[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Streaming Video on Linux

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Sat Sep 4 06:42:58 PDT 2004

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Michael Robinson wrote:
> Ahh, stupid must be code for saying your a conservative.

No, "stupid" is code for someone who doesn't know the difference between
"your" and "you're".

> At least she's against declaring homosexual couples and for that matter
> cousin cousin couples married.  I'm sure somebody wants to marry their
> dog Fido too, short of Fido objecting.

Um, yeah.  I know this is hardly worth a reply, but I'm going to try to
explain this to you, so try to keep up.

Denying a person a marriage license because of their gender is straight-up
sexual discrimination and that's illegal.  If there was something about
their gender that made the discrimination sensible, that would possibly
give you cause for arguing the case, but I'm not aware of any such
argument.  In Oregon, you can't discriminate based on sex.  It's illegal.

However, there is no law protecting a person from discrimination based on
family relationship.  Hence, a cousin can be barred from marrying a cousin
legally, as our law currently states.  There is no reason to believe
anyone will have any legal success in changing that portion of the law.

A marriage license requires that the married couple be capable of entering
into a binding legal contract.  A dog cannot enter into a binding legal
contract, therefore, a person cannot marry a dog.  Nobody's out trying to
make dogs into citizens and get them the right to vote and carry credit

Sexual discrimination is ILLEGAL and that's a GOOD THING.  Turning down a
marriage license because one of the people is the wrong sex is exactly
like turning down a driver's license because of the sex of the applicant.
It's baseless and wrong and allowing such a thing would open the door to
more discrimination based on sex which we've been fighting most of the
last century to prevent, not discrimination based on other things.

> As far as open source goes and being smart or not, what specifically do
> you find wrong?

I can't speak for Paul, but Karen Minnis has, for years, been in the
pocket of big business.  Her concern is money, money, money.  The people
of Oregon can go hang, according to her voting records, so long as her
corporate patrons are getting their goods.

> It's funny that people try to claim Kerry's voting record doesn't make
> him a flip flop on the war even though he goes from supporting it, to
> not supporting it, to...

You watch a lot of Fox News, don't you?  Nobody would come up with the
term "flip flop" on their own.

> What is Karen Minnis, or any other legislator for that matter, doing to
> discourage use of open source software?

They're buying proprietary software.

Also, every dollar that goes to Microsoft is a small contribution to
Microsoft's campaign against Free Software.

> Instead of complaining, how about explaining what you think should be
> done?

If you're using public money to develop software, that software should
belong to the public.  They don't copyright census data or trademark road
signs.  If you're doing it with public funds, the public should retain
full control.

As for software, the best way we have, so far, to make sure that the
public is never exploited by a greedy, would-be software baron is the GPL.

In other words, public agencies should be required to use software that
belongs to the public and publish all of the software they develop
internally to the world under the GPL.

     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
 [cc] counter-copyright

More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list