~Di

That's not really true. First, civil unions between homosexuals can only be recognized in states which have comparable laws, and aren't recognized at all by the federal government when it comes to joint income taxes, social security beneficiary, joint property rights during a divorce or death of partner, etc. Even in states with civil union laws, employers aren't required to offer family health insurance to gay couples, even when it offers such perks to heterosexual couples. Some states use DOMA (Defense of marriage acts) get around homosexual civil unions, denying them state benefits, i.e., joint taxes, inheritance rights, medical decision-making rights, denying recognition of civil unions conducted in other states, etc. So simply saying that states have civil union laws without noting what exactly those laws provide and whether or not a DOMA has managed to take them away is misleading. This CNN article is from 2004, but a quick google didn't give me anything newer than wasn't from a source that I thought you'd accept as nonbiased. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/26/bush.civ...ions/index.html A marriage recognized by all states and the federal government is required to end the discrimination against homosexuals. Eventually this will go to the SCOTUS... and then we shall see.

Is that Oct. 2010 PC release date in Europe only, or will there be English language versions available then. I love Gothic. I'm replaying Gothic 3 as we speak.

It truly did. I'm still very sad when I think about him, and how short his life was.

Never happened. You're right, I remembered wrong and skimmed a source quickly, clearly misreading it. It was the California legislature, not the voting public, that several times passed gay marriage bills, with the governor citing prop 22 as the reason for his veto. When the California supreme court overturned Prop 22 as unconstitutional, the window opened for gay marriages. Here's a timeline of events, summarized. http://www.kcra.com/politics/17872316/detail.html Be gentle with me. I'm old. I knew I'd voted for gay marriage in 2000, and figured all the smart people in the state did too!

I think that it is. Many years ago, Michael mailed me a disk with a huge World of Warcraft patch that my old dial-up server couldn't hack. His name and address were on the envelope, and the name "Harvey" sounds very, very familiar.

I'm hardly qualified to argue the constitutional merits of "equal protection" and "due process", per Walker's ruling. I just wanted to let others in this thread know that in 2000, Californians did indeed vote to allow gay marriages in the state, a law that was upheld on appeal. California has 18,000 homosexual couples who were married while the law was in effect, marriages that are still legally recognized. The only reason, in my view, that some who favored gay marriage in 2000 voted against it in 2008 was the disingenuous and totally false smear campaign which promised that if Prop 8 didn't pass, teachers would be required to teach a homosexual lifestyle to children, starting in kindergarten. Even so as you have noted, it was a fairly close vote. Obviously my personal feeling is that since so many tax, estate, military, entitlement, health issues, etc., are enjoyed by married couples yet are denied to homosexual couples because they cannot be legally married, that homosexuals are indeed being discriminated against. Since I believe that homosexuals are born that way, that means that sexual orientation should have the same protections and opportunities as heterosexual couples. This is my personal opinion, however, and whether the laws will ever be changed to support that opinion remains to be seen. Edit: I should have read to the end of the thread before responding. I see the previous approval of gay marriage in California has indeed been mentioned already.

I'm glad to see it was overturned, because I honestly believe it's passage (after a pro-gay marriage bill had already been passed by these same voters and upheld on appeal earlier) was because of a completely disingenuous, fear-based campaign of misinformation by the pro-Prop 8 side. I honestly feel that homosexuals are the final group allowed to be legally discriminated against in this country. A SCOTUS ruling that banning gay marriage violates the US constitution would go a long way toward rectifying that discrimination... although given the conservative majority on the supreme court, it doesn't seem likely that will happen.

I still miss Kaidan.

A conspiracy by whom? To get more money from whom? Serious questions, because I didn't understand your post.

I don't think NK is stupid enough to do anything, but if they did decide to start a war they have enough conventional artillary aimed at Seoul to flatten the city before a response could be mustered. Sure, SK with USA backing would win, but there would be enormous casualities. I certainly don't want to see 30,000 American soldiers wiped out in the first wave.

WTF Junai? Didn't someone say he broke her teeth? You make it sound like she's some sort of evil pixie rather than a domestic abuse victim. Supposedly her dentist says that her broken teeth weren't consistent with being punched in the face and "reports" say that her injuries were more consistent with self-inflicted injuries. Could you give a link for that, please? I've read that her dentist said that although they weren't consistent with being hit in the jaw, they were consistent with being punched in the temple hard enough for her teeth to crashe together... which is apparently what she has said happened. Too much speculation in the media, too few real facts, IMHO. Edit: Never mind the link, apparently no matter what people want the dentist to say, there's a google link to it! lol The dentist now says in the latest CNN story that there was evidence she was hit twice, once in the temple and once in the mouth, and he will testify to that effect. Gonna have to wait for the trial to get all of the he-said, she-said stuff sorted out. Completely agree.

Ignoring the whole age-of-consent thing, let's not lose track of the fact that he got her drunk, then drugged her without her knowledge or consent. Sex on a drugged, nearly-unconscious female of any age is against the law... at least it is in this country.

Wow. I love the automatic blame-the-victim, Mel-was-framed mentality here. Can't we at least wait until the investigation has been finished before we declare Mel a martyr, framed by a scurilous female? Look, the man is worth a half-billion dollars, and can buy off anyone on the planet. This woman is a nobody. Without proof of Mel's treatment of her, including the fact that while she was holding their child he punched her hard enough to break two teeth, no one would ever believe her over him. Taping his tirades was the only way to get enough proof to have a chance to retain at least joint custody of her child. Otherwise, he would simply pick up the phone, call one of his contacts and she'd never see her baby again. So let's just wait for the real facts to emerge before we label Mel a misunderstood hero, and the mother of his child a gold-digging whore (or some-such), mmkay? I mean, she might very well be, but evidence to that effect rather than wishful speculation would be nice.

Apparently so. I'm in the same boat... I've got no consoles, and frankly don't particularly want any. So... the PC games I will buy may be limited in the future. But I'm a big girl. I'll cope.

For me, F:NV was a slam dunk, one game I was really looking forward to. But hey, we can't always have what we want, and to me Steam is a price I'm not willing to pay.

I'm going with this as well. The Swiss let the Nazi's grease their palms to store their stolen loot. After that, pulling a few million bucks to let a rapist go free isn't much of a stretch.

Unless of course your copy requires you to use Steam (like F:NV apparently wishes). Wasn't there a game that everyone boycotted because it required to use Steam, even if you bought it at GG or Impulse... I'm not really ready to call it a personal boycott, but at this point I'm not willing to purchase a game that requires me to add Steam. Not even F:NV.

You could be right. However, when Prohibition ended the mobs controlling black-market booze ended as well. (Yes, yes, they found other criminal activities in which to indulge... probably drugs! ) Despite the fact that liquor is and always has been taxed up the ying-yang, there still is not a significant black-market booze crime syndicate working the streets. So I'm ready to see if legalizing weed will end up with the same benefits. Couldn't hurt to try, and if things go downhill fast, what is legal can be made illegal again in a jiffy.

Yes.

True. Statistics indicate that tobacco seems to significantly increase the risk of developing certain cancers... but that's not all it does. Cigarettes are proven to cause Emphysema and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, which kills you just as dead as cancer only it takes longer. Smoking is bad. Excessive drinking is bad. People rationalize abusing these substances because they can't actually relate to something that might destroy their lives in 20-30 years. Young people just can't look that far down the road, unfortunately, until it's too damned late. I know I couldn't. It will still be illegal for anyone to sell or give marijuana to minors, and sentences for doing so will still be very tough. Thing is, kids can get it now in their schools. They can also get tobacco and alcohol, so all we as a society can do is to continue to punish those involved in giving illegal substances to minors. That's where we should redirect our weed enforcement dollars, to those who prey on the kids. If this passes we'll have more dollars to do just that, I'm thinking. I agree with you about the adult imbibers. If they want to do stupid things to their body that may or will have longterm consequences to their body... well, prohibition doesn't work. It's never worked. All it does is open the criminal floodgates of black-market cartels to supply what the government takes away. So far the evidence shows that weed is physically non-addictive and relatively harmless, although it'ss a huge profit-maker for drug lords. Take that profit away by making it legal and a huge hunk of our crime problem goes away, just as it did when Prohibition was finally struck down. We should spend the money we save on educating our youth about the dangers of drugs, tobacco and alcohol so that more of them will make better choices in their lives. As I've said, I really don't see a downside to this... other than the fact that the state will probably spend the next five years defending itself against the feds, who will not be happy campers to have one of their states reject part of their national drug statute.

