Heidi's Journal
My Podcast Link
07/02/2011 16:00 #54627
DinnerCategory: food
06/27/2011 20:53 #54592
Outer Harbor SundayCategory: tourism
Citybration sucks, but the Outer Harbor was really nice.
metalpeter - 06/28/11 17:14
Nice Pictures sounds like Paul had a nice climbing adventure....
Nice Pictures sounds like Paul had a nice climbing adventure....
paul - 06/27/11 22:37
I am so happy I can fit in that skyway cage despite it being locked.
I am so happy I can fit in that skyway cage despite it being locked.
paul - 06/27/11 22:37
I am so happy I can fit in that skyway cage despite it being locked.
I am so happy I can fit in that skyway cage despite it being locked.
tinypliny - 06/27/11 21:15
These photos are amazing!
These photos are amazing!
06/24/2011 21:37 #54569
New York same sex marriageCategory: politics
Watch live 
A Twitter feed #ny4m
A Twitter feed #ny4m
metalpeter - 06/26/11 10:34
May take some heat for this but I like the Religion Clause.... From what I Understand that is how Canada does it... I admit that I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand it means that if you are clergy you can do same sex Marriage or you can not and you can't be sued for not doing it.... The reason I agree with this is that to me Marriage is about legal rights yeah love to sometimes.... But some countries (not sure where) still do the you will marry this person and we get their name and money and power ..... That is what Marriage in the old days was really all about the women had to leave the house and start a family and have kids and that kind of thing.... But yes over time that changed of course and kings are now just something you see in movies or celebs .....
Now I admit that I can't figure out for the life of me since we are supposed to have the separation of church and state how Plural marriage is illegal wouldn't that be the endorsing a religion that isn't being a Mormon? But isn't also right in line with the Catholic Church the you can only love one person.... What I don't get even more is how one gets a licence to marry and do it at a church and it is something legal...What sounds like the two are connected to me....
In any event I don't think someone who is "A Minister" should have to perform a Marriage he doesn't agree with... Might be old fashioned but I don't think it stops at gays if Husband is abusive ..... Not sure it is true or not but at one time didn't kids have to take classes before they got Married?
On kinda a side note if "People of the cloth" had to perform them I think the law would have been struck down... I think that a lot of those who don't want to do them would have put pressure on their followers to put pressure on their Representatives... I also think that this freedom of "Clergy" helped people who might be opposed vote yes....
All this Being Said If I had the Cash I would Open up some Wedding Chapels and things in say Niagara Falls.... I would start running ads.... Yes I would have to Advertise the stuff in Canada .....
May take some heat for this but I like the Religion Clause.... From what I Understand that is how Canada does it... I admit that I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand it means that if you are clergy you can do same sex Marriage or you can not and you can't be sued for not doing it.... The reason I agree with this is that to me Marriage is about legal rights yeah love to sometimes.... But some countries (not sure where) still do the you will marry this person and we get their name and money and power ..... That is what Marriage in the old days was really all about the women had to leave the house and start a family and have kids and that kind of thing.... But yes over time that changed of course and kings are now just something you see in movies or celebs .....
Now I admit that I can't figure out for the life of me since we are supposed to have the separation of church and state how Plural marriage is illegal wouldn't that be the endorsing a religion that isn't being a Mormon? But isn't also right in line with the Catholic Church the you can only love one person.... What I don't get even more is how one gets a licence to marry and do it at a church and it is something legal...What sounds like the two are connected to me....
In any event I don't think someone who is "A Minister" should have to perform a Marriage he doesn't agree with... Might be old fashioned but I don't think it stops at gays if Husband is abusive ..... Not sure it is true or not but at one time didn't kids have to take classes before they got Married?
On kinda a side note if "People of the cloth" had to perform them I think the law would have been struck down... I think that a lot of those who don't want to do them would have put pressure on their followers to put pressure on their Representatives... I also think that this freedom of "Clergy" helped people who might be opposed vote yes....
All this Being Said If I had the Cash I would Open up some Wedding Chapels and things in say Niagara Falls.... I would start running ads.... Yes I would have to Advertise the stuff in Canada .....
dcoffee - 06/25/11 14:35
I think you're right Tiny, the NYS is not forcing the churches to do anything they don't want to. You can basically get married by a justice of the peace.... Or at Quaker Meeting :) Buffalo Quaker Meeting has already had one same sex marriage ceremony, in Canada. It was about 8-10 years ago.
