 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had this code in my layer for years now.. one day it just stopped working. The code is still there but the components are showing up. I compared with the code on the tutorials and it pretty much looks the same. help?
( code )
http://clairizm.livejournal.com/?s2id=21018094
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...even as it fades into the obscurity of yesterday's news.
Even before Dan Jessop's son was born, the State had already made a proprietary claim to him because of the supposed sins of his parents.
I say "sins" because as of yet, neither 24-year-old Dan Jessop, Sr., nor his 22-year-old wife Louisa, has been charged with a crime.
This didn't prevent the instrument of totalitarian malice called the Texas Department of Child Protective Services from trying to seize control over both the child and his mother as soon as delivery was accomplished.
The Jessops were granted a restraining order preventing the abduction of their child, but given the depraved resourcefulness of the CPS the Jessop family remains in danger.
With incorrigible dishonesty comes great tactical flexibility, particularly if the incorrigible party is permitted to ignore the rules, as is the case with the CPS.
Louisa is one of the "disputed minors" -- FLDS women who were originally described by the CPS as underage mothers, despite the insistence of church members and their legal counsel that they were married women of legal age. In many cases, according to FLDS spokesmen, the CPS refused to accept legal documentation establishing the age of the "minor" women in question. Of course, it was the CPS that created the "dispute" by refusing to accept the documents.
In some circumstances, the CPS told women they had to "admit" being minors in order to remain with their children. Now that at least some of those women have been able to prove, to the satisfaction of the CPS, that they are of legal age, will the agency claim that the earlier deception -- you know, the same one abetted by the CPS -- somehow illustrates that they aren't suited to be mothers?
Read the rest...
Hats off to William N. Grigg for hanging onto this one like a pit bull.
Tags : ain't my america, suffer the children, tyranny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, not the rock band. It's the disguise pulled off in this week's Animal Pens update.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My layer: #11569073
Entries are escaping the entry holder on my journal's reply page? I just noticed when I checked email and clicked the reply link in the email to open the page.
( Image )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non - graphic explanation of how an abortion works:
Current Mood : angry 
Tags : movie, politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage;
Update: Opinion-skimming analysis added!
posted at 1:11 pm on May 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
An election-year bombshell, just across the wires. Rove, you magnificent bastard. Stand by for updates.
Update: Here’s the opinion (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF). How does 172 pages sound?
Update: The AP story is thin on specifics (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_4) since it’ll take awhile to digest the holding. Read this useful bullet-point background (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/15/pre-gaming-the-california-same-sex-marriage-ruling/?mod=WSJBlog) from the Journal to get up to speed on the legal posture. Note that six of the seven justices on the court are Republicans. Will the ruling stick?
“Pro-family” organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman (even if the marriage was entered into in another state that allows same-sex marriage), passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_22).
Update: Sounds like a major win (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BAGAVNC5K.DTL):
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.
The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall.
Update: A quick skim reveals that the opinion’s fairly straightforward. They start out by noting that California’s different from other states that have dealt with this insofar as it already has a robust domestic partnership law. All this is about, really, is whether gays should be allowed to “marry” the way straights do or whether they’re stuck with those partnership agreements that leave them married in effect but not in name. Conservatives like partnership schemes and/or civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, but I’ve always thought that argument’s self-defeating since it leaves you with no substantive reason for drawing any distinction in the first place. Yes, (some) conservatives seem to be saying, gays can go ahead and have civil unions that grant them all the benefits married couples have — but for god’s sake, don’t let them call themselves “married.” To which a court can only reply, “Why not?” The right’s strategy, in other words, has been to concede 99 yards and then stand on the one-yard line and say “no further,” but that’s not how discrimination jurisprudence works. If you’re going to discriminate you need a good reason, and depending upon whom you’re discriminating against, you may need a very, very good reason.
That’s actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one’s ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a “suspect classification” for purposes of the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Once it’s deemed a suspect classification then the state needs a very compelling reason to justify discriminating on the basis of it — and since, as I say, it’s already conceded those 99 yards, there’s no such reason to be had. (If you want to bore yourself with the vagaries of equal protection jurisprudence, read this old post [http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/25/breaking-nj-supreme-court-upholds-same-sex-unions/] about New Jersey’s gay marriage ruling.) All they’re doing is denying gays the label of marriage to preserve a sense of stigma, which is almost a paradigm case of what equal protection is meant to prevent. I have no problem with the ruling as long as other states aren’t compelled to recognize Cali marriages per full faith and credit, which, needless to say, is the battleground on which this decision’s going to be fought in the presidential race. Taking the federalist approach and letting each state decide for itself is an easy call for Maverick; what about the Prince of Peace?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/15/breaking-california-supreme-court-legalizes-gay-marriage/
VIRAL NOTES: So, naturally, a good friend of mine posts this on her MySpace:
Proud to be a Californian today!
Body: Today, California's highest court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, granting loving, committed gay and lesbian couples the dignity and support their relationships have so long been denied.
All I can say is, KICK ASS!!!!!!!!
I'm not happy about this, at all. California, well-known as the toilet of the United States, and origin of nearly everything bad that happens in America (not to mention co-author of America's bad international image) has shown what it thinks of it's voting citizens. After soundly defeating a measure to legalize sodomic marriage, not long ago, the state's supreme court completely ignores the democratic process, and legislates from the bench. The judicial activists of the supreme courts have become some of the biggest enemies of democracy and freedom in this nation, and this is just the latest example of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yoda left us some presents in the spare bedroom where Joshua's toys are. We (Joshua his Mother and I) were playing in there just last night and the floor was good. Evidently Yoda did the deed while we were at work. I saw this coming. He has been acting really weird now that Joshua is more mobile. He will actually get up and move when Joshua crawls toward him.
As punishment he (Yoda) will not get his 7:00pm snack this evening. It's harsh I know, but he has to have some kind of consequences.
In other news, I go to a supervisor's seminar tomorrow in Norfolk. I'm not looking forward to the drive but the seminar will more than likely be good!
Current Mood : okay 
Tags : joshua
Location : 23185
|
| | |
| |
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small}