Prop 8

[Liar]

It's easy really: Can laws be gender specific? Yes or no.

Is it contstitutional that there's a law saying that a woman is allowed to do something that a man is not?

 

[LaRocha]

It's easy really: Can laws be gender specific? Yes or no.

Is it contstitutional that there's a law saying that a woman is allowed to do something that a man is not?

As of yesterday, yes.

"In an opinion remarkable for its unanimity -- and free use of profanity -- the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a landmark decision favoring plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases.

At issue was whether the use of words such as "bitch" in the workplace could support a sexual harassment lawsuit. The court ruled that while not all profane or sexual language would be actionable, certain gender-specific words could be, even if they weren't used explicitly in reference to the plaintiff."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?..._Specific_Profanity_Could_Win_Harassment_Case

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LESBIAN_CUSTODY?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

GIMME A EFFING BREAK! THIS IS HOW SILLY IT GETS WITH THE USUAL SUSPECTS. BIO MOM FLED WITH THE KID, THE LESBIAN PARTNER WANTS JOINT CUSTODY.

 

[Liar]

...because nonsense in CAPS makes it somehow less nonsense?

 

[Liar]

As of yesterday, yes.

"In an opinion remarkable for its unanimity -- and free use of profanity -- the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a landmark decision favoring plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases.

At issue was whether the use of words such as "bitch" in the workplace could support a sexual harassment lawsuit. The court ruled that while not all profane or sexual language would be actionable, certain gender-specific words could be, even if they weren't used explicitly in reference to the plaintiff."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?..._Specific_Profanity_Could_Win_Harassment_Case

Does this case say that it's only harassment if a man says "bitch"? Or else it does not apply here.

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

EH, I think you are very tolerant of an unacceptable position.

Yes elfin, perhaps too nice, it is my nature to be so. But what point are you referring to? My reference is his right to say as he wishes, and that gays shouldn't walk around willy nilly trying to thrust their oppies down people's throats in an open display of arrogance. It turns many off, and in the end is a detriment to the cause of equality. Again, if I'm missing your point I accept enlightenment. I'm am somewhat innocent on these things, but like you, I do enjoy my right to think and speak on them.

We desperately need to cede 'marriage' to the religious , who can impose their own restrictions on it, and create an overarching Federal legal status of 'civic union'. If two people want to establish a legal partnership they should be able to and the secular Government should walk away from 'marriage'.

There are financial implications if government is not involved, as I've mentioned earlier. It costs more to be involved in a same sex union, at least in my experience.

But, but, splutter! No! Any lesbian should have empathy for two aged sisters trying to reduce their health premiums or look after each other in illness and death. We talk about legal recognition, not sex per se.

Agreed

I'm a tad sappy, but isn't this what lies behind true loving partnerships?

Sappy is good.

May your day and life be peaceful,

Esperanza

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

...because nonsense in CAPS makes it somehow less nonsense?

Are you OCD, LIAR?

The CAPS fret is something I'd didnt agree to. Its okay if you dont do it yourself, but CAPS dont harm you in any way; so it must be something that gives you an excuse to whine.

 

[DeeZire]

Neither side really wants change. They want to keep the status quo because it benefits them.

Really? And you know this how?

If the only motivation you recognize is manipulation, that has nothing to do with the rest of us, and everything to do with you.

 

[LaRocha]

Does this case say that it's only harassment if a man says "bitch"? Or else it does not apply here.

1976 – Williams v. Saxbe – Court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination when sexual advances by male supervisor towards female employee, if proven, would be deemed an artificial barrier to employment placed before one gender and not another.

There's a whole list of gender specific laws that appear in sexual harassment lawsuits. Programs and laws aiding the female gender are fairly common and the reason they were introduced was because of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gender based law is important for ending sex discrimination and you can't just drop it to make marriage a better fit. There are better arguments for legalization of same-sex marriage than sex discrimination.

http://***************/viewer?a=v&q...b8QVat&sig=AHIEtbTUORH2Mj8D1w9SL0JKn-RpSqZsmg

 

[Liar]

There's a whole list of gender specific laws that appear in sexual harassment lawsuits. Programs and laws aiding the female gender are fairly common and the reason they were introduced was because of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gender based law is important for ending sex discrimination and you can't just drop it to make marriage a better fit. There are better arguments for legalization of same-sex marriage than sex discrimination.

All I can say is that precisely that is what made gay marriage happen here. And I don't think gender equality have suffered from it, rather been strengthened by a stoic stance on that issue.

Eh well, I guess that context and culture is different. That amounts to a lot.