I am a social and legal conservative. However, I am not in a position to judge anyone. Under the circumstances, Bush could give no other answer. It was a question designed to cause controversy regardless of the answer.

 

I did vote for Bush- twice. I did so for one and only one reason. I felt that he would be far more likely to appoint federal judges sharing my constitutional philosophy than would his opponent. So far, I am pleased with Roberts and Alito although I would have preferred Scalia as chief justice. I am disappointed with his lack of backbone in filling vacancies at the district and appellate levels.

 

Most of these "social issues" are merely to rouse up the applicable electorate. The Democrats do the same with Social Security and by sucking up to the poor, the minorities (race and otherwise), the unions, and similar groups.

 

After the election is history, neither side delivers much but will "drum up" the issues again in time for the next election. In this respect, Bush is no different from the others- on both sides. Voters usually choose the one who, at least, pay lip service to their issues and end up voting for the lesser of the evils. For instance, I am not pleased with Bush but I would sure as you know what vote for him again if he were running against Kerry, Gore, one of the Clintons, or someone of that ilk.

 

As for blood-boiling issues like abortion, don't be fooled. If you know anything about our system of jurisprudence with the emphasis on precedent, you know that overturning Roe v Wade isn;'t going to happen. And, if by some real quirk, it were overturned, it would not outlaw abortion but merely make it an issue to be resolved by each state independently. In other words, the 10th Amendment would come into play again which, as a "states's rightist", would suit me fine.

 

Finally...A real common sense post to this thread.:thumb:

DD is obviously not an attorney but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

If you make your wishes known for whoyou wish to raise your minor children in the event of your death then in most instances they abide by those wishes.

 

Also why doesn't the "partner" adopt the child?

 

The partner could not adopt legally in some states (Florida is one as of 2002). If I remember the discussion right, no openly homosexual person can adopt in Florida, let alone the partner of a legal guardian(someone from Florida please correct me if I am wrong)

The partner could not adopt legally in some states (Florida is one as of 2002). If I remember the discussion right, no openly homosexual person can adopt in Florida, let alone the partner of a legal guardian(someone from Florida please correct me if I am wrong)

 

Acording to The Human Rights Campaign (a gay rights organization):

 

"Florida is the only state that explicitly prohibits adoption by gay and lesbian individuals and same-sex couples. Mississippi prohibits same-sex couples from adoption and second-parent adoption. Utah forbids adoption by any unmarried cohabiting couple, thereby discriminating against all same-sex couples.

The partner could not adopt legally in some states (Florida is one as of 2002). If I remember the discussion right, no openly homosexual person can adopt in Florida, let alone the partner of a legal guardian(someone from Florida please correct me if I am wrong)

You are correct.

On the media trying to get a comment on his VP's daughter's situation, I commend him from staying out of it. Until a legislation would come forward that he would need to address, I would stay out of it also.

 

Especially, since this is a thinly veiled attempt to get him to address the situation and the media CREATING a story. They want him to say something and then they would run the comments and rerun them till they go and try and create another story.

I don't think unmarried people should have children whether they are gay or straight.

 

I don't think that unwed parenthood should be criminalized.

 

I don't think that a lesbian having a child is a good thing but she is within her rights to do it.

 

I seen no hypocrisy at all in conservatives expressing concern about this.

I pretty much agree with this. Bush and Snow were pretty much fools to say anything buy, "We don't comment on family members of this administration.'

 

My disappointment with Bush has grown over the years. He seems to be anything but the person he represented himself to be. I think his intentions are well meaning, but misguided. I don't expect him to agree with me on every issue, but I can't figure out where he stands. I believe we would have been better off with a different president in 2004. Too bad we wern't offered a viable alternative by anybody.

So if you will your kids to your neighbor a court would uphold it? LOL

You don't "will" your kids. You appoint a legal guardian. And yes, in most counties and states, the courts will honor your appointment, unless contested by another who has parental rights or if its decided that it is not in the best interests of the child to live with the neighbor.

HHSDad is partially correct.

 

Any person with minor children who does not have a legal guardianship clause in their will is foolish. The court will honor a legal guardianship clause in the will. The guardianship can of course be challenged, but the challenger must show by "clear and convincing" evidence that the deceased was unduly influenced or induced by fraud, and the issue is NOT what is in the best interests of the child. Now, interest parties may file a state court action for custody against the proposed guardian, but the Will would be strong evidence of statement by the deceased parent as to a presumption of best interests.

I changed my will this morning. I made Bill Gates the legal guardian. Haven't told him yet.

I changed my will this morning. I made Bill Gates the legal guardian. Haven't told him yet.

 

I think we've been over this.

 

You don't "will" your kids. You appoint a legal guardian. And yes, in most counties and states, the courts will honor your appointment, unless contested by another who has parental rights or if its decided that it is not in the best interests of the child to live with the neighbor.

 

Any person with minor children who does not have a legal guardianship clause in their will is foolish. The court will honor a legal guardianship clause in the will. The guardianship can of course be challenged, but the challenger must show by "clear and convincing" evidence that the deceased was unduly influenced or induced by fraud, and the issue is NOT what is in the best interests of the child. Now, interest parties may file a state court action for custody against the proposed guardian, but the Will would be strong evidence of statement by the deceased parent as to a presumption of best interests.

I changed my will this morning. I made Bill Gates the legal guardian. Haven't told him yet.

 

Wish I had thought of that, then I wouldn't need life insurance.