Reason Morning Links: Army Corps Found Negligent in Katrina, Texas May Have Banned Straight Marriage, Dissent Suffers in Cuba

|

NEXT: Sarah Palin and the Decline of Conservatism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Study concludes daily alcohol consumption cuts men’s heart disease risk by a third.

    For a magazine called Reason to suggest something like that so early in the morning is rather silly, don’t you think?

    1. Here goes …. “Drink!”

      1. Brilliant, MikeP 🙂

        1. Yeah, I resisted the urge — but thought I might get a bumpersticker or something.

    2. Thanks!

    3. So hourly consumption cuts it by a factor of 72. Sweet!

  2. Texas anti-gay marriage amendment may have accidentally nullified all marriages in the state.

    So people in Tejas haven’t been married since 2005? And society still hasn’t collapsed into cannibalism? If I didn’t know better from the constant crowing of both gay marriage proponents and opponents, I’d almost think that civic marriage is devoid of significance.

    1. hmm, on second thought, change “devoid of significance” to “devoid of inherent meaning.”

  3. “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

    Poorly worded, but moving in the right direction.

  4. “Texas anti-gay marriage amendment may have accidentally nullified all marriages in the state.”

    :uncontrollable laughter:

    Oh that is just too great!

    Like they say, don’t mess with Texas…

    …it’s not nice to mess with retards.

    1. They are deceptively strong.

  5. after taxpayers spent $55.7 million building the Pontiac Silverdome … city officials have sold the arena …
    [for] $583,000.

    *Sweet* write-off, though.

    1. The Vikings have spent the last few months pestering the taxpayers to cough up money for a new stadium. Their lease is up after 2011 and they are refusing to renew.

      I’d love it if the city/state had the guts to auction off the Metrodome since it would make no sense to continue to own/operate the facility without the Vikes as long term tenants.

      Ideally the Vikes would either have to a) buy the stadium themselves, b) find a new city to move to or c) pray they can reach an agreement with the new owners.

      Sadly there is no chance of this happening because they have been winning lately. I can dream though.

      1. “I’d love it if the city/state had the guts to auction off the Metrodome since it would make no sense to continue to own/operate the facility without the Vikes as long term tenants.”

        What? The Vikings play about 8-10 games a year there. The other 355 days it’s used for other entertainment (e.g., monster truck rallies). No one needs the Vikings in order to operate a domed stadium.

        1. I forgot about the cultural hit we’d take if the Monster Truck tour skipped us over.

          I doubt that without the Twins and Vikings, you’d be able to fill it up enough to pay for the upkeep. But if you think differently, you should be able to put in a bid and make a go of it yourself.

          I like the Vikings a lot, but I hate how pro sports in general have become the poster children for corporate welfare.

          1. Twins are moving to new stadium next year, right?

            1. Don’t get me started on them.

              Yes, they weasled in a stadium using some real sleazy stuff. Of course they built it right next to the county garbage burner, so they might get what they deserve next year.

          2. Monster Truck Shmonster Truck, it’s the tractor pull that rules the world!

  6. Texas didnt nullify any marriages. At best, they nullified the state license of a marriage. That doesnt make the marriage any less existent.

    1. Cool. That’s what I’ve been advocating for years now.

    2. “”At best, they nullified the state license of a marriage””

      They didn’t do that either.

      “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

      Nothing identical or similar to. That would exclude marriage it’s self.

      An arguement that marriage is identical but seperate from it’s self and a violation, would fail.

  7. So I guess Cuban dictators are like Cleveland Browns coaches.

    1. They just get worse and worse?

      1. Yup, even when it seems impossible that they could be worse.

        1. Have they won a game yet this season? I’ve only watched enough to know that my Steelers lost, twice (!?!), to the Bungles.

          1. The Browns beat the Bills 6-3 (!) for their sole win.

          2. I’ve only watched enough to know that my Steelers lost, twice (!?!), to the Bungles.

            I feel your pain. The only thing that makes it easier is knowing that the Purple Browns have also lost twice to them.

          3. Special teams, special teams….

  8. Nick,

    Ive been pushing for states to get out of the marriage business for nearly 20 years. No need for “civil unions” either. The dont need to be licensing relationships at all (well, there actually may be some need for state involvement in guardianship, although an anarchist would disagree).

