|
|
Post by Q3 on Mar 26, 2013 18:03:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification on today's Supreme Court. Appreciate it. Makes me a bit less angry. Even though equal rights needing reviewing at all is a great big WTF for me! I know, "preachin to the choir!"  Neither Women or LBGT Americans have equal rights in the US. The Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified and added to the US Constitution. The ERA was written in and introduced to Congress in 1923. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the required state ratifications by June 30, 1982 and expired, and so it was not adopted. It only got 34 of the 38 needed ratifications -- 4 of which were rescinded by the states. Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.If the ERA had passed, Same Sex Marriage would be legal. Legal same sex marriage is a very new legal concept -- in 2000 the first legal same-sex marriage legislation in the world was passed in the Netherlands. That is 13 years ago. (Civil unions go back to 1979-1989 depending on definition. In the US civil unions were first approved in Vermont in 2000.) The history of Same Sex Marriage in the US is brief and this change has come very rapidly. 2004 legal in Massachusetts, the first state (court ruling) 2009 legal in Vermont, the first US State legislature to legalize SS Marriage. November 6, 2012 - Maryland, Washington and Maine voters approve SS Marriage. First time voters approved of SS Marriage. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2013 18:05:07 GMT -5
lol again there are people here SEOLMATE !! who think i cant work a zipper,wrong ,i can work a zipper as well as any of you im just not quite sure i will like what will fall out of the open ones . bbt Oh, gurl, this is ME..no worries about you unzipping things..  Pretend I shaved my head...  Had to edit.. am laughing so friggin hard...Okie, bye...  Some posts you ought to proof.. |
|
kayko
Member
Posts: 470
Location:
|
Post by kayko on Mar 26, 2013 18:06:45 GMT -5
Miles Tougeaux @milestougeaux 40m Breaking News: Supreme Court concludes oral arguments. Moving on to anal. Eber... :D :D :D ..  Thanks all you ladies for sharing all the wonderful, fun, amazing experiences you have at the concert from your great recaps! I enjoyed reading them all. |
|
bobo
Member
Posts: 2,127
Location:
|
Post by bobo on Mar 26, 2013 18:08:44 GMT -5
Thank you Albiku, Betty, Lilly and Sophie for you recaps. It was so lovely to meet you all wonderful Atoppers . We really had fun. I'm just a bit ashamed due to my very poor English speaking skills  . I felt quite stupid at times.... So happy for you, who had the change to meet Adam. I'm actually glad that I didn't meet him in person. I couldn't have survived it x_x  |
|
|
|
Post by nica575 on Mar 26, 2013 18:15:50 GMT -5
Here it is cleaned up:
The concert program was shortened, which disappointed those who were waiting for this concert since the rumors of the St. Petersburg concert had surfaced. But the quality of this solo concert has dwarfed this little misunderstanding.
P.S. Mr. Milonov, of course, could not keep himself from reacting to this "disgrace" (Adam Lambert makes no secret of his sexual orientation) and is already preparing several next laws. The circus continues!
Oh, reading this translation, it seems like it is as simple as Adam performed 16 songs in St. Petersburg vs. 17 in Moscow and 18 in Kiev and so on? And Milonov is of course working on more laws! yup. I should've used "snafu" instead of "misunderstanding": The concert program was shortened, which disappointed those who've been waiting for this concert since the rumors of the St. Petersburg concert had surfaced. But the quality of the solo concert has dwarfed this little snafu. |
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Mar 26, 2013 18:21:04 GMT -5
Nica
'Here it is cleaned up:
The concert program was shortened, which disappointed those who were waiting for this concert since the rumors of the St. Petersburg concert had surfaced. But the quality of this solo concert has dwarfed this little misunderstanding.
P.S. Mr. Milonov, of course, could not keep himself from reacting to this "disgrace" (Adam Lambert makes no secret of his sexual orientation) and is already preparing several next laws. The circus continues!'
Q3 'Oh, reading this translation, it seems like it is as simple as Adam performed 16 songs in St. Petersburg vs. 17 in Moscow and 18 in Kiev and so on?' --- Yes, and it elegantly leaves open the question as to who did that shortening of the concert. Was the demand put onto the promoter by some authority within SP or was the shortening done by Adam and his team as a cautionary measure? There were two songs left out: Fever and Is This Love compared to Moscow and Minsk, do I have this right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Mar 26, 2013 18:29:05 GMT -5
Somebody able to photoshop Adam's face onto this guy that's stuck inside our heads? |
|
Albiku
Member
@Albiku
Posts: 3,021
Location:
|
Post by Albiku on Mar 26, 2013 18:37:43 GMT -5
Thank you Albiku, Betty, Lilly and Sophie for you recaps. It was so lovely to meet you all wonderful Atoppers . We really had fun. I'm just a bit ashame due to my very poor English speaking skills . I felt quite stupid at times.... So happy for you, who had the change to meet Adam. I'm actually glad that I didn't meet him in person. I couldn't have survived it x_x Awwww, baby!!!!! Your English was great and there was no need to feel stupid at all!!!!!  It was so great to meet you!!!! Seriously!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by justgill on Mar 26, 2013 18:38:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2013 18:38:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification on today's Supreme Court. Appreciate it. Makes me a bit less angry. Even though equal rights needing reviewing at all is a great big WTF for me! I know, "preachin to the choir!" Neither Women or LBGT Americans have equal rights in the US. The Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified and added to the US Constitution. The ERA was written in and introduced to Congress in 1923. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the required state ratifications by June 30, 1982 and expired, and so it was not adopted. It only got 34 of the 38 needed ratifications -- 4 of which were rescinded by the states. Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.If the ERA had passed, Same Sex Marriage would be legal. Legal same sex marriage is a very new legal concept -- in 2000 the first legal same-sex marriage legislation in the world was passed in the Netherlands. That is 13 years ago. (Civil unions go back to 1979-1989 depending on definition. In the US civil unions were first approved in Vermont in 2000.) The history of Same Sex Marriage in the US is brief and this change has come very rapidly. 2004 legal in Massachusetts, the first state (court ruling) 2009 legal in Vermont, the first US State legislature to legalize SS Marriage. November 6, 2012 - Maryland, Washington and Maine voters approve SS Marriage. First time voters approved of SS Marriage. I just read an article ( shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/supreme-court-justice-says-gay-marriage-newer-than-cell-phones-and-the-internet--we-say--huh--193909273.html ) arguing against the idea that same sex marriage is a new concept. Socially, it's been around forever. Legally, in 1970, a case came to the Supreme Court and they declined to hear testimony. Thirtythree years later seems like a decent wait. I know it doesn't work this way but to me it shouldn't be about precedent but only constitutionality. I agree that they can dismiss prop 8 case but today has scared me. I hope mys*&@^#r is wrong and they aren't a bunch of cowards who don't want to stir too much up. Right is right for fuck sake! (no pun intended) |
|
