Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (4672)	4/30/2001 6:09:06 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6089

The question is should consentual sexual behavior be against the law in one's own home, in private No. And should those laws be used to deny a person custody of their children on the basis that the person engages in an activity that is punishable as a felony Ah,. there you partly got me. Not on the basis of being a felony. I can't argue that because in Washington it isn't. But I have argued on the behalf of more than one client that the sexual preferences of the soon-to-be-ex spouse should be considered by the Court. The standard in Washington is the best interests of the child. I think the choices that people make about their quantity and type of sexual activity can be relevant to the best interests of the child. It's a complex area, and as any good lawyer does I've argued both sides of it. But generally, I think decisions have consequences, and while people are free to make those decisions and accept those consequences for themselves, when children are involved they sometimes have to lay aside their own preferences for the benefit of the children. This happens in many areas, not just sexual. Had a case of a major gambler. Had every right to gamble with his money all he wanted. But since it left him perpetually broke, moving from apartment to apartment, job to job, sometimes staying out all night gambling, the choice he made for himself had repercussions on his children that were unacceptable. The one thing the law is very good for is forcing you to look very thoroughly at all sides of an issue. And when I need legal advice, I pay for the best there is. I'm ready when you need me. <bg>

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (4672)	5/1/2001 11:16:18 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

Wonder whether this will be the start of a national trend. San Francisco To Pay for Sex Changes The Associated Press Monday, April 30, 2001; 9:02 p.m. EDT SAN FRANCISCO –– The Board of Supervisors voted Monday to pay for sex changes for city employees. The measure would pay up to $50,000 in benefits to city workers who want to switch their gender. Approved 9-2, the bill awaits the signature of Mayor Willie Brown. San Francisco apparently would be the nation's only governmental body to extend the benefit. The state of Minnesota offered such benefits, but the program was phased out in 1998. The issue was discussed in Oregon, but a commission decided against it in 1999. The benefit, available starting July 1, would cover male-to-female surgery, which costs about $37,000, as well as female-to-male surgery, about $77,000. Employees would have to work for the city at least a year before they would be eligible. People wanting sex-change surgery would have to pay 15 percent out-of-pocket if they use a doctor in the city's health network. If an out-of-network doctor is used, the employee's cost rises to 50 percent. washingtonpost.com