  9. “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

    Oh dear God, the incompetence.

  10. Thank you very much!*

    Initially, I simply posted “Thanks!” but the stupid servers think that’s spam.

  11. 11 or more drinks a day is good for your heart? Um, no. It’s not.

    Did they control for income?

    The wealthier people are, the more they tend to drink. This could account for any perceived statistical differences in heart health between drinkers and non-drinkers.

    1. “The wealthier people are, the more they tend to drink.”

      Is this true?

    2. I also find that hard to believe.

      1. I think GrilledCS is drunk.

        1. While I might enjoy the occasional drink, I am certainly not making things up.

          http://alcoholism.about.com/b/…..income.htm

          http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-58054571.html

    3. What thrives more than anything else during a depression?

      1. Governments.

        (Additional words to get past server claims of spam)

    4. 11 or more drinks a day is good for your heart?

      Makes sense to me. Drinking 11 or more a day will tend to make you, um, accident-prone. To die of heart disease, you actually have to live into your 50s.

  12. “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

    So, does this invalidate the state tax code 😉

  13. GrilledCS misses the mark. I, for one, drink because i’m NOT wealthy.

    1. From what I’ve experienced, the wealthy don’t drink more, rather, they drink better quality.

      1. It’s the best revenge.

  14. I drink to forget the horrors of excessive taxation.

  15. LOL, and what exactly does this Kangaroo Court Judge know about Levis and structural engineerring? Exactly, NOTHING. WHat a farce.

    Jess
    http://www.ultimate-privacy.br.tc

    1. For those keeping score:
      Anonymity Bot 766, H&R Upgrade 0

      1. LOL, and what exactly does this Kangaroo Court Judge know about Levis and structural engineerring? Exactly, NOTHING. WHat a farce.

        Anonymity guy can’t stop posting. I guess it’s in his jeans.

        1. **cough**

          **crickets**

          1. Rough crowd.

            1. I didn’t want to add the crickets – the cough was in German but the squirrels picked up on it.

  16. From what I’ve experienced, the wealthy don’t drink more, rather, they drink better quality.

    That’s what i intend to do, should i ever strike it rich.

    1. I hope you do. It’s fucking great!

  17. I’d drink more if I were rich because I would travel a lot more and eat out more and that’s where I tend to drink. I’m not much for sitting at home drinking beer after beer while I watch TV.

    1. Why not? Elitist!

  18. Thanks, The Gobbler! I will say, though, that the best hooch i’ve ever had was blackberry-infused ‘shine given to my employer by a buddy of his who had a still. No fiat currency at all changed hands on that one.

    1. Why is America the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t have government provided stills for all of its citizens?

  19. This just in:

    Tim Geithner is a blathering imbecile.

  20. What’s in the pipe today, Jimbo?

    1. Despair.

      (additional words to placate server squirrels here)

  21. and what exactly does this Kangaroo Court Judge know about Levis and structural engineerring?

    Is this a reference to some pre-trial motion by Khalid Sheik Mohammad’s defense team?

  22. I get a couple of quarts of fine corn whiskey for Christmas every year from an uncle. He barters country hams from his father’s pig farm for it.

    Moonshine is both high proof corn whiskey and white lightning, which is made from white sugar. Make sure to drink corn whiskey. The other stuff just hurts, and not in a good way.

  23. Indeed this story shows the inevitable conflicts and problems that arise with state-defined marriages

    governments could easily simply uphold marriage contracts that people would agree to themselves – the only issues that come with this would be adoption laws, tax laws, and “unconscionable” contracts

    by “unconscinable” contracts what I mean is that our whiny court system nowadays might not uphold obligations for sex and/or money under the claim that they’re “unconscionable” – this could be solved by, well, just not letting the courts do that and upholding people’s contracts

    the tax issue – well, the income tax is an inefficient form of tax anyway, but in general all you have to do is get rid of the silly things in our tax law that favor married couples (and homeowners) – just make taxes very similar for everyone, married and unmarried

