Imponderables: In The Beginning... by nvghostrider

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Imponderables: In The Beginning...

POSTED BY: NVGHOSTRIDER
UPDATED: Monday, November 10, 2008 14:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7366
PAGE 3 of 3

Monday, November 10, 2008 8:46 AM

Note sure what they are making room for.. and it makes our small office ( about the size of a small bedroom in a home) even more cramped as now 3 techs share one desk, each of us( the consultants) have a desk, and there's also all the file cabinets and a printer table in here as well...
No she wasn't told before. I think someone likely has called her and said something but no official request or telling has been done.... I'm kind of pissed at my boss for this

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 8:49 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Meh, I think I would kind of expect that sort of thing to happen, especially in a work environment that is crowded, underfunded, and/or changes frequently, as all the places I've worked at are, and as most public schools are. I probably would have boxed up my stuff before I left anyway, but I tend to be a little tetchy about my stuff. There's no way I could leave it sitting out like that while I was on leave.

OTOH, boxing someone's stuff up without them there doesn't feel right to me either. It seems like if you're a boss/supervisor in a workplace that changes often, being able to foresee changes that are likely to happen during a 4 months period should be pretty easy. If your boss had any indication that space might have been an issue, she should have let April know that before she took leave, and asked her to make her stuff easy to move, just in case.

On Prop 8, it removed the existing right of gay couples to get married. Since earlier this year, the state has had gender neutral marriage licenses and application forms, and have been required to provide marriage services for gay couples the same as straight couples. Prop 8 passed by 52%, and basically requires the state to discriminate as to who can get married and who can't. It amends the CA constitution to state that "marriage" can only be entered into by one man and one woman.

Domestic Partnerships still exist, but lack teeth and don't include several rights automatically granted to marriage couples. And as far as I know, there are no laws against discriminating against someone for having a domestic partner rather than being married, so it can and does cause issues in housing, hospitals, wills, estates, having children, etc.

I'm far from an expert on the situation, but it seems to me that conservatives are fighting over the use of the word "marriage". They say that "marriage" is sacred, and defined by god as between a man and a woman (ignoring, as they so often do, that god defined marriage as between one man and many women, and also told you not to eat cheeseburgers, at the risk of your immortal soul, but so very few Christians actually know their own religious texts).

I say if something is "sacred" than the state should get the hell out of it. The government trying to define who can get married and who can't is a violation of seperation of church and state. Churches should be able to decide who gets married and who can't, and the government's only involvement should be to regulate the rights that come with being a committed couple/family unit, and to administer divorces. The government should offer one form of domestic partnership license, which can then be taken to a justice of the peace, or any certified religious leader for a ceremony. Invidiual churches should be allowed to decide who they will marry and who they will not, and should not be penalized for refusing to perform a certain type of marriage. But IMO, the government has no right to make the call as to who can be married and who can't.

I avoided the news all weekend (played a lot of WoW and Rock Band

), but I've been told this morning that the protests outside churches expanded beyond the Mormon temples (Mormons weren't the only religion to support Prop 8, after all), and have been more civil. But I think this issue will be settled in the courts, not in protests, so I still fail to see the point.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:24 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
I say if something is "sacred" than the state should get the hell out of it. The government trying to define who can get married and who can't is a violation of seperation of church and state. Churches should be able to decide who gets married and who can't, and the government's only involvement should be to regulate the rights that come with being a committed couple/family unit, and to administer divorces. The government should offer one form of domestic partnership license, which can then be taken to a justice of the peace, or any certified religious leader for a ceremony. Invidiual churches should be allowed to decide who they will marry and who they will not, and should not be penalized for refusing to perform a certain type of marriage. But IMO, the government has no right to make the call as to who can be married and who can't.

In essence that's sorta what we have. It's just that the state and churches both use the word marriage. I don't think the state could stop a church from having a ceremony to "marry" people it just wouldn't be a legally binding "marriage". Which really doesn't help anything. Since the legal rights are the issue.

I still say it's only a matter of time before the government caves and reverses this decision.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:37 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER

Funny they choose to protest the churches, I thought there was a clear seperation between church and state in this country. Is the church going to change their mind and have the proposition reversed?

