The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012


So the Constitution calls for respecting the acts of other states, which is why this post by Mr Moe Lane is so interesting.  Does this apply to gun laws?

Even more interesting, is the question of how [Democratic Party] Senators from States with "Shall issue" laws will vote on a law to ensure reciprocity amongst states, specifically "to require states to respect concealed carry permits issued by other, less restrictive states."

Of course the House of Representatives passed bill must first get past Senator John Kerry in Committee.  One does have the sense, however, that Senator Kerry is more interested in what he thinks is good for you, than what one might wish for.

Regards  —  Cliff


Jack Mitchell said...

Will there be a quid pro quo for marriage equality?

I figure, based on the gist, you feel DOMA is a bad law.

Anonymous said...

On the face of it, Jack makes an interesting point. However, I would offer that when one examines the heart and soul of both laws, there are considerable differences in their heritage and their purpose. DOMA (which is stupid in its title) is a legislative attempt to transform what is historically and predominantly a Judeo-Christian ethic into public law. To that end, the proponents are using law as a means of enforcing religious doctrine.

Carrying a gun concealed from one state to the next hasn't got that "religious" element backing matter what liberals say about radical Christian extremists clinging to their guns....LOL.

It will be very interesting to see the outcome of this. Times...they are a'changin'......Perhaps we will see a new proclamation that says something like, "there is reciprocity between states except in the areas of guns, marriage, voting, and whatever else we haven't thought of...yet."

Jack Mitchell said...

Yes, I agree. One is clearly a codified secular legacy from our Founders. The other is a clinging to a preception of our history.

Thus, one has a Constitutional footing. The other, none.

C R Krieger said...

I was confused by Jack's last comment.

My position, from when I ran for a seat in the General Court, is that the Government should do civil unions, across the board.  Everyone should have to go to City Hall for a civil union if they want the legal benefits we now ascribe to marriage.  Those who want to be "married" (a religious state) should go pastor shopping.  I know I am on shaky grounds for saying this, but this is the way it is done in places like Germany.  The Government has certain interests and God has certain interests.

I think I still like that position.  Thus, I feel DOMA is a bad law.

Regards  —  Cliff

Anonymous said...

I agree with your approach Cliff. In many, if not most states, part of the "marriage ceremony" is an acknowledgement of the dual nature of the ceremony...."By the powers invested in me by........" Thus, I see no issue with "civil union" vs "marriage." In that regard, I have a number of friends who are engaged in a civil union without the benefit of "marriage." That is, they have engaged in formalized contractual obligations and rights with each other..ownership of a house and other property, designated power of attorney for medical matters, etc.

I think the hew and cry over "marriage" between same sex unions arises of the perception of equal rights with marriages of men and women. I think a disservice to gays and lesbian couples has been wrought by the government in the name of or on the behalf of religion and religious groups in that they are "locked out" of the same sort of perquisites enjoyed by "married" couples. That is wrong and can be easily and neatly rectified by the "civil union" concept.

Jack Mitchell said...

I am with you both on this. I've stated before into the intertubes, that Salmira and I will happily surrender our 'marriage' certificate in return for a civil equivalent.

I am willing to respect the sacrament of marriage within the confines of each's congregation.

I think, not sure, that there may be resistance to this within hardened elements of the LGBT community. My guess is that they like to have a 'foot in the door' of the secular frontier.

That is not my opinion. If ever a free market condition existed, it should be where you decide to commune and congregate in thoughtful reverance. If you choose to kibbitz with those that opt to shun, that is your bee's wax.

We just won't be rubbing elbows.

Jack Mitchell said...

I just realized, as Cliff was confused, I don't know what 'secular' means.

In the posts above, please substitute 'secular' with an appropriate antonym.

Anonymous said...

What each person chooses to do or believe is "appropriate" is completely between the person and, if "religious" his or her deity.....or if not religious....themself or what "higher power" they might choose.

As one who is Christian....I believe in the instruction given to us by God, "Judge not, lest you be judged." Who am I to say this or that is good or bad?

Unfortunately...that is NOT the popular perception and practice.....especially among some Christians.

Again....from God.....the most important commandment is to love one another. What part of that suggests criticizing or condemning?