I Feel Much Safer Now . . .

[andyfox]

. . . with Martha Stewart off the streets. I imagine that, if she has to go to jail after June 1, she'll wear white. She'd make a good roommate, though, you'd have nice cookies and perfect hospital corners.

Now if Bush can just get us a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, we'll really be OK. Let's face it, when religous/conservative types say homosexuality is an abomination, they don't really care about lesbianism. They're talking about men. In this country, the only things men want put into other men are bullets.

And Congress is looking into the important issue of whether or not Jason Giambi and Randy Velarde used steroids.

What a country.

[Phat Mack]

Don't forget that the Iraqis have been driven out of Barstow.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . with Martha Stewart off the streets. I imagine that, if she has to go to jail after June 1, she'll wear white. She'd make a good roommate, though, you'd have nice cookies and perfect hospital corners.

Now if Bush can just get us a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, we'll really be OK. Let's face it, when religous/conservative types say homosexuality is an abomination, they don't really care about lesbianism. They're talking about men. In this country, the only things men want put into other men are bullets.

And Congress is looking into the important issue of whether or not Jason Giambi and Randy Velarde used steroids.

What a country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget to add: Thank god the FCC is focusing on stopping that evil Howard Stern from talking about boobies.

[Zeno]

....that everyone's friend, John Ashcroft, knows what books you are buying, checking out from the library, or otherwise fondling in the privacy of your home. Better burn those porno mags!

-Zeno

[adios]

I think so. She had a chance to cop a plea last summer on one count. She brought it on herself IMO.

[HDPM]

Well, if I did have to go to prison, I agree that Martha would make a better cellie than most. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Although ya don't want to hear some of the stuff that goes on in the women's facilities. Not as good as in the movies. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[John Cole]

"Iraqis have been driven out of Barstow" . . . making Rt. 66 safe for everyone.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I think so. She had a chance to cop a plea last summer on one count. She brought it on herself IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are these sentences related? I'm trying to understand if you think "she brought it on herself" because she didn't cop a plea.

[adios]

Here's what I would have done given Martha's miliions of dollars of net worth and a relatively small amount of stock if my broker had called me saying that Waksal was selling. I would have stated I don't want to hear it. As we speak Imclone is trading at around $48. For $10-12 a savings of about $4000-$5000 she's going to the slammer. Dumb. Even the stock ends up worthless she loses $250,000. Chump change to her. We could argue that Baconivic never informed her of Waksals sale but that would be dumb too /images/graemlins/smile.gif. She's really stupid if she doesn't believe that bio tech stocks are highly volatile and risky which Imclone has turned out to be. I just wonder what she expected when she bought the stock.

Obviously looking back she should have copped a plea but I don't know how strong she felt her case was. I'm just saying for a relatively small cost and some common sense she could have avoided this whole fiasco.

And no I'm not saying if wasn't chump change to her then she did the right thing. But it was chump change to her. I predict we're going to hear about MSO (her company) share holder lawsuits anyday now.

[HDPM]

Generally not copping a plea doesn't bring it on yourself of course. But if she were better advised and more honest it looks like she could have gotten out from under everything early on for 200,000 and could have kept her spot on the board of her company etc.... Later on she rejected a plea offer. If I'm a billionaire and the feds come around in a 200,000 shakedown I pay it.

[adios]

Feudian slip /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Are you saying that Martha Stewart should be allowed to steal? Because that's exactly what she did when she acted on insider info and willfully misrepresented the value of the stock she sold on the open market. Or is insider trading OK when done by the Hollywood pseudo-intelligensia elite?

Now if Bush can just get us a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, we'll really be OK.

Hey, I agree that whoever wants to get married should be allowed to, but there are a huge number of people in this country who disagree with you. Let's let them all have their say properly, through the consitutional process.

And Congress is looking into the important issue of whether or not Jason Giambi and Randy Velarde used steroids.

Hey, are you advocating that the government has no right to regulate private industry? Whoopee, we agree.

What a country.

How about that. A free country where everybody's opinion counts, even those that conflict with Andy Fox's weltanschauung.

[TheGrifter]

[andyfox]

1) Martha Swewart wasn't charged with insider trading or stealing. She was charged with lying, which she certainly did. She was an easy and popular target for the government to go after, a retail cheat, instead of the wholesale cheaters who hang out with Bush and Cheney.

2) The constitutional process is the place for a decision about gay marriage? I haven't read it in a while, but I don't remember there being anything in the Constitution about heterosexual marriage. You don't think Bush's pushing for an amendment is a cheap, election-year ploy?

3) While as a baseball fan, I'm interested about Jason Giambi's drug intake, I would have thought that Congress and the president had more important things on their plates.

4) When did I say everybody's opinion doesn't count?

[John Cole]

I'm interested in the proposed formal, legal definition of marriage. What will the exact wording be? "Marriage" is ("is" is, of course, if you remember the Clinton days, a problematic little word) "the union of a man and a woman." Just think: "Let not to the union of a man and a woman of true minds admit impediments."

Some sixty years ago, Cole Porter wrote, "Even educated fleas do it." See how far we've come?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The constitutional process is the place for a decision about gay marriage?

Personally, I think it's best left to the States (I had the same opinion about abortion). The problem is that if one state legalizes it, the DOMA will not survive a constitutional challenge, due to the Fair Credit clause of the Constitution. However, I don't think the framers designed that clause intended that one individual state could force a law change on the rest that involved such a fundamental redefinition of a societal construct that predates the document.

Even Barney Frank has expressed concern over the actions in San Francisco. My view is that extremists on both sides of the issue are forcing this confrontation.

I don't remember there being anything in the Constitution about heterosexual marriage.

There's nothing in the Constitution about monogamy either, but that didn't stop the Federal Government from forcing Utah to change its laws as a pre-requisite to statehood. Whether or not you or I agree, that's legal precedent for the federal gov't having the right to define marriage, even to the detriment of the 1st Amendment.

You don't think Bush's pushing for an amendment is a cheap, election-year ploy?

Of course it is, but he's not the one who started this argument. It's been festering for years. Listen, I really feel that both parties love it when the electorate gets a bee in its bonnet over irrelevancies like this and abortion (irrelevant because neither should be a federal issue). It diverts attention from the fact that both parties are authoritarian. But that's a debate for a different time.

When did I say everybody's opinion doesn't count?

The tone of your post says it. I have a visceral reaction to the condescending smugness with which the left looks down on any conservative point of view. Case in point, the following:

the wholesale cheaters who hang out with Bush and Cheney.

As if the Clintons (or Kennedy or LBJ) were squeeky-clean. They're ALL corrupt, they all have skeletons in their closet.

[andyfox]

I have been tougher on Clinton and JFK and LBJ than any other poster on this forum. All three of them were pathological liars. Kennedy and Johnson out-and-out stole the 1960 election; LBJ had experience with this sort of thing, having stolen his first senatorial election in Texas by literally throwing away ballots. (He was sarcastically nicknamed "Landslide Lyndon" because of this.) Men of extraordinarily low character, to say the least.

I'll try to watch my tone in the future. I'll plead guilty to bad writing, because I was trying for a satirical tone.





Martha Stewart's crime is small potatotes compared to the well-publicized crimes of corporate America.

[andyfox]

Perhaps I'm better off without comedy/sarcasm.

Halliburton said today is had $3.6 billion in revenue from contract in Iraq in 2003. The vice president of the United States used to run Halliburton and was a key player in deciding to attack Iraq.

Tom Daschle, the Democrats’ Senate leader, decided at the 11th hour not to run for president: In the end, he calculated that he couldn’t survive scrutiny of his persistent service to the clients of his wife. Linda Daschle has been one of the airline industry’s top lobbyists for two decades — when she wasn’t busy running the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which might explain why, just 11 days after the 9/11 attacks, her husband rushed through the Democratic Senate, which he controlled, the $15 billion bailout for the airline industry.