Not to mention I think they are in the wrong state to try getting the Mormon church to change their mind. ;)

At the very least a domestic partnership should have the same rights of common law marriage recognized. If either partner has natural children (I've known several alternative lifestyle couples who did) then their partner should be recognized as a step parent for thir contribution. That is my argument against the nay sayers and "religious" factions against their right. If they are going to be a family then should be recognized as such without scrutiny.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:56 AM

MSA

I just want to know in what way does someone else being married or unmarried relate to the validity of my marriage. That seems to be the primary argument is that it devalues " traditional" marriage...huh???? So my marriages validity is dependant on other people's marriages??? Then I would like some legislation about cheating and abusive spouses which are a much bigger devaluation of marriage than anything I can think of..

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 10:59 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

I think the argument goes something like, God said marriage between man and woman is good, and being gay is bad. So allowing gay people to use the word "marriage" to apply to their evil and sinful relationships would sully the word, and be an affront to God.

I think getting pissy over a word (which was not even the word their God used when he defined marriage to the Hebrew prophets for crying out loud) is ridiculous. I think religious beliefs and bias have no place in government policy. And I think denying a certain segment of the population rights because 52% of voters hold a certain religious view is unAmerican and antiDemocratic, not to mention bigotted and hateful. And the blindness to the fact that many of the exact same arguments were used to outlaw mixed race marriages just goes to show how blind some people can be to history, particularly when religion is involved.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 11:17 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
52% of voters hold a certain...view is...antiDemocratic

Are you sure you aren't getting upset just because it's a religious view? There's no way the system can know a person is voting based on religious views or just personal views. I don't think antidemocratic is the right term. Bigoted and hateful sure, but I think it's actually pretty much exactly democratic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 11:18 AM

MSA

here here CK!!! Hmm that's it guys... CK for President!!! Finally a maniacal power hungry leader we can all believe in

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 11:37 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Zeek, what I meant by "antiDemocratic" is that our country was founded on the idea of protecting the rights of the minority, even when it conflicts with the will of the majority. Without this principle, we would still have slavery, women and African Americans and many others would never have gotten the right to vote, presidents would have unlimited terms, workers would have no protections on the job, and we would lack many of the rights we consider vital to our lives. How can we on the one hand celebrate the Civil Rights movement culminating in our first African American president, while on the other hand deny basic rights to another minority group? I understand the math that went into both decisions, but if we are not protecting the minority then we are not living up to the vision of the founding fathers, or to our potential as a nation.

And MsA, lol. My mom wants me to run for office too (doesn't everyone's mother though?

), based mostly on my ideas on gay marriage (which she opposes, but likes my ideas), health care, and stem-cell research. I don't have the energy in me currently to even think about what sort of preparation I would need for something like that, though I think finishing my college degree would be high up on the list. :P I'm waiting to see what sorts of ideas Obama puts forward as President, and what sorts of avenues he opens for normal Americans to suggest ideas.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 11:49 AM

RHYIANAN

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
How can we on the one hand celebrate the Civil Rights movement culminating in our first African American president, while on the other hand deny basic rights to another minority group?

CK, this is because the other minority group (in this case, the LGBT community) is still in the midst of the struggle. During the Civil Rights movement, the country as a whole was not celebrating. Everyone had their own views and both sides were fighting for supremacy. It was volatile, and for the people within the movement, potentially dangerous. We can celebrate it now because they won their rights. History is written by the victors.

If, 50-60 years from now, the LGBT community has managed to wrest their rights from the bigoted majority, then their struggle will be celebrated as well. It's just getting there that is the issue now.

I'm a leaf on the wind

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 11:49 AM

MSA

Ok so 2012 then??

Ok off to go teach someone to replicate my entire behavior curriculum, meeting with parents and staff to make a plan for zippy the destructor ( my pet name for a kid who si randomly aggressive) and then finally home

HUGS to you all

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:21 PM

FREELANCERTEX

CK u double majored in history and poli-sci didnt u?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:24 PM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by freelancertex:
CK u double majored in history and poli-sci didnt u?

I thought she majored in super secret spy major. CK is really james bond...who in turn is really HK. It's confusing...I think it takes super secret spy brainpower to figure it all out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 1:29 PM

FREELANCERTEX

thats *awesome* ive been talking to a super secret spy....cool XD

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 10, 2008 2:45 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER

NEW THREAD:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=35645

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE