Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

I don't see anyone pointing a gun at him and telling him to accept the gays.

Tolerance isn't acceptance, dolt.

I'd say, for varus, not using derogatory epithets is tolerance.

This thread shows me that a worn down topic can still generate 10+ pages of thread with minimal contribution from me. Go team!

it's the gay in me.

It's a slow hump day.

Financial.

I'd rather link financial incentives to any person or group of persons who are raising a child, theirs or their adoptees.

I'd also rather we allowed inheritance to be passed through an identical mechanism, regardless of the party being passed to, whether it be a next of kin, spouse, charitable organization, or random guy off the street.

Visitation rights should be given to all parties the recipient of visitation wants to allow to be present.

No person should be forced, via the right to silence doctrine, to testify against a party they have vested interest in, unless of course they'd like to take an offer of immunity.

I don't, personally, see a need to make a special subclass of citizenry, but rather to have directly correlated incentives for societal growth.

There are already financial "incentives" in place for someone who has a child. Tax breaks, at least.

The problem with inheritence and a spouse is that the money we're talking about is already jointly owned. If my husband passed away tomorrow, I shouldn't have to pay any sort of inheritence tax or jump through any hoops to keep access to my money.

If I'm in a horrible car accident in Wyoming and I'm admitted to a hospital who doesn't know who I am and I am not able to give them my list of people who are allowed to visit me, I definitely don't want them barring the door to my husband. That would be cruel to both of us.

As it currently stands, only spouses have the right to refuse to testify against one another. There are people fighting to extend that to children as well. "Vested interest" seems a bit subjective. If my boss is cooking the books, but he's paying my paycheck, then I have a vested interest in not testifying against him. I don't think that should be allowed.

Spousal privilege is just one type. Doctors and therapists, lawyers, and ministers/priests are also exempt from testifying against their patients/clients/lost lambs in most cases.



Yeah, I wouldn't like to see the Fifth Amendment abridged to include "would tend to incriminate me, or to be contrary to my interests."

If you have knowledge of said book cooking, and you are managing accounts, then you could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit fraud, So you have two options, either seek immunity and testify, or plead the 5th, with the knowledge that it could come back on to you. If you weren't complicit, you should still have the capacity to not be compelled to produce evidence. The goal here is to eliminate self indictment or perjury by forcing witnesses to be willing participants, and thus produce a 'cleaner' justice system.

I can't honestly be bothered to really argue this point much, since if my husband committed a murder and I was aware of it, I would willingly testify.

But everything else stands, dammit.