|
Deep in the heart of ultra-modern Japan stands the Shinto shrine of the sun goddess Amaterasu. at Ise. Pilgrims still trek through the pine forests to this temple. which houses the sacred mirror of the goddess from whom their emperors are said to descend.
Despite the feminine origins of the Imperial House. its continuity for 2.600 years has been rigorously masculine. But now there are two women whose fertility and character will determine the fate of the dynasty. the future of Japan. A power play is unfolding between rival factions of the Japanese elite who see the monarchy as a symbol that can be used to modernise Japan or anchor it again in superior isolation. The warring parties regard the two women not as princesses but as pawns.
One is the Crown Princess Masako. Aged 43. educated at Harvard. and the daughter of a diplomat. she is the personification of the Japanese high-flyer 'C her mind sharpened by two years of postgraduate study in international relations at Balliol College. Oxford. When she married Crown Prince Naruhito in 1993. many saw her arrival at the palace as a spray of spring blossom against a muted lacquer screen. It was a love match. Naruhito. who shared her memories of a happily anonymous interlude at Oxford (in his case. was blissful with his sophisticated. stylish bride. But Masako's induction to the royal family has brought misery and discord in its wake.
She was educated in the West: she attended kindergarten in Moscow. junior school in the US. and high school in Tokyo and the US. She then went to Harvard. where her contemporaries remember her as superficially cosmopolitan. but say she was also modest and reserved 'C ie. quintessentially Japanese 'C underneath. She studied under the dynamic economist Jeffrey Sachs. and wrote a dissertation on the economic effects of oil-price shocks. She was president of the Japanese Cultural Society and a representative on the Undergraduate Council. A family friend. the Harvard professor Ezra Vogel. said she was 'an excellent student. with a good sense of responsibility and professionalism'.
William Bossert. the head of Harvard's Lowell House. where Masako resided. summed up the misplaced hopes of many when he said: 'She is bound to speak out for women's rights in Japan.' She was never a trendy radical 'C Japanese TV footage of her at Oxford shows her looking demure in a trenchcoat and sensible shoes. Her love life. was strictly off limits. But from the day of her marriage into the Japanese royal family in 1993. she was confronted with a way of life so formal it made the Vatican look lax.
Concerned she should breed an heir and conform to deferential custom. court officials stifled every initiative to put her talents to diplomatic use on behalf of Japan. The lack of privacy was so pervasive. the Japanese media even reported that her laundry was scrutinised for signs of menstruation. Her relations with the reigning sovereign. and Empress Michiko. were whispered to be correct but distant. even though the empress 'C herself a commoner like Masako 'C is known to have suffered some sort of crisis in her early married life that left her unable to speak for weeks.
Ten years into her marriage. Masako publicly admitted: 'Having entered a completely new world from the one I'd known before. I've encountered difficulties I never imagined.' Six months later she had a nervous breakdown and retired from public life. Her husband spoke out to chide those who had. 'denied Princess Masako's career up to then. and her personality'. Masako tried to adapt to a life lived under permanent observation. burdened by protocol and rituals so steeped in antiquity. the royals must master an archaic form of Japanese just to perform them. 'She's completely exhausted herself in trying to do so.' the crown prince said.
Masako's initiation into the formal Shinto role of the royals began on her wedding day. when attendants set her hair in a stiff black style and helped her into a wedding kimono in the fashion of the 11th-century Heian court. She and her husband disappeared from the view of their 900 guests into a small shrine. where simple vows were exchanged and prayers offered to their illustrious ancestors. From then on. Masako's duties involved attending annual rites and prayers offered by Shinto priests for traditional blessings. such as a good rice harvest. The blessings became intensely personal when she became pregnant. In the ninth month of her pregnancy she wrapped her belly in a red-and-white silk obi (sash) given to her by the emperor. and prayed for a safe delivery. The rite was performed on the day of the dog in the Chinese calendar. because dogs are widely believed to give birth with minimum pain.
On December 1. Masako gave birth to a daughter. who stands first in line to inherit the throne. After her birth the infant was bathed by a courtier in a cedar tub. while others read aloud from antiquated classical Chinese texts and played musical instruments to frighten off bad spirits. Then. after a messenger from the emperor arrived to disclose the name he had bestowed on the baby. the parents presented Aiko to the gods at three Shinto shrines within the walls of the palace.
But not everyone was celebrating. To traditionalists. the fact that Aiko is female spells the end of the dynasty. Only a royal male can pass on the lineage of Amaterasu. they argue. Indeed. the present Imperial House Law. rewritten under American guidance in 1947. enshrines it. Through her paternity. Aiko may legitimately inherit the Chrysanthemum Throne but her children may not. Thus. sometime around the end of the 21st century. the 127th monarch since Emperor Jimmu would die and the dynasty would expire naturally upon her last breath.
Masako could still produce a boy. and this March 'C more than two years after her withdrawal from public engagements 'C her husband emphasised how fragile her health still is. 'Princess Masako is. although gradually. making a steady recovery.' he said. 'Recently she has been able to carry out official duties as a step towards recovery.' But she was not well enough to join him on a trip to Mexico. as she could not travel long distances.
At this point. a second princess enters the tale. Princess Kiko (Kawashima Kiko). married to the emperor's second son. Prince Akishino (Fumihito). announced early this year that she was pregnant. The Japanese establishment was stunned. Kiko. a psychology graduate from the prestigious Gakushuin University. had given birth to two daughters: Mako. in 1994. It was assumed her child-bearing days were over. The prime minister. Junichiro Koizumi. only learnt of the pregnancy when the national TV channel. broke the news after it was leaked from the court circles. Koizumi shelved plans to draft a change in the Imperial House Law that would have allowed a woman to succeed to the throne. If Kiko's child. he will precede Princess Aiko to the throne. Tactfully. the crown prince let it be known that he and Masako found the news 'very pleasant' and congratulated Akishino. 'This was a deliberate strategy by the Imperial family.' said Professor Hatta Ikuhiko. Japan's pre-eminent historian of the modern dynasty. 'I have heard that Princess Akishino [Kiko] consulted doctors. and that new medical technology allows for a 70% probability of a boy. We expect rumours to that effect to be spread by the household this summer.'
Hatta believes Emperor Akihito himself instigated the idea of a third pregnancy for Princess Kiko. There is evidence that he is displeased with the crown prince. and that members of the royal family regard Masako with the same disapproval some of the British monarchy reserved for Diana. Princess of Wales.
As the second son. Akishino (whose time at Oxford was spent at the graduate school of zoology) has kept a low profile ever since he was obliged to deny suggestions in the Japanese press that a scientific trip to Thailand was a cover for an assignation with a mistress. But Akishino's latest remarks provided a rare glimpse of a family divided. He said it was 'regrettable' that the crown prince criticised courtiers. and defended his wife in public. instead of talking to the emperor about their troubles. He added that the emperor had been 'very surprised' by the remarks. Even in the encrypted language of the Japanese court. that needed no decoding: emperors do not like to be surprised.
Pregnancy
panda curator at Zoo Atlanta. was on a research trip in China last year when she told her foreign colleagues the good news: She was about to get married.
They were horrified. "Not in the year of the chicken! referring to one of the 12 animal signs on their astrological calendar. "That's a terrible year to get married! the zoo's 8-year-old female panda. was artifically inseminated in March. But officials say they won't know for weeks if she's carrying a cub. There is virtually no way to definitively call a panda pregnancy this far in advance. (See article at far right.) Word should come in late July or early August.
If Lun Lun has a successful pregnancy. her baby would be one of the few American-born pandas: San Diego Zoo has birthed two pandas; Smithsonian National Zoological Park in Washington had a cub last year. via artificial insemination. The endocrinologist who worked on that procedure assisted on Lun Lun's earlier this year.
After two unsuccessful mating seasons. Snyder is starting to feel some pressure. "One of my predictions was that Yang Yang [Zoo Atlanta's male panda] would end up to be a good breeder. You always like it when your studies turn out like you expect them to. So far he's not living up to that research."
A newborn would boost annual attendance. and possibly draw sponsorships. zoo President and CEO Dennis Kelly said earlier this year.
On a personal level. Snyder is not sure what she'll do if Lun Lun fails to deliver a cub in the coming months. and the pandas return to China when Zoo Atlanta's contract expires in 2009. She says she could transfer to another zoo with pandas or teach fulltime.
"I knew that. having a baby panda was going to be a measure of our success. even though the information we're providing by studying their social development was important as well." says former Zoo Atlanta chief Terry Maple. now president and CEO of the Palm Beach Zoo in Florida. "You have to look at the big picture. And people don't look at that. They just say it costs so much money."
As the zoo's vice president of animal programs. is well aware of the pandas' challenge. "It's a tough learning curve when you only have one day a year to do it. referring to the small fertility window ' about 24 hours ' that pandas have annually to conceive.
Snyder says her fingers are crossed. "It's a big deal and we all feel a lot of pressure to make this happen. "if only the pandas would. It's a tense time."
Pregnancy
She claimed he suggested she should pose for a calendar and that he was in a "perfect" position to look down her top. asking: "Where is a low-cut top when you need one?"
She was made redundant two weeks later. But this week. a tribunal panel threw out her claims of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal against driver hire firm DHN Management Ltd of Newport.
Last night. Mr Ford said he was relieved the tribunal had found in his favour after being satisfied Miss Pace was made redundant due to the company's financial position. The company director said: "The tribunal ruling speaks for itself."
He said: "I fiercely object to the sexual harassment claims which are blatantly untrue. When Sabrina found out about her pregnancy she was physically and emotionally in bits.
And Mr Ford's wife Megan. a co-director in the business. said rather than be embarrassed about her new chest. she "often referred" to it. "I found Sabrina's mannerisms and comments on her breast enlargement embarrassing.
Spokeswoman Emma Watkins said: "The good and best employers will do all they can to protect pregnant women and treat them with the respect they deserve.
Discount Holidays in France Offer We will beat any genuine quote for your France holiday break. Save money with our unique Triple Guarantee. Leisure Direction Limited. ABTA & ATOL licensed.
Island Cruises - Holidays from '557 Experience the best that the Mediterranean or Brazil has to offer with Island Cruises from '549. Cruising without the traditional stuffiness. Relaxed. friendly and informal. Book online today
Bargain Holidays to Many Popular Destinations Book from Holidaymed's great range of bargain holidays. All popular holiday destinations available at knock down prices.
Discount Holidays in France Offer We will beat any genuine quote for your France holiday break. Save money with our unique Triple Guarantee. Leisure Direction Limited. ABTA & ATOL licensed.
Island Cruises - Holidays from '557 Experience the best that the Mediterranean or Brazil has to offer with Island Cruises from '549. Cruising without the traditional stuffiness. Relaxed. friendly and informal. Book online today
Bargain Holidays to Many Popular Destinations Book from Holidaymed's great range of bargain holidays. All popular holiday destinations available at knock down prices.
Pregnancy
(CBS) Judging by what's coming up next season. Kiefer Sutherland may now be the most influential man in television. The success of Fox's "24. to a certain extent." is fueling an insatiable taste for thrillers and mysteries. That's evident in the fall schedule announcements made this past week by the five biggest broadcast networks. TV executives evidently feel the surest route to success is to get your adrenaline pumping. Titles alone tell the story: "Kidnapped." "Vanished." "Standoff." An NBC serial will track a rich kid's abduction. while a Fox mystery will try to figure out why a senator's wife disappeared. Fox's "Standoff" will follow an elite team of FBI hostage negotiators and ABC's "The Nine" is about the lives of nine people caught up in a hostage situation. ABC's "Traveler" tracks youths trying to prove they didn't set off a terrorist bomb. while the CW's "Runaway" follows a man who disappears with his family to prove he didn't commit a murder. ABC's "Day Break" borrows from the movie "Groundhog Day." with a detective repeating the day he was framed for murder in order to solve the case. Even several non-serials promise to keep nerves on edge. Both Fox and CBS have promising legal dramas on tap. Because of a plum Thursday time slot and a star. who plays a brilliant defense lawyer who becomes a prosecutor (and works for Jeri Ryan). CBS's "Shark" seems primed for success. Another CBS drama features Ray Liotta as a crook pulling off high-tech heists. Prime-time TV next fall will often feel like CNN gone haywire. In a quieter way. "24" is also influencing the television calendar. Fox schedules it as a limited-run series. letting a season unfold from start to finish with no repeats or interruptions. Next season. NBC has committed to not running repeats of "ER." breaking its run in midseason with another drama. ABC will be doing the same thing with "Lost." whose devotees grew furious when repeats were sprinkled in. "We really listened to the fans." said Steve McPherson. ABC entertainment president. This tests the traditional economics of television. where the advertising revenue from repeats has been crucial to paying for a series' production. But DVD sales are helping to bring in extra money. Besides. the audience is growing far less tolerant of repeats. particularly for shows with ongoing story lines. That's one of the reasons CBS favors dramas with stories that begin and end with each episode. "`CSI' is a far more profitable show than `Desperate Housewives.'" said CBS Corp. chief executive Leslie Moonves. Don't look for a resurgence in television comedy next fall. CBS is introducing only one new sitcom. with two each for NBC and Fox. None are pushing any envelopes in terms of subject matter and production. Based on short previews screened for advertisers last week. the most promising are ABC's "Let's Rob...." about a group of misfits determined to burgle Mick Jagger's home." with Brad Garrett and Joely Fisher as a married couple influencing the newlyweds next door. NBC's "30 Rock" pilot had some belly laughs. and Alec Baldwin is perfectly cast as a venal TV executive. But together with Aaron Sorkin's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." NBC is asking a lot of viewers to embrace two shows about the backstage world behind a thinly disguised "Saturday Night Live." The Sorkin series quickly became the subject of television insiders' favorite parlor game. As its most-touted new show. NBC was already testing "Studio 60" by giving it a Thursday time slot opposite "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation." But when ABC scheduled "Grey's Anatomy" at the same time. the Sorkin show was put in danger of becoming roadkill unless NBC moves it. Where will it go? That's the guessing game. Asked if he's burning up the phones trying to get the show moved. head of the Warner Bros. studio that is producing "Studio 60." answered: "Is the pope German?" With one notable exception. the broadcast networks were conservative last week. Fox and CBS both made a point of stressing stability. CBS is adding only four new series in the fall. The CW. a blend of UPN and the WB. is picking up one new drama and a comedy spinoff. "We don't have huge highs and huge lows." CBS' Moonves said. "We are not the manic-depressive network." His reference was to ABC. which has a frightfully thin bench. Despite three sensations in "Grey's Anatomy." "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives." ABC somehow managed to finish fourth in the ratings one recent week. As a result. McPherson committed to introducing a staggering 15 new programs next season. During his presentation to thousands of advertisers last week at New York's Lincoln Center. the black-clad McPherson said he had lost a bet to Jimmy Kimmel about "Dancing With the Stars." He had to pay up onstage. when a sequined professional dancer joined him for a cha-cha routine to AC/DC's "You Shook Me All Night Long." As the slightly stiff executive made his moves. the audience held its breath. then laughed uproariously. McPherson pulled it off. He was rewarded with a standing ovation. Subtly. a more important message was delivered: This was a network not afraid to take chances and have some fun. ABC will undoubtedly have the most flops next season. but also stands the best chance of launching a show that captures the public's imagination. Considering it has comedies about pregnancy and a wedding day. a remade Latin American telenovela and a series about a single relationship counselor set loose in Alaska. women will likely lead the way. "You never know where your big hits are going to come from." McPherson said.
