Same-Sex Marriage in Prison?
David / Amicus
if inmates in those states will now be allowed to marry one another and
be allowed to share the same cell?
That's a cause for the ACLU to take up!
Ray O'Hara
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8192-4B2F...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
there is a transvestite guy in Massachusetts doing life for murdering his
wife and he wants the state to pay for his hair removal and sex change.
David / Amicus
his wife and he wants the state to pay for his hair removal and sex
change.>>
What galls me is that in California prisoners can not be given generic
medications!
David Johnston
wrote:
First someone would have to sue. Don't hold your breath waiting for
that to happen.
D.F. Manno
Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
You're a freaking idiot.
Inmates need DOC permission to marry _anybody_. And related inmates -
whether by blood or by marriage - are usually not housed in the same
facility.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
David / Amicus
<<First someone would have to sue. Don't hold your breath waiting for
that to happen.>>
It'll be coming. Sorry I don't have a source off-hand but remember
reading once that most civil lawsuits are brought by prisoners.
Like some prisoner saying that his religion demands that he have steak
and wine everyday! So he sues for freedom of religion.
David / Amicus
whether by blood or by marriage - are usually not housed in the same
facility.>>
Something else for the ACLU to take up!
Jeff Gersten
And you think that is somehow caused by either prisoners or the ACLU?
How about pharmaceutical companies make substantial contributions to
politicians being the real reason.
Jeff Gersten
What is your hang up with the ACLU?
Remember the sainted Adam Schiff regularly contributed to them, except
when they defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie, Illinois.
theget
That reminds me of something I heard about welfare housing in NYC
years ago. It seems that Dems wanted the city to provide housing for
the poor. Reps didn't want the housing to be permanent. Result? House
the poor in hotels. Expensively. Because it was "welfare" the hotels
(or at least some of them) refused to do cleaning. (Or maybe the
cleaners, who work for a living, realizing they weren't going to get
tipped by the poor, declined to go into those rooms?) Because it was a
hotel, and the expectation is the hotel will do cleaning, the poor (or
at least some of them) refused to clean. I like to think of it as a
perfect storm of stupidity. It's not like the NYC welfare system was
going to go out of business if things didn't work out at the hotels.
But that's just an aside.
I wanted to say that I think D/A has come up with an interesting
question this time.
I've heard of some inmates getting married in prison. I think the Bird
Man did. I saw a documentary not so long ago where an inmate married.
I think it will only be a matter of time before some inmate sues to
marry his cell mate.
But what I really wanted to know about is what happens if they do get
married and there's a divorce, a legal separation or a restraining
order? Does the warden have to make sure that they're put in different
cells? Work details? What about their, uh, joint property?
And what about the children? Won't someone think of the children?
Theget
Michael Black
Robert Stroud definitely got married, to a fellow bird fanatic. His
mother didn't like it, so she stayed away after that, for years or maybe
forever. But that's an interesting case since it's not clear how much
love was involved, they shared the interest in birds and then a business
related to birds (he certainly needed help on the outside for some
things), and they actually got married to prevent him from going to
Alcatraz (which of course did happen eventually). And once married,
it hardly gave him a married life. It got her on the list of suitable
visitors (she must have been there before), at a time when who could visit
or write was severely limited. I don't think being married gave her any
extra time, and certainly not any conjugal visits, not back then.
Inmates get married all the time, for some reason there are women who
find murderers doing life somehow attractive (though maybe that is the
appeal, they can be married without the burden or obligation, and they
know they are safe from the husband locked away).
The issue really isn't about getting married, but whether it would mean
a thing. Marriage does not automatically give major privileges, nowadays
it may allow for conjugal visits. But if both are prisoners, the fact
that they are prisoners will be the limiting factor.
Likely now, a male prisoner could marry a female prisoner, I'm not sure
what restrictions are on that, but that wouldn't mean they'd get to share
a cell, and given that they are both prisoners, there might not be any
visits. So even if two men got married, they aren't likely to get
the same cell, indeed it might be seen as a security issue. The safest
thing would be to ship one to another prison.
