Calif. Ponders Gay Marriage For Inmates

[C-Kwik]

semantics have weight. The sociological status of the union, the social acceptance of it is important. For a child growing up in a world with no logical consistent definition how are they to find a consistent understanding of the world.

If you want to talk about an inconsistent message, lets discuss the fact that we talk about freedoms and liberties, then turn around and tell our kids that its okay to discriminate and hold back those that are "different". That's REAL consistent...

I am not going to play along though with the idea that they are married, they aren't. If you don't draw the line now there never will be a line. How can one logically argue against paligamy in a world where two guys can be "married". They should not be allowed to adopt children either. That is ridiculous.

Think about this a second. If you drew the line at the definition of a word, what impact does it have? If you allowed them to use the word marriage, what impact does it have? As far as I can tell, none. Which is why its semantics. It would be one thing if the word inherently had to do with a man and a woman. But it does not. Marriage is used to describe the union of many things, including inanimate objects.

As for polygamy, I'm okay with it as long as we can address any legal challenges it presents.

As for homosexual couples adopting, I have no problem with it. But I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll support your popsition on this as soon as you figure out a way to keep heteros from producing children they do not want or can not care for...

[AZhitman]

please, for once, would you make a post that doesn't have the syntactic errors a five year old would make?

Like capitalizing "CA" and the first word in a sentence?

Save those stones, you may need them later.

[AZhitman]

My opinion...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” (Quoting the constitution)

Would it be permissible for the government to force all men to wear yarmulkes, long beards or to prohibit women from wearing jewelry? No, the government is prohibited from crossing the line and adopting religious dogma as law.

This is not absolute.

Headgear, facial hair, clothing, body ornamentation, etc - All fall away under the "safety and order" concerns in US prisons. Those rights go bye-bye upon conviction. Some are respected, but many are dismissed as security concerns (for the inmate and others).

[OriginalWheelman]

If republicans get to throw around terms like liberal, then democrats can throw around terms like neocon.

Because liberal and conservative are descriptors to indicate which side of the middle ground you are on. Neocon is something different all together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[1]

Hmm, now that I read this definition, I think I'm a neocon.

Use the word all you like, but use it properly.

[audtatious]

Not necessarily as neocon's have liberal views on spending habits which true conservatives don't have as we like less spending and smaller gov.

[hannibal]

I don't think it is that simple.

For example: Current marriages are such that one spouse is usually not within the prison walls. So, what if the gay marriage request was from two inmates? Perhaps in the same prison? Nay, in the same cell? Would you think that would be okay to allow?

Often, there are situations inside prison walls, where the "consent" part of the marriage equation isn't exactly crystal clear either!

I'm not suggesting two prisoners should be able to marry. A case could be made for inmates in separate prisons, though I would be opposed to that as well. Most often, it's an inmate marrying a free person. Gay or straight, I dont have a problem with that.

What about a male inmate and female inmate in different prisons (or even segregated housing in the same facility)?

Finally, remember that it is a prison. Life inside them is not supposed to be "normal", is it? If the only remaining thing about prison is the inability to wander around outside the walls (whereas food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, etc. are freely provided), then I think the purpose of internment is lost. IMHO.

I totally agree with this. I believe however that the first 3 'amenities' you listed should be provided for every prisoner. Theyre essential to evry living person. As for entertainment, screw that. Make em stare at the walls all day.

The original purpose of incarceration was rehabilitation. That theory has been thrown out the window. Prisons have become penal colonies; a place to stash the dredges of our society, not a place to reform criminals. I have some ideas why that is..