By David Bauder. AP Television Writer ? or redistributed.
Julia's Newest Adventure Only On The Web: Actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and producer Kari Lizer discuss "The New Adventures of Old Christine" with CBS News' Bianca Solorzano.
Pregnancy
Christopher Lambert's mullet. Sean Connery's Egyptian- Spanish- Fountainbridge accent. Slow-motion decapitations to the music of Queen: there's so much that's brilliantly bizarre about Highlander that it's easy to miss Celia Imrie - but there she is. a lusty medieval wench. cheering her hugely foreheaded husband off into battle. "I was twice his size. "He looks like a giant on screen doesn't he? Charming but tiny. In the script he was supposed to pull me up on to his horse to kiss me goodbye. Well. I met him the night before and I said. this is a bit embarrassing but I think I'm going to have to lift you on to my horse - you'll never get me off the ground. In the end you'll see I run along beside him."
Imrie is much smaller than the statuesque figure she cuts on film. With her cropped hair. clipped syllables and elegant bearing. she could be any well-bred Home Counties lady. if it wasn't for the wicked curl to her full mouth. It's this suggestion of mischief lurking beneath a matronly bosom that has made Imrie such a success as the tweedy Miss Babs in the Acorn Antiques segment on Victoria Wood - As Seen on TV. the home help in Still Game and turkey-buffet hostess Una Alconbury in the Bridget Jones films. Although only 54 (and looking ten years younger). onscreen it sometimes feels as though she's been middle-aged forever.
Her latest such role is the dragonish Lady Riva Hardwick in Richard E Grant's semi-autobiographical drama Wah-Wah. which also stars Acorn Antiques cohort Julie Walters. Set in Swaziland. the film depicts an Unhappy Valley of bedhopping English ex-pats boozing their way through the fag end of the Empire. The title refers to the baby talk among this posh set. "Everything's tootle pip and hush hush. it sounds like a load of 'wah." moans an American interloper. Imrie's Lady Riva is Queen Wah-Wah. enforcing an outmoded class system with a lethal armoury of putdowns. When the feisty Yank reveals her nationality. Riva raises her nose and dispatches her with an icy. "how very hubbly jubbly for you".
Adored by fans for her deadpan drollery. Imrie relished Riva's undiluted nastiness. "A friend of mine came to see a screening and said. I was longing for you to suddenly become funny. And you didn't'. I said. it's quite weird isn't it?' Originally Richard offered me another part but I said. but what about this old bag?'" Imrie modelled the battleaxe on some of the "rather ferocious" women who visited her childhood home in 1950s Surrey. "I drew inspiration from my mother's friends. I can remember them wearing those huge. full-skirted skirts and marvellous feathery hats."
The fourth of five children. Imrie got her cut-glass accent from her mother Diana and her Scottish looks and love of dancing from her father David. a radiologist from Glasgow. "My father was a marvellous Scottish dancer. One of my very happy memories is looking over the banister as a girl and seeing the dancers on the lawn. He ran the Scottish Society and threw Burns Night Suppers where me and my sisters would speak on behalf of the lassies and all that. He always kept his accent. He put it on a bit on the phone. actually. I never knew if that was out of nerves or what."
She describes her upbringing in Guildford as "unromantic" but it wasn't entirely without a certain upper-crust dash. Her mother employed a nanny. to look after them. "because she was this absolutely glorious woman who loved going to parties and going to the races and she just didn't have the time". Imrie credits her with giving her an early taste for theatre. "My mother was the most amazing actress in her own right - as a storyteller after a couple of gins. Never read bedtime stories. No. she was always relating her own adventures."
Young Celia was desperate to be a ballerina and passed all the exams. right up until the one that would get her into the Royal Ballet school. They recognised her talent too but also the fact that. she was already "too big". This disappointment led to an on-off struggle with anorexia which landed her in a hospital psychiatric wing aged 14. When Imrie recovered she determined that if it wasn't going to be ballet then it would jolly well be the stage. While her two sisters became nurses "which pleased my father very much". "a bit of a black sheep. On a quest to be noticed. Pathetic isn't it? being an actress was still frowned upon. she says. "It wasn't quite respectable. I know my mother had to take quite a bit of stick." Her father never really understood what she was about either. "He did once ask. 'when are you going to be on the goggle box? but he didn't live to see it. After training as a dance teacher. Imrie moved to London. where she supported herself by waitressing and working as a cleaner. "Nothing was going to stop me. "You've got to want to do this or die. I had this blind belief. so I just put my head down and got on with it. When I was charring for Arthur Schwartz. the American composer of Bandwagon. my advice is to make a nuisance of yourself'. At first she didn't bother the critics too much. There was a 1968 stage debut as a dancing rat in a panto chorus line and an early screen outing in the 1974 sexploitation flick The House of Whipcord. about a correctional facility for beautiful young girls.
"I played one of the inmates. dressed in sackcloth. Literally. a sack with a rope around my waist." she smiles. "And I threw my Bible out of the window in an effort to escape. I had long hair in those days. Somebody told me that I looked like Giant Haystacks. Dame Judi Dench spotted it in my programme notes once when we were working together and said. 'oh that's a soft porn film I did when I was 17'. To her complete brilliance. she tracked down a copy and gave it to me. I don't think she ever watched it. I just don't think she believed that such a thing existed." Wasn't Imrie at all worried about playing the whipping girl in some sideburn-heavy S&M? because I didn't have to take my clothes off. No. I thought it was a bit of a hoot. actually."
Better roles came her way on the small screen. in Upstairs Downstairs. Shoestring and Bergerac. Then she was taken up by Victoria Wood and a parallel career developed. sending up such TV dramas and sitcoms. first in spoof TV economics show McOnomy and later. in Dinnerladies and Acorn Antiques. "It's an absolute cult." Imrie says of the sketch that lately mutated into a sell-out West End musical. "People know the lines better than we do. Miss Babs is still what I'm best known for. Even though I don't go around with bright yellow hair." It hasn't all been camping it up and bumping into furniture. though. Theatre work has included School for Scandal with the Royal Shakespeare Company and a production of Edward Bond's The Sea. directed by Sam Mendes at The National. In the late 1970s Imrie was a member of the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow. "I had a wonderful time working there. At the time. it was the place everybody wanted to go. It took me about five auditions to get in. It was a bit of a golden era. So radical."
In the early days. Imrie also spent some time touring Edinburgh schools with an educational production put together by the now eminent TV producer Sue Birtwistle (of TV Pride and Prejudice fame). "I'm terribly proud of my half-Scots blood. I love going up to Scotland and I've worked quite a lot up there. Directors have taken a chance on me because I sound a bit posh. Tom Cotter. cast me in Cloud Howe - the Lewis Grassic Gibbon novel. That was one of the best parts I've ever been given. Doing the Aberdeen accent was almost like learning Dutch."
That was in 1982 and other heavyweight TV roles followed in Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit. The Darling Buds of May. Gormenghast and the Mitford saga Love in a Cold Climate. which saw her dowdy Aunt Sadie married to Alan Bates. "I'd known him for years and absolutely adored him." says Imrie of her late co-star. "He really is naughty. Terrible. Or was. God bless him. But then. Dame Judi's got that too. Everybody who's ever been one of my heroes is very naughty. Naughty sense of humour. Naughty sparkle in their eye."
When Imrie was pregnant with her son Angus she told everybody she wanted a "naughty" child - something the 11-year-old likes to remind her of today. The pregnancy was "sort of" planned "because I was running out of time a bit. "I always thought I was rather ancient to have a child so I was shocked and delighted when I found out."
The father is actor Ben Whitrow. although there was never any question of them getting married. "I can admire people who want to do it. who actually plunge into this lifelong thing with no way out. but I'd just feel trapped." she has said. "All that certainty. No surprises. I love not knowing what's going to happen next. Better to be independent if you can. I think." Perhaps it's got something to do with growing up in the 1950s. "I'm not sure the generation of young women that's coming up now has any idea what went on then." she says.
"Not that they have to be grateful or anything. but I think they're completely unaware of what used to be. Which is quite alarming. Divorce was terribly frowned upon. When I was growing up 'a divorcee' really had the same besmirching as someone who had an illegitimate baby. Mother really didn't approve of that at all. It wasn't done. I'm afraid I broke that rule too."
In 2003's smash hit film Calendar Girls. Helen Mirren's onscreen son goes into a monster sulk about his embarrassing mum taking off her clothes. Did Angus have a similar reaction to Imrie going topless but for a pile of strategically positioned buns? "He never said that he minded. In fact he took it in his stride. I suppose he was just that bit younger so not to be too embarrassed."
I guess it helps if you can tell your mates your mum is also in Star Wars: Episode I? "Absolutely. It's a bit cool to have your mum as a fighter pilot isn't it? I loved saying 'I'm Bravo Five'. that was one of the biggest thrills."
Angus made his own acting debut on the radio at Christmas. "He was extremely good actually." says Imrie. "I wouldn't put it past him to go into acting and I certainly wouldn't put him off. either. I don't quite understand why people say that to their children. Of course you have to be tough and take things on the chin. Of course you have ups and downs - still do actually. Highs and lows of confidence. He understands that. But nonetheless. I do think it's a wonderful job. when you're working."
Imrie never seems to stop. recently squeezing in films such as Wimbledon. Nanny McPhee and Imagine Me and You. as well as TV dramas Dr Zhivago. Daniel Deronda and Doc Martin.
After a career as a stalwart supporting player. and at an age when many actresses begin to be sidelined by casting directors. Imrie seems to be moving not further away from the spotlight. but towards it.
Next week she's filming a comedy pilot with Nicholas Lyndhurst and last year she performed off-Broadway in her first solo show. "I never thought I'd do something on my own. "Sometimes you get to a first night and think you're going to die with fright. But then you hold your nose and jump in and it disappears. And the feeling afterwards! That first drink is fantastic!
Pregnancy
More than half of state legislatures have completed their work for 2006 'C 24 states of the 44 holding regular legislative sessions this year. A review of their work shows that years of belt-tightening in the first half of this decade have given way to modest tax cuts and extra spending. particularly on education. in several 'C though not all 'C the states.
Wyoming. Utah and Washington state grappled with the enviable problem of what to do with projected surpluses of about $1 billion or more. Florida used surplus funds to slash taxes by $400 million. Illinois lawmakers approved $135 million proposal from the governor to create the nation's first statewide preschool program for 3- and 4-year-olds.
Illinois also banned cigarettes from college dorms and adopted a law allowing only self-extinguishing cigarettes to be sold in the state. Colorado became the 13th state to ban smoking statewide.
Bucking a national trend to ban same-sex marriage. Colorado lawmakers put on the November ballot a proposal that would give same-sex couples most of the rights of marriage. Nineteen states have adopted constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage and voters in seven more states are considering similar measures in 2006.
South Dakota grabbed headlines by adopting a ban on almost all abortions. laying the groundwork for a case many hope could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
Hawaii lawmakers on May 5 repealed the nation's only cap on wholesale gasoline prices. which was put in place after gas prices skyrocketed post-Hurricane Katrina in September.
In another first. the Maryland Legislature took aim at the nation's largest employer 'C Wal-Mart 'C and overrode Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto to enact a first-in-the-nation law requiring large employers to spend a certain amount on employee health benefits.
will update its 'Legislative Wrap-up' as the other legislatures at work this year complete their session. or if full-time legislatures. their budgets.
Six state legislatures convene biennially and weren't scheduled to meet this year 'C Arkansas. Oregon and Texas. However. three of those states 'C Arkansas. Oregon and Texas 'C were called into special sessions this year by their governors and are included in the summary below.
In one of its most productive legislative sessions in recent history. Alabama raised the income threshold for personal income tax from $4. putting the state in line with 15 others that tax families with incomes below the federal poverty line of $15.577.
By signing the new law'the first increase since 1935 in the income level at which Alabama families are taxed'Gov. Bob Riley pulled the state from dead last to fourth from the bottom.500).
Alabama legislators voted to outlaw a sport called hog dogging. in which trained dogs attack penned feral hogs. Similar bans on the sport'considered by many to be cruel'were considered in Mississippi. Georgia and South Carolina.
Like at least six other states. Alabama adopted a controversial law that allows people to use deadly force against intruders in their homes. businesses or automobiles. While the Legislature failed to approve a ban on almost all abortions. lawmakers enacted a statute that would make an assault on a pregnant woman two crimes instead of one.
The state also extended the date for runoff elections to ensure that soldiers in Iraq would have time to file absentee ballots. lengthened the school year by five days. tightened landlord-tenant laws and named the black bear the state mammal.
