quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Treasure KY, you stated that a rape kit is different somehow than a ballistic report or fingerprints bcause the latter two are used to collect prosecutorial evidence. You go on to state that a rape kit is different because it isn't needed to prove a crime occurred. Maybe, maybe not, but what a rape kit can be used for is to prove the identify of the perpetrator. Prosecutors need evidence of that too, you know. So, how are they different again? Or am I just not understanding what you are saying?
Somebody else compared expecting the police to pay the doctor bills for an arm broken in an assault to a rape kit. That doesn't make sense either, since treatment for a broken arm is medical treatment to help one heal. A rape kit is an investigative tool, and doesn't do anything to improve the victim's health.
So, there is really no logical reason for a crime victim to pay for their own rape kit. Of course, all these arguments arre just academic, if what you say about the Violence Against Woman Act is true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Come on Firmy, you can do it, I know you can.

Please tell me you do see some hypocrisy in the alleged actions of Mr Hinkle when compared to his political beliefs.

Come on, I know you want to. Do EEEEEEET! It's okay, it'll makes you seem almost persony...lol.

quote:

Apparently you have no idea what the NJ bill is all about.

quote:

I mean hell, the right even wants women who are raped to pay the state for the kit to prove they where raped (NJ last week) How is that equal????

quote:

If rape kits are to be treated like fingerprints collected at a robbery - in fact like every other kind of forensic evidence - then states should assume the full cost, in every case, regardless of the circumstances. States also need to prohibit the parties responsible for payment, such as hospitals, from billing the rape victim or pressing her to pay the bill and seek compensation later. Agreeing to the collection of a rape kit represents a victim's hope for justice in her case. Receiving a bill in the mail for basic police work represents an unacceptable but still too common truth - that the criminal justice system has a lot to learn about how it deals with rape victims.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Theon38
2) Yes, that is equal rights. The law prevents all sorts of marriage contracts.

quote:

And that's how the Supreme Court is going to eventually rule. Marriage is a civil contract, and it's not the government's damn business who the parties of the contract are as long as they're legally competent to sign the contract.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Come on Firmy, you can do it, I know you can.

Please tell me you do see some hypocrisy in the alleged actions of Mr Hinkle when compared to his political beliefs.

Come on, I know you want to. Do EEEEEEET! It's okay, it'll makes you seem almost persony...lol.

Good luck with that domiguy.

Sadly Firm seems unable to accept that opposition to equality in marriage stems by and large from the Right wing of politics. Nor does he seem able to dissociate himself from the more rabid rantings of those Right wingers who choose to denounce gay marriage, gay lifestyles and who insist 'gayness' is some kind of demonic curse. I know it's rather sad and tragic, but he has declined repeated invitations to so dissociate himself ...... preferring to invent strawman arguments and outright fictions that he then attributes to others.

With ideological blinkers screwed on that tightly, I suspect you'll be doing well to get Firm to admit that his right hand is different to his left hand.

Now that it has emerged that Hinkle co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage, it's difficult to describe his behaviour as anything other than naked hypocrisy. This evidence lends weight to the view that homophobia is the neurotic expression of deeply-repressed gay desire, an insight that ought to embarrass the rabid homophobes of the Right into silence.

Haven't they realised that many people interpret their 'political' opposition to queer rights, their homophobia as evidence of their own personal inability to come to terms with their gay desires?