What might be more interesting is someone legitimately married to
another man, not a prisoner, and try for a conjugal visit. It would
be interesting to see what reaction that got from prison officials.
Michael
k
David Johnston
wrote:
>"That's a cause for the ACLU to take up!"
>
>
><<First someone would have to sue. Don't hold your breath waiting for
>that to happen.>>
>
>
>It'll be coming. Sorry I don't have a source off-hand but remember
>reading once that most civil lawsuits are brought by prisoners.
Yeah. That's bullshit. And no it won't be coming, because while
sexual abuse may be common in prison, being a self-proclaimed
homosexual in prison is a declaration that you want to be someone's
bitch. And since you need a couple to file such a lawsuit (and the
result of the lawsuit would only be the separation of the couple
because no right of prisoners to cohabit with spouses exists) it's
never gonna happen.
David Johnston
wrote:
><<Inmates need DOC permission to marry _anybody_. And related inmates -
Why?
David / Amicus
he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he!!!!!!!!
David Johnston
wrote:
><<And what about the children? Won't someone think of the children?>>
>
>
>he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he!!!!!!!!
Why are you laughing at yourself?
David / Amicus
when they defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie, Illinois.>>
Bravo for Adam! I don't understand why anyone would give support to
nazis! Arrgh!!!
Evil must be opposed!!!
David Johnston
wrote:
><<Remember the sainted Adam Schiff regularly contributed to them, except
They didn't give support to Nazis.
Michael Black
And the evil that prevented them from marching was opposed.
Laws are generally neutral, someone may object to getting a speeding
ticket but they will generally give up that right to speed for the
good of all.
The problem is, sometimes laws are selectively enforced. So someone in a
business suit can sit on that bench in the park, but if someone who
"looks" homeless sits there, they get driven off, or hauled away. Someone
with lots of money can spout off, but if a Wobbly tries to organize
workers, they are immediately shut down. Or you can eat at that lunch
counter all you like, so long as you aren't black.
That's when laws become offensive, as opposed to an inconvenience. They
are no longer laws, but restrictions based on who you are.
And the problem with that is that someone other than the lawmakers is
making the decision about who it gets applied to. It's an arbitrary
decision, not unlike the old days when the King was the ultimate
decider of what was right and wrong, and had tremendous power as a result.
The ACLU very likely didn't want the nazis to march in Illinois. But
they liked even less the notion that a specific group could not march,
because they were that specific group. Because once you do that, then
it's easy to let some groups march and speak, and to silence and even
jail other groups simply because you don't like what they are saying.
Once you don't let the nazis march, because you don't like them, then the
same thing will happen to some cause that you do approve of. And there'd
be no difference, the issue is whether people can march or not. If you start
being selective, then it's just a battle of the very causes. It's really
easy to silence opponents by disallowing their right to speak or march.
Since people did get jailed during WWI for speaking out against war, the
ACLU was born. And since the right of free speech should be absolute (ie
any restrictions have to be on matters of distribution rather than
content, and any such restrictions have to be applied to all), the minute
you selectively apply restrictions to groups you don't like, you have
killed free speech. The ACLU protects all, in order to protect all.
Michael
Jeff Gersten
>Absolutely correct. They supported the
>constitutional right of free speech and free
>assembly.
Unlike David/Amicus who thinks the constitution gives no rights to
people who have different ideas than him, the ACLU defends the
constitution. And they do this even for the Rush Limbaughs of the world
who detest the ACLU.
theget
Hooray. Evil must be opposed.
But free speech must be supported. If you don't do that you're evil.
Theget
theget
> That's when laws become offensive, as opposed to an inconvenience. They
> are no longer laws,
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
> but restrictions based on who you are.
So, uh, will the ACLU support marriage rights for homosexual prisoners
if heterosexual prisoners can get married?
>
> And the problem with that is that someone other than the lawmakers is
> making the decision about who it gets applied to. It's an arbitrary
> decision, not unlike the old days when the King was the ultimate
> decider of what was right and wrong, and had tremendous power as a result.