Arkansas lawmakers were called into special session by Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) April 3-7 to respond to a ruling by the state Supreme Court that public education was inadequately financed. Besides boosting school funding by $132.5 million. the Legislature also raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour 'C the 20th state to raise wages above the federal minimum 'C and banned smoking in most workplaces. including restaurants.
Rocky Mountain lawmakers had an extra $800 million this year. due to a 2005 ballot initiative that suspended the state's strict tax and spending limits.
But agreeing on a budget was one of the least contentious issues during as social issues. gubernatorial vetoes and ethics charges roiled Colorado's 120-day law-making session.
The extra money. which would have gone back to taxpayers. was largely funneled into higher education. public school construction. transportation and health care 'C areas that had seen the greatest cuts during the most recent economic recession that crimped state budgets across the country.
Legislators also passed bills to penalize "coyotes" who transport illegal immigrants for money. and reined in the state's power to take private property for commercial development and private toll roads.
And lawmakers approved a November ballot measure that would give same-sex couples some of the legal rights that married couples have. But a bill to extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting sexual abuse cases died after intensive lobbying by the Roman Catholic Church.
Gov. Bill Owens (R). serving his second and final term. signed a statewide smoking ban and struck a deal to reform the state's pension system for retired public workers.
Owens also nixed numerous bills. including a measure to allow emergency contraception drugs to be sold over the counter. a bill to require more healthy snacks in public schools and a bill to require workers compensation for construction workers.
Partisan tensions often boiled over. as lawmakers prepared for the November elections to determine control of the Statehouse and governor's mansion. The Republican House minority leader stepped down from his leadership post after allegations that he had been improperly paid for legislative work while vacationing.
A Democratic state senator resigned her seat amid charges that she had demanded campaign contributions from a group that backed her opponent in the previous election. Democrats also fended off charges of state campaign finance violations over revealed anonymous donations of $80.000 to cover office expenses of 10 legislators.
Job creation and transportation improvements highlighted a legislative session that House and Senate Democrats lavishly praised at its conclusion May 3. But Republicans complained that issues such as rising energy costs. eminent domain and updated sex offender legislation went unaddressed.
To help make Connecticut business-friendlier. legislators eliminated a 15 percent corporate tax surcharge and offered tax credits for businesses creating at least 50 new jobs or hiring 'displaced workers' from other firms.
Connecticut hopes to lure Hollywood with a 30-percent tax credit for media production companies that spend at least $50. and exempted manufacturing machinery and equipment from local property taxes in a five-year phase-out starting in 2008.
Lawmakers passed a 10-year. $2.3 billion transportation plan to reduce congestion. It includes a bus way between New Britain and Hartford. a commuter rail linking New Haven and Springfield. and upgrades to branch lines. stations and parking lots.
The $16.1 billion budget includes $246 million to fully underwrite public school teachers' retirement for the first time in five years. and salts away $175 million in Connecticut's 'Rainy Day Fund.'
But Republicans complained about lack of action. notably the failure to pass 'Jessica's Law' carrying mandatory minimum sentences for sex offenders.
Eminent domain has been a hot-button issue since the Supreme Court upheld New London's right to seize private property for economic development. But although lawmakers created an eminent domain ombudsman. sweeping legislation failed.
Faced with a record surplus. Florida legislators handily approved nearly $400 million in tax cuts. but failed to agree on a way to protect consumers from skyrocketing property insurance rates resulting from the state's eight consecutive hurricanes.
Storm-related property damage totaling some $30 billion forced the state-supported insurance company to hike premiums nearly 200 percent last year. Lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to hammer out a tax proposal that would insulate homeowners from the price spike.
Meanwhile. public outcry over the death of a 14-year-old boy at a juvenile detention center in the state spurred lawmakers to ban military-style camps.
While Gov. Jeb Bush (R) was unable to get approval for much of his sweeping education reform package in his final session before leaving office. lawmakers did okay a bill requiring high school students to declare a major area of study and attend career counseling classes.
Despite the governor's requests. lawmakers failed to loosen a cap on class sizes or to restore a school voucher program. invalidated earlier this year by the state Supreme Court. that let students in poor districts use taxpayer funds to pay for private schools.
Lawmakers also voted to put three measures before voters in November: a property tax exemption for low-income seniors; a property tax discount for elderly. disabled war veterans. and an eminent domain measure that would prohibit the state from condemning property in order to sell it to a third-party land developer.
Republican lawmakers. in their second year as the Statehouse majority. gave Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) nearly everything he asked for during the 40-day legislative session. including major education measures to boost teacher pay by 4 percent. reduce class sizes and borrow $442 million to build new schools and buy more buses.
The Legislature. which adjourned March 30. also approved Perdue's requests to direct 65 percent of all school money into the classroom. limit the state's eminent domain powers and suspend some taxes on liquid propane and natural gas.
In addition. Georgia legislators passed a number of hot-button bills on social issues. including allowing prosecution of anyone who kills a fetus at any stage of pregnancy. protecting pharmacists who refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions. permitting the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public buildings and letting public schools offer courses on the Bible.
Another new law attempts to crack down on illegal immigration by requiring the state and local government to verify the residency of any adult applying for public assistance and removing tax breaks for businesses caught employing undocumented workers.
The Legislature also increased penalties for sex offenders and put Georgia into a growing group of states that allow residents to shoot attackers without fear of being sued.
Hawaii lifted the nation's only cap on wholesale gasoline prices May 5. when Gov. Linda Lingle (R) signed a bill immediately ending an 8-month program she called 'flawed.'
The Legislature enacted the gas cap in September as fuel prices skyrocketed because of supply disruptions caused by two Gulf Coast hurricanes. But the measure did not apply to retail gasoline suppliers. and continued high prices at the pump fueled consumer and political discontent with the law.
'I am pleased that Hawai'i consumers will no longer be subject to the failed experiment to artificially control gas prices.' Lingle said in prepared remarks.
While the gas cap got much attention during the Legislature's session. lawmakers also passed measures to increase penalties for identity theft and mandated a 30-year prison sentence for criminals convicted of three violent felonies. Lingle has signed those bills into law. as well as a minimum one-year prison sentence for persons who use a computer to try to lure minors to have sex.
The Legislature also approved a $58 million package to cut income taxes and give some relief to flood victims. increased cigarette taxes by 20 cents a pack. and boosted school construction by nearly $235 million.
Idaho lawmakers ended their third-longest legislative session in history April 13 after 93 days of work on sex-offender legislation. new restrictions on both abortion and statehouse lobbying and a major revamp of Medicaid. the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. disabled and elderly.
Gay marriage opponents in the Statehouse also garnered the necessary two-thirds approval to place before voters on the November ballot a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
Out-going Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne (R) sponsored the health care changes. calling them 'the nation's most significant reform of Medicaid' since the state-federal health insurance program for poor. disabled and elderly was created in 1965.
The Idaho Medicaid Simplification Act streamlines eligibility requirements for health coverage from more than 50 categories to three separate programs: low-income children. people with disabilities and the elderly. It also expands access to early-detection health screening services. such as cancer pre-screening.
Kempthorne also claimed victories for increasing starting salaries for teachers to $30.000 and for winning passage of his $200 million state highway improvement plan. which took two years to pass the Legislature.
Midway through the legislative session. President Bush nominated Kempthorne to the post of U.S. Secretary of the Interior. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate. which will begin hearings on Kempthorne's nomination May 4. Lt. Gov. Jim Risch (R) will complete the governor's term.
Idaho lawmakers approved the first changes to the state's 32-year-old lobbying law to require tighter registration and reporting of lobbyist activities. Among the most difficult issues for state lawmakers this session was a property tax break for homeowners and a water agreement with the Idaho Power Company to recharge a major aquifer that has been depleted by drought and decades of groundwater pumping. The homeowner's property tax exemption was raised to $75.000.
Democrats who control the Illinois Legislature enacted a $56 billion budget aimed at polishing their election-year resumes ' and that of Gov. Rod Blagojevich ' but it took them a month longer than they had anticipated as closed-door budget negotiations failed to produce an agreement before the scheduled April 7 adjournment date. Instead. lawmakers left Springfield May 4.
Lawmakers expanded preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds. provided more scholarship money for college students. and propped up the state's horse racing industry with taxes on casino gambling.
The budget passed both chambers without a single GOP vote. Republicans objected to how the new programs will be paid for 'C the Democratic plan skimps on payments to underfunded state pension funds. diverts money already earmarked for specific programs. and further delays paying Medicaid providers. This will be a major battleground for Blagojevich and his GOP challenger. Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka.
Besides the budget. most of the accomplishments fell short of breathtaking. Restaurant patrons may take home open bottles of wine. Local governments have less authority to take property by eminent domain. Contaminated riverfronts will be cleaned up. Students no longer can smoke in dorms. Cigarettes sold in Illinois must be self-extinguishing. Chicago may lease Midway. to private interests. And nursing homes must require criminal background checks for patients and staff.
In April. former Gov. George Ryan (R) was convicted of 18 federal counts of corruption-related charges. But the Legislature did little on the ethics front other than crack down on anonymous. computer-generated calls to voters.
The House tried to halt automatic raises for legislators and other elected officials. but unless the Senate agrees after the November elections. a 13.1 pay boost will take effect July 1.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) focused his energy during the second legislative session of his term on passing a plan to lease the state-run Indiana Toll Road to foreign investors.
Although most Democrats vehemently opposed the idea. Daniels pushed it through the Republican-controlled Legislature with few votes to spare. The state has agreed to lease the 157-mile-long tollway. which runs from Chicago to the Ohio border. for 75 years to a Spanish-Australian consortium that will pay Indiana $3.8 billion up front. The money will fund new road projects and other transportation infrastructure. which Daniels says will boost the Indiana economy.
Before adjourning March 14. the Legislature also signed off on a property-tax relief bill for homeowners that is expected to cost the state $100 million over the next two years. Lawmakers also legalized fireworks in Indiana. using some of the tax revenue from fireworks' sales to pay for training for firefighters.
Other proposals from Daniels did not fare as well. A proposed cigarette tax increase went nowhere. He failed to persuade lawmakers to move school achievement tests from the fall to the spring. And his bid to give local governments more tax options also fell flat.
Abortion also sparked several heated debates. The House passed a proposal that would have instructed pregnant women seeking abortions that life begins at conception and that fetuses could feel pain. but the bill died in the Senate.
Iowa residents will likely remember the 2006 session for two main issues: Legislators pulled the plug on the lottery's Touch Play video gambling machines. located in stores and gas stations across the state. And lawmakers cracked down on executives at a job training agency where top officials granted themselves huge salaries.
'It is true. more people turned out for the public hearing on Touch Play. than turned out for the hearing on establishing statewide education standards. Now that is sad commentary 'C but that didn't stop us from requiring more rigor in our classroom.' House Speaker Chris Rants (R) told his chamber before it adjourned.
Gov. Tom Vilsack (D). whose wife is a teacher. made it a priority during his last legislative session to boost pay for teachers. He ran into opposition from Republicans who wanted to lower taxes on retirees instead.
Lawmakers also made it harder for local governments to seize private property through eminent domain. pushed the state toward using ethanol for a quarter of its fuel by 2020 and earmarked $18 million to clean up the state's waterways.
Neither party had the upper hand in Des Moines. Vilsack is leaving office at the end of his second term in January to explore a possible presidential bid. Republicans barely control the House with a 51-49 advantage. and the Senate is deadlocked between the parties.
The state Supreme Court ordered lawmakers last year to increase money for schools by at least $400 million or face a mandatory $588 million increase for education. The court has set a June 22 date to determine if the plan. signed May 19 by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D). is constitutional.
In signing the measure. Sebelius praised the Legislature's effort to give more money to school districts with high concentrations of low-income students. But she noted that the new law does not give as much taxing authority to school districts as she wanted and does not provide money for all-day kindergarten.
The Legislature is investigating discussions that state Senate Majority Leader Steve Morris (R) may have had with a state Supreme Court justice about the school finance case while lawmakers were in session. Sebelius has been asked to testify to lawmakers about those discussions.
As in many other states. Kansas lawmakers this year approved tougher laws for sex offenders. including a minimum 25-year sentence for first-time offenders if the victim is a child and GPS tracking devices for second-time offenders after their prison time is served. Another new law makes it a felony to maliciously abuse animals.
Legislators overrode the governor's veto to make Kansas the 48th state to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. Another measure makes Kansas one of 10 states where citizens are allowed to shoot attackers without fear of legal liability. under a so called 'stand and defend' law.
New laws also were enacted to limit the state's ability to take property for economic development and provide money for low-income grandparents who are raising their grandchildren.
Kentucky lawmakers passed the state's budget on time for the first time since 2000 in a session that ended April 15. but they saddled the state with a record $2 billion debt in bonds.
University projects accounted for $714 million of the debt. Most notably. lawmakers increased funding for the University of Kentucky in hopes of making the school a top-20 research institution. Road improvements amounted to another $350 million of the debt.
Lawmakers increased teachers' salaries by 7 percent. bringing educators' wages to the same level as those in seven neighboring states. according to John McGary. communications director for Democratic House Speaker Jody Richards. Another new education law requires 11
In response to a high-profile mining accident in next-door West Virginia. legislators passed mine-safety measures that include larger fines and penalties for safety violations. tougher inspections and mandatory drug tests for miners.
Transportation safety also reached lawmakers' desks. New laws will require ATV drivers under age 16 to wear a helmet. teen drivers to get more training before receiving full driving privileges and motorists to wear seat belts or face a $25 fine.
The Legislature got tougher with sex offenders. ordering those on the state's registry to reside at least 1.000 feet from schools and making second offenses punishable by life in prison.
The session was marked by the extended illness of Gov. Ernie Fletcher. who spent 18 days at a Lexington hospital for surgery to remove his gall bladder. only to return eight days later with a blood clot. The Republican governor. who was back at work by session's end. used his line-item veto to nix $370 million in projects passed by the Legislature.
Since then. Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) proposed phasing in the expected 72 percent jump in electric bills. The hike. which would start July 1. is caused by the expiration of price caps in place since the state deregulated the electricity industry.
