Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM in reply to: OT: For all the crap people give walmart….seems like they treat their software engineers pretty well :) #787823
an
Participant[quote=ocrenter]This is when time-of-use and net metering really shines.
We just banked $172 in credit for the month of June. I’m hoping these banked credit during the summer will make up for the lackluster production during the winter months.[/quote]Do you know if we have to get an EV to switch over to TOU?
ParticipantThis year have been pretty bad for solar production where I’m at. Way too many cloudy days. [img_assist|nid=25381|title=solar production|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=36]
July 7, 2015 at 4:32 PM in reply to: OT: For all the crap people give walmart….seems like they treat their software engineers pretty well :) #787767Participant[quote=jeff303]Their high compensation is reflective of the fact that they have to overcome negative perceptions likely held by many of the qualified candidates for this type of work.[/quote]
The negative perception might be true for young and impressionable people. But does it really matter if you write SQL queries for Walmart.com or Amazon.com? I personally don’t care. If I’m in server side stuff, I would totally apply, especially with that kind of compensation.Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]
Hillary said marriage should be a constitutional right: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/15/shifting-position-clinton-says-gay-marriage-should-be-a-constitutional-right/. So if she wins in 2016, that technical difference wouldn’t matter. Assuming she would follow through and declare marriage as a constitutional right.[/quote]I think you know better than that. Presidents don’t have the power to make declarations like that. Only the supreme court can decide, with any legal authority, whether a law is constitutional.[/quote]
Yes, but president can appoint justices and the bench is already leaning in the direction of marriage being a conditional right. So having a president who believe it should be doesn’t hurt. Again, we’ll find out soon enough.Participant[quote=SK in CV]Neither the court nor the president said exactly that. The difference is technical but significant. What the court said is that denying same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples is a violation of due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Whether a polygamist marriage would be similarly protected is arguable. No inference can be drawn from this court decision.[/quote]Technically, you might be correct (I’m not a lawyer). However, I hope the court will draw the same conclusion that denying polygamist families the same rights as straight/gay couples is a violation of due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. I just hope we all are equal in the eyes of the law. We will find out soon enough.
Interesting articles about marriage being a constitutional right:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/06/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-is-a-constitutional-right/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-rights-supporters-push-beyond-marriage-to-broader-legal-protections/2015/06/27/25f822dc-1cdf-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/gay-marriage-legal-in-the-united-states-of-america/396947/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/17/jeb-bush-no-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/gay-marriage-supreme-court-politics-activism/397052/
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/supreme-court-ruling-gay-marriage-a-constitutional-right/
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Supreme-Court-Gay-Marriage-Obergefell-Hodges–310069401.html
So, although you might be right in saying that technically, the SCOTUS and POTUS didn’t say that exactly. I don’t know if the technical difference is that significant if all the news media and all the people on both side of the isle interpret it as that.
Hillary said marriage should be a constitutional right: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/15/shifting-position-clinton-says-gay-marriage-should-be-a-constitutional-right/. So if she wins in 2016, that technical difference wouldn’t matter. Assuming she would follow through and declare marriage as a constitutional right.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]These polyamorous people didn’t waste much time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-usa-polygamist-montana-idUSKCN0PD0BQ20150703%5B/quote%5D
It would be very interesting to see how this turn out. Now that both the SCOTUS and POTUS say that marriage is a constitutional right, I wonder how the defending lawyer(s) would argue for denying people their constitutional right.Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I had a lunch w/ my lawyer friend today and we talked about this.
2 important points. The Supreme Court can overturn its own decision. But Congress and state legislatures can also change the laws they pass.
A Supreme Court decision that gay marriage is constitutionally guaranteed is superior to laws passed by the states to allow gay marriage. The ruling becomes the framework within which the legislatures must operate.
The principle of stare decisis is well-established. The Court only very reluctantly overturns its own decisions.
But when the court does overturn prior rulings it’s because it’s well aware that society and public opinions have changed (such as in the cases of interracial marriage, segregation, and sodomy).