Ah, the good old days.
> And since the right of free speech should be absolute (ie
> any restrictions have to be on matters of distribution rather than
> content, and any such restrictions have to be applied to all),
Do you really think so?
My understanding is that right now the way the law is interpreted
there are three different levels of protected speech. 1) Political,
like for example, this post, 2) Scientific and 3) Commercial. I
sometimes wonder about the interactions between types one and two.
Sorry, I don't have a cite offhand for this.
There are also forms of speech that aren't so protected, like slander.
I'm curious, if the nazis had marched with signs saying "The Holocaust
never happened!" Would you support that as part of an absolute right
to free speech, or should it be possible for someone who believes that
is a falsehood they have been injured by to sue?
Theget
theget
I'm afraid we are running into a corollary of the Big Lie: No matter
how many times you repeat the truth David/Amicus won't believe it.
Theget
David / Amicus
never happened!" Would you support that as part of an absolute right to
free speech, or should it be possible for someone who believes that is a
falsehood they have been injured by to sue?>>
I don't understand how someone can contend the holocaust never happened!
I can see how somesome would not have an interest in it, just seeing it
as another example of inhumanity in human history but to deny it ever
happened?
What got me interested was reading about the life and martyrdom of St
Maximilian Kolbe of Auschwitz. I can't see how anyone reading the story
of his life would not be moved by it nor contend the holocaust never
happened!
David Johnston
wrote:
><<I'm curious, if the nazis had marched with signs saying "The Holocaust
>never happened!" Would you support that as part of an absolute right to
>free speech, or should it be possible for someone who believes that is a
>falsehood they have been injured by to sue?>>
>
>
>I don't understand how someone can contend the holocaust never happened!
That's nice, but doesn't answer the question.
theget
> <<I'm curious, if the nazis had marched with signs saying "The Holocaust
> never happened!" Would you support that as part of an absolute right to
> free speech, or should it be possible for someone who believes that is a
> falsehood they have been injured by to sue?>>
>
> I don't understand how someone can contend the holocaust never happened!
I don't understand how someone can contend that they don't understand
how someone can contend The Holocaust never happened!
> I can see how somesome would not have an interest in it, just seeing it
> as another example of inhumanity in human history but to deny it ever
> happened?
What is so confusing to you about this?
> What got me interested was reading about the life and martyrdom of St
> Maximilian Kolbe of Auschwitz. I can't see how anyone reading the story
> of his life would not be moved by it nor contend the holocaust never
> happened!
Because it's in a book? This seems like a very weak form of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
And also, David Johnston is correct. None of this answers the
question that I asked.
Theget
D.F. Manno
Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
> I don't understand how someone can contend the holocaust never happened!
I don't understand how you can say 90 percent of the shit you do.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)
Jeff Gersten
In article <8196-4B31...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,
Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
>>I don't understand how someone can
>>contend the holocaust never happened!
>I don't understand how you can say 90
>percent of the shit you do.
But the ACLU will defend his right to say all of it.
David / Amicus
;-))))))))
theget
> Sometimes I feel like I'm the group nose - everyone picks on me!
> ;-))))))))
Why do you think people are picking on you in particular?
Theget
nob...@junk.min.net
>Evil must be opposed!!!
It wasn't Nazis that were being supported, it was the U.S. Consttution,
which protects the right of citizens to peacefully assemble (free speech),
regardless of the position they support. Something GWB ignored with his
"free speech zones." Other politicians also tend to ignore the First
Amendment if silencing an opinion is popular (NAMBLA is a perfect
example.)
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.2R
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nob...@junk.min.net
12/22/09
>I'm curious, if the nazis had marched with signs saying "The Holocaust
>never happened!" Would you support that as part of an absolute right to
>free speech, or should it be possible for someone who believes that is a
>falsehood they have been injured by to sue?
They have the same right to assemble with signs like that as Fred Phelps
and his church have to assemble carrying "God hates fags" signs. Signs
which are incredibly offensive to most people are still protected.