State lawmakers. who couldn't soften the rate increase during the three-month regular session. said Ehrlich's phase-in plan doesn't go far enough and have threatened to call a special session to negotiate a better deal for consumers.
The 2006 session made Maryland the first state to require large employers to pay more employee health benefits. The Democrat-controlled Legislature enacted the so-called 'Wal-Mart law' over the veto of Ehrlich. who is running for re-election this fall.
The Legislature also raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour 'C the 19th of 20 states to raise wages above the federal minimum 'C and voted to keep 11 Baltimore schools under control of the city 'C both over Ehrlich vetoes. Before the education override. the state was set to take control of the schools under provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind law.
The governor did score a few victories. including a measure that will more closely regulate the air pollution of power plants and another that would use $15 million of state funds to support stem cell research. making Maryland one of the first states to do so.
Minnesota lawmakers started their legislative session in March talking about divisive social issues: immigration. gay marriage and abortion. But their attention turned to brick-and-mortar concerns by the time they adjourned May 21.
Legislators pushed through a $1 billion bonding proposal to build prisons. dams and University of Minnesota classrooms. The Legislature also approved measures to build a $522 million baseball stadium for the Minnesota Twins and a $248 million on-campus football stadium for the University of Minnesota.
The Minnesota Vikings. the third major tenant of the Metrodome. tried to get their own stadium too. Their bid fell short. but they promised to try again next year.
Lawmakers were glad to leave St. Paul with concrete accomplishments on bipartisan initiatives. The happy ending stood in contrast to last year. where partisan deadlock forced a special session and a partial shutdown of state government.
One of the most heated issues before the Legislature was a proposal to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The Republican-controlled House signed off on the measure. but the Democrat-led Senate never brought it up for a floor vote.
Tempers flared when the Senate's top Democrat. Majority Leader Dean Johnson. told ministers that several Supreme Court justices assured him that the court wouldn't overturn the state law prohibiting same-sex marriages. Republicans demanded an investigation. but Johnson later recanted his statement and apologized.
Nature groups and public arts tried to earmark sales tax dollars to support their causes. but the effort failed because of a disagreement over whether to target existing revenues or raise taxes to fund it.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) stressed the need to crack down on illegal immigration. but his ideas never gained traction in the Senate. A House GOP-led effort to reduce property taxes also sputtered.
In its first regular session since Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. the Mississippi Legislature continued recovery efforts by rebuilding public utilities. offering grants to homeowners and cracking down on home-repair fraud.
The measures augment recovery plans engineered during an emergency session called after the August 2005 hurricane. In that session. Gov. Haley Barbour (R) relaxed regulations for casino boats 'C a huge revenue source for the state 'C and secured a $25 million package of interest-free loans for small businesses.
With less to rebuild than Louisiana. Mississippi lawmakers were able to give raises to state employees and increase tax exemptions for National Guard members. The three-month session ended March 31.
Mississippi followed Florida's lead and gave residents more leeway to use deadly force against attackers in self-defense. A ban on smoking in government buildings was approved but does not apply to businesses or restaurants. Also. state and local police now can pull over drivers who don't buckle up.
The Legislature also banned sport-fighting between hogs and dogs. a practice developed after the state prohibited fights between dogs. Illegal gambling is common during these inter-species bouts.
Although an abortion ban passed both houses. the bill 'C which would have outlawed all abortions except when the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape or incest 'C died in eleventh hour negotiations between the House and Senate. Mississippi would have been the second state. after South Dakota. to pass an abortion ban in defiance of the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing the procedure.
Nebraska's unicameral Legislature stirred charges it is re-segregating public schools with its plan to split up Omaha's school district and agreed. over the governor's objections. to begin allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition rates.
The Omaha schools bill. signed by Gov. Dave Heineman (R). will divide the city's public school system into three racially distinct districts while allowing students in the city and surrounding Douglas and Sarpy counties to attend any of the schools in those juridictions.
The law was a response to the Omaha school district's move to take over several neighboring suburban school districts. a right that existed under an obscure 19th century law. said Heineman's spokesman. Aaron Sanderford. In a statement to the press before signing the law. Heineman said he was uncomfortable with several provisions. including the breakup of the Omaha school district. but trusted the Legislature's intent. 'It is clear to me that the motivation behind [this] proposal is neither segregation nor separation. but instead the goal of improving student achievement and the responsiveness of schools.' he said.
The Legislature. which concluded its 60-day session on April 14. also made Nebraska the 10th state to allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state college tuition rates. Heineman had vetoed the bill. but 30 of 49 legislators voted at the last minute to override the governor's rejection. Undocumented immigrant students must live in the state for three years. graduate from a Nebraska high school and pledge to seek U.S. citizenship to qualify for the lower tuition rate.
Increased tax revenues from oil and gas production allowed New Mexico lawmakers to approve $762.5 million in extra money for construction projects and to begin financing a commercial spaceport that could launch commercial satellites or one day send tourists rocketing outside Earth's atmosphere.
Concluding a 30-day session in mid-February. the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed a budget increasing general fund spending 9.4 percent to $5.15 billion for the next fiscal year.
While the Legislature gave a nod to Gov. Bill Richardson's proposal for the spaceport. many of the Democratic governor's biggest legislative proposals fell by the wayside. including a bill to increase the state's minimum wage. a $250 million transportation measure and a tax credit for the working poor.
House Minority Leader Ted Hobbs (R) criticized Richardson for putting too much on the legislative agenda and said the governor has failed to work effectively with the Legislature. even majority Democrats.
Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski called a one-day special session April 20 to close a $136 million hole in the state human services department's budget. During the six-hour session 'C the shortest on record 'C lawmakers also passed new laws boosting funding for schools. toughening penalties for sexual predators and cracking down on so-called payday loan providers.
South Dakota drew national attention when the Legislature passed a ban on almost all abortions and Gov. Mike Rounds (R) signed it into law on March 6.
The abortion ban likely will be suspended by a federal judge when it takes effect July 1. but it sets the stage for a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973
The Legislature passed a $3.2 billion budget that included a 3 percent across-the-board pay raise for state employees. The budget initially included a $500.000 cut in funding to South Dakota Public Broadcasting. but the money was restored after public outcry.
Lawmakers increased state aid to education by $6.4 million and also provided an additional $2.3 million in emergency relief to cover higher heating costs in K-12 public schools.
In a special session. Gov. Rick Perry (R) delivered on his promise to revamp the state's school finance system. pushing through legislative proposals to lower property taxes by $15.7 billion statewide while increasing levies on cigarettes and some business activity.
The Texas Legislature. which meets in regular session during odd-numbered years. passed five bills aimed at overhauling the so-called "Robin Hood" system that redistributed property taxes from wealthy school districts to poorer areas.
In addition to the tax reforms. all Texas public school teachers will get a $2. and $260 million will be available to reward excellent teachers with bonuses up to $10.000 each.
The Legislature also approved $1 billion over three years to reform high schools and approved a measure to require that teens take four years of high school math and science courses in order to graduate.
Utah's governor is Republican. and Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Legislature by a 2-to-1 margin. Despite that rock-solid GOP majority. Utah's Legislature was bitterly divided during the 2006 session over how best to spend an unprecedented $1 billion surplus.
The biggest sticking point was Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s proposal to overhaul the state's tax system. His plan was derailed when his tax reform commission underestimated its cost by $35 million.
The Legislature adjourned without deciding what to do with $70 million it had set aside for the governor's proposal. Huntsman is considering calling a special session in June to reconsider his proposal. but some lawmakers just want to cut taxes by $70 million instead.
Lawmakers did vote overwhelmingly in favor of a major economic development program called Utah Science. Technology and Research (USTAR). The $250 million program. which passed both chambers by large majorities. is designed to boost the state's scientific research and technological advancement by luring teams of high-tech researchers to Utah State University and the University of Utah.
Utah also adopted ground-breaking legislation to prevent identity theft. The new rules require the major credit bureaus to give consumers a personal identification number 'C or PIN 'C they can use to freeze or unfreeze their credit report if they suspect identity theft.
Utah also voted to change its presidential primary election from June to the first week of February. joining other states with the earliest date on the primary election calendar. At least eight other states are considering moving up their primary or caucus elections to have greater impact on the presidential nominee selection process.
Final-hour negotiations between Vermont's Democratic-controlled Legislature and Republican Gov. Jim Douglas led to passage of a sweeping health care reform bill that aims to provide low-cost health insurance to 25.000 uninsured Vermonters.
The plan. passed just before the session closed May 10. requires private insurers to offer the health coverage for primary and preventive care while a state commission will oversee the program. Last year. the Legislature passed a more comprehensive health care reform plan. but it was vetoed by Douglas.
In the face of Douglas' threat to veto the Legislature's $4.5 billion budget unless it included a college scholarship program. both sides eventually agreed to a one-time $5 million injection in surplus funds from the 2006 budget. The money will be divided among Vermont State Colleges. the University of Vermont and the Vermont Student Acceptance Commission and could create 250 scholarships of $5.000 in 2007.
Legislators agreed to impose mandatory minimum sentences of at least five years for aggravated sexual assault. with a provision that effectively calls for judges to impose 10-year sentences unless they explain why a lighter sentence should be handed down. Punishment for sex offenders became a key issue after District Judge Edward Cashman issued a widely criticized 60-day sentence to a repeat offender.
Lawmakers also agreed to promote energy independence in the state by providing more funding for energy-efficiency programs and introducing efficiency standards for commercial buildings. among other measures.
With Democrats controlling the Washington state House. Senate and governor's office. the dominant party claimed a series of victories in the state's 59-day legislative session.
Breaking through decades-old logjams. the Legislature brokered a compromise between farmers and environmentalists on water storage. And 29 years after it was first proposed. a measure adding sexual orientation to the state's anti-discrimination law was passed.
Democrats called the shots. but there were bipartisan votes on major bills. including medical malpractice reform legislation and new sex-offender regulations. Both parties hammered out an agreement to set aside $950 million in reserves during the state's two-year budget cycle.
'We had more revenues than expected. and the pressure was to spend more and cut taxes. But we passed a very forward-looking budget.' said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D).
With time running out on the last night of West Virginia's spring session on March 11. the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee pulled the plug on a bill that would have ratcheted up penalties for sex offenders 'C and sowed the seeds for a possible special session.
State Sen. Jeff Kessler (D) objected to the proposal. nicknamed Logan's Law after a toddler who was sexually assaulted and killed last year. because he feared its unintended consequences.
Gov. Joe Manchin (D) originally introduced the measure. but Senate Republicans overhauled it. After a GOP outcry about the bill's demise. Manchin said he would call a special session to revisit the issue if a compromise is reached.
Tragedies in West Virginia mines 'C including one that killed 12 men in Sago 'C cast a shadow over the legislative session this year. Lawmakers acted swiftly to require more safety devices in mines after the disaster. New laws mandate that mines offer more oxygen stations. wireless communications to miners underground and GPS tracking devices for miners.
Meanwhile. the state's financial situation improved. thanks largely to increased revenue from taxes on coal extraction. Manchin convinced the Democrat-controlled Legislature to use much of the surplus to pay down the state's debt for teacher and state trooper pensions. Teachers argued the money should have paid for teacher raises. while Republicans said it should have been used to reduce taxes.
Legislators threatened to take power from the Parkways Authority after the agency approved a toll hike. but backed down once a judge blocked the increases.
In a session dominated by social issues. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed dozens of bills sent to him by the Republican-controlled legislature. including proposals to limit stem-cell research and permit residents to carry concealed weapons.
But in one compromise. the governor raised Wisconsin's minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50 an hour after he agreed to a provision that would bar local governments from setting their own rates. Officials in the state capital of Madison and other cities recently passed wage increases as a way to pressure the legislature.
The legislature. which concluded its general business May 4.also barred residents from filing obesity suits against fast-food chains and set a limit of $750.000 on jury awards in medical malpractice cases. Meanwhile. a move to restrict spending by state and local government failed. as did efforts at ethics reform.
Doyle and members of the legislature are up for election in November. They will share the ballot with a binding referendum on whether the state should constitutionally prohibit gay marriage or civil unions. and a non-binding question on reinstating the death penalty.
The legislature is expected to return May 30 and 31 to consider vetoes and again in July for a brief special session to discuss state contracts and other procedural matters.
Lawmakers cut $100 million in taxes by eliminating the sales tax on groceries. They also approved $2.1 billion in new education funding for public schools 'C a 24 percent increase that likely will rank Wyoming first or second in the nation for per pupil education spending.
The state university system and community colleges also received a funding boost of $505 million to hire new faculty and create a new statewide Hathaway scholarship program that will offer a nearly free education to the state's top high school students.
Lawmakers also boosted funding for transportation and infrastructure projects and set aside $286 million in short-term savings. with the option of putting another $200 million into a permanent state trust fund at the end of the state's next fiscal year.
The state's Republican-majority Legislature rejected a bill that would have permitted the use of deadly force against attackers as a first resort and another bill that would have allowed any eligible citizen to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. And. despite years of trying. lawmakers again failed to ban open containers of alcohol in cars.
Pregnancy
How to get the health care services you need ' Arizona Center for Disability Law. Suite 305. An overview of the health care services available from AHCCCS. healthy bones for life ' Health Sciences Center at University Medical Center. 1501 N. Campbell Ave. Celebrate National Osteoporosis Prevention month with the UA Bone Builders Program. Join us for all or part of our program. which includes physicians discussing the role of bone density screening and treatment in maintaining bone density. 8:45 a.m.-noon May 20. Free. 626-5161. Ext. 110.
"Fruits and Veggies: A Critical and Fun Part of Wellness" ' St. Philip's in the Hills Episcopal Church. 3435 E. Broadway. How to solve the latest number puzzles appearing in bookstores and newspapers. 10:15-11:30 a.m. Thursdays. financial and parenting issues. grounds for divorce and techniques for minimizing the conflict. pain and expense. Couples are encouraged to attend together. 9 a.m.-noon May 18. Free.