These things strike me as much more important than what Martha Stewart or Jason Giambi did, or what Barney Frank thinks about what the mayor of San Francisco is doing about gay marriage.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget to add: Thank god the FCC is focusing on stopping that evil Howard Stern from talking about boobies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea cuz guys like us are far too classy to ever discuss such things. Unless there's beer involved. That's different tho. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

al

[John Cole]

Andy,

In an unintentionally (I thought) hilarious statement, Cheney said that "Halliburton has been unfairly blamed because of their previous association with me."

[Zeno]

John,

I just had to redo/beef up (read - fib [embellish?]) my resume and was thinking of sending it off to Halliburton. Surf The Wave - Dude./images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Zeno

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . with Martha Stewart off the streets. I imagine that, if she has to go to jail after June 1, she'll wear white. She'd make a good roommate, though, you'd have nice cookies and perfect hospital corners.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is important to tell the truth. Period. Lying is an extravagance that comes with a price. M.S. is finding out just what that price is, when the lying serves to purpose of gumming up a reasonable and proper investigation.

Politically and legally, this country is quite forgiving if one is willing to be truthful. Pete Rose was given many chances to do so, but he just could not bring himself to formulate a sincere, honest apology. Furthermore, the country was BEGGING Clinton to just spit it out (or was it Lewinsky?) about his affair. Big, f'n deal. It would have been much better for Clinton to just put the cards on the table and ask forgiveness.

M.S. botched it at every turn. Even late in the game, she had some good chances to bail out, but she either ignored sound legal advice, or was not given sound legal advice.

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]

Now if Bush can just get us a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, we'll really be OK.

Hey, I agree that whoever wants to get married should be allowed to, but there are a huge number of people in this country who disagree with you. Let's let them all have their say properly, through the consitutional process.


[/ QUOTE ]

Back in 1967 and before, something like 80% of the US population opposed interracial marriage. In 1967, the Supreme Court overruled that overwhelming majority in the "Loving v. Virginia" case, where the Court overturned the "Virginia Racial Integrity Act". The act stated that: "If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

Interesting...I think that the same principle applies regarding same-sex marriage today. Many people still oppose interracial marriage, especially white/black marriages...

[adios]

Andy wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Halliburton said today is had $3.6 billion in revenue from contract in Iraq in 2003. The vice president of the United States used to run Halliburton and was a key player in deciding to attack Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if anyone will think that Halliburton's contracts with the government are sweetheart deals as Andy implies in his post after reading the article I posted. If it's not a sweetheart deal Andy why isn't it plausible that Halliburton deserved to receive the contracts it received for Iraq? I mean what good does it do to have a former CEO as VP and get contracts that are enforced in a extremely (overly IMO) tough and scrupulous manner by the government? As a stockholder in Halliburton I wish they would have never been involved with the government Iraqi contracts. They're a total pain in the ass for Halliburton in all actuality. The reason the government is being such a pain in the ass is precisely due to the fact that Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton. Duh. Any other qualified company wouldn't have had nearly as hard of time with the government on these contracts.

Halliburton Warns About Liquidity

Company Says It Could Face
Billing Problems, Refunds
Stemming from Iraq Work
By RUSSELL GOLD and NEIL KING JR.
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Halliburton Co., facing a barrage of questions about its handling of contracts to support the U.S. in Iraq, said that refunding or withholding billing on substantial portions of its government work could "materially and adversely affect our liquidity."

The disclosure, made in Halliburton's annual 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, comes as the Pentagon pressures the company to prepare final documentation for nearly $4 billion of work the U.S. government already has paid for. Those payments may run afoul of government contracting rules that limit how much can be paid before the work has been detailed.

Ahead of Schedule

According to Army officials, Halliburton could have to withhold billing on more than $400 million from other work until it completes the accounting, a process that could take months. However, Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company is ahead of schedule in finalizing details of the contracts.

The Houston energy-services and engineering company has two big contracts with the military to help rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and to keep U.S. troops fed and housed. Through 2003, the company had booked more than $3 billion in revenue for the work, under which it bills the government for its expenses and earns a 1% guaranteed profit.

Several Fronts Reviewed

The billing issue comes as federal officials investigate the company's performance on several fronts. Halliburton last month agreed to withhold billing on $140 million for food services pending a Pentagon investigation into how various subcontractors billed for meals served last year in Kuwait and Iraq. In addition, Pentagon auditors suspended payment on more than $36 million in submitted food-service invoices at seven dining facilities. The Pentagon also has opened a criminal investigation into a possible $61 million overcharge for the delivery of fuel to Iraq from Kuwait.

Halliburton warned it may need to either make refunds to or withhold billing the government for an additional "substantial" amount, which would materially hurt its liquidity, the company said.

Such a squeeze could require the company to borrow further. Its credit ratings remain at the low end of investment grade. A Moody's Investors Service analyst said the credit-rating concern doesn't have any plans to downgrade Halliburton's debt rating because the company had sufficient cash and receivables to pay its near-term debt.

Because the company must pay its subcontractors before it collects from the government, it had racked up about $800 million in out-of-pocket expenses at the end of December. Dave Lesar, chairman, president and chief executive, says the company has issued debt to cover the outstanding receivables. "We've financed a lot of this war," he said last week.

This rising debt is particularly troublesome for the company as it prepares to fully fund a trust to settle current and future asbestos lawsuits and as it faces cash payments on a troubled construction project in Brazil. Between the summer of 2003 and January, the company added $2.7 billion in long-term borrowings to fund its asbestos trust and work in Iraq.

The company also acknowledged its internal-controls systems were overwhelmed by the amount of work the Army assigned to it. The company says it has identified shortcomings and has taken steps to remedy the problems, including enlarging the procurement staff and creating a "Tiger Team" to work with subcontractor management and other issues.

Hardship on Subcontractors

Still, there are problems. Halliburton owes the Event Source, a Salt Lake City subcontractor, $87 million, of which $50 million is past due, said Phil Morrell, Event Source chief executive. He said the company, which has served 32,000 troops in seven dining facilities, hasn't been paid since mid-November. Ms. Hall said Halliburton is reviewing all its dining-hall invoices and paying them once they are validated. She said 19 invoices from Event Source are being reviewed, of which seven are more than 30 days past due. She said Halliburton understands the hardship on the subcontractors and is trying to speed the process along.

The company is being investigated on a number of other fronts, too: The Justice Department is reviewing possible overcharges related to Halliburton's contract to provide logistics support for the Army in the Balkans, according to the filing. The SEC has subpoenaed documents related to accounting for long-term construction projects and is looking into alleged illegal payments related to a Nigerian plant. And a U.S. Treasury Department office in January asked for more information about Halliburton's presence in Iran.

[ThaSaltCracka]

The company is being investigated on a number of other fronts, too: The Justice Department is reviewing possible overcharges related to Halliburton's contract to provide logistics support for the Army in the Balkans, according to the filing. The SEC has subpoenaed documents related to accounting for long-term construction projects and is looking into alleged illegal payments related to a Nigerian plant. And a U.S. Treasury Department office in January asked for more information about Halliburton's presence in Iran.
looks like the gov. concern is caused by Halliburtons own shady behavior. I think Halliburton thought they wouldn't have any problems in Iraq, partly because Cheney use to be the CEO. I am glad the gov. is investigating and scrutinizing them. There is something very fishy about the VP's former company getting most of the contracts in Iraq.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Again, I hate to sound like I'm advocating for the other side, but if you don't see a fundamental difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage your capacity to employ reason is called into question.

[andyfox]

I guess I need to try again.

My original post title was sarcastic. My point was that what Martha Stewart did or didn't do is small potatoes, as are the "issues" of gay marriage and professional athlete steroid usage, compared to, for example, the possible sweetheart deals and/or worng doing that can be engendered when the biggest corporate beneficiary of the U.S. invasion of a country is a company that was formerly headed by the vice president of the United States, who had been calling for the invasion of that country for years; and when one of country's biggest industries, which had been struggling for years before 9/11, is given a sweetheart bailout deal after 9/11 when the industry's foremost loobyist happens to be married to the leader of one of the two main political parties who then quickly gets the legislation through congress.

