Comments on: This Week in Layoffs: 12.05.09

By: guest

guest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:57:20 +0000

104 said: For example, your argument that polygamy leads inevitably to marriage fraud is preposterous on its face. So restrict polygamists to one marriage at a time.
Um… wouldn’t restricting polygamists to one marriage make them not polygamists for the purposes of this discussion? (they would not be obtaining the benefits of civil marriage for more than one spouse). talk about preposterous…

By: guest

guest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:33:34 +0000

96: gotta love you folks.
Do you have any conception of what, up to the 70s’, being homosexual was thought to “generally involve”? Hint: it included pedophilia. In fact, only as recently as 1973 was homosexuality removed from the DSM as a separate psychological disorder.
The gay response, rightly, was “don’t penalize me for my being gay. If I’m gay and I abuse children, then prosecute me for the offense of abusing children”.
You have no proof whatsoever that polygamy “generally involves” pedophilia and incest and if you did, then the answer would be to prosecute those polygamists who engage in that activity, not the practice of polygamy itself among consenting adults.
Does any of this ring familiar to you? Do you understand why the legalization of gay marriage is part of a continuum, the contours of which this country has not even begun to delimit? And why, when and if this country does so “delimit” those contours, that act will itself be subject to profound legal attack based on equal protection grounds?
In the last analysis, who are you to say that more than two people cannot join in a bond of intimacy, love and shared responsibility?

By: guest

guest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:41:47 +0000

96: you, dear sir/madam, are a pantload. Having been labeled by you a “bigot”, I am pleased to pronounce you the result of an involuntary evacuation of the bowels.
103: you’re way too earnest, and unable to grasp the limits of your own argument. Merely asserting that there is a fundamental distinction between genitalia and number, as you so elegantly put it, does not make it so. You offer no proof, no authority, no nothing, other than your desire to have it be so.
For example, your argument that polygamy leads inevitably to marriage fraud is preposterous on its face. So restrict polygamists to one marriage at a time.
Again, you are earnest and heartfelt, but your arguments are unavailing. It’s as though the gay marriage advocates wish to engineer a wholesale change in the millenia-old definition of marriage, that (until very recently) spanned all societies at all times (to the extent we can determine), but then pull the ladder up after themselves. “So much change–yes–but no more!”
We have no assurance whatsoever that the next generation of activists will be satisfied with your decision to pull up the ladder. In fact, to the contrary, we have every reason to expect that the result will be otherwise.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:36:57 +0000

Yay for 96. Yes, right now, some people (straight people) have a right to marry one person of their choosing whom they love and are physically attracted to. Gay people are denied that right. In this country, no one has the right to marry more than one person, so polygamists are on equal footing with everyone else. There’s a difference between quantity (number of spouses) and type (gender/genitalia of spouse). The Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination based on immutable characteristics of your spouse is not okay. It’s not okay to say everyone has the same right to marry someone of their same race. it’s never ruled that anyone has a right to marry more than one spouse.
Plus we’re talking about civil marriage- marriage the only purpose of which is to define your relationship and determine whether you get the rights and benefits conferred by the state on spouses. If polygamy were allowed, there’s no natural check on marriage fraud as there is when you can marry only one person at a time. Entire towns could have each adult married to every other adult, making everyone eligible for any marriage benefits, and negating the purpose of having any distinction between married and unmarried in the first place.
I’m a proponent of equal rights and full legalization of gay marriages, if we are going to have civil marriage at all. whether we should is questionable given both the high divorce rate and the wisdom of giving special privileges to couples who choose to become a pair versus people who have a different kind of relationship. For example, certain rights are given to your spouse, even if you live in different homes and cant stand each other. Even if you are unmarried, you cannot get the same rights (health insurance, etc) for your sister who has been living with you since she recovered from cancer and who cannot afford another place to live yet, or your widowed mother, etc etc. Given the diversity of family structures in this day and age, you would think the law would want to support the later as much as the dinks. To me the better answer would be to leave marriage up to religion and have some other way of accessing benefits (inheritance, health insurance, etc) by choosing one person to be your “adult beneficiary” or whatever, continuing to make child-specific tax benefits available to those with children, and just get over it. But until we do that, denying a person (and their children) rights based on who they love and are capable of loving is wrong.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:28:27 +0000

We need to bomb the WH back to the stone age!
-SEC Secure

By: ronjon1985

ronjon1985 — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:45:41 +0000

not funny

By: guest

guest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:01:51 +0000

100 MOTHERFUCKAS!!!!

By: guest

guest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:01:10 +0000

97 – I call BS. I work in Katten’s NYC office in the corporate group and while things have been slow (less than 150hrs/month), we’ve seen a major uptick in the recent months (approx 200 hrs/month).

By: guest

guest — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:32:04 +0000

97, Any more details? What about other groups?

By: guest

guest — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:20:33 +0000

Lay offs in Katten Corporate NYC.