theawkwardvirgin · 1 year ago
Text
An interesting Gospel today, on marriage. Now I know most of this Gospel well (“male and female he created them”, “what God has put together man must not separate”) but I hadn’t heard what happens after the teaching on divorce.
Jesus’s disciples respond in a very modern way, which is kind of funny in a depressing way: “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
Yeah, who wants the burden of a covenant with God being actually, you know, binding? Shock and horror!
(Side note, but when Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts, He’s referring to the fact that men would have their wives killed to get around the “‘til death do us part” thing. Yeah.)
And Jesus looks at them and says this: “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
This is a fascinating statement, and one I haven’t heard before! Jesus acknowledges that marriage isn’t for everyone, that not everyone is capable of that sort of commitment. But here’s the crucial part: this doesn’t excuse them from the binding nature of marriage. His phrasing makes that clear, from “some are incapable of marriage” to “renounced marriage”.
So what do you do if you’re not cut out for that kind of commitment? Simple really: you don’t get married. People who are incapable of upholding a covenant with God shouldn’t and can’t make such a covenant. Which is obvious when you think about it.
Despite common misconception, the Catholic Church doesn’t just throw young people together and push them to get married for the funzies. Before you get married, you have to pass a class called Pre-Cana (yes, named after the Wedding at Cana), where you and your fiancé go through counseling and training to make sure you understand the commitment you’re making , that you and your fiancé are a good match, and that you’re ready to make that commitment and live together. You’re usually required to be married by your parish priest, who hopefully knows you well, probably did your Pre-Cana, and can be confident in witnessing and presiding over your covenant.
There’s a lot that goes into preparing for marriage in the Catholic Church, and it’s precisely because we understand that a valid marriage is indissoluble. Once you’re validly married, there is nothing anyone on earth can do to change that.
Now, an important note: This does not mean people have to stay in abusive situations, even if their marriage is valid. Separation in the Church is allowed in serious situations like abuse, and in fact you can get legally divorced in that situation, since a piece of paper doesn’t affect your binding covenant in any way. However, in this case, you’re still married to that person and this can’t get remarried. (There are caveats and technicalities that could deem an abusive marriage invalid and thus dissolvable, but this post is too long already. I recommend this website by a canon lawyer for anyone who’s curious about the details and requirements of a valid Catholic marriage.)
3 notes · View notes
tevanbegins · 4 years ago
Text
The Schmico haters' reasons for calling Nico toxic are that he doesn't talk about his feelings, forced Levi to come out to his mom while he himself lied about being out to his parents, only uses Levi for sex, and is rude and emotionally abusive to Levi.
All these are invalid or exaggerated arguments, and below I have elaborated why:
1. It is not easy for Nico to talk about his feelings especially when he is forced to confront them against his will. He was probably raised to be practical and perfect all the time and he fears that talking about his emotions shall make him vulnerable. But in spite of this he always tries to communicate with Levi whenever he feels ready. He also always listens to whatever Levi has to say and never judges him for being too emotional. No two people are exactly alike and there are bound to be some differences between them that we need to respect, but what's more important here is that Nico is trying to work on his shortcomings and Levi is giving him the space he needs to do that. They are working on their issues through mutual understanding and this is exactly what healthy progress looks like. It is anything but toxic.
2. Nico never 'forced' Levi to come out to his mom. Yes he got a bit mad when he found out that Levi hadn't told her, but that was only because he knew how close Levi was to her and that he still lived under her roof. So he assumed that Levi would have told her about this important new development in his life. But he understood when Levi explained why he hadn't told her about it and they were good again. Levi came out to his mom several episodes later only when he thought he was ready and not because Nico forced him. It came as a surprise to Nico too when Levi did that because he was not at all expecting him to do it, and it brought tears to his eyes.
Another point to be noted, Nico has never lied about being out to his parents. He expressed his desire of wanting Levi to spend Christmas with his family as a joke and I think Levi got that, because it was very early on in their relationship at that point of time and neither of them knew how serious they would get about each other later. Hiding the truth is not the same as lying (and I don't remember anybody calling Derek a liar for keeping his marriage to Addison a secret from Meredith), so Nico is definitely not one. Nico's fears are not unfounded. He comes from a rigidly conservative Asian family and already knows how homophobic his parents are. He doesn't think that it is a safe space for him to come out. It is important to be mindful of the culture difference between Levi and Nico's families so it won't be half as easy for Nico to tell his folks than it was for Levi to tell his mom.
3. A handsome and gorgeous man like Nico would never need to 'use' anybody for sex. Taking comfort in the physical aspect of his relationship with Levi was his way of coping with his fears and to avoid talking about his parents. I agree that it was not a good thing. But if he didn't love Levi and sex was his only motive then he could have easily cheated on him or rebounded with some other guy after their break-up. He didn't do that. He came back to Levi only because he obviously still has feelings for him, it is just that he is struggling to confess them openly.
Nico suggested 'stress relief' because he not only missed being around Levi but also because he was concerned about him being at risk of getting COVID due to his medical history of Broken Heart Syndrome. He asked for Levi's consent that time and specifically told him that he could say "No." Besides, that act in the supply closet was more pleasurable to Levi than it was to him if you know how gay sex works. And Nico was surely bluffing about being incapable of love and affection (most probably to avoid confrontation about his parents or that new dream job he was pursuing) because his actions always prove otherwise – be it paying his full attention to Levi, giving pep talks, cuddling, giving a comforting hug, planting a forehead kiss, holding hands, etc. Him not saying "I love you" out loud a hundred times a day doesn't mean that he is not in love with Levi, he simply expresses his love differently.
4. Nico behaved rudely with Levi for a while after revealing that he wasn't out to his parents, but he was never emotionally abusive in any way. He was clearly going through a phase that frightened him and it made him suppress his emotions as a defense mechanism. So he emotionally shut himself out and was a little mean to Levi, but he was completely honest about what he could and could not offer him at that point of time in their relationship. An emotionally abusive person would make false promises of love to keep the person that they are involved with under their trap, and then continue to violate them. If Nico was like that then he wouldn't have chosen to break it off with Levi when he said that he wanted more from him. He thought it was better to end the relationship then than to give Levi false hopes when he himself couldn't make sense of any of his feelings. This is definitely not toxic behaviour.
It is okay if haters don't like Nico or Schmico because we don't need their validation to stan anything, but they should accept that this hatred is due to their own personal preferences and not wrongfully declare Nico to be toxic because they have been quite easy-going with other characters who have made way worse mistakes in relationships than he ever did. The hypocrisy is out there for everyone to see. But they have no right to spread misconceptions about someone else's comfort ship or characters based on careless observations. Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate. That's all. ✌
45 notes · View notes
virginiaprelawland · 4 years ago
Text
Jane Roe
By Kayla Blevins, Liberty University, Class of 2020
May 28, 2020
Tumblr media
Norma McCorvey (otherwise known as “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade) confessed before her death that anti-abortion groups paid her in 1995 to contradict her previous stance on abortion. (1) FX and Hulu will air the documentary called “AKA Jane Roe.” In the documentary, she said, “I was the big fish…. I took their money and they'd put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That's what I'd say.” (2)
Almost fifty years after the ruling in Roe, abortion is still a divisive topic. However, there is a more recent case concerning abortion that erodes abortion rights that most people have never heard of – the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The goal of this article is not political, but to correctly inform the reader about key elements of abortion law that the reader may not know.
In 1992, the state of Pennsylvania created abortion control law.The Governor passed the new abortion statutes which were the following: girls under eighteen-years-old must obtain the consent of at least one parent; adult women must give a written consent; married women must notify their husbands, and clinics must provide their clients with information against aborting and wait twenty-four hours before performing the abortion.(3) Planned Parenthood filed an action against Pennsylvania because they opposed the state restricting abortion law. The main question in Casey was whether Pennsylvania could impose these new laws without violating the woman’s right to an abortion.The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who barred the requirement of spousal notification but passed all the other provisions. The Court said privacy rights (which support abortion rights) come from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (4)The Roe case allows states to limit abortion rights.Abortion laws in all fifty states is different, but a woman’s choice of birth control, marriage, and abortion must always be within “a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.”(5) The test that courts use to examine laws relating to abortion was amended because“A law is invalid if its ‘purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.’”(6)
Key Details from the Justice’s Opinions
The controlling opinion was written by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. These Justices believed the structure of Roe v. Wade should be dropped and replaced with the “undue burden” test for judging abortion regulations. (7) The controlling opinion supported all the proposed provisions but annulled the spousal notification requirement.
Blackmun and Stevens wrote that Roe v. Wade should be restored, and all provisions laid out in the Pennsylvania statute declared unlawful.(8) On the other hand, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, White, and Thomas believed Roe should be overruled, and all the Pennsylvania restrictions supported.(9)
How “Privacy” Laws Were Applied
Justice Blackmun believed the privacy principles in Roe v. Wade were correctly applied because the right of privacy laws protects the woman from the government encroaching in on her decisions.That means there are two ways that abortion rights relate to the right to privacy laws. First, when abortion rights are restricted,this leads to the State depriving the woman of the right to decide by herself when she wants to start a family, which is “deemed central to the right to privacy.” (10) Second, keeping an unwanted pregnancy forces physical intrusion on her, as well as posing on her the risk of physical harm, which violates her right to bodily integrity.
Justice Stevens and Justice Blackmun agreed that abortion “is nothing less than a matter of conscience” because a woman has the right to decide on her own if she wishes to end her pregnancy. (11) Anything else is an abuse of the government’s power to “persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion.” (12) Concerning the material that was written with the intent to discourage having the abortion, Justice Stevens and Justice Blackmun decided it is lawful for the government to permit the woman to be informed of any options other than abortion. Also, the government can promote the benefits of making a family. But the government must respect a woman's freedom to reject these alternatives. Justice Stevens wrote, “A woman who has, in the privacy of her thoughts and conscience, weighed the options and made her decision cannot be forced to reconsider all, simply because the State believes she has come to the wrong conclusion.”(13) Therefore, Pennsylvania should not be authorized to produce that material to the women before having an abortion.
Justices Kennedy, Souter and O’Conner believes that “It is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”(14) O'Conner gave the example of a kidney transplant.When considering surgery, it is the patient’s constitutional right to be educated about the operation's risks before the surgery. After being informed about the risks, it is the patient’s choice to have the operation. This enables the patient to make an informed decision. Therefore, Justices Kennedy, Souter and O’Conner believes that Pennsylvania legislature correctly used the right to privacy laws as according to the U.S. Constitution. The only exception they found was the spousal notice.
Justices Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas referred to the history of the United States to explain their position. Abortion in the U.S. was never deemed as “fundamental.” (15) In fact, it was common for the government to have abortion restrictions. The Roe case made personal privacy rights “too broad” because abortion involves deliberately terminating life.(16) Abortion affects the wellbeing of everyone involved in the woman's life; abortion is never only about the woman’s well being. The options of marriage, choosing to have children, and/or take contraceptives are her “liberty,” but these issues are not about one’s privacy. (17) Justices Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas wrote, “The abortion decision must therefore ‘be recognized as sui generis, different in kind from the others that the Court has protected under the rubric of personal or family privacy and autonomy.’” (18)
Liberty University’s professor, Scott Naus, explained that there are two different ways judges read the law: a liberal way or a conservative way.(19) That is why the Justices offered so different opinions about the same issue. These terms have nothing to do with political views, but rather how one interprets the law.
For example, when a judge, like Justice Blackmun, liberally reads the law, it means that he believes that the law's purpose is to prevent people from interfering with their neighbor’s decisions. (20) A liberal reading of the law is disconnected from morality.(21)
On the other hand, a conservative reading of the law, like Justice Scalia, means that he thinks the law is meant to help people in their interpersonal relationships and that law should be tied to the morals of the Constitution. (22)
Privacy rights are viewed with the opinion that the law has nothing to do with morals (or that it does have something to do with morals). (23) This is the reason why so many judges have differing opinions about privacy rights. The Casey Justices had different opinions concerning privacy because they had different ways of reading the law.
________________________________________________________________
(1)   Audrey McNamara. “Jane Roe of "Roe v. Wade" said she was paid by anti-abortion rights groups to support their movement.” CBS News. May 21, 2020. May 22, 2020. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roe-v-wade-documentary-norma-mccorvey-jane-doe-paid-anti-abortion-groups-paid/.
(2)   Ibid.
(3)   Otis H. Stephens, Jr. & John M. Scheb II, American Constitutional Law 7-4e (6th ed. 2015).
(4)   Ibid.
(5)   Ibid.
(6)   Ibid.
(7)   Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744 (last visited May 25, 2020).
(8)   Ibid.
(9)   Ibid.
(10)                    Otis H. Stephens, Jr. & John M. Scheb II, American Constitutional Law 7-4e (6th ed. 2015).
(11)                    Ibid.
(12)                    Ibid.
(13)                    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744 (last visited May 25, 2020).
(14)                    Ibid.
(15)                    Otis H. Stephens, Jr. & John M. Scheb II, American Constitutional Law 7-4e (6th ed. 2015).
(16)                    Ibid.
(17)                    Ibid.
(18)                    Scott Naus. “Privacy - Where is it Found, and What Does it Cover?” Liberty University. December 7, 2018. May 22, 2020.  
(19)                    Ibid.
(20)                    Ibid.
(21)                    Ibid.
(22)                    Ibid.
(23)                    Ibid.
(24)                    Ibid.
Photo Credit: Norma McCorvey in the FX documentary “AKA Jane Roe.” (FX Networks).
0 notes
roguenewsdao · 5 years ago
Text
YOUR SIGNATURE IS MONEY
Here are two habits, using old school methods, that will end and prevent banks and the government from stealing your signature, its value, and committing forgery and counterfeiting. The section that follows will discuss new technology for utilizing your signature and protecting it from becoming a “blank check” for bankers, businesses and the government.
This article is written specifically in response to the billions of dollars of counterfeit and forged promissory notes that have recently flooded the United States and have been used to steal American homes and wreck our economy. The problem is now solved (at least going forward). However, we need to adopt the following practices whenever entering into any promissory note arrangement, especially when it is going to be secured by a trust deed or mortgage lien against our homes
FIRST – PANTOGRAPHIC SECURITY PAPER
When you first obtain your closing documents, the first task should be to locate the promissory note and print it from the file or copy it onto the following type of paper:
This is pantographic security paper. It can be purchased in 8 ½ x 11” or 8 ½ x 14” dimensions, in 25 Lb. or 60 Lb. Bond Void Blue, Pantograph on one side, 1-up on 8.5″ x 14″ sheet. You can usually buy 250 sheets/pack and it usually has ten or twelve security features. It is also compatible with copiers, laser, inkjet and offset presses.
I will recommend one brand, but there are many more that you can find yourself. Kan’t Kopy® K2 is one-sided security paper that has 10 security features with counterfeit resistant printing to secure originals. The security features include:
● Pantograph (hidden message) – When an unauthorized person tries to copy or scan the original, a “Void” hidden message appears.
● Color Match – The original color of Kan’t Kopy® paper can not be reproduced with any type of copy process.
● Kan’t Kopy® Artificial Watermark – An artificial watermark is manufactured onto the paper.
● Anti-Copy Coin Rub – Watermark on the back turns black when rubbed with a coin.
● Erasure Protection – Guards against erasing/modifying and scanning.
● Acid Free – Preserves documents for a longer period of time.
● Toner Grip – Enables ink from your printer to stick to the paper without it flaking or smudging.
● UV Paper Dull – Ultraviolet light will not brighten the paper.
● UV Paper Glow – Paper has embedded security fibers only visible under ultraviolet light.
● Chemically Reactive – Spots will appear if chemicals are used in an attempt to alter a Kan’t Kopy® document.
You can find more information and similar products at https://www.blanksusa.com and search the Internet for “pantograph security paper”.
In security printing, void pantograph refers to a method of making copy-evident and tamper-resistant patterns in the background of a document. Normally these are invisible to the eye, but become obvious when the document is photocopied. Typically they spell out “void”, “copy”, “invalid” or some other indicator message.
Void pantographs work by exploiting the limitations and features of copying equipment. A scanner or photocopier will act as a low-pass filter on the original image, blurring edges slightly. It will also not be perfectly aligned with the directions of the document, causing aliasing. Features smaller than the resolution will also not be reproduced. In addition, human vision is sensitive to luminance contrast ratio. This means that if a grey region consists of a grid of very small dark dots the filtering will produce a lighter grey, while a region of larger dots will be affected differently (“big-dot-little-dot”). This makes it possible to see a pattern that previously was invisible. Numerous variations exist, including printing the marks using a raster of lines in one direction on a background of lines in another direction, or using fine line patterns that alias into a visible moire pattern when copied.
SECOND – EMBOSSED SIGNATURE SEAL
When you affix your signature, use blue or red indelible ink and then emboss your signature with an embossing stamp such as the one illustrated here. Be sure to emboss over part of your signature with the image you have created for your embosser seal.
I found this example at www.thestampmaker.com. It’s a desktop embosser you can customize with your own symbol or art and this gives a crisp, clear seal impression. You can send your artwork or image in one of the following file formats: tif, .pdf or .eps.
This is an example of what the embosser does to paper and the reason why it cannot be counterfeited or forged:
It costs only about $50 or $60 and ships in one business day. Use this seal to affix your custom artwork or symbol over your original signature on the pantagraph paper. If the bank ever tries to foreclose, it will be obvious that unless it has this original document, identified by your security paper and embossed and sealed signature, the bank can never foreclose.
No one can tell you what your signature must look like or how to make your signature, this freedom is what makes your signature legal and binding and worth money. You will be able to us these two practices in every note you ever sign. These two steps will eliminate the bank fraud, forgery and counterfeiting forever, we just have to pass this information around to everyone and encourage everyone to order his own security paper and embosser seal and use it at every chance.
If you can see what I see, we can use these two simple methods to end the note fraud and we don’t even need to write more laws or file lawsuits. Remember that your signature is your private property and it is worth lots of money. You have the right to decide how and when it’s used. This is your responsibility. If we act responsibly using the information in this article, we can eliminate many of the consumer debt and corrupt banking and courtroom practices that we have witnessed in recent years.
THIRD – BLOCKCHAIN
A blockchain is a type of distributed ledger, comprised of unchangeable, digitally recorded data in packages called blocks.
These digitally recorded “blocks” of data is stored in a linear chain. Each block in the chain contains data (e.g. bitcoin transaction), is cryptographically hashed. The blocks of hashed data draw upon the previous-block (which came before it) in the chain, ensuring all data in the overall “blockchain” has not been tampered with and remains unchanged. 
A distributed ledger that is a consensus of replicated, shared, and synchronized digital data geographically spread across multiple sites, countries, and/or institutions.
Blockchain applications can allow multiple parties to jointly sign documents, legally binding and replacing the need to having them notarized in such a way that no one can repudiate it’s date, content or signatures.
Documents are encrypted, uploaded and their required signers selected, granting them immediate file access. Participants authenticate themselves, download, decrypt, review and digitally sign the documentation. Finally, when fully signed, documents are notarized.
It’s useful on contracts, company workflows or any paperwork between parties; but it can also be used by oneself to record immutable proofs, like digital works attribution or integrity checks.
I like to think of your “signature” as “the nature of your sign”. It is literally an expression of one’s will. It demonstrates consent, which leads me to the question for you, “When do you ever give unconditional consent to anything?” You don’t, not even in marriage. So why do we affix our signatures to terms and conditions without any terms of our own? Why do we give “blank checks” to the corporations, governments and banks? It’s because no one ever asked these questions or suggested that there was something to question about how we sign agreements or express our consent.
Your consent should have terms. You can endorse a check, such as “without recourse”. This means that when you endorse a check with this endorsement, it then requires your bank to collect against the issuing bank if the check is no good. Today, the banks won’t accept this endorsement. The banks want you to do all the work, even though the bank is making money from your account and you are paying fees.
Do you know who is using your signature once you sign documents with your doctor, or retail business, or government agency? If I told you just a fraction of what is being done with your signature, you would be fighting angry and rightly so. Banks and debt collectors pass around your documents like their playing poker at a casino, with no restrictions and no protections for your privacy or future and new obligations that are routinely created for you, just because one day in the past you expressed your unconditional consent by affixing your signature to a document with terms that a long list of attorneys probably developed over many years and in which you are expected to sign with only a moment’s cursory review. It’s time to act like a responsible adult and begin imposing terms on the use of your signature, restrict the parties who can hold or have access to the terms you sign, impose an expiration date for your signature, impose privacy terms and information management conditions with penalties for any violations. Here is an example of what I call a “Data Retention Policy” that can be ascribed to your signature as an endorsement, you simply include the phrase “with terms” above or before your signature.
http://tinyurl.com/zrfebhd
This is just one example, but I wanted to walk you into this idea because the best way to use it will be when we are using the blockchain to express our agreements that are attached to our signatures on the blockchain, at an address on the Internet, with as much or little privacy as you want.
Imagine a signature with two or three factor authentication. It’s kind of like having two or three signers on a business bank account so that no one signature can authorize the release of funds. Remember, this article is about how your signature is money, you should act like it.
Each time you express your consent with your signature, whether or not your sign your name with the letters in your legal name, or your signature is a phrase or a symbol or a blockchain address, it should be guarded with security and given with conditions and it should have a value placed on it, you should place a value on each signature of yours that you use.
FOURTH – CONSENT
Many times, companies force upon us terms of service that include provisions that only protect the interests of the company.  That is not a problem in itself, you want companies to protect themselves against liability, this is what facilitates them in providing products and services that we want; however, in recent years, these provisions have become so unreasonable that they are harmful to people or their customers.
One of the best examples is the “binding arbitration” clause, where you waive your rights to resolve any disputes in the court system that you pay taxes to use when you have disputes that need a resolution.
Another example includes the so-called “privacy statement”, in which nearly every one that I’ve ever read tells us what privacy we do not have and how the company can violate our privacy without penalty.
Even though these are “adhesion contracts”, meaning, “take it or leave it terms”, unreasonable or unconscionable terms are void unless you fail to object or express your option to exclude them.  In other words, whether or not the contract gives you an option to “opt out” of a provision, you can opt out of a provision that is not reasonable or unfairly prejudices your interests by serving notice upon the company at an appropriate, physical mailing address, such as its registered agent, general counsel, or dispute resolution address, or all of these simultaneously.
Your “opt out” notice will simply include the date it was sent, and express your objection and intention to exclude the particular provision or clause from the agreement.  You are not asking permission, you are simply placing the company on notice as to what terms you are excluding, and you don’t have to explain yourself, sometimes I do, but it’s not necessary.  Be careful about creating conditions where you make a substantial change to the company’s risk, such as interfere with its obligations, you only want to be specific to what reasonably can be changed to protect your interests.  Here is one example, while I usually want to opt out of an arbitration agreement, sometimes I will only change it to agreeing to “non-binding mediation” which is consistent with the intent of the agreement, but still gives me access to my court system if we don’t reach a favorable resolution of the dispute (hopefully we never have a dispute).
When you express your consent, be very careful about the terms to which you are consenting and realize that you do not always have to “take it or leave it”.  These are corporations, “persons” without a conscience, we are people, we have a conscience, we have natural rights, corporations are permitted to exist by people, they are subservient to people, act like it. This is no different than parents acting like parents with their children, or the boss being the boss on the job, or the people who created government in the first place, who then provide indemnification for the business (corporation) to function in our society by providing products and services to the people who created its rights in the first place.
0 notes