In reading the article, it appears the liquidity problems would stem from Halliburton not being able to complete $400,000,000 in additional billing because it needs to answer to the government audit, and that Halliburton is being investigated for possible improprieties on several fronts.

[andyfox]

"Furthermore, the country was BEGGING Clinton to just spit it out (or was it Lewinsky?) about his affair. Big, f'n deal. It would have been much better for Clinton to just put the cards on the table and ask forgiveness."

Very funny line ("or was is Lewinsky?")

Anyone who didn't recognize that Mr. Clinton was a pathological liar by that time just wasn't paying attention. I guess it was a bit shocking to have look into hte camera and say "listen to me," since his lies were usually more subtle, but still, we shouldn't have been surprised. As for laying his cards on the table, he's never done that in his life. His method is more to pull one out of his sleeve.

[andyfox]

I'll bite. Please explain to me the difference. I'm serious, I don't understand it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Marriage is a social construct. It primarily developed as a means for property transfer within the most basic unit of society: the family. Part and parcel to the definition of family involves procreation. Through time, that procreative family structure has been recognized as the basis for the care of children in most cultures.

There is nothing at all about interracial marriage that confronts or re-defines that basic definition of marriage. Even with interracial couples, the fundamental nature of marriage - to create a stable family unit within which to pass property to the children that arise from that marriage - is identical.

A same sex couple is not biologically equal to a male-female couple. The same-sex couple cannot produce their own children.

Now let's stop and recognize what I'm not saying. 1) I am not saying that redefining marriage is necessarily a bad thing. 2) I am not saying that same-sex couples are in any way undeserving of full protection under the law. 3) I am not saying that I don't recognize that as times change social institutions may need to evolve.

What I am saying is that to equate opposition to same-sex marriage to opposition to racial equality is illogical and irresponsible. It is name-calling that only serves to exacerbate conflict. Of course, some of the people who oppose same-sex marriage *are* bigots, but it isn't fair to paint all opponents with the same brush.

[elwoodblues]

You make a pretty big logical leap.

Marriage is a social construct (I agree)
Developed for property transfer through "the family" (for argument's sake I'll agree)
Part and Parcel of the definition of "the family" involves procreation (here is where you make the jump)

I think you rely on one (or more) of the following unstated assumptions (which I think are false):

Marriage exists only (or mostly) for the transfer of property to children (note that earlier it was for the transfer of property to "family" now you've narrowed that to "children")

You change the primary reason for marriage from transfer of property to care of children without any justification for doing so.

You ignore that marriages currently exist that are non-procreative and have no chance of becoming so.

You assume that because children are included within the definition of family that children are a NECESSARY element to the definition of family. That is simply not true.
-----------------
Your argument essentially goes something like:

Marriage creates families.
Children are part of families.
Therefore, all marriages must have children

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Sorry, It's you who did not read my post objectively. First an answer to one of your points:

You ignore that marriages currently exist that are non-procreative and have no chance of becoming so.

I don't ignore this at all. I understand that this is reality *today.* I was talking about how marriage developed over the course of time, and what the "traditional" view of marriage is.

However. I think throughout this entire discussion you are arguing with me as if I am an opponent of same-sex marriage. Since that is a false assumption, let me state my position clearly.

My opinion is this: From the perspective of secular government, marriage is simply a contract between two individuals. Since the government has no right to deny the right of two individuals to enter into a contract based upon the gender of those individuals, the government has no right to deny a same-sex couple a marriage license.

That opinion does not change the fact that I see a fundamental difference between same sex marriage and interracial marriage. In fact, I see a fundamental difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex. One *can* produce offspring, the other cannot.

Anthropologically, sex exists for the primary purpose of propagation of the species. This fact is not a value judgment.

[andyfox]

It used to be that people got married to have sex (and to procreate). Now they get married to stop having sex.

While there's joke value in the above, whether two people can marry or not should have nothing to do with sex. Biology should be irrelevant. Propagation of the species should be irrelevant. If the determination of whether people can marry or not is based on whether or not offspring can result, we shouldn't let women over a certain age marry, nor infertile women, nor impotent men.