The only way to get F:NV will be through Steam download? No disks will be available?

I don't use pot either. Never have. I think it's dumb to use a substance purely to pickle one's brain enough to get stoned... i.e., be less aware of one's surroundings and lose enough inhibitions to cheerfully make a fool of oneself. I do drink, although not to excess, and I used to smoke... both have potentially lethal consequence on the body. I've yet to hear of a single death caused by pot's consequence to the body, so making it illegal seems hypocritical to me. I'm in favor of legalizing it because doing so will solve a pot-load (pardon the pun!) of problems. First, it will thin out our prisons considerably, saving much taxpayer money. Second, it will eliminate the temptation of drug cartels to send their minions into our forests and private lands to grow pot fields illegally, much to the woe of any hiker or property owner who stumbles into them. Third, we'll save a ton of money on law enforcement when cops don't have to arrest and incarcerate people with a few ounces of weed in their pocket. Fourth, it offers a potential source of future revenue IF the state decides to license commercial pot growers. And finally, it breaks the back of the illegal weed sales by drug cartels, so crime rates are gonna drop, baby. Proposition 19 just doesn't seem to have a downside to me. So I'm voting for it. That doesn't mean that I plan to grow plants on my deck, or that I approve of people using the stuff. I don't approve of drunks or smokers either, but hey, it's legal, it's their bodies, and as far as I'm concerned, adults have the right to control what they do and do not wish to consume.

Interestingly, I read from a reasonably reliable source that Prop 19 means: - Personal growing and use is legal - Commercial growing is illegal without a government licence - The government doesn't have to give out any licences. - The government can (and will) tax commercial licences. So any commercial, non-black market sale will be taxed and government regulated. Given cost reductions of 80% predicted (from like $300 to $40 for an ounce) I find it hard to see how the black market could compete UNLESS the government intentionally restricted supply. Given the opportunity to eleminate the black market in weed, I can't see why the government would restrict demand much. So I guess my point is that Prop 19 legalises non-commercial growing and recreational use, as well as commercial growing and selling - but the commercial side is kind of also a seperate issue as the government could simply elect not to grant licences. I think what you have posted is pretty much the same as what I have posted. The Proposition allows the state to tax and regulate, but it will require much legislative chaos to figure out how that will be done, and will the proposition will not take affect until the feds have exhausted all legal attempts to overturn it.

Legalization = production? Of course not. Legalization simply means its not illegal, it doesnt mean the state becomes the producer and supplier. So nobody is filling the state coffers to overflowing with tax money nor controlling the "black market" or quality. The rest I agree with. I don't follow your logic. Legalisation = allowing people to grow and sell it. Allowing people to grow and sell it allows the government to tax it. Allowing the government to tax it means a completely a new revenue stream. And certainly for Proposition 19, the government plans to licence, regulate, and tax it. He's right. Tobacco is "legal", but government severely restricts licenses to grow tobacco. Proposition 19 simply means that use and possession of marijuana will no longer be illegal. Now if it passes... a longshot, but I'm gonna vote for it!... then I suspect we will face years of legislative chaos until the state figures out a way to pass laws restricting the growing and distribution of the plant (much like tobacco) in order to get its share of the profits. But that's only after about 5 years of dealing with federal lawsuits claiming that only the federal government has the power to legalize "banned substances." The feds (and state officials with a stick up their butt about "evil weed") are still harassing people here using marijuana legally for medical conditions. If passed this will only be the first step in an arduous, expensive and lengthy legal battle. But somebody's got to take that first step, so my state has done so. Woot!

"We propose that every Texas driver license shall indicate whether the driver is a U.S. citizen. No such documentation shall be issued to anyone not legally in the country." The proposition would certainly change that, it seems. You cut off the quote to which I was responding. Illegals in Texas cannot currently get a driver's license, and the link I supplied proves that.