February 27, 2004
The vote Thursday was 117-50 for the gay marriage ban, but as a constitutional amendment, it needed a two-thirds majority, or 120 votes, to pass.
It goes back up for reconsideration on Monday and reps can change their votes. Lobbyists will be all over the place trying to swing the more wishy-washy representatives.
Seven of the 180 members of the House were present but did not vote, and five others had excused absences. Those 12 lawmakers can be expected to be targets of intense lobbying over the next few days.
It'll probably border on frenetic lobbying with the Christian Coalition of Georgia and Georgia Equality battling it out for the attention of the politicians.
Every Republican in the House except Rep. Jill Chambers of Atlanta voted for the gay marriage ban, along with most white Democrats in rural and South Georgia. "I voted to represent the people that put me office," Chambers said. "[My] district is very diverse."
Good on ya, Jill. Right action, not necessarily the right reason. Anybody remember the right reason? Say it with me: It is not the purpose of a state constitution to single out a minority group for the purposes of exclusionary legislation.
Also, putting your special interest crap in the Code of Law is bad enough. Adding it to the Constitution of Georgia is an abomination.
(Hat tip to Phillip Coons)
Posted by: Jim at
08:02 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.
February 26, 2004
A bill introduced in the Georgia House Wednesday would require twice as many toilets in women's restrooms as in men's rooms.
The measure would apply only to government buildings built after July of this year. But the sponsor hopes it would send a message - women shouldn't have to wait so darn long to use the bathroom.
Tommy "Ain't my nickname cute" Smith is a flaming jack-ass and should be ridden out of the House along with the three female reps who co-sponsored this idiocy. And every fuck nut who voted to pass it, too. Don't these people respect their oath of office at all? Don't they have even the slightest iota of a clue of what laws should be and what laws should do? They are passing a law that will mandate twice as many toilets in female rest rooms as in male restrooms but only for government buildings and only those government buildings built after July of this year.
First, you don't make a law regulating the number of shitters in the ladies room. Second, you don't pass legislation specifically designed to not apply to anything currently and designed to apply to next to nothing in the future. Third, the legal code is not the proper vehicle for you to "send a fucking message".
The law is not a place for Tommy boy's potty jokes and his flippant remarks make it clear that this is what his intent is. Here are shit boy's brilliant rejoinders:
"Anytime you have a toilet or - what are them things called? - urinals, you know, for the men, you should have twice as many for the ladies.""It's not good for the females that they can't go to the bathroom."
"And it's not good for the men because we have to wait on 'em to get out."
"This is serious, a serious problem," he said. "If you talk to any woman, she'll tell you it's a serious problem."
Damn I hate politicians.
(Hat tip to Phillip Coons)
Posted by: Jim at
12:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.
February 25, 2004
A 14 year old boy is the victim of statuatory rape. Over a decade later the mother wants him to pay child support for the child that he unwillingly fathered. The court says that he must. You see, it did not matter that she committed a crime by seducing a minor. Child support is about the needs of the child and the circumstances of the impregnation do not matter at all.
So if a woman breaks into a sperm bank, fills up a turkey baster and blasts away, 9 months later she could sue for child support. If a chick has a crush on some fella and slips him some scopolamine, screws the hell out of him in his confused state and drops him off at his house with no memory of the event she can pop up after the kid is born and demand child support.
After all, the circumstances of the impregnation do not matter at all. The biological father is required to support his issue. It's all about the children, y'know.
(Hat tip to Phillip Coons)
Posted by: Jim at
03:52 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.
February 23, 2004
Most people have probably forgotten about the huge kerfuffle over Catholic priests putting "The Spirit of the Lord" into their charges in an improper manner. And the coverups by the church and shuffling around of these naughty priests to different parishes that had only one real effect and that was to keep them supplied with fresh targets.
Well the Church has not forgotten about it. In fact, they commissioned several reports from external agencies to analyze the problem and suggest solutions. These don't agree on much except that the policy of the US Church to defrock priests who have sodomized children is wrong.
Yah, that's right. They think that it's wrong to defrock a priest just because they buggered an altar boy. Seems that might send a bad message that the Church thinks said individual can't be rehabilitated. And firing them might just lead to more assaults because the individual isn't under supervision.
Hello? Vatican? Get your heads out of your asses (or your prepubescent toys' asses as the case may be). If a priest fucks a kid that should most definitely be a "Go directly to layman. Do not pass the altar, do not collect ablutions". What parishoner is EVER going to trust a priest who nailed a kid? And why should they? Or are you planning to quietly move the kid fuckers around to other parishes like you were doing before all of this blew up in your faces?
Defrocking the priest says nothing about the person not being capable of rehabilitation. It means they defied the laws of God, Church and Man and have lost any claim to the cloth. It might lead to other assaults? Only if you protect the bastard. The courts take a dim view of adults who screw kids and they are set up to "rehabilitate" these worthless pieces of shit.
When Jesus said turn the other cheek he wasn't talking about our kids' rear ends.
Posted by: Jim at
01:49 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.
February 19, 2004
That terrible bathroom policy in that New Jersey school that's being commented on all over the blogosphere? The one nobody except me and the readers of ZeroIntelligence.net new about when it popped up on Monday? The one that is finally getting press today?
Well, it was changed on Tuesday. Everybody is commenting and reporting on a 2 day dead phantom. Boo-ya! I win! (Happy Dance)
The policy limited students' in-class bathroom trips to 15 per month, with another 15 trips for locker visits and other assorted uses.
However, the school administration announced a change late in the day Tuesday, and now students will be permitted to leave class 30 times per month for any reason.
Take THAT Opinion Journal!
If Mr.Taranto should happen to read this post I would just like to explain that by "Take THAT Opinion Journal!" I really mean that I love your work and read it every day and one day I aspire to such greatness.
Posted by: Jim at
08:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
February 18, 2004
Alex Csinos, a plant pathologist at the university's Coastal Plain Experiment Station [said] "How extensive it is, we don't know. How debilitating it will be, that also is unknown."
I say Hah and Hah again!
(Hat tip to Lovely Wife)
Posted by: Jim at
04:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.
February 05, 2004
Posted by: Jim at
11:21 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
February 02, 2004
How can you end up as a pedophile when you grow up with such awesome boobage around?
Posted by: Jim at
12:46 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
88 queries taking 0.1158 seconds, 239 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
