUBLIC education. Not private. If a parent wants to send their child somewhere else, they're welcome to do so at their own expense. Public schools are funded by the government as an investment in society's future. Private schools aren't required to teach state standards. If a parent decides to remove a child from a public school, that's fine, but they need to foot the bill for their decision.

[Nightingale 0]

It is not ok.

There is already a law stating that it is not ok. There is no need for additional legislation in this regard.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

how can the father have a legal say, and still maintain the right of a woman to have a say in what goes on inside her own body? How would you work this? are you going to force a woman to carry a child to term that she doesn't want?

That's a tricky one. I'm very pro choice but when it comes to a dispute between the father and mother it gets complicated. Personally, I think that if they aren't married, then the father shouldn't have a say regardless. If they are, then I don't know how it should be determined, but I lean toward giving the mother the choice simply because to do otherwise would be unenfoceable. There are numerous ways she could terminate the pregnancy anyway. But it sucks for the husband/father in that situation.

[Kennedy 0]

Kev, every possible dispute over children sucks for the father because courts give unreasonable preference to the mother.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a Ditka/Obama face-off. Illinois politics will be more entertaining than ever.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a Ditka/Obama face-off. Illinois politics will be more entertaining than ever.

That's right, this was about Ditka.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Kev, every possible dispute over children sucks for the father because courts give unreasonable preference to the mother.

Hmmmm, odd, I've never experienced first hand a legal bias in favor of women in relationships.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Hmmmm, odd, I've never experienced first hand a legal bias in favor of women in relationships.

It's good to laugh now. Whatever happened after you got things settled?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Don't know. Not sure what the IRS did with the letter I sent them about how much money she makes under the table, where she works and the fact she hasn't even filed a return in 8 years.

Seriosly though, all charges dropped and record expunged. Voluntarily gave up the right to posess a gun for a year in exchange for not having to go through a trial (which would have cost a butt load of money) since the judge went out of his way to make sure I knew he was biased against me from the start.