David / Amicus
Remember the book of Esther? How Haman got permission to kill the Jews?
The king could not revoke the law but ultimately he gave the Jews
permission to defend themselves.
Okay so let the nazis march but let there be permission for a
counter-march. For every nazi who was there let there be 1,000 Jews and
other people of good-will to protest the nazis!
Free speech is a two-way street!
++++++++++
Regarding that evil Fred Phelps - there ought to be a thousand gays and
veterans and others of good-will protesting outside his church every
time he holds a service!
David Johnston
wrote:
>Regarding Skokie and how it should have been handled.
I don't think he really has a church.
theget
> Regarding Skokie and how it should have been handled.
> Okay so let the nazis march but let there be permission for a
> counter-march. For every nazi who was there let there be 1,000 Jews and
> other people of good-will to protest the nazis!
>
> Free speech is a two-way street!
It is. And while I don't recall for certainty, I think that some
people did counter protest. This is as it should be. And it has the
salutary effect of clarifying that we allow people to engage in the
exchange of ideas. Even if those ideas are anathema to most of us.
I recall seeing some anti-nazi or klan protest where the protesters
dressed like clowns and laughed at the nazi/klan people. Since they
tend to be very serious types with inferior senses of humor this upset
them.
> Regarding that evil Fred Phelps - there ought to be a thousand gays and
> veterans and others of good-will protesting outside his church every
> time he holds a service!
I think there's a group of motorcyclists who try to act as a sort of
human screen when FP protests the funerals of servicemen (and
women?). I saw an interview with one of them. He said that he thought
that FP had a right to express his point of view, but that they had a
right to express theirs too. But sorry, no cite.
Theget
theget
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:41:57 -0800, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
> >Regarding that evil Fred Phelps - there ought to be a thousand gays and
> >veterans and others of good-will protesting outside his church every
> >time he holds a service!
>
> I don't think he really has a church.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you expand on that
please?
Theget
theget
> In <727c69c1-8fe4-4c97-8fe7-bd6790969...@l2g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, on
> 12/22/09
> at 02:58 PM, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> said:
>
> >I'm curious, if the nazis had marched with signs saying "The Holocaust
> >never happened!" Would you support that as part of an absolute right to
> >free speech, or should it be possible for someone who believes that is a
> >falsehood they have been injured by to sue?
>
> They have the same right to assemble with signs like that as Fred Phelps
> and his church have to assemble carrying "God hates fags" signs. Signs
> which are incredibly offensive to most people are still protected.
"God hates fags" is not a falsifiable statement. "The Holocaust never
happened!" is a falsifiable statement. I submit that these are two
very different situations and might not be analogous.
It's true that we don't have, and IMO shouldn't have, laws against
offense, but if you make a statement that causes injury, should the
individual you injured be able to recover damages. As in the case of
libel or slander?
Theget
D.F. Manno
<edeb3eeb-ef1b-47f5...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> > Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
>
> > >Regarding that evil Fred Phelps - there ought to be a thousand gays and
> > >veterans and others of good-will protesting outside his church every
> > >time he holds a service!
> >
> > I don't think he really has a church.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you expand on that
> please?
Phelps' Westboro Baptist "Church" is not affiliated with any recognized
Baptist convention. He claims to be following Primitive Baptist
principles, but the Primitive Baptists reject him and his "church."
His congregation consists almost entirely of his family members and
those who have married into the family.
theget
> In article
> <edeb3eeb-ef1b-47f5-a6d9-a4bb875b4...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > David Johnston wrote:
> > > Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
>
> > > >Regarding that evil Fred Phelps - there ought to be a thousand gays and
> > > >veterans and others of good-will protesting outside his church every
> > > >time he holds a service!
>
> > > I don't think he really has a church.
>
> > I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you expand on that
> > please?
>
> Phelps' Westboro Baptist "Church" is not affiliated with any recognized
> Baptist convention. He claims to be following Primitive Baptist
> principles, but the Primitive Baptists reject him and his "church."