I think you're right Tiny, the NYS is not forcing the churches to do anything they don't want to. You can basically get married by a justice of the peace.... Or at Quaker Meeting :) Buffalo Quaker Meeting has already had one same sex marriage ceremony, in Canada. It was about 8-10 years ago.
tinypliny - 06/25/11 13:27
I see. Some more confusion here. You said: "That's to strongly discourage lawsuits over the religious exemptions pieces (which allow religious orgs & their affiliates to discriminate against same-sex couples). "
So does that mean religious organizations CAN discriminate against same sex couples and they don't have the power to sue these religious organizations? Why on earth would anyone say yes to this type of clause? "Marriage" as it is defined currently in an albeit limited way has a ton of religion-community-faith issues entwined in the definition. By allowing free-reign to religious organizations to discriminate against same sex marriages, you are making the definition of what "marriage" is different for same sex couples. That is discriminatory in and of itself -no?
I see. Some more confusion here. You said: "That's to strongly discourage lawsuits over the religious exemptions pieces (which allow religious orgs & their affiliates to discriminate against same-sex couples). "
So does that mean religious organizations CAN discriminate against same sex couples and they don't have the power to sue these religious organizations? Why on earth would anyone say yes to this type of clause? "Marriage" as it is defined currently in an albeit limited way has a ton of religion-community-faith issues entwined in the definition. By allowing free-reign to religious organizations to discriminate against same sex marriages, you are making the definition of what "marriage" is different for same sex couples. That is discriminatory in and of itself -no?
heidi - 06/25/11 12:54
(e:tinypliny) - that shouldn't happen for several reasons:
- California's same-sex marriage came into being because of a state supreme court case, not because the legislature passed it.
- California has a citizens' initiative process that NY doesn't have.
- NY already recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages (judicially and administratively).
The only risk to ssm in NY is the "inseverability clause" in the legislation. Most pieces of legislation have clauses that say that if a court finds some piece of the legislation unconstitutional, then the rest of it stands, ie. the bad part can be severed from the good part. This one has a different provision, that if one piece of the legislation is found unconstitutional, the rest is gone, too. That's to strongly discourage lawsuits over the religious exemptions pieces (which allow religious orgs & their affiliates to discriminate against same-sex couples). I didn't read the text of the law, this is what I gathered from the Senate speeches. Other states have not had much litigation about their same-sex marriage laws; the NY Senate Republicans were using the issue to be assholes. :::link:::
(e:tinypliny) - that shouldn't happen for several reasons:
- California's same-sex marriage came into being because of a state supreme court case, not because the legislature passed it.
- California has a citizens' initiative process that NY doesn't have.
- NY already recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages (judicially and administratively).
The only risk to ssm in NY is the "inseverability clause" in the legislation. Most pieces of legislation have clauses that say that if a court finds some piece of the legislation unconstitutional, then the rest of it stands, ie. the bad part can be severed from the good part. This one has a different provision, that if one piece of the legislation is found unconstitutional, the rest is gone, too. That's to strongly discourage lawsuits over the religious exemptions pieces (which allow religious orgs & their affiliates to discriminate against same-sex couples). I didn't read the text of the law, this is what I gathered from the Senate speeches. Other states have not had much litigation about their same-sex marriage laws; the NY Senate Republicans were using the issue to be assholes. :::link:::
tinypliny - 06/25/11 12:35
We were wondering how this would work. Will it be like California where married couples will find out a few years later that their marriage was annulled because the "popular vote" overturned the legislation?
We were wondering how this would work. Will it be like California where married couples will find out a few years later that their marriage was annulled because the "popular vote" overturned the legislation?
paul - 06/25/11 10:13
Great, more people to buy gifts for.
Great, more people to buy gifts for.
dcoffee - 06/24/11 22:41
Yay!
Yay!