The case that probably would get overturned in the future is Citizens United, depending on where society stands when the issue comes back to the court.[/quote]
Well, I hope your lawyer friend is right. As I stated, I fully support gay marriage. I just wanted it to be done right where it won’t be overturned as easy as a different mix of justices. I hope it sticks permanently.Participant[quote=Blogstar]Everybody is bi-sexual. Look at what I am saying though. Where has a free for all ever brought the human race forward? How could it. Maybe it could. I don’t know. I think it would not. We could not succeed doing that it’s to far off of how our complete package of instincts work together for social success. Poligamy, as I perceive it, and as it has existed and does exist , might not be.[/quote]I’m not arguing whether a many to many marriage would bring human race forward or not. It’s definitely a minority group, just like homosexuals are, but to a much larger extent. What I’m trying to say is, we shouldn’t deny a group of people (doesn’t matter how small/fringe they are) their constitutional rights just because you don’t think their action will bring the human race forward. Many anti-gay marriage say the exact same thing about gay marriage. They point to human history, they point to how it’s not natural, they point to how it’ll destroy marriage and some even will go as far as saying it’ll destroy society. I personally just want everyone to have the same constitutional right to marry.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]That’s basically the perception I work from.
I am not sure if ever in the history of humankind that “many to many” has been effective in carrying the human race forward( ultimately this topic is about reproduction and survival) . But then maybe it has been fairly common? Not in recent western civilizations, of course, but with native americans or others? Maybe further back in European history?Cultures where only the alpha males have much access to women seem to have been/are more common. You don’t see women even dreaming of such things. yet some DO cooperate with polygamy. It doesn’t seem like that big of a stretch, really. “One ( male) with many” is more common in other primates, and throughout the animal kingdom. This is why I tend to see it as “one( male) with many”. Seems more in line with what our internal wiring would be like, at least as much as we are wired for monogamy.[/quote]What if these polygamists are bisexual? Why does it have to be one man to many women or one woman to many men?
ParticipantIf you don’t have any opportunity to develop it for work, then you can always create apps and publish it to the store. There are also freelance stuff where you can create apps for people.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Again, I’m not against “marriage,” AN. I’m against ONE PERSON being able to LEGALLY marry MORE than one person at a time.[/quote]
LoL, nevermind.ParticipantBG, fyi, when you prevent a group of people from legally marrying each other, you’re essentially banning marriage for them.
Do you seriously think you know of every dead beat dads? Just because you don’t know of a dead beat dad with 20 kids from 20 different moms doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
There are plenty of dead beat dads who don’t pay into the system. There are plenty of poor people who take more from the system to pay for their kids than they pay into it. Do you suggest we should ban marriage for them too? Since they’re a burden to the system and have no chance in paying for their share? That’s exactly your argument as why we shouldn’t legalize marriage for polygamists? As the justices and president have stated, you’re essentially suggesting we should withheld a small group of people their constitutional right because they can’t pay their share in raising their children.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]In other words, an American single mom on public aid who had five minor children with three different dads has THREE prospective and potential payors to the “system” of aid reimbursement.
A “fringe (ousted) “Mormon” sect mom with five minor children has likely had all her kids with ONE dad. The problem is, that dad ALSO currently has 20 OTHER minor kids to support with 16 of them under the age of 14.
That’s not enough payors to reimburse the “system” should that mom have to apply for public assistance for her children out of necessity.
No, I don’t feel polygamy should be legalized. But if 7 “sister wives” are living together with their collective 28 minor kids in the middle of nowhere and are not nor have ever collected any public aid and they are all happy with their arrangement, far be it from me to judge their lifestyle.[/quote]What make you think those 3 prospective and potential “payers” don’t also impregnate another 20 women and have 20 other kids each? Also, what if those 3 prospective and potential “payers” are broke and are living on welfare? Should we ban marriage for all poor people too?
Participant[quote=svelte]
Question A: Would be fine by me. Could be something general such as if you’re on public assistance for more than 2 years and have more than 5 kids attached to the marriage network, all persons in the marriage network (even if just 2 ppl) are required to go through sterilization to continue benefits. Works for 2 person marriages and plural marriages.Full disclosure – my family research the last few years has turned up quite a few polygamists in my tree. Yeah, a lot of my family is Mormon. It didn’t have any effect on my opinion, but was quite an interesting find.
Problem is: If Andy can have five wives, can his wife Mary have five husbands? And can one of Mary’s husbands, Paul, have eight other wives? The marriage network would get very confusing…probably not a good idea.
Second question: personally I’ve pushed getting rid of marriage altogether for over a decade now. People should be together because they want to be, not because they are legally bound. Just my opinion. I’m not with my wife today because I signed a paper, I can tell you that.[/quote]I don’t think it’s a problem at all. Also, you should think even bigger. Maybe Paul have 2 wives and 3 husbands. It’s not just straight and gay, there are also bi people out there too. We shouldn’t dismiss them just the same.
I agree with you, I think marriage should be a religious thing and the government shouldn’t care about marriage and just civil union. -
AuthorPosts