Ok, but I don't see how this makes it any less of a church. AFAIK,
there isn't a requirement for affiliation.
>
> His congregation consists almost entirely of his family members and
> those who have married into the family.
I knew that. When I listen to them they remind me of the Ultimate
Bigot but without the sarcasm:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/42d71199e39cd34d?hl=en&dmode=source
But I don't see how that makes them any less of a church. It makes
them unusual. I suspect that most Christians disagree with them on
many points of theology. But while I can see how they'd be
disqualified from being members of polite society, I don't see how any
of this disqualifies them from being a church.
If it does in someway disqualify them, then couldn't we also say that
the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie weren't exercising free
speech, because a) they aren't affiliated with some recognized
political party, b) they are somewhat, pardon the pun, clannish?
Or does freedom of religion have different qualifiers than freedom of
speech?
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>But I don't see how that makes them any less of a church
Actually all I meant was that I wasn't sure they actually owned a
building for their prayer meeting. I guess they probably do, but when
I looked them up it was all about their dedication to annoying the
world, and nothing about actual church services.
D.F. Manno
<c465aa95-75dc-4254...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> If it does in someway disqualify them, then couldn't we also say that
> the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie weren't exercising free
> speech, because a) they aren't affiliated with some recognized
> political party, b) they are somewhat, pardon the pun, clannish?
>
> Or does freedom of religion have different qualifiers than freedom of
> speech?
Saying that they're not a "real church" is not an argument for depriving
them of freedom to practice what they consider their religion. It's just
saying that for most reasonable definitions of "church," they don't meet
it.
Vince
> In article
> <c465aa95-75dc-4254...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
>> If it does in someway disqualify them, then couldn't we also say that
>> the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie weren't exercising free
>> speech, because a) they aren't affiliated with some recognized
>> political party, b) they are somewhat, pardon the pun, clannish?
>>
>> Or does freedom of religion have different qualifiers than freedom of
>> speech?
>
> Saying that they're not a "real church" is not an argument for depriving
> them of freedom to practice what they consider their religion. It's just
> saying that for most reasonable definitions of "church," they don't meet
> it.
>
Look guys I could go online and become a pastor for a few bucks and if I
want to call my church "St. James Bond" (which BTW there is a church
with that name in Toronto) I could.
theget
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:29:45 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >But I don't see how that makes them any less of a church
>
> Actually all I meant was that I wasn't sure they actually owned a
> building for their prayer meeting. I guess they probably do,
I'm not sure that's a requirement either.
> but when
> I looked them up it was all about their dedication to annoying the
> world, and nothing about actual church services.
"Annoying the world." They are nothing if not ambitious. I suppose
this is what happens when a bunch of lawyers have their own religion.
Theget
Why do bigots behave so stereotypically?
theget
> Look guys I could go online and become a pastor for a few bucks and if I
> want to call my church "St. James Bond" (which BTW there is a church
> with that name in Toronto) I could.
What about The Saint, Roger Moore? Too confusing?
I'd name my church Susan St. James or maybe Jill St. John.
Jill was a Bond Girl.
Theget
Vince
Funny you should say that as the one of the church's officials name was
Roger back in 1980 was RM was the reigning Bond
http://bondtime.tripod.com/bondch2.jpg
http://bondtime.tripod.com/bondch1.jpg
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 12:18�am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:29:45 -0800 (PST), theget
>>
>> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> >But I don't see how that makes them any less of a church
>>
>> Actually all I meant was that I wasn't sure they actually owned a
>> building for their prayer meeting. �I guess they probably do,
>
>I'm not sure that's a requirement either.
A requirement for what? I was only talking about the building.
theget
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:40:18 -0800, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
> wrote:
>
> ><<And what about the children? Won't someonethink of the children?>>
>
> >he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he!!!!!!!!
>
> Why are you laughing at yourself?
Because he knows about people who think about the children?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article726977.ece
Related? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?nutty=xians
Theget