While there indeed is a difference in the fact that sexual relations, generally, between a man and woman can result in pregnancy, whereas homosexual sex cannot, that fact should have nothing to do with whether people can marry or not.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

While there indeed is a difference in the fact that sexual relations, generally, between a man and woman can result in pregnancy, whereas homosexual sex cannot, that fact should have nothing to do with whether people can marry or not.

I agree. Many, however do not, and I think likening all of them with racial bigots who opposed interracial marriage only serves to inflame the debate, rather than working towards a solution.

I've always believe that Civil Unions represent a compromise solution, but not in the way most people view them. I do not believe the government should give out marriage licenses. In order to secure the legal rights that currently exist in marriage, the government should give out Civil Union licenses to *all* couples, both same-sex and mixed-sex. That license allows churches to perform marriages according to their laws (I hope nobody here is suggesting that churches be forced to marry same-sex couples).

Those not wishing a church marriage would be brought together in a Civil Union. Thus we would not be creating a separate but equal situation based upon sexuality, but simple defining "marriage" as a religious form, and "Civil Union" as the legal form. All marriages would be civil unions, but not all civil unions would be marriages, but that would not create an inequality under the law, since the law would not recognize marriages, only civil unions. This would render DOMA irrelevant, and also underscore the secular nature of government in the US.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
However. I think throughout this entire discussion you are arguing with me as if I am an opponent of same-sex marriage...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I was arguing with you as if your argument had holes the size of Texas.

[andyfox]

I think many people who oppose same-sex marraige are homophobes. What has inflamed the debate is the president calling for a constitutional amendment banning it.

That said, I like your solution.

[ACPlayer]

I hope nobody here is suggesting that churches be forced to marry same-sex couples

Dont be too sure. That is a logical next step, if the church wants to continue to recieve prefential tax treatments.

Otherwise, i agree that a "marriage" or "civil union" should bestow the same contractual rights whether between man and woman, man and man, woman and man.

[mosch]

Bill Maher puts on a great show, doesn't he?

[PuppetMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Maher puts on a great show, doesn't he?

[/ QUOTE ]
word

[MMMMMM]

"Are you saying that Martha Stewart should be allowed to steal? Because that's exactly what she did when she acted on insider info and willfully misrepresented the value of the stock she sold on the open market. Or is insider trading OK when done by the Hollywood pseudo-intelligensia elite?"

Actually, from what I have gathered, I believe she could not have been found guilty of insider trading, nor did she commit the crime of insider trading. Essentially she was found guilty of lying to the feds. Considering that she was not under oath when she so lied, it raises questions as to what sort of leverage the feds have since it has become a crime to lie to them even when not under oath. Note also that it may now even be a criminal offense to give a local policeman false information when asked a specific question. Somehow all of this strikes me as being too conducive for the potential of coercive abuse.

[Wake up CALL]

MMMMMM,

In 1998 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legality of prosecution for lying to a Federal agent in the case of Brogan v. United States. Prior to that it had still been illegal but prosecution was normally restricted to circumstances where the person was attempting to receive funding of one sort or another from the Federal government. The original statute dates back to the 1800's so it is not some recent change.

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the additional info., Wake.

What do you think about things like people being charged with giving a police officer (non-federal) false information? Say you are out partying and get stopped for running a stop sign and the officer asks where you are going and where did you come from. If you say "work" instead of "a party" could you be charged? And do you think it is a bit much for things of such nature to be considered crimes in themselves?

[Wake up CALL]

I believe the locality should be able to amke any law that passes constitutional muster. I look at it like the seat belt laws, I do not think they should be enforced however if you are cited they have been proven to be constitutional so you should be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. On that note if you lie to a police officer and it is illegal in that particular locality you should be prepared to pay the piper. This does not necessarily mean I agree with the law but well, it is the law. You are not going to catch me performing gay wedding ceremonies in California since it is (presently) illegal but if legalized and I could earn an extra buck or two then line them up and I'll swear them in! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ray Zee]

the old axiom about not saying anything holds true. there is no reason to tell any agency person any information without immunity from the prosecutor and having your lawyer present. extreme but true.