This Sounds Like a Real Ding-a-ling

Improving the precision of our Laws is warranted. I don't really care but, it's not as bad as a Rethuglican budget.

They some real voodoo.:eek:
 
We need smarter OPs

Seriously if you're gonna post something you should be able to read, understand and summarize it for the rest of us. The link should be extra reading not required to understand what the fuck you're talking about. This is the equivalent of that bitch at a party who keeps sighing until you ask her what the fuck is wrong.

Here's the Article Again

More than two dozen Democrats have decided that at the federal level we should no longer use the words 'husband' and 'wife' because those terms are discriminatory and should be replaced by gender neutral terms like 'significant other' or 'spouse'. Which to me is basically is only confusing because unless the federal law states 'husband and wife' I don't see what the issue is here. Perhaps it's just me not being hip to the homosexual lingo, are to married men not husband and husband and two married women, wife and wife? Or if they consider whichever is more masculine the husband and the other the wife I fail to see the harm.

Now in civil society we've long since used spouse or significant other on nearly all paper work simply because otherwise your paperwork has to say husband and/or wife every time it fucking comes up. Which is a waste of paper and ink.

It's true Congress should have better things to do but this is also something that should take five minutes. "Hey we need to fix the wording on this!" After which 435 Representatives and 100 Senators should all vote Yea, and their little staff monkeys should start pouring through the laws to update the wording when that's all that's necessary and bringing up any laws where a reword might somehow change the meaning of the law. The fact that we have to discuss shit like this shows just how stupid people in this country are capable of being.
 
It's a logical step in the process. Nothing goofy about it.
 
It gives the interns something to do. It isn't as if Congress has been producing a lot of legislation lately.
 
Worse the Supreme Court settled this. Even if the SCOTUS refused to hear it (as they likely would) the idea that judges could decide to tie up whatever they please because something was using what's obsolete wording.

Honestly I would be over the fucking moon if one day we loosed an army of lawyers and said "Go forth and find all the obsolete laws, laws that need to be rewritten and laws that do not fit our modern morality and categorize them so we can start dealing with them.

Seriously have you guys ever read up on some of the absurd laws that exist at all levels? Some are just hold overs from ye olden times and since our policy isn't to actually strike laws it's just we ignore them. Like there are states where anal and oral sex are still illegal. I'm also a big fan of unifying laws
 
Worse the Supreme Court settled this. Even if the SCOTUS refused to hear it (as they likely would) the idea that judges could decide to tie up whatever they please because something was using what's obsolete wording.

Honestly I would be over the fucking moon if one day we loosed an army of lawyers and said "Go forth and find all the obsolete laws, laws that need to be rewritten and laws that do not fit our modern morality and categorize them so we can start dealing with them.

Seriously have you guys ever read up on some of the absurd laws that exist at all levels? Some are just hold overs from ye olden times and since our policy isn't to actually strike laws it's just we ignore them. Like there are states where anal and oral sex are still illegal. I'm also a big fan of unifying laws
Minneapolis just recently struck off a couple of hundred-year-old laws against "lurking" and "expectoration", from a belief that they were not enforced equally between blacks and whites. St. Paul still has similar laws in place.
 
Good for them. But at least those laws were still enforced. I'm not endorsing bias mind you I'll let LJ or Zumi point out the difference between a black woman defending her home by shooting in the air in Florida and a hispanic man shooting a black man he hunted some other day. But at least the law was still in use. I'd be willing to bet there are still laws on the books pertaining what to do with runaway slaves, attacking Natives, loyalists to the crown and Citizens of Spanish colonies.
 
I noticed one stupid part in the proposed changes, about changing threatening the president's wife to threatening the president's spouse. Apparently it's ok to threaten someone the president is engaged to, or living with.
 
I noticed one stupid part in the proposed changes, about changing threatening the president's wife to threatening the president's spouse. Apparently it's ok to threaten someone the president is engaged to, or living with.
Sure it is. Didn't you see that Michael Douglas and Annette Bening movie?
 
Back
Top