RAW Power Violence Preparedness Program ' Ultima SWAT Martial Arts and Fitness Center. 7649 E. Speedway. "RAW Power" is a reality-based program that addresses the physical.
Pregnancy
5/12). FDA in May 2004 issued a "not approvable" letter in response to an application submitted by Barr Laboratories -- which bought Women's Capital -- to authorize nonprescription sales of Plan B. citing inadequate data on its use among girls age 16 and younger. After FDA rejected Barr's first application. the company submitted a revised application to make nonprescription Plan B available only to girls and women age 17 and older. In January 2005. FDA announced a delay in its decision on the revised application. CRR -- on behalf of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and others -- subsequently filed a lawsuit against FDA in a U.S. District Court in New York. claiming the agency did not follow procedure when it first denied the application. The lawsuit also said that by not approving nonprescription sales. the agency violated women's rights to equal protection and privacy as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (
Thursday's Motion
Jones on Thursday was seeking permission to depose five FDA officials and obtain deleted agency e-mails. A copy of McClellan's appointment calendar for April 21. a few days after Women's Capital's application submission. "Conference call w/Jay Lefkowitz re: Plan B submis." was presented during the motion. according to
. Lefkowitz is the former deputy assistant to President Bush on domestic policy and currently serves as special envoy on human rights in North Korea. "It has come to our attention that Mark McClellan at some point had a meeting with someone from the White House about Plan B." Jones told New York City-based federal Magistrate Viktor Pohorelsky. who is hearing arguments in a lawsuit regarding the Plan B application. Pohorelsky agreed to the depositions despite a request from Assistant U.S. Attorney Franklin Amanat to block them. The judge did not rule on the deleted e-mail request. A Barr spokesperson had no comment. and Lefkowitz did not return calls for comment. according to
CMS Administrator Mark McClellan. while head of FDA. had a discussion with a White House official about the emergency contraceptive Plan B while the drug's application for nonprescription sales was pending. Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Bonnie Jones told a federal judge on Thursday. Long Island
reports. The pharmaceutical company Women's Capital in April 2003 submitted an application for nonprescription sales of Plan B. which can prevent pregnancy if taken up to 72 hours after sexual intercourse (Kerr. 5/12). FDA in May 2004 issued a "not approvable" letter in response to an application submitted by Barr Laboratories -- which bought Women's Capital -- to authorize nonprescription sales of Plan B. citing inadequate data on its use among girls age 16 and younger. After FDA rejected Barr's first application. the company submitted a revised application to make nonprescription Plan B available only to girls and women age 17 and older. In January 2005. FDA announced a delay in its decision on the revised application. CRR -- on behalf of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and others -- subsequently filed a lawsuit against FDA in a U.S. District Court in New York. claiming the agency did not follow procedure when it first denied the application. The lawsuit also said that by not approving nonprescription sales. the agency violated women's rights to equal protection and privacy as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (
Thursday's Motion Jones on Thursday was seeking permission to depose five FDA officials and obtain deleted agency e-mails. A copy of McClellan's appointment calendar for April 21. a few days after Women's Capital's application submission. "Conference call w/Jay Lefkowitz re: Plan B submis." was presented during the motion. according to
. Lefkowitz is the former deputy assistant to President Bush on domestic policy and currently serves as special envoy on human rights in North Korea. "It has come to our attention that Mark McClellan at some point had a meeting with someone from the White House about Plan B." Jones told New York City-based federal Magistrate Viktor Pohorelsky. who is hearing arguments in a lawsuit regarding the Plan B application. Pohorelsky agreed to the depositions despite a request from Assistant U.S. Attorney Franklin Amanat to block them. The judge did not rule on the deleted e-mail request. A Barr spokesperson had no comment. and Lefkowitz did not return calls for comment.
Pregnancy
when I summed up a bunch of my positions. I mentioned my support for gay marriage. A couple of commenters disagreed with me on that point. The elements they cited were the ties between marriage. and state support thereof. I'm not going to do an item-for-item rebuttal to those points they made. but I am going to use it as a springboard for a larger discussion.
Marriage came about. as I understand it. as a way for a society to provide for the raising of children. and the perpetuating of the society as a whole. It was a way of forming permanent bonds between unrelated people. allowing the culture to expand and widen its gene pool.
But that has changed drastically. especially in the last 50 years. Human reproduction has come under tremendous scrutiny in that time. and medical advances -- especially medical -- have virtually redefined human fertility. It has reached the point where conception -- and non-conception -- are. for about 99.99% of people entirely voluntary and under their control.
Want a child? Go for it. Try the natural way. If that doesn't work. we have entire professions dedicated to getting people pregnant when they can't do it on their own. And if they can't pull it off. then we have professions lined up to arrange adoptions.
Don't want a child? Fine. There are a zillion ways to keep that from happening. too. Start off with abstinence. Then move on through the plethora of contraception out there. Wrap it. mark the calendar. put it somewhere else. do several at once.
In brief. we have developed to the point where every single child should be welcomed. and no child should go unwanted -- if people just show a modicum of personal responsibility.
I consider myself an exemplar of this. I decided several years ago that. for various and sundry reasons that apply to me and no one else. I did not want to father children. Then I spent a lot of time working up my nerve. and had the procedure.
Anyway. the point I am trying to make here is that child-rearing as a primary function of marriage is going out the window. Originally. it was for uniting couples who were likely to have children. The random element has been pretty much eliminated. If we continue that principle. then we ought to ban any people who can not or will not produce children should be banned from marrying.
With the child factor fading in significance. then why should we keep the institution around at all? Because it promotes social stability. It allows people to form social structures that promote and preserve the culture. A married couple is fundamentally more stable. more desirable from a social perspective than two unattached people.
And that is part of why I support gay marriage. It allows people to set up their own family unit. to become more stable and secure members of the society. It gives them a bond to their society and culture. and increases the general prosperity of the culture as a whole.
Yes. I understand the religious objections. and respect them. But there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. and allowing a civil ceremony (or even a civil union) apart from religious sanction should be no skin off the church's nose. They don't have to perform the weddings. or even recognize them -- they just need to butt out and let those of us who don't ascribe to their beliefs to go our own way.
I think that. gay marriage will be widely tolerated. and even grudgingly accepted. by most people. But the virulent tactics being used by both sides will delay that coming. and a lot of people will suffer in the meantime.
I am not a Christian. But I am very much a social conservative. While my views are greatly informed by my religion. I know for a fact that I would still be a social conservative even if I were agnostic or an atheist. I'm taking issue with the notion that marriage is somehow unrelated to the fact that heterosexual couples tend to have children. The very raison d'etre of marriage (there is no such thing as "traditional" marriage; it's just marriage) as it has been for all of human existence is entirely about children i.e. when a man and a woman have sex. children are a very likely possibility.
I may be repeating this; but there are three laws that are universal about marriage. perhaps the only institution. other than religion (the intertwining of which with marriage is no coincidence) that is found everywhere on Earth. First of all. think of marriage in terms of what it is at the very basic level; it is a socially enforceable contract between two people to both care for each other and. even more importantly. provide for the children produced by their union.
(i) Only two people can be in a marriage contract. That is because a child can only be the product of sexual contact between two people. A woman can have sex with twenty men on a single day and no matter what. the child conceived on that day would only have one father. This rule recognizes this fact and codifies that any child born by the woman in a marriage is the child of her husband and is therefore entitled to support. membership in an extended family. etc. from him.Polygynous marriages do not violate this law because a man with three wives is involved in three completely independent and individual marriage contracts each involving two people (the man and one wife). Every child produced by any of the wives is therefore a child of the husband.This also applies in polyandrous marriages. Note that this is very very rare given that it occurs only in extremely harsh conditions where resources are scarce and dividing them as inheritances would leave nothing of value to the inheritors. e.g. the Nyinba people of Northwestern Nepal. In these cases. it is more important that the child's paternal origin is known to be from a particular family as opposed to one particular individual. Note also. marries a man and all his brothers (or some other subset of his male clan in the line of inheritance). Most importantly. note that the woman's relationship to each husband is also independent of her relationship with the other husbands.In other words. this rule is silent on the number of marriage contracts an individual is involved and. on monogamy.A marriage that would violate this rule is a marriage involving three (or more) people in one single marriage contract i.e. John. Jim and Jane are married to each other such that John and Jim are married to each other. John and Jane are married to each other and Jim and Jane are also married to each other. In other words. if any two of them have sex. they're not cheating on the third one and if. Jim wants a divorce. he can divorce both John and Jane or one but not the other. i.e. what if he still wants to be with Jane but not with John. but Jane wants to be with them both?How do we establish legal paternity in this situation? If Jim is the biological father (impossible to determine conclusively prior to the latter half of the 20th Century) of Sam (the child produced in this "marriage"). what obligations does John have toward Sam? What about alimony? What if there were five people in this "marriage"? Three guys and two women?If children were actually just tangential to marriage. what's wrong with any number of people choosing to get married in whatever arbitrary arrangement they so choose?
(ii) Only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract. This is because only opposite sex couples can produce children. Although this drives the Left crazy. the fact remains that no matter how often Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve do it. neither couple would produce a child. No amount of digital. oral or anal intercourse would ever result in a pregnancy.Again. if children are tangential to marriage as an institution. why does this rule exist in every single culture around the world? Why does every culture around the world treat the union of a man and a woman as a special thing? Because a child can result from such a union. and only such a union. And after thousands of years of trial and error. they've realized that the ideal environment in which to raise a child is with both his/her natural parents. which excludes same-sex couples. This is the reason why every culture around the world grants a committed opposite sex relationship certain privileges that they deny other unions; to encourage the creation of such environments for the raising of children. which is very much a societal concern.
(iii) Only people of sufficient distance in blood can be in a marriage contract. After thousands of years of trial and error. every culture around the world noticed that incestuous unions far too often produced weaker. deformed or otherwise compromised offspring. Which is why this law is also universal. There is no other reason for its existence other than the fact that the violation of it results in tragedy. especially for the child. There is a great deal of diversity among the cultures of the world as to what constitutes sufficient distance although it is universal (excepting ancient Egypt where 20% of marriages were at one point brother-sister: there are reasons why that society crumbled) that members of one's natal and conjugal families were off-limits.However. cousins are often known to marry. In Northern Nigeria. this is not unusual among the Fulani. although these marriages are most often between half-cousins (have the same grandfather but different grandmothers). This tends to ameliorate the risks to almost nothing.Again. if children were not particular important when it comes to marriage. this law would not make sense. After all. who cares about the child produced? Marriage is supposedly all about the sexual and emotional needs of the adults. one can quibble but I am unable to come up with an argument (especially a legal argument) that would successfully eliminate any of these rules that would not apply to the others when advocates for their elimination come calling.
If the sex of the people wanting to get married is irrelevant why is the blood relationship relevant? If a fully grown 28 year old woman and her 34 year old brother "fall in love" (two consenting adults) and decide that they want to marry. why should they be stopped? It's disgusting and unnatural? People openly said that about homosexuality less two decades ago and millions of people still feel that way today. Their children would be damaged? Marriage has nothing to do with children. the Left has been insisting for years now. What if the woman goes for a hysterectomy and her brother gets a vasectomy? What if it were two gay brothers who want to get married? And if it would be okay for two gay brothers. would it not be discriminating against opposite sex siblings if they are not also allowed to get married? if the sex of the people wanting to get married is irrelevant. why is the number relevant? If four consenting adults want to get married each to one another at the same time. why should the state stop them? children are not an issue. I beleive there's much more of a scientific case to be made that man is. a promiscuous animal than there is to made that people are actually born gay (i.e. there's a gay gene) so the "I was born this way" argument is at least as valid for a polyamorist as it is for a gay man or lesbian. Some people are just very highly sexed.
The next quibble is that if marriage is indeed wholly based around the fact that children are produced by heterosexual unions. why are old people. paedophobic couples. barren and/or post-menopausal women allowed to marry? Because their marriages do not violate any of the three rules and do not alter the definition of marriage one iota. Prior to the medical advances of the last one or two centuries. one wouldn't know a man or woman was infertile until much later in life after years of trying for a child to no avail. Neither were young men and women asked at the altar how many children they intended to have. So this. is not really a particularly strong argument: the fact that marriage is about providing the ideal environment for the rearing of children does not obligate you as a married person to have children (after all. the first thing about providing the ideal environment for raising a child is actually wanting that child).
No matter your personal preferences. SOMEBODY has to have children. Who's going to be your doctor or your nurse in the old folk's home? Who's going to defend you from thiefs and criminals?
Society MUST reproduce. Now. perhaps you decide you don't want to jave children - fine. But those of us who do bring children into the world. nurse and clothe them. rear and educate them could use a little help from society.
Being married has certain advantages - tax rates are lower. for example. My problem with expanding marriage to non-breeders is that those minor advantages are diluted. Eventually. they will disappear as advantages. Try to out-bid a married same-sex couple for a home when you have only a single income and your wife stays at home to raise the kids.
I say that marriage should be kept to a single breeding pair and given advantages over those who do not pick up the burdens of parenthood. Arguing for some legal and financial support for parents is not the same as being prejudged against gays.
If marriage is now largely about stability and support structures and not about children. then a brother and sister should allowed to marry. Or a father and daughter. Or a Mother and son. After all. a son who is single might live with his widowed or divorced mother to help support her. Shouldn't he get the same benefits as a married couple?
Assuming you object to incestuous marriages between those of the opposite sex because they put potential children at risk. what about incestuous homosexual marriages? Say two brothers or two sisters. What objection could anyone have to that except for the ick factor? And if you allow two brothers to marry. how do you reconile that with outlawing marriages brother and sister and the 14th amendment?
I think Whitehall's last paragraph hit the nail on the head for how most of us think. BUT there are homosexual unions that act as family units to raise children.
The problem is that we are talking about making a major change in acceptable societal institution(s). The ramifications are significant. and they challenge the established mores of a fair chunk of our society. This chunk has invested their sweat and tears up to this point expecting these values to be constant. And now we are considering changing that.
If a change occurs now. it comes down to having to choosing between the desires/interests of the homosexual population and the population who believe homosexuality is immoral or an undesirable aberration.
Where is King Solomon when you need him? as a truly dedicated polygamist and fornicator. maybe he wouldn't be the best person to choose to make the decision in this case...
Maybe we should just eliminate the legal construct of marriage. Let it stay in the realm of the various religions and person-to-person contracts etc. The state doesn't have to sanction marriage to make it legitimate.
In the case of relationships not working out. the courts can still step in (if required)and make sure the children are taken care of as they already do in the case non-married couples with children and divorcing couples.
To level the playing field tax wise. do away with the supposed tax advantages of marriage. If maintaining tax deductions are a hang up there are enough other deductions you can work to make up for it. just plan ahead a little bit. you will probably be a lot better off. You could keep the child tax deduction. keep filing as head of household etc (assuming household is not defined as a married couple).
Having been married more or less succesfully for a lot of years in our current society. I don't see any truly inherent advantages to marriage. I have known lots of people in long term. monagomous relationships. that never got married and were happy until death did them part.
Even though our inheritance laws default towards married couples. that can be overcome by having a well written will that conforms to your states requirments. Besides. most inheritance issues now seem to be negotiable regardless of the presence of a will if the decedants want to argue it anyhow.
I do not oppose same sex marriages. I am a conservative and. I don't care what my neighbor does or whom he does it to. as long as it has no effect upon me. I don't care if my neighbor is a lawyer or a policeman or mechanic or gay. None of those things have an effect on my life (if he starts selling drugs or setting his house on fire. I believe that the term "marriage" should be reserved for religiously recognized unions between a man and woman. It's a term with religious roots. and as such I don't think the definition of the word should be expanded to cover non-religious unions - at least. until an official religion recognizing unions between same sex couples emerges. Even then. same sex unions should be called something else. Civil unions. whatever. I don't care. And at that point. they should be awarded the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. They should be able to decide life and death issues as married people do. They should be able to adopt children - heck. if we create more potential adoptors in this country. we might be able to create an addition system to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country (I would like to see incentives for pregnant mothers with unwanted children to bring their children into this world and give them up for adoption - I don't like abortion but I don't want to get rid of the practice). Anyway. my two cents.
Do judges decide? do people decide democratically? is the institution of marraige already defined in the constitution as the union of any two people? its like a logo of your local minor-league hockey team. It is an arbitrary cultural institution that has changed through time. Let the local community decide amongst themselves.
That's not possible since a marriage is an ongoing contract and the constitution specifies that contracts granted in one state must be given full faith and credit in another state.
Let's say that you and I both live in Texas and that we make a contract to host your web site on my server for $1000/year. You've paid for the first year up front but after a few months I move with my server to Alaska. If you sue me in Alaska. the Alaskan court can't say. "Well the contract was made in Texas. so we don't have to enforce it here." That would be unconstitutional. Ergo. this is a national issue.
For this same reason. one state can't refuse to recognize a legal marriage from another state. They try to do so. but once a case against that state hits the federal court. the only correct decision would be to enforce the marriage contract in all states.
While human reproduction has been changed by medical advancements. child-rearing has suffered many setbacks in the same time period. Human reproduction is just the beginning of child-rearing assuming you want to raise productive law-abiding citizens. It's for the purpose of child-rearing. not just reproduction. that society bestows the status of "married" upon generically compatible pro-creation couples. In return society receives a new generation of productive law-abiding citizens. vital to the continuance of society as we know it.
Gays argue that not every pro-creation couple reproduces. and so marriage can't be defined by pro-creation. However. society deals with "types" of people. not with individuals. For example. people of the type "65 years of age or older" get an extra tax exemption regardless of their individual financial status. People of the type "blind" also get an extra tax exemption. while people of the type "quadriplegic" don't. People of the type "female" are not allowed in combat units regardless of their physical and mental aptitude for combat. I could go on an on with examples such as voting. the military draft. but hopefully you get the point.
There was a time when I questioned your honesty when it came to gay marriage. since you usually give the caveat that you don't like judges deciding the issue.
So although I disagree with you on the process (perfectly fine for the courts to decide civil rights issues) I'm glad to see you sticking to your guns here. Your position is rational and reasonable.
If all this were about was 'civil unions' to allow gays the same benefit as other married couples. it wouldn't be a problem. But it's about so much more. The 'stick it in your face' liberals want to MAKE you all accept gay lifestyles. Just wait. members of a church congregation suing because their chosen institution will not perform the ceremony. Liberal whacko teachers pushing same sex parent agendas on YOUR kids in school.
The same rights gays have to civil unions. the rest of us have to not accept their lifestyle. We can teach our own kids the values we grew up on. We can continue to be secure in our places of worship. and not have to worry about things like forcing the Boy Scouts to accept girls. or whatever.
I am on the opposite side than you on gay marriage. I can sum up my objection in classical conservative terms. Marriage has been around a long time. so lets be careful we don't break something else trying to 'fix' this. Because of the law of unintended consequences. I don't support just any change. I look at countrys like Russia which are seeing an annual decline of 700.000 people a year and think that for any and all ills that gay marriage might rectify. having something like that population decline happening to our country would be a lot worse. Would gay marriage nudge us towards the non-replacement birth rates many other countries suffer from? but I don't see anything conclusive on either side. But I also haven't heard any reason to risk the nudge either.
In my younger years. feminist decried the divorce laws that forced women to stay in marriages because of the difficulty of getting a divorce. The laws were liberalized. Divorces became easier to obtain. And we found that divorced women did worse economically than divorced men. Were the feminist trying to push women down economically? that was far from their intent. But they saw a problem. applied a solution and got an unintended consequence. I suspect that if we were to allow gay marriages. we would see a similar unintended consequence. Now the chance of unintended consequences shouldn't stop us from ever moving forward. but they do put out a burden for those advocating going forward to explore the potentials for unintended consequences. look at alternatives and make their case that the gain and its potential for happening is on balance greater than the loss and its potential for happening. No one has even come close to making that case from a gay marriage stand point.
I agree with you that the worst way to go about this is judicial fiat. as oppossed to the legislative process. I also have personal objections to gay marriage on religeous grounds. but that is personal to me. I should no more be able to impose my personal beliefs on others than they should impose them on me.
If an amendment came up. I would vote against gay marriage (as apparently would a majority of American voters). If the amendment passed. I would think it was wrong. but live under it (there has been more than one vote that I was on the losing side of).
For those who think gay marriage is the right way to go. they have a duty in a democracy to put their arguments forward. It may take them 100 years to change enough peoples mind to win the right. but if they do it by convincing others the vistory will be more permanent and will likely not lead to a running political sore. Likewise. those who disagree with gay marriages need to step up with our objections. By having both sides present their arguments. we are more likely to figure out some of the unintended consequences that would arise. Maybe we even identify some of the work arounds.
Finally. to the commenter who likes the idea that civil right issues should be decided by judges. how happy would you be if 5 supreme court judges (who are in there for life) decided that given the totality of the decleration of independance. American writings etc. first amendment right to freedom of worship should only apply to the Christian religeon? If you say you will ignore the means because you like the ends. don't be surprised if someone starts using the means to enact ends you don't like.
Let's get the government out of the marriage business. and set the institution up as any other contract. However. let not that contract be binding on others. such as taxpayers providing benefits. or companies offering health insurance. Then the commitment will be between. partners to the agreement. who can then sue to abridge the deal. just like they do today. I'd bet if the health insurance thing was abolished. so too would most of the issue energy go away.
We're terrified of defining anything as "normal" or "abnormal" regardless of how long a behaviour has been established as one or the other by Western Civilization (as well as a vast majority of other civilizations).
There is an inherent arrogance in modern thinking that claims that in the vast history of mankind. we're the most intelligent and well-reasoned beings to walk the planet.
Bottom line: some things have "always been that way" for a reason. Traditional values shouldn't be immune to analysis. but they shouldn't be presupposed to be wrong. either.
What seems to come through in most of the comments is an abiding tendency to cling to one's values regardless of what changes in civilization have transpired thru the ages.
Some of these bloggers try. thru any connivance. to define the issue of marriage in traditional terms. What leaks thru in many posts is a fundamental ostracism of gays albeit with the use of social customs. traditional beliefs and mores as justification.
Some have used the concept of "incest" to skewer the argument. Yes. as civilization evolved. the dangers of that sort of practice emerged. But. if one wants to go back in time to sanctioned ancient practices. one should consider the state of man even before man ever put 2+2 together after 9 months.
Consider that it may well be Evolution's intention that. after a certain point. enough people would form non-procreative relationships to circumscribe the danger of global overpopulation and that that evolutionary development may be seriously contradicted by archaic religious and cultural beliefs.
So. whatever practices our forebears may have sanctioned or proscribed do not necessarily have the same applicability now: otherwise. why have given up the cave as abode or grunting for communication? once man had connected sex w/ birth. there was good cause for some sort of stable union for the child's welfare. Most likely. prior to that discovery. some sort of contract or public binding of 2 people made sense in that it tended to remove the potential for conflict between 2 men.
The most important point is that modern circumstances do not require the same social practices from ancient history that might have been beneficial for past times.
Whether god-given or simply the result of Evolution. the one thing that makes man different from all other species is his ability to think and use his mind to modify and to adjust to the physical conditions of life and thus enhance survivability.
When that adaptability of the mind is shut down because of a primitive urge to cling to immutable social practices. customs and values. species' survival is diminished.
There is no justifiable cause to deny the bonding of 2 individuals thru a social contract sanctioned by the State w/ the same privileges granted to others in a similar contract except for a primitve urge to keep social customs and mores anchored in past history. That myopic view inevitably leads to discrimination which is really what some of these posters harbor; notwithstanding their attempt to use some lofty. values that just happen conveniently to square their prejudices whether religious or cultural.
I think your original premise is incorrect. Marriage was established to provide a legal mechanism to recognize legitimate and illegitimate children for the purposes of inheritance (including royal titles). People were considered married if they lived together for a fortnight (the honeymoon). These common law marriages are still recognized in some states. In common law England. a notice was posted on the town hall or church stating that Mr. John Smith was taking Miss Mary Jones as his wife on a certain date. The notice was left there for a month and if there was no objection that there was fraud or a previous family. the two could marry. The notice was kept in the public records as proof. similar to today's marriage license. The church's blessing on the marriage was for legitimacy of the union for royal titles or for spriitual purposes. Not everyone married in the church. From that day forward. children born from that union had certain rights upon the death of the father (and eventually the mother as the laws recognized a woman's right to property).The issue of inheritance must be addressed before same sex marriages are recognized. People cannot stick there head in the sand and ignore the issue of who is the mother and father. A child cannot have two mothers or two fathers under existing laws in all of the states. The laws specifically terminate the birth mother's rights in adoption and surragacy. In addition. there is no father in artificial insemination unless there is a marriage. It is presumed that the man in a convential marriage (woman and man) is the father when a child born to a married husband and wife (unless the wife declares otherwise on the marriage certificate). Unless society is willing to address these issues (and many others that I am not listing). same sex marriage will remain outside mainstream thinking.
And yet you and everyone else have not responded to my questions above. Perhaps if someone could explain how we ban incestuous marriages while allowing gay marriage or convince me that incestuous marriages really aren't that bad then I might be persuaded to your side.
Children of incestuous marriages are likely to have serious health issues related to inbreeding. (which is why a lot of royalty was insane.) This problem wouldn't affect gay marriages.
Interesting to note; if an genetically closely-realated infertile couple got married. then objections to that particular incestuous marriage would be based solely on our discomfort with the idea.
Interesting to note; if an genetically closely-realated infertile couple got married. then objections to that particular incestuous marriage would be based solely on our discomfort with the idea.
This problem wouldn't affect gay marriages. if an genetically closely-realated infertile couple got married. then objections to that particular incestuous marriage would be based solely on our discomfort with the idea.
So then. do we ban incestuous marriage outright? Do we allow it if either or both of the bride and groom are sterile? Do we allow them to marry if they merely infertile (a condition that is reversible) or do we restrict to sterile couples?
Assuming an outright ban or a ban on incestuous marriages that could produce children then how should the Supreme Court interpret the 14th amendment to allow two brothers to marry. but not a brother and sister?
Perhaps if someone could explain how we ban incestuous marriages while allowing gay marriage or convince me that incestuous marriages really aren't that bad then I might be persuaded to your side.
First. the slope. Society is a complex thing. and to adopt an "all or nothing" viewpoint on social issues such as marriage is foolish and ignorant. Marriages were not even performed by the Church for the first 800 years or so. Arranged marriages have been common for thousands of years. Polygamy was and is common in many cultures. Marriages between religions were banned in much of Europe for hundreds of years. marriages between racial groups were banned here until 1967. Henry VIII started a new church just so he could get divorced and remarried. Conservatives love to insist that marriage was. and always should be a union of one consenting man and one consenting woman. but the history of marriage is much more varied and complex than that. Changes in marriage have been made in that history. all of them without opening the floodgates allowing brother to marry sister or man to marry dog. We as a society get to define marriage how we like. and if we want homosexuals to be able to marry but not blood relatives. and forcing children/minors to marry are choices. Homosexuality is not a choice. One can be homosexual and celibate. One cannot be incestuous and celibate; one cannot be polygamous and unmarried; one cannot have sex with animals and not have sex with animals. Homosexuality cannot be turned off. even if it can be ignored. Incest is a choice that we as a society agree cannot be allowed. Homosexuality is not a choice. and we as a society accept its existence (mostly). That we do not accept gay marriage (yet) only proves that society is not perfect. we still have some evolving to do.
There are millions of committed homosexual couples in this country. many of whom have children. There is not. an underground society of incestuous couples yearning for acceptance. Why must we deny the homosexual couples the rights and privileges that the rest of us enjoy? Because of the contention that it may lead to other activities that it is well within the government's power to stop? that ain't good enough.
"That myopic view inevitably leads to discrimination which is really what some of these posters harbor; notwithstanding their attempt to use some lofty. values that just happen conveniently to square their prejudices whether religious or cultural"
Actually. I wasn't taking a stand on either incestuous or gay marriage; I was merely pointing out that they raise different issues--they pose different questions.
Personally. I have no objection to gay marriage; I see no harm in it. I'm opposed to incestous relations because of genetic dangers; I happen to also be personally uncomfortable with the idea. but my personal comfort or discomfort is no argument either way...
Exactly... if you think it's a "bad idea" then you are masking bygotry w/ a pseudo-argument. You have no basis to allege that gay marriage is a "bad idea" save your belief.
mantis. I said nothing about a slope. slippery or otherwise. This is not an "all or nothing" viewpoint that I hold. I am trying to determine how one might ban the marriage between a brother and a sister while allowing two brothers to marry in the face of the 14th amendment.
It's not a simple choice of society to allow or disallow marriages based on the collective biases of its constituents. If that were the case. then interracial marriage prohibitions should be constitutional and yet they are not.
You dismantled those strawmen so well. Now try explaining how one bans male/female sibling marriages while allowing male/male or female/female sibling marriages while preserving the 14th amendment.
Actually. I wasn't taking a stand on either incestuous or gay marriage; I was merely pointing out that they raise different issues--they pose different questions.
I know you are trying hard to not take a position on incestuous marriage because it's hard to defend homosexual marriage as a civil right while still explaining why heterosexual sibling marriages are not.
Now. if you want to argue as mantis has that it's really just a choice of society then that deflates the argument that allowing marriage to include same sex couples does not open the door to other marriage options (e.g. polygamy. beatial). I guess that same sex marriage advocates could say that homosexual marriages are OK. except in case of incestuous relationships (i.e. brothers marrying each other). but what would be the reasoning? I don't have really strong feelings about homosexual marriage. I see nothing wrong with it. but I wouldn't be crushed if it didn't happen. And. there is no connection between incestuous marriage and homosexual marriage. It's not hard to argue for one and against the other. They're just different issues.
However. I do think that marriage IS a choice of society. We need to decide where we favor it. and where we don't and why. Many people say that marriage has always been a particular way (which it has). and that it cannot or should not change. One doesn't follow the other. Sometimes traditions are imperfect or even bad and should be changed. Sometimes they are good and should be preserved. We need to THINK about them and EVALUATE them...and then come to a conclusion.
I am absolutely confounded to even understand how. and change in marriage laws would somehow require us to approve of. bestiality. I just can get the connection.
Marriage came about. as I understand it. as a way for a society to provide for the raising of children. and the perpetuating of the society as a whole.
Here's another bit of confusion. I have been talking about moral/rational argument for or against various postions on marriage. You are talking (also?) about Constitutional issues; in particular. the 14th ammendment. I would say. let's decide the moral issues first. Then. if legally it requires another Constitutional amendment to do the moral thing. you are saying that by allowing homosexual unions. we would automatically legally unleash other kinds of unions not necessarily intended.
This is a specious argument & there is no logical reason to link the 2 ideas other than the so-called slippery slope which is implicit in your position.
mak44 - I see your concern about a logical flaw by kbiel - the slippery slope argument. However. maybe we should get clarification from kbiel. For example. he may be concerned about this as a strategic issue -- that is. if we allow one alteration in marriage laws. the door to other alterations which we don't like may be coming. This is not a moral argument or a legal argument; it would be tactical concern.
Interesting discussion. Glad to see not too much use of the term "traditional marriage." Which was the point of my King Solomon reference. Traditional marriages in the Old Testament were not exactly the same as our Western version of Traditional Marriage.
Heilein pushed the envelope in his works. So have many others. Still. a large chunk of our society would not accept his approaches. or homosexual marriage. We can debate pros and cons here. but until a majority supports the idea. and the minority that opposes it is powerless to block it. it ain't happening.
The point being. people who engage in the "slippery slope" argument would deny civil rights to people on the grounds that it is a path to total acceptance of any behavior. This is a red herring to cover intolerance. The issue may be viewed as a tactical matter. but the end result is discrimination nontheless.
The reality is that there is a significant number of people in this country who would deny civil rights to others in the pursuit of narrow-minded beliefs.
Furthermore. the argument posted above by another blogger that the this issue should be left to "democratic decision" rather than a court fiat flies in the face of reality. Discrimintion against African-Americans would likely not have been dislodged were it not for that "terrible activist" Warren Court ruling "Separate but equal is inherently unequal." The Court is a bulwark against denial of civil rights inspite of the mockery of the Constitution that the majority might make.
One aspect about the origins of marriage that was missed or not played up well is that marriage has always been conveyed by society upon a couple. Marriage is performed by a Priest. or Witch Doctor. It's performed by a high ranking member/representative of society. And without Society's agreement. marriage is essentially public a declaration of 'going steady' that has a really really expensive Party attached to it.
mak44 - I share your concerns. I'm a little more circumspect. about people's motives. I cut people slack because I'm really concerned about not understanding them. At the same time. kbiel made some errors in logic which you did a great job pointing out.
In one sense. gay couples can already get married. They can volutarily sign a contract between them that contains the marriage vows. and other legal language as they choose. The onlyl thing missing are the benefits that outside parties accord them--which is important. but not everything. If I were gay and wanted to get married. I would do exactly that--get a contract with my partner. and have whatever ceremony we desired. And. if society catches up and recognizes the arrangement. so much the better.
Homosexuals want a right that nobody has (hey. either). If they wish to make their argument and win this "right" politically. fine.
That is the "special rights" red herring used by the likes of Dobson & Tony Perkins and Janet Parshall among others. It simply misdefines the issue by identifying gender as the focal point.
What gays & lesbians want is the right to be legally bonded w/ all the obligations & benefits that any married couple has. That is not a "special right." it is equal rights.
Furthermore. if a hypocritical & persecutory majority will not uphold equal rights thru proper legislation. rhen it is a matter for the courts to order.
Too bad for the Southern bigot of the past who used his regional majority of fellow bigots to run a Jim Crow society and keep the African-American a second class citizen.
When the majority will not relent because of prejudice or reliance on bigoted religious beliefs. then the courts must overturn a hateful practice. To do any less is to negate the principles of the Constitution.
It's just too damn bad that it takes court order to ensure the concepts contained in the Constitution that ought not be subject to bigotry. even if insisted upon by a majority of haters.
You keep saying that the issues are not intertwined and yet because of the 14th amendment they are. It is not a tatical or moral judgement I am investigating. but one of law. I don't believe that homosexual marriage will automatically lead to incestuous marriage and bestial marriages (if that is the proper term). but there are legal questions that have yet to answered.
Since you are at least making a good faith effort in understanding all sides of the issues. then perhaps we can dispense with rhetoric and answer pointed questions:
1b.) If yes. then one must contend with the 14th amendment and how that might require us to allow brother-sister unions as equal protection under the law. How does one legally argue that brother-brother and sister-sister unions are allowable. but brother-sister unions are not?
These are valid legal questions. especially if one contends that homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue (again with the 14th amendment). I know you have not contended that. but you are the only one even willing to have a rational discussion with out using dismissing terms such as "homophobic bigot".
I know you keep saying that homosexual marriage and incestuous marriage are different issues (and they are). but from a legal standpoint. they might not be different. Obviously. from a moral standpoint. they are different issues. but the law is not always informed by moral differences and a court can not take moral sensitivities into consideration with laws that clearly define those moral sensitivities.
Not exactly true raising children in all primitive cultures was done by the clan as a whole because at the time the link between sex and pregnancy was not well understood. It was only when civilizations developed and inheritance became an issue that marriage started to come about. but not in any way we recognize it today. Even the Old Testament version of marriage complete with its polygamous features was a common law affair with women being traded as prizes or for political reasons (a tradition that lasted until the modern era).
The state sanctioning of marriage has had only one purpose throughout history and that is to establish inheritance and bloodlines for the nobility. The state sanctioning of marriage for commoners is a practice of fairly recent vintage as most "marriages" at the founding of our country were "common law" in the sense that there were no official documents issued other then. a note by a priest that was tucked away in a family bible (if that).
So the whole idea that the state interest in marriage is anything more then a means of incorporating two people in a legal bond that offers mutual protection and division of property and inheritance to children (if any) is unsupportable.
How many people here commenting on the offensiveness of redefining marriage. were also rightly defending Tony Snow for stupid criticism over the "tar baby" comment? You do not have a right to NOT be offended by someone else's choices.
For the record. I am in favor of gay marriage. and don't see a rational impediment to contract marriage. incestous marriage. or the like. Bestiality is and should remain illegal. animals cannot give consent. and children are legally and pratically unable to similarly consent. Some of these may give me the creeps personally. but so does the Southern Baptist Convention. and I see no need to render them illegal.
i agree with the point made above about using a civil union instead of marriage. To let two men get "married" is to change the entire meaning of the word. It's man and woman. not 2 people. If they were to change the definition of this word. then what other words could we change the definition to? i won't cite any examples. as i'm sure you can create your own examples.
For the record. I am in favor of gay marriage. and don't see a rational impediment to contract marriage. incestous marriage. or the like.
This is the point of my questioning on incestuous marriage. Many proponents of homosexual marriage claim that it is no different than heterosexual marriage. but that other forms of marriage are different. That may be true from a moral standpoint. but it is not from a legal standpoint. I'm trying to figure out how one splits the legal hair to allow one new form of marriage but excludes all others especially if one maintains that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue (meaning that they have to be using the 14th amendment).
"That is the "special rights" red herring used by the likes of Dobson & Tony Perkins and Janet Parshall among others. It simply misdefines the issue by identifying gender as the focal point.
What gays & lesbians want is the right to be legally bonded w/ all the obligations & benefits that any married couple has. That is not a "special right." it is equal rights."
And they can. They just have to marry the opposite sex. It's not like if a gay man marries a woman. they won't be given "equal rights" as any married couple.
"Furthermore. if a hypocritical & persecutory majority will not uphold equal rights thru proper legislation. rhen it is a matter for the courts to order."
If homosexuals refuse to make a case as to why they deserve a special right. that is their problem. Rule by fiat is a problem and the SCOTUS has been guilty for years of it.
"Too bad for the Southern bigot of the past who used his regional majority of fellow bigots to run a Jim Crow society and keep the African-American a second class citizen."
Under Jim Crow --- blacks couldn't vote. Gays can. Blacks couldn't marry the opposite sex of a different race. Gays can. They couldn't live where they wanted. Gays can.
"When the majority will not relent because of prejudice or reliance on bigoted religious beliefs. then the courts must overturn a hateful practice. To do any less is to negate the principles of the Constitution."
"It's just too damn bad that it takes court order to ensure the concepts contained in the Constitution that ought not be subject to bigotry. even if insisted upon by a majority of haters.
There is no natural right to be married as the term is currently defined in the U.S. The title "married" is not only a contract between individuals. but also with the state. For example. when one of the two dies. the other gets a share of the deceased partner's social security pension. Same is true for military pensions and some private pensions. Gays. in arguing their case before the Massachusetts supreme court identified 50 some benefits bestowed on married couples by society (state and private). Those benefits justify society's involvement in defining marriage.
Love between the partners is irrelevant to the marriage contract with society. Society bestows marriage benefits for the sole purpose of promoting the pro-creation and rearing of the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens. which is necessary for the continuance of society as we know it.
Consenting adults can already live in whatever relationships they choose. so there's no human rights issue at stake. Power of attorney laws already allow unrelated individuals to exercise legal authority over each other's property and even make medical decisions for others.
I must have missed that part of the law. that states people with conflicting genetic markers may not marry.Consenting adults can already live in whatever relationships they choose. so there's no human rights issue at stake. Power of attorney laws already allow unrelated individuals to exercise legal authority over each other's property and even make medical decisions for others.
Bullshiat. A close family member (such as a parent) who disapproves of a gay individuals partner has far more recourse in courts to wrest control from a power-of-attorney partner than they do over a spouses similar authority.
What physical negative impact does allowing people to marry as they choose to have on you? Because kvetching about definitions of "marriage" and "because it's always been done that way" is crap. Definitions and social meanings change constantly. and the way it's always been done is more often a good argument for change. After all. prior to the 13th amendment. slavery was the way it's always been done. Prior to suffrage. men having the sole vote was the way it had always been done. It's not "special rights." it's equal as much as ensuring wheelchair access to public buildings. Every 100% healthy adult can climb steps. but that shouldn't exclude those who can't.
First. Mak....drop the "homophobic" bullshit. Nobody here is scared of a damned thing. and you know as well as anyone here that the term was coined to make a mockery of anyone who opposed the radcal homosexual agenda. not unlike a schoolyard accusation of being "chicken." If we're going to talk about "grown-up" issues. let's use "grown-up" language. I make absolutely no bones about it...I'm anti-homosexuality. There's a distinction between someone who enjoys homosexual sex. and someone who has an aversion to heterosexual sex. The first is a conscious choice...the latter is a psychological disorder.
To see this exemplified in another area of sexuality. look at the world of fetish. A person who enjoys b_ndage. or foot-w_rship isn't considered imbalanced or abnormal. by and large...until their preferences towards those things precludes them from enjoying sex without incorporating those elements. in which case therapy is indicated.
To say that a predisposition exists towards homosexuality (therefore not a conscious choice). and to therefore normalize it does indeed open the door to normalization of other sexual activities. most notaby pedophilia. A solid argument can be made that the pedophiliac has never made a conscious choice to be attracted to young minors. but rather finds himself naturally satiated by sexual experiences with prepubescent girls.
Psychology has always recognized that a person's "natural" tendencies aren't necessarily "healthy and normal." To blur the line here is a dishonest and agenda-motivated distortion of the facts.
Now. before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion. because I say that homosexual behaviour shouldn't be "normalized" doesn't mean that I'm opposed to the freedom of adults to engage in whatever sexual deviance they prefer. so long as it occurs strictly between consentual adult parties. As I believe strongly in personal freedoms. what goes on in the bedroom is nobody's business except those folks in the bedroom...but that goes both directions. At the same time that the government has no business in the bedroom. what happens in the bedroom has no business in public. I don't care what you do. with whom you do it. or how you do it...just don't insist that I call it "normal."
