In all three cases the defendants have been found not able to stand trial... One of the adult arsonists has a history of setting fires and has even been quoted as saying he could "get away with murder." While being found mentally incompetent is all fine and good within the standards of our judicial system, when are we going to do something to protect the people, and their homes, of Lewiston?
Not only is this a loss for Mr. Fink and his patrons but a loss to the anti-abortion movement as well. These protestors have shown that nothing matters to the except their cause, even if it means the loss of local businesses.
The laws were put into place to protect tenants from landlords who were to quick to evict someone for random reasons. When it comes to the pencil, Walmart has no claim on it once it has been sold, however, with an apartment tenant and landlord enter into an agreement. The landlord is responsible for upkeep of the property and the tenant is required to pay rent. If the landlord refuses to make repairs to save money and then a tenant files complaints against him, removing those laws makes it all to easy for the landlord to remove the tenant and get someone into the unit who is more concerned with having housing than fighting the system. There does need to be a better balance of the laws and until it is reached we are left with the system that the bad landlords created in the 70s and 80s
Just a thought here, but wouldn't raising the money to benefit their parishioners going through hard times be more productive and more in line with the "teachings of Christ"?
Most of England recognized the marriages of various royal lines so, yeah, I would say officially recognized
What you are neglecting to realize is that there is a long history of incestuous marriages/relationships throughout history, even ones that produced viable offspring.
Whose definition of marriage? The church, society, history? It has changed many, many times over the course of history and it is still changing and evolving in present day. The concept of marriage for love was something new to the 20th century and frowned upon when it was first introduced.
"As clearly defined as the nose on my face"... interesting choice of words considering the following --
But, you will probably just pass that off as liberal propaganda anyway.
I am not sure what you were trying to say by comparing, what I assumed was marriage equality, to insurance, however you failed miserably and made absolutely no sense.
The debate over religion and the founding fathers is not one to hash out here, there is enough research out their showing what their actual views were.
The main point is, it is not for the majority to define life for the minority on issues of equality. It was not all that long ago that he same arguments were used to attempt to prevent mixed race marriages, an idea that we scoff at nowadays. Marriage is about love and security, religion has no place in it at all.
P.S. It's not as if homosexuals can do any more harm to the "institution of marriage" than heterosexuals already have.
The idea of separation of church and state exists for a reason; it is not a one way concept saying "keep government out of church".
Who cares what the voters say honestly? On issues of equality it is not for the majority to determine how the minority will live. Recent history backs this up in terms of women's rights as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
If you want to argue constantly about the Bible and how it dictates for 1 man and 1 woman just keep in mind that Solomon had 700 wives and Deuteronomy states that a rapist is bound to marry his victim.
Now, I am not saying that fraud does not happen, because let's face it, it does. However, we all need to take this video with a grain of salt, why, well let me explain...
1. On Feb. 10, 2012 SJ posted this same video with a date stamp of Feb. 28, 2012... Once I commented on it the video was removed from the original post and no comment from SJ staff. The link to the discussion follows: http://www.sunjournal.com/comment/93429#comment-93429
2. How do we know what time it really is in the video? The voice claims it is midnight but how can we be sure, there is no recorded time stamp and it seems there is a lot of careful editing in this video between video and still images. This time of year where it gets dark early, this video could have been taken anytime from 7pm til 5am.