06/24/2011 21:02 #54568
Outer HarborCategory: tourism
Balloons would have been much more fun to shoot, but a leaping (e:terry) is cool, too. Citybration's communication sucks.
metalpeter - 06/25/11 18:13
Nice Pictures Would have been more fun with Balloons but it still turned out well.... I see I have a ton of posts to read on (e:strip) on sunday as well as a bunch of pictures to post and pictures to take tonight (bisons)
Nice Pictures Would have been more fun with Balloons but it still turned out well.... I see I have a ton of posts to read on (e:strip) on sunday as well as a bunch of pictures to post and pictures to take tonight (bisons)
tinypliny - 06/25/11 13:18
Ah! Sorry I was still in commonwealth-mode. Back home we have a five year integrated BSc/BA/BBA-LLB (w/w/o honours) professional degree. It's almost the same length as the med school degree but in law and without an additional year of internship/clerkship/rotating apprenticeship that we have in medicine. They graduated a year ahead of us even though we went into uni at the same time. The board is also run by the government as are the schools so the exams for the LLB are the exams of license and practice.
Ah! Sorry I was still in commonwealth-mode. Back home we have a five year integrated BSc/BA/BBA-LLB (w/w/o honours) professional degree. It's almost the same length as the med school degree but in law and without an additional year of internship/clerkship/rotating apprenticeship that we have in medicine. They graduated a year ahead of us even though we went into uni at the same time. The board is also run by the government as are the schools so the exams for the LLB are the exams of license and practice.
heidi - 06/25/11 12:39
I have a B.A. in sociology from Penn State and a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from University at Buffalo Law School. The JD makes me eligible to sit for the NYS & PA bar exams. It's one (very large) part of the professional licencing process. I had to take an ethics exam and be checked out for "character & fitness". Licensing is separate from the schooling and is organized by a state board. LLBs aren't sufficient to sit for the bar (it's no longer offered in the US).
I have a B.A. in sociology from Penn State and a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from University at Buffalo Law School. The JD makes me eligible to sit for the NYS & PA bar exams. It's one (very large) part of the professional licencing process. I had to take an ethics exam and be checked out for "character & fitness". Licensing is separate from the schooling and is organized by a state board. LLBs aren't sufficient to sit for the bar (it's no longer offered in the US).
tinypliny - 06/25/11 12:29
Actually, I thought the bar exam was your final exam for the graduation... I am a bit confused why they are separate. Don't you already have the LLB? In med school, professional exams for graduating = licensure exams.
Actually, I thought the bar exam was your final exam for the graduation... I am a bit confused why they are separate. Don't you already have the LLB? In med school, professional exams for graduating = licensure exams.
tinypliny - 06/25/11 12:28
It was nice to catch up with you yesterday, (e:heidi). Good luck with the bar exams!
It was nice to catch up with you yesterday, (e:heidi). Good luck with the bar exams!
heidi - 06/25/11 12:14
Thanks :-) No, I had my real camera with me with a huge lens.
Thanks :-) No, I had my real camera with me with a huge lens.
tinypliny - 06/25/11 12:09
These *are* cool pictures. I especially like (e:metalpeter)'s and (e:Paul)'s pics. Very artsy. And omg, my head is lifesize! ;-)
These *are* cool pictures. I especially like (e:metalpeter)'s and (e:Paul)'s pics. Very artsy. And omg, my head is lifesize! ;-)
paul - 06/25/11 10:44
These are great pictures, are they from your cell phone?
These are great pictures, are they from your cell phone?
06/23/2011 22:55 #54553
Mahna Mahna!Category: silly
One of my all time favorite Muppet bits. (An earbug for you all! ha ha ha!)
Wait you have to remember Dinner is Different if you are in PA Talk????? Buffalo Lunch time or latter is Dinner.... Buffalo Dinner time is Supper ...... I work with an old guy who grew up in PA (granted he started working early on like was common for some back then so he didn't have a lot of school so maybe it is really small town speak like dis and dat)... But that also isn't the only use of the word Dinner either.... It can be from the type of food you had..... Say you ate a dinner think meat, potatoes and veggies or something but had it in the morning it would still be a dinner you where eating (picture a frozen TV dinner as an example)........
Fair enough. But still 4:00?! You should call it high tea - just so you can be differentiated from the people on my former street who, without fail, ALL had dinner at 4:00 and went to bed at 8:00 or max 9:00. The 9:00 PM bedtime people were infamously known in "inner-circles" as the "party-folks". I was known as the owl.
Well, I'm hungry and it's not breakfast food -> "dinner".
You are having dinner at 4:00? I thought that was peculiar to Rochester.
Don't know if I would like it but looks good....