« Aurora |
| IFYI »
Collateral damage from Amendment One may be less than feared.
Jul 20, 2012 at 02:18 PM in Amendment 1 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef0176169646f5970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Silver lining:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
And Apple's datacenter expansion shows that "progressive" companies will still do business and expand in NC if it makes business sense.
formerly gt |
Jul 20, 2012 at 02:46 PM
Her exact words today were "apparently it was not the big deal we made thought it was."
Her EXACT words?
Jul 20, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Meanwhile, we're all just waiting for the heterosexual divorce rate to drop, now that those sanctified unions are no longer threatened by the Giant Rays of Discord emanating from gay unions.
Jul 20, 2012 at 03:06 PM
"And Apple's datacenter expansion shows that "progressive" companies will still do business and expand in NC if it makes business sense."
Right. And I assume that qualifies as evidence that taxes are not too "too high" too.
Jul 20, 2012 at 03:49 PM
"Her EXACT words?"
Sam has put words people didn't say in quotation marks before, justifying doing so as something he likes to call "scare quotes." You are right to wonder if that is an accurate quotation or not. I'd like to know too.
Jul 20, 2012 at 03:56 PM
That was a bad edit that I have fixed. The "apparently it was not the big deal" is exact. I don't recall if the exact wording after that was "that we thought it was" or "that we made it out to be."
Sam has used finger quotes a.k.a. scare quotes before that are commonly accepted by most people except Roch who is on an endless quest to undermine me for proving his duality on this very subject as it relates to Obama. He's just frustrated today because it backfired once again on another thread where he has made himself look ridiculous.
Jul 20, 2012 at 04:36 PM
Those aren't fingers. They are quotation marks, as in "direct quotation".
Why edit a direct quotation (and admit to it)?
Was the unidentified speaker one of the elite or just talking to them?
Jul 20, 2012 at 06:21 PM
The speaker was Elizabeth Johnston Jones who was presenting the topic with Mecklenburg County judicial candidate Kary Watson.
I have been posting using a phone with a touchpad that is not the best at editing. I explained that I have corrected the verbatim quote. I never said that this quote was a "scare quote". That was a reference to a previous use of them by me that Roch is referring to.
Everyone present in the room of about 60 lawyers was a Board Certified Specialist in family law. The topic actually came up again in another presentation by a different lawyer and the legal conclusion was the same.
If you want to imply that I'm making this up because you don't like it, that's your problem.
Jul 20, 2012 at 07:16 PM
How is a negative proved ?
How is activity that doesn't occur, say, because of intimidation, measured ?
Its' not clear what the ideologies that surface in research to these questions, might be but there is lots of clues posted by that blog host strewn on this blog, that I have seen.
As that blog host asserts, North Carolina Family Law Specialists is of his mind, ideologically speaking.
My view is, that any ideology is an obstruction to a better way of understanding.
C'est la vie.
Jul 21, 2012 at 09:49 AM
Actually most of them were not. By far the majority of these attorneys are Left of center and did not support A1. As the post points out, many members of the family law bar were arguing that A1 WOULD have an adverse affect on domestic violence laws. The post merely indicates that there is now consensus that this was overblown and perhaps intentionally so in some cases.
Again, if you don't like it, that's your problem.
Jul 21, 2012 at 10:12 AM
By far the majority of these attorneys are Left of center and did not support A1.
Thanks for the data point correcting my blatant assumption, but irrelevant:
an ideology just the same. Just a different one. My point which you missed/ignored, remains.
Again, if you don't like it, that's your problem.
I am noting the circumstances and resultant consequences. It's not a matter of liking, or not, for me.
It's a matter of seeing obstacles in the form of any/all ideology and avoiding the follow-on effects, to the best of my ability. I'm doing pretty good on that account, Thank You Very Much.
Jul 21, 2012 at 07:19 PM
You are confusing black letter law with ideology which makes no sense to me. The law says what it says and the conclusion is that the "personal relationships" other than marriage defined in 50B are not "domestic legal unions".
Jul 21, 2012 at 07:50 PM
No sense to you, eh ?
As if 'black letter law' was born out of a vacuum of nothingness ?
Jul 21, 2012 at 10:31 PM
They weren't thinking about same sex marriage when they wrote 50B. Saying that it has no effect on same sex marriage is no different than saying dwi laws have no effect on same sex marriage. The language of the law simply has nothing to do with the effect of the other law.
It's almost as if you want A1 to end protection for people just to be right or to prove me wrong.
Jul 22, 2012 at 01:23 PM
"Meanwhile, we're all just waiting for the heterosexual divorce rate to drop, now that those sanctified unions are no longer threatened by the Giant Rays of Discord emanating from gay unions"- Justinsane
Yes, but we will not have to concern ourselves with the gay marriage divorce rate because the MAJORITY of NC residents will not allow the sexual perversions of a minority of its citizens to manipulate society into believing they are entitled. Thankfully
Jul 22, 2012 at 06:17 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.