The law doesn't allow close relatives to merry because of the known problems with offspring. Some locations require a blood test to get a marriage license for the same reason.
Bullshiat. A close family member (such as a parent) who disapproves of a gay individuals partner has far more recourse in courts to wrest control from a power-of-attorney partner than they do over a spouses similar authority.
It dilutes. weakens the benefits society provides to pro-creation couples in return for the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens. Society has a compelling interest in promoting such future generations as it's existence is at stake. I listed the pension example in my prior post. but there are many more financial benefits society provides that would be diluted by homosexual marriage without any hope of increasing the quality or quantity of the next generation of citizen.
"because it's always been done that way" is crap. Definitions and social meanings change constantly. and the way it's always been done is more often a good argument for change. After all. prior to the 13th amendment. slavery was the way it's always been done. Prior to suffrage. men having the sole vote was the way it had always been done.
None of my arguments are based on keeping marriage as it is for the sake of keeping marriage as it is. I have highlighted the reasons society limits marriage benefits to pro-creation couples. Nothing you have said addresses those arguments.
It's not "special rights." it's equal as much as ensuring wheelchair access to public buildings. Every 100% healthy adult can climb steps. but that shouldn't exclude those who can't.
Everyone has the same right to marry any genetically compatible person of the opposite sex. What you're asking for is special rights. just as someone wanting to marry a sibling of the opposite sex would be asking for special rights. The fact that you love someone is irrelevant as it's not a foundation of marriage. Marriage is based on pro-creation and the equality of the partners. which results in the best payoff for the continuance of society. Live with who you want. but don't expect society to provide you with extra benefits just because you're porking some guy.
Since the largest apparent generator of pedophiles is organized religion (particularly the Catholic Church. but others have shown similar faults). it is clearly abnormal and should be banned for the good of the children./snarkIt's been clinically shown multiple times that pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality.
Jamie. you're confusing sexual behavior with relationships. Someone in any kind of adult. consensual relationship shouldn't have to worry about your disapproval preventing them from taking care of each other.
kbiel - needed a night's sleep. Thanks for your comment. I think we agree on something here. I don't claim that the 14th amendment protects gay marriage as a civil right. I can't imagine that the authors who wrote it had that in mind at all.
I think that. the matter is one for the states...Of course. things get more complicated when one state recognizes gay marriages and another state refuses to recognize that marriage. Then. we have to ask...are they legally married or not? Or are they legally married in one state but not in another?
This brings the Feds in--to settle a dispute between states. Hopefully. it'll be settled more peacefully than the dispute of the 1860s--whatever the ruling.
"Society bestows marriage benefits for the sole purpose of promoting the pro-creation and rearing of the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens. which is necessary for the continuance of society as we know it."
I think this overstates things; I believe people would pro-crate without financial incentives from the state. I also don't see that allowing gay marriages would discourage heterosexuals from marrying. preserving the state.
It dilutes. weakens the benefits society provides to pro-creation couples in return for the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens.
Oh geez. Society does not provide benefits. it recognizes rights. The right to choose your partner. and caregiver is as fundamental as any other.
This is why I have to hold my nose when voting for Republicans. . . the Dems may be absolute crap when it comes to national security and economic policy. and I recognize that importance. but they stink on ice when it comes to social issues.
By the way. please show the statute that states "Everyone has the same right to marry any genetically compatible person of the opposite sex" because it smells like something pulled out of the back pocket. You've failed to show any statute that requires a genetic test for marriage. but it sounds like your trying to provide a unified definition of legal marriage while disallowing incestous heterosexual marriages. but not all related individuals are genetically incompatible. and not all unrelated individuals are. Recessives can pop up in all manner of crossings. So your entire basis for your definition is false. which either you fail to realize or you're just trying to cover for the current imbalance in the recognition of rights.
Personally I think the "gay marriage is bad. mmkay" crowd is as boring and annoying as the "guns are bad. mmkay" bunch. How exactly are we a free country. with the freedoms of life. and the pursuit of happiness. when adults whose behavior has no material impact on others can have those same rights curtailed by closeminded reactionaries.
Sorry. but you are no defender of some sacrosanct concept of marriage but rather you are a homophobe using contrived arguments in an attempt to justify your intolerance & predilection for discrimination.
Your position denies to some the right to have a life-long partner along w/ the traditional benefits that come from society's recognition of that bond.
"Next. I make absolutely no bones about it...I'm anti-homosexuality. There's a distinction between someone who enjoys homosexual sex. and someone who has an aversion to heterosexual sex. The first is a conscious choice...the latter is a psychological disorder. "
Your labeling of homosexuality as a psychological disorder is totally unsupported in any mainstream field of psychology w/ rare exceptions coming from discriminatory religious fundamentalists citing archaic biblical references. Mainstream psychology dropped your label a long time ago.
Finally. if you had 1 shred of psychological understanding. you would know that your claim that "homosexuality is a choice" is absolutely false. That kind of statement from you that I quoted shows clearly that. if you are not homophobic. then you certainly have a passion for discrimination. which makes you a bigot. That is your conscious choice.
There is little doubt that. given your hateful discriminatory attitude. you would have been in the trenches w/ George Wallace & Strom Thurmond in opposition to the civil rights laws of the 1960's when. it was still acceptable in some circles to be an avowed racist. People who think like you are always about imposing discriminatory limitations on some unfavored group.
As the Declaration of Independence was quotedabove. we are a society where one has the right to Life. Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Intolerant people like you make a mockery of that Declaration and the Constitution that ensued.
a.) no-one has proven why people are gay. There is no Gay-Gene. It may be psychological. but thus far there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is a physical process. Let's just take that one off the table.
b.) marriage. until governments wormed their way into the business of licenses. an entirely religious practice. requiring the blessing of a priest. what-have-you. (thus the old english practice of the government and anglican church keeping records)It was for the sake of being able to justify a function. or functionaries.
c.) modern government seeks to protect minorities in western cultures. I'm not saying they are given excessive rights. but if a heterosexual beats up a homosexual. if a homosexual beats up a heterosexual. it's simple assault. Much different penalties. Should homosexuals be considered a minority if they are given the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual? They have all the same benefits. except procreation. and we must assume that if a man and a man are together they understand that neither of them will ever be pregnant. The same can be said for two monogamous women.
I know where I stand on this issue. but my point is this. calling each other names is NOT accomplishing anything for either side. Put up or shut up. and get out your petitions. It's a national issue for the reason listed above. not a state issue. and last I looked. the courts of the united states do not have the authority (by the constitution) to create a law out of thin air(although that's pretty much what they did with RvW). Let's get it hashed out and settled with a vote of the people. as issues like this are supposed to be.
Pro-creation is only the first step in the process. The next step requires 18 plus years to rear a child. into a productive law-abiding citizen. It's in society's own interest to help pro-creation couples accomplish that task.
That like say it doesn't hurt to give social security retirement benefits to people who never paid into the system. as if there's an infinite amount of money for that purpose. The harm in allowing gay marriage is that it dilutes. weakens the purpose for which society gives benefits to pro-creation couples. which is to secure future generations of productive law-abiding citizen.
Oh geez. Society does not provide benefits. it recognizes rights. The right to choose your partner. and caregiver is as fundamental as any other.
Genetics is a relatively new science. Science has only discovered a small number of genes involved in genetic diseases. so it's too early to say that closely related individuals are genetically compatible for the purpose of producing offspring. Courts are still releasing prisoner who were convicted of rape before DNA testing was widely available and recognized by the courts. Until such time as science can make absolute determinations the law will continue to ban marriage of closely related individuals. Some states still requires couples to pass a blood test before they get a marriage license.
You ask how gay marriage materially impact others before and I responded with an example. Obviously you didn't read that response or it's you who are closed minded on the issue.
John. assert any connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. To my knowledge. no such link exists. as pedophiliacs come in "both flavors."
No. I'm distinguishing the two. asserting that homosexual behaviour is not the threat to society. but rather normalization of homosexuality as a lifestyle is. as it paves the way to acceptance of any other "natural" abnormal sexual urges.
You need to grow out of your predilection for discrimination and false labeling of that which you do not approve. It's unfortunate that you are so steeped in hatred of others who happen to be different from you.
That normalization of homosexuality would pave the way for acceptance of other abnormal behavior as you stated just reveals your bias. You have no demonstrable basis to make such a claim of abnormality or any definable reason to point to what something will lead apart from bigotry. You cannot find any mainstream psychology that supports such a claim. You are left w/ ranting religious whack jobs like Dobson. Falwell & Perkins to dredge up support for any of your claims about gays.
Your Creator or Evolution gave you a mind to think and you abuse it with your instinctive animal response of defense maifested with bigotry and discrimination. Your reaction is just a more complex human form of animal defensive behavior. No matter how you try to dress it. you are a bigot.
You wrote: "a.) no-one has proven why people are gay. There is no Gay-Gene. It may be psychological. but thus far there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is a physical process. Let's just take that one off the table."
Sorry. but you cannot just take that one off the table. Because no one has identified a gay gene as yet. does not mean that none e
Influenza--often called the flu--is a highly contagious illness caused by viruses that spread when infected people cough or sneeze. When you breathe airborne flu viruses through your mouth or nose. they settle in your throat. and the rest of your respiratory system.
It's also possible (though uncommon) to become infected by touching an object that has viruses on it. like a telephone or doorknob. and then touching your nose or mouth.
The flu can make people of all ages seriously ill. Symptoms include high fever. extreme tiredness. and more. (Children may also get nausea. diarrhea and vomiting.) Flu may lead to bronchitis and pneumonia. lung and heart problems. such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congestive heart failure.
Flu causes about 200.000 deaths each year in the U.S. Depending upon which flu virus strains are circulating. the disease sickens from five percent to 20 percent of the people in the U.S. annually during the fall and winter flu "season." The viruses may be active from October to May.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). the best way to prevent flu and protect yourself and others from serious complications is to get an annual flu vaccination. Getting vaccinated before the end of the calendar year offers the best protection against the flu. which often peaks in February.
Two types of vaccines are available in the U.S. One is inactivated (killed) and given as an injection; the other is a live attenuated (weakened) nasal-spray vaccine. Protection develops two weeks after vaccination. Both types reduce flu risk. but the nasal spray is only approved for healthy people. with no chronic conditions or other risks (including pregnancy).
A word of caution: If you are allergic to eggs. have ever had an allergic reaction to flu vaccine. have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome. or have a current illness. consult your health care professional before receiving either vaccine.
Anyone can get the flu. The virus is highly contagious and may spread from person to person before symptoms appear and up to five days afterwards. Children may be infectious for 10 days or more. Smoking increases your risk of flu infection and mortality.
Because flu thrives in close quarters. children are more likely to become infected than adults. Yet older people and very young children are more likely to be hospitalized or die from flu-related causes. People who work in close physical spaces with others who are infectious. such as in office cubicles. or travel on crowded public transportation. may be exposed to influenza viruses easily. So are those who sleep and live in tight quarters with individuals who may be infected. such as in shelters. nursing homes or college dormitories.
Anyone wanting to avoid getting the flu (one New England Journal of Medicine study of healthy working adults showed those receiving the vaccine had 43 percent fewer days of sick leave from work)
A word of caution: If you are allergic to eggs. have ever had an allergic reaction to flu vaccine. have ever had Guillain-Barré syndrome. or have a current illness. consult your health care professional before receiving either vaccine.
How do you know if you have the flu (influenza) or just a cold? Both affect your respiratory system and have similar symptoms. However. there are significant differences in the severity of each illness and their potential to cause serious complications or death:
A cold creeps up on you. little by little. It might start with sneezing. then move on to a sore throat. or achy muscles. You might not feel great. but--armed with enough tissues--you can still pursue most daily activities.
The flu strikes quickly. often with debilitating exhaustion. Flu usually makes you too sick and weak to go to work. or even to leave your bed.
With the flu. an intense headache. strong aches and pains. and a serious dry cough. In addition. you could suffer chills. a runny or stuffy nose. after most flu symptoms have passed. fatigue can still linger.
When you have a cold. you rarely have a fever or headache and fatigue is mild. Sneezing. a stuffed nose and sore throat are common with a cold. but less so with the flu.
Although people talk about having a "stomach flu." adults don't have stomach-related symptoms with the disease. Stomach flu isn't influenza--it's a gastrointestinal disorder.
Flu is usually diagnosed based upon symptoms and a physical exam. If your symptoms fit those of other patients becoming ill during the time when flu is in your community. your doctor can presume that you have one of the current strains of flu.
Because flu symptoms are sometimes similar to those of viral illnesses such as Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and Parainfluenza. as well as bacterial conditions such as bronchitis and pneumonia. you may receive more sophisticated diagnostic testing if needed. Lab tests based on viral swabs of your nasal passages or throat. can confirm whether you have the flu.
Annual vaccinations reduce or prevent your risk of getting the flu. As of yet. there are no effective vaccines for RSV or parainfluenza. although research continues.
It was the fastest-moving. most lethal influenza outbreak in recorded history.000 U.S. deaths and killing more than 50 million people worldwide. More than half of those who died were healthy people. aged 18 to 40.
Such disease outbreaks are called pandemics because they cover the entire world and affect many people. There were two other influenza pandemics in the 20th century.000 dead in the U.S.
Although modern flu vaccines and antiviral medications better protect public health.000 people still die from flu-related causes in the U.S. every year. That's the result of an average flu season. not a pandemic. Worldwide. the fatality rate may be 20 times higher or more.
Experts are concerned that new flu strains. appearing in bird and animal populations. may threaten humans with a new pandemic. Some even consider such an event inevitable. fueled by a growing world population. increased foreign travel. and immunization levels that are still low among many people. despite flu being a vaccine-preventable disease.
Get a flu vaccination every fall. particularly if you are high risk for suffering flu complications. Remember. if you are allergic to eggs. have ever had an allergic reaction to flu vaccine. have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome. or have a current illness. you need to consult your health care professional before receiving a flu vaccination.
Pregnancy
|