the right to embezzle
A snippet from this week's News of the Weird which had me momentarily reconsidering my position on gay rights:
"THE LAWS OF IRONY
• Federal prosecutors have insisted so far that any ill-gotten money that former Enron executives had squirreled away in their spouses’ names still can be fully recovered by the government, except for one executive. Michael Kopper, once a director of Enron’s global finance unit, pleaded guilty in 2002 to illegally obtaining $16.5 million, but he is openly gay. And since his home state of Texas does not recognize his union with his longtime partner, prosecutors cannot treat the partner as a “spouse” and have lumped him with “third party” transferees, whose assets are much more difficult to obtain (according to a November report in Washington Blade)."
"THE LAWS OF IRONY
• Federal prosecutors have insisted so far that any ill-gotten money that former Enron executives had squirreled away in their spouses’ names still can be fully recovered by the government, except for one executive. Michael Kopper, once a director of Enron’s global finance unit, pleaded guilty in 2002 to illegally obtaining $16.5 million, but he is openly gay. And since his home state of Texas does not recognize his union with his longtime partner, prosecutors cannot treat the partner as a “spouse” and have lumped him with “third party” transferees, whose assets are much more difficult to obtain (according to a November report in Washington Blade)."
posted by peter at
01:11
3 Comments:
So, by not giving homosexuals the right to get married, we actually give them more rights in some respect. I think that's just great. Maybe the anti-gay lobby will come out in support of gay marraige now. Wouldn't that be grand? We should get a hold of them and make the argument.
On a related manner, I know homosexuals marrying would completely destroy the sanctity of marraige, but with over 50% of marraiges ending in divorce, is there really much sanctity left? And for the love of God and marraige, why isn't anyone coming out against DIVORCE? Isn't that hurting the sanctity of marraige? People getting married with no actual respect for the bond...isn't that hurting its sanctity? (Now, don't misinterpret the last two sentences to be one and think that I think all divorces happen because people don't take marraige seriously, but a hell of a lot of them do.) I have an idea. Instead of divorcing your spouse, kill them. This way, divorce does not dirty up marraige and there's one less person to destroy the sanctity of it. I'm full of good ideas in the early morning...I should run for office!
By
John E., at Tue Dec 19, 01:20:00 PM GMT
Was that before or after your first cup of coffee?
I'm not sure if there's any sanctity to marriage, but I'm in favor of people taking it more seriously if they believe that marriage is a lifelong spiritual (physical/emotional/etc.) commitment to one's spouse and to the community at large. If the persons involved consider it just a socially acceptable way to get cheap sex, share health insurance, and save on taxes, then I don't think churches should have anything to do with it. (And I guess this statement could be twisted to mean that Dr. James Dobson and I agree on something.)
By
Anonymous, at Wed Dec 20, 02:16:00 AM GMT
Actually, Johnny, I think that in the Gospels the only thing Jesus said about divorce is along the lines of "Okay, well, divorce sucks, but do it if you must. It beats adultery and murder."
By
Nate, at Fri Dec 22, 07:19:00 AM GMT
Post a Comment
<< Home