    and with adoption/guardianship – first of all it’s already too easy nowadays for one parent to simply claim the other is abusive in divorce proceedings – courts should require serious evidence for this – and stop favoring women with custody – there should just be a default that if neither wants lessened custody time then they should both get equal time – this would also de facto make the monetary burden of taking care of the kids the same (you have to provide the kids with food, clothing, housing, when they’re with you) – any issues with seeing the kids less for paying more should be internalized between the couples

    and then there is the issue with gays adopting kids. I can’t say I’m not concerned with the concept; straight couples have been by far the norm for the entire world and has gotten us to where we are today (and where it’s been strongest – in the West, is also the cultures that got the farthest). Then again, you can’t leave a child in an orphanage waiting for a straight couple looking to adopt. And on top of that there’s religious affiliation and cults and stuff.
    I guess all this could be solved by making it policy that CPS looks for adoptees withtin the family/friends/religion/whatever of the deceased parents
    And you can work around the issues fairly in these ways

    then again, it seems very little of our law is written to be fair or reasonable

  24. No need for “civil unions” either.

    From the article: Shackelford said the clause was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.

    Note, the wording was not intended as some sort of anarchist manifesto–it was expressly intended to put gays in their place.

    1. yeah but the state’s institutes for marriage (both regular and covenant marriages) satisfy the clause “identical to marriage” – in other words, what’s “identical” to marriage? Marriage!
      The state really did indeed screw up when they wrote this – especially if said laws don’t specifically reference that when they talk about marriage they are refer to specific Texas statutes. The clause simply says “marriage”.

      If they had written “the state nor any subdivision of the state will not recognize any OTHER form of marriage than what the STATE OF TEXAS DEFINES BY LAW” only THEN would they have gotten the effect they wanted.

      Does anybody know if these statutes say anything like that? Where is the rest of the text of the laws?

      1. Marriage is marriage. Saying something is identical to itself isn’t even a tautology or circular reasoning. I don’t think the argument will stand up in court.

  25. Actually, I think this amendment does exactly what it supporters says it does. By previously defining marriage, they are saying that anything that looks like marriage but doesn’t meet the legal definition of marriage is forbidden.

    What actually might get them in trouble is that it appears to preserve certain rights to marriage only. That might cause some otherwise legal arrangements that have nothing to do with marrige to be rendered illegal (such as power of attorney).

  26. Here’s the problem: The statute says, Marriage is X, and the state may not recognize a legal status identical to X. Well, marriage is by definition identical to X. Therefore, the state may not recognize marriage.

    That being said, the state supreme court will probably save their asses by interpreting the statute mean what it was clearly intended to mean, and that precedent will become the meaning.

    1. Say we have identical twins, Bob and Rob. If I banned anyone identical to Bob, that would exclude Bob, and include Rob and anyone else that look like Bob.

    2. They do not say Marriage is X and the state may not recognize a legal status identical to x. What it says is:
      1. Marriage is X
      2. The state may not recognize a legal status identical to MARRIAGE (not the definition of marriage, which would be X).

      I don’t even see how a lawyer could torture this (terrible) clause to make it apply to Marriage.

      That’s like saying the letter A is identical to the letter A, no the letter A IS the letter A.

      1. “Identical” doesn’t exclude something in reference to itself. The OED gives this example: “Descended from one pair of ancestral crows of the same identical species.”

        The aspiration of statutory drafting is not just to have the law say what you mean, but also to make it impossible for the law to be construed to mean anything other than what you mean.

        1. When you use the term identical, you are discussing more than one object. A object, then one or more other objects which is being compared to the original object. Something can not identical to it’s self.

          That’s a bad example. That sentence should read “”Descended from one pair of ancestral crows of the same species.” The word identical is being misused.

  27. Re: the marriage law

    The law passed in what, 2005? That’s four years ago, and we’re only hearing this now? There’s a good original understanding argument to be made that it does not mean what it plainly says. That said, I’m not one for ignoring plain meaning. It says what it says and I don’t care if it took everyone four, fourty, or four hundred years to realize it.

  28. You know, I wonder if I could’ve borrowed the money to buy the Silverdome? That’s kind of cool to think I could’ve owned a whole stadium.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.