INITIATIVE WOULD DEFEND MARRIAGE BY DEMANDING PROOF OF PROCREATION
WDMA - The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal
marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court's
ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006,
declared that a "legitimate state interest" allows the Legislature to
limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children
together. Because of this "legitimate state interest," it is permissible
to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we
are working to put the court's ruling into law. We will do this through
three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for
legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation
when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child
together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike
them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at
the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives
who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of
procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric. Initiative 957
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative
would:
- add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another"
to the legal definition of marriage
- require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation
within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage
automatically annulled
- require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation
within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage
classed as "unrecognized;"
- establish a process for filing proof of procreation
- make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to
receive marriage benefits.
http://www.wa-doma.org/Default.aspx
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONVICTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN ENGLAND
LANCASHIRE EVENING POST - An expensive 4 x 4 vehicle was ruthlessly
crushed - without its owner's knowledge. The Mitsubishi Shogun, which
can cost up to L35,000, was seized and destroyed after its driver was
spotted dumping rubbish. Determined council bosses hunted down the
vehicle to an address in Leyland following a spate of incidents last
year when large quantities of tires were dumped in various parts of
Wigan.
In March a concerned member of the public alerted the council's
specialist fly-tipping* enforcement team to dumped tires near Spring
Bank Industrial Estate in Platt Bridge. In September another resident
saw a man dumping tires on land off Westwood Lane, Ince. Two days later
the same man was back committing a similar offence at the same spot. . .
Once the vehicle was traced, Wigan Council used powers under the
Disposal of Controlled Waste Regulations 1991 to seize the vehicle from
an address in Leyland. It was crushed at a breaker's yard yesterday.
Officials at Wigan Metro say the move demonstrates their tough stance on
illegal dumping.
http://www.lep.co.uk//viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2035385§ionid=73
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
STUPID STATE LEGISLATOR TRICKS
EUGENE VOLOKH, WALL STREET JOURNAL - Say you live in Washington state,
and you find yourself getting to know and becoming attracted to your
dental hygienist--or for that matter your optician (that's the person
who fits your eyeglasses, based on the prescription provided by your
optometrist). You're interested in a romantic relationship, a sexual
relationship, perhaps even marriage. You're both consenting adults, you
think, right? You have a right to marry, and even a right to have sex
(given Lawrence v. Texas).. . .
Under Washington Administrative Code 246-16-020, your dental hygienist
and your optician are "health care providers." This means that, under
Washington Administrative Code 246-16-100, they "shall not engage, or
attempt to engage, in sexual misconduct with a current patient." Sexual
misconduct "includes but is not limited to" sex, kissing, "hugging . . .
of a romantic . . . nature," "suggesting or discussing the possibility
of a dating, sexual or romantic relationship after the professional
relationship ends," "terminating a professional relationship for the
purpose of dating or pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship," or
"making statements regarding the patient['s] . . . body, appearance,
sexual history, or sexual orientation other than for legitimate health
care purposes," among many other things.
OK, you say, no problem; you should just switch to a different dental
hygienist or optician, and then start dating. Perhaps banning
optician-client relationships is going a bit far, but it's hardly a big
burden on people's romantic, sexual, or marital choices.
No dice. Subsection (3) of the provision states that "a health care
provider shall not engage, or attempt to engage" in any of these
activities "with a former patient, client or key party within two years
after the provider-patient/client relationship ends." Two years is not a
short time. If you do want to date your former dental hygienist or
optician, you can't even kiss her until two years after you leave her
practice. Or, to be precise, you can kiss her, and she can kiss you
back--if she is willing to risk professional discipline and possibly
loss of her livelihood, a pretty serious burden. . .
This restriction does end two years after the professional relationship
ends. So two years after switching dental hygienists or opticians, you
can call up the person and say, "Hey, remember me, from two years ago? I
only stopped coming to your office so that I could wait two years and
then ask you out. So, are you interested?" At that point, she can start
a relationship with you--or say, "Oh, sorry you had to stay away for two
years, but I don't think it would work out between us."
Actually, can she start a relationship with you, even two years later?
Well, not if "(a) There is a significant likelihood that the patient . .
. will seek or require additional services from the health care
provider; or (b) There is an imbalance of power, influence, opportunity
and/or special knowledge of the professional relationship." How should
the hygienist or optician think this through? Let's skip item (a),
though even that's troublesome enough (since if a relationship does
develop, you might well ask your lover or spouse for some professional
help, as lovers and spouses often do). . .
AND MUCH MORE. .
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009568
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WDMA - The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal
marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court's
ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006,
declared that a "legitimate state interest" allows the Legislature to
limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children
together. Because of this "legitimate state interest," it is permissible
to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we
are working to put the court's ruling into law. We will do this through
three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for
legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation
when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child
together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike
them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at
the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives
who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of
procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric. Initiative 957
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative
would:
- add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another"
to the legal definition of marriage
- require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation
within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage
automatically annulled
- require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation
within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage
classed as "unrecognized;"
- establish a process for filing proof of procreation
- make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to
receive marriage benefits.
http://www.wa-doma.org/Default.aspx
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONVICTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN ENGLAND
LANCASHIRE EVENING POST - An expensive 4 x 4 vehicle was ruthlessly
crushed - without its owner's knowledge. The Mitsubishi Shogun, which
can cost up to L35,000, was seized and destroyed after its driver was
spotted dumping rubbish. Determined council bosses hunted down the
vehicle to an address in Leyland following a spate of incidents last
year when large quantities of tires were dumped in various parts of
Wigan.
In March a concerned member of the public alerted the council's
specialist fly-tipping* enforcement team to dumped tires near Spring
Bank Industrial Estate in Platt Bridge. In September another resident
saw a man dumping tires on land off Westwood Lane, Ince. Two days later
the same man was back committing a similar offence at the same spot. . .
Once the vehicle was traced, Wigan Council used powers under the
Disposal of Controlled Waste Regulations 1991 to seize the vehicle from
an address in Leyland. It was crushed at a breaker's yard yesterday.
Officials at Wigan Metro say the move demonstrates their tough stance on
illegal dumping.
http://www.lep.co.uk//viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2035385§ionid=73
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
STUPID STATE LEGISLATOR TRICKS
EUGENE VOLOKH, WALL STREET JOURNAL - Say you live in Washington state,
and you find yourself getting to know and becoming attracted to your
dental hygienist--or for that matter your optician (that's the person
who fits your eyeglasses, based on the prescription provided by your
optometrist). You're interested in a romantic relationship, a sexual
relationship, perhaps even marriage. You're both consenting adults, you
think, right? You have a right to marry, and even a right to have sex
(given Lawrence v. Texas).. . .
Under Washington Administrative Code 246-16-020, your dental hygienist
and your optician are "health care providers." This means that, under
Washington Administrative Code 246-16-100, they "shall not engage, or
attempt to engage, in sexual misconduct with a current patient." Sexual
misconduct "includes but is not limited to" sex, kissing, "hugging . . .
of a romantic . . . nature," "suggesting or discussing the possibility
of a dating, sexual or romantic relationship after the professional
relationship ends," "terminating a professional relationship for the
purpose of dating or pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship," or
"making statements regarding the patient['s] . . . body, appearance,
sexual history, or sexual orientation other than for legitimate health
care purposes," among many other things.
OK, you say, no problem; you should just switch to a different dental
hygienist or optician, and then start dating. Perhaps banning
optician-client relationships is going a bit far, but it's hardly a big
burden on people's romantic, sexual, or marital choices.
No dice. Subsection (3) of the provision states that "a health care
provider shall not engage, or attempt to engage" in any of these
activities "with a former patient, client or key party within two years
after the provider-patient/client relationship ends." Two years is not a
short time. If you do want to date your former dental hygienist or
optician, you can't even kiss her until two years after you leave her
practice. Or, to be precise, you can kiss her, and she can kiss you
back--if she is willing to risk professional discipline and possibly
loss of her livelihood, a pretty serious burden. . .
This restriction does end two years after the professional relationship
ends. So two years after switching dental hygienists or opticians, you
can call up the person and say, "Hey, remember me, from two years ago? I
only stopped coming to your office so that I could wait two years and
then ask you out. So, are you interested?" At that point, she can start
a relationship with you--or say, "Oh, sorry you had to stay away for two
years, but I don't think it would work out between us."
Actually, can she start a relationship with you, even two years later?
Well, not if "(a) There is a significant likelihood that the patient . .
. will seek or require additional services from the health care
provider; or (b) There is an imbalance of power, influence, opportunity
and/or special knowledge of the professional relationship." How should
the hygienist or optician think this through? Let's skip item (a),
though even that's troublesome enough (since if a relationship does
develop, you might well ask your lover or spouse for some professional
help, as lovers and spouses often do). . .
AND MUCH MORE. .
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009568
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment