Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 221
  1. #161  
    Fine, but which societies have it as between 2 men, 2 women or whatever? Well? not many are there? Did not think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by ADGrant View Post
    Your assertion is completely false. Marriage in many civilizations is/was between one man and several women and it doesn't always work. It seems to fail at least half the time.
  2. #162  
    Of course we all are anxious to hear what the new Supreme Court nominee has to say about this.
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Of course we all are anxious to hear what the new Supreme Court nominee has to say about this.
    That's really a silly thing to pick a fight about - another diversion from the right, in an effort to excite their base and get funding. I hope none of us are ever judged on a single misstatement from a decade ago. first I'll point out that the statements made about her are more troubling than the statements made by her.

    That being said, I'll sit this particular Rush-inspired diatribe out.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/30/2009 at 08:04 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    I can't imagine that that is actually your point.
    I can see that.
    If your suggestion is that the laws are inadequate because they are contained within multiple "areas"
    No, that's not my suggestion.
    then you would have to say all of the laws of America are inadequate.
    Tangential point, but I'm not sure if any law will ever be adequate in perpetuity. Circumstances, information, and technology change.
    The fact that the laws are scattered (notice I didn't say disorganized) has nothing to do with whether they are adequate. Whether they are adequate is determined by the content of those laws.
    Exactly. And if the content of those laws were adequate, would we even be having this discussion?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #165  
    Exactly. And if the content of those laws were adequate, would we even be having this discussion?
    And I still don't see how the laws would inadequate for gay couples, but adequate for straight couples who undergo adoption / in vitro. Are there issues other than procreation that you feel are different for gay couples?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. #166  
    Interesting. The left pulls up the past all the time; however, should anyone of an opposite view do it, then ignore it. So you are saying we should ignore Nancy and her rambling? Heck, that was only 8 years ago.

    However, we are sure that you are most aware that she has no problems legislating from the bench, has no problems creating policy from the bench. Heck, get her and eliminate the legislative branch of government. Heck, get her and eliminate government entirely - her way or no way. Remember, she thinks a Hispanic woman is better than a while male. For a remark to go so long unchallenged - a misstatement from a decade ago? No, it was the truth from her view point from a decade ago.

    What statements made about her concern worry you? Is her history so unique in this country to make her unique? I do not think so. Maybe you out to listen to Rush and let us know. Oh, or do you all ready?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That's really a silly thing to pick a fight about - another diversion from the right, in an effort to excite their base and get funding. I hope none of us are ever judged on a single misstatement from a decade ago. first I'll point out that the statements made about her are more troubling than the statements made by her.

    That being said, I'll sit this particular Rush-inspired diatribe out.
  7. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    And I still don't see how the laws would inadequate for gay couples,
    There is the issue that certain localities define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The DOMA has reinforced the allowance for this.
    but adequate for straight couples who undergo adoption / in vitro.
    I don't believe I said they were adequate for that either. Things like in vitro in the case where one half of the union may be infertile and storage of embryos bring up all sorts of interesting legal questions depending on where you're at.
    Are there issues other than procreation that you feel are different for gay couples?
    I thought it would be painfully obvious by now that I don't think there are significant differences personally, but I don't decide that sort of thing.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    ...The right to marry has been recognized as a fundamental right under U.S. law since the founding of our country...
    This is not true if you're going to assume ratification of our Constitution as the foundation of our country. Marriage is not specified. Anywhere.

    The only real argument that could be made from a constitutional basis is that marriage is a contract in addition to (or in lieu of) a religious ceremony. The problem with marriage as a contract is that the vows are hardly 'legalese' enough to satisfy a jury of one's peers. My wife 'vowed' to obey me and I her... so the first one to say the words 'you will do anything and everything I ask without question or hesitation' first becomes the de facto ruler in the relationship?

    Inheritance only becomes a concern when taxation is involved. Otherwise, why is the government involved at all?
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Fine, but which societies have it as between 2 men, 2 women or whatever? Well? not many are there? Did not think so.
    Spain, Holland, Belgium & South Africa for a start. Then there are/will be the six new England States & Iowa.
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Just remember that here in this country you can pretty much do what you want. Look at most of the socialist countries and that cannot be said. Look at England, France and other countries to see just how free one is versus here. So take another look at your statement. Religious nonsense? Really?
    I can't buy alcohol in Connecticut on a Sunday or with my Sunday Brunch in New York before Noon. I can't legally smoke pot. Until recently Sodomy was illegal in most Southern States. 'Living in Sin' was illegal as recently as 15 years ago in NC and still may be for all I know.

    I agree that the term "Religious nonsense" is rather redundant though since Religion is nonsense.
    Last edited by ADGrant; 05/31/2009 at 04:37 PM.
  11. #171  
    In Florida, it's against the law for even heterosexual couples to live together: “If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together…they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree." Also, "When having sex, only the missionary position is legal." And strangely: "Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal."

    In Mississippi (chosen at random): "If one is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person will go to jail for at least one month." I guess the first one's free. Also, "It is illegal to teach others what polygamy is." and "Adultery or Fornication (living together while not married or having sex with someone that is not your spouse) results in a fine of $500 and/or 6 months in prison."

    Or my favorite: "Unnatural intercourse, if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of 10 years and $10,000."

    Not to get entirely off the subject, but my state isn't immune to stupid laws. In CT: "In order for a pickle to officially be considered a pickle, it must bounce."
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 04:48 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by ****-richardson View Post
    This is not true if you're going to assume ratification of our Constitution as the foundation of our country. Marriage is not specified. Anywhere.

    The only real argument that could be made from a constitutional basis is that marriage is a contract in addition to (or in lieu of) a religious ceremony. The problem with marriage as a contract is that the vows are hardly 'legalese' enough to satisfy a jury of one's peers. My wife 'vowed' to obey me and I her... so the first one to say the words 'you will do anything and everything I ask without question or hesitation' first becomes the de facto ruler in the relationship?

    Inheritance only becomes a concern when taxation is involved. Otherwise, why is the government involved at all?
    I did not say it was a constitutional right as I am certainly aware that marriage is not mentioned in the constitution; I said it was a fundamental right and I gave very specific Supreme Court cases that support my position that date back to 1877 (I realize that is after the founding of our country). The right to marriage is certainly, and has been, a fundamental right in our country.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    In Florida, it's against the law for even heterosexual couples to live together: “If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together…they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree." Also, "When having sex, only the missionary position is legal." And strangely: "Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal."

    ....

    Not to get entirely off the subject, but my state isn't immune to stupid laws. In CT: "In order for a pickle to officially be considered a pickle, it must bounce."
    That's pretty much the same as North Carolina (or was, things may have changed since I lived there 15 years ago).

    CT certainly isn't immune to stupid laws or legislators. The Supermarkets have to cover the beer aisle after 8 (might be 9 now) and on Sundays. The legislators were extremely reluctant to fund new Metro North rail cars even though the current ones are falling apart (they frequently have to run short trains) and the road system than runs along those rail lines cannot handle the traffic volume. The State's economic dependence on commuters that use those rail lines clearly escaped them.
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    I did not say it was a constitutional right as I am certainly aware that marriage is not mentioned in the constitution; I said it was a fundamental right and I gave very specific Supreme Court cases that support my position that date back to 1877 (I realize that is after the founding of our country). The right to marriage is certainly, and has been, a fundamental right in our country.
    In that vein, the 9th Amendment states that any right not mentioned in the Bill of Rights aren't denied to the people and the 10th states that any powers not granted the Federal Gov't are reserved to the States or the people.

    That, however, doesn't mean that the state is somehow compelled to recognise the marriage...only that we have the 'right' to one. Which we already knew per the aforementioned Amendments. Big Brother doesn't have to 'validate' my right to chew gum, burn cd's, or look up pr0n. It's already there.

    As I said, governmental recognition of marriage really only comes into consideration when viewed in terms of taxation.

    edit: Actually, I said 'inheritance' in my previous post. I'd meant marriage, but didn't proof the post well. :/
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 05/31/2009 at 09:52 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    I did not say it was a constitutional right as I am certainly aware that marriage is not mentioned in the constitution; I said it was a fundamental right and I gave very specific Supreme Court cases that support my position that date back to 1877 (I realize that is after the founding of our country). The right to marriage is certainly, and has been, a fundamental right in our country.
    Many Americans do not understand that every fundamental right is not enshrined in the Constitution. They are unaware that aside from Louisiana, the US legal system is based on English common law and precedents. Marriage is a fundamental right in the US because it was a fundamental right in England prior to US independence. OTOH Louisiana's laws are based on the Napoleonic code.
  16. #176  
    That is fine and marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. Fine.
  17. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by ****-richardson View Post
    In that vein, the 9th Amendment states that any right not mentioned in the Bill of Rights aren't denied to the people and the 10th states that any powers not granted the Federal Gov't are reserved to the States or the people.

    That, however, doesn't mean that the state is somehow compelled to recognise the marriage...only that we have the 'right' to one. Which we already knew per the aforementioned Amendments. Big Brother doesn't have to 'validate' my right to chew gum, burn cd's, or look up pr0n. It's already there.

    As I said, governmental recognition of marriage really only comes into consideration when viewed in terms of taxation.

    edit: Actually, I said 'inheritance' in my previous post. I'd meant marriage, but didn't proof the post well. :/
    I think we are actually saying the same thing. The States can, and do, regulate marriage. However, because of the status of marriage within our country (and the common law pulled into it when it was founded) those regulations of the marriage relationship have limits. For example the State can't regulate marriage to say that blacks and whites can't marry, or that prison inmates can't marry except at the absolute discretion of the warden.

    Which brings us back to the central point of this thread. Is the regulation of marriage, so that you can not be the same sex and be married, the type of regulation that should be allowed (like you can't, generally, marry your cousin) or is it the type of regulation that should not be allowed (like you can't marry someone whose skin color is too different from yours).

    Marriage, that is recognized by the States as valid, has many benefits and obligations, some of which have been mentioned in these threads, some that have not. For example:

    a. automatic property rights as a result of the marriage relationship. These property rights can be extremely valuable upon the termination of the marriage whether by death or divorce;

    b. rights under the tax code. Certain tax brackets and other benefits are only available if you are in a marriage relationship that is valid under your state's laws;

    c. some benefits under the Social Security system are dependent upon whether or not you were in a marriage relationship that was considered valid under state law;

    d. there are certain legal presumptions about beneficiary designations under insurance policies that only apply if you were married to the policy holder;

    e. in court cases, depending on your state, there is a confidentiality privilege for communications between spouses that doesn't apply if you are not "validly" married;

    f. some states have laws that automatically extend certain leases for a spouse in certain circumstances;

    g. rights to visit a person in the hospital are often contingent upon family relationships such as a "valid" marriage;

    h. there are very strong legal presumptions regarding paternity of children that come into play, or not, based upon the marriage relationship (in other words the law often ignores biology in paternity issues).

    These are just some things that come to mind that we, at least in most of the United States, are specifically denying to a segment of the citizenship of this Country. And maybe at the top of the list should be the right to be treated equally regardless of your sexual orientation.

    Why are we denying those type of rights to some people and granting it to others? To say two men or two women can't be married "because marriage is between a man and a woman" is simply a restatement of the problem and brings absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

    I have yet to hear/read a rational reason as to why our laws should deny the legal marriage designation to two women or two men who want it. In a Country that is founded on the idea of equality we simply should not allow this type of irrational discrimination to continue (and yes I realize we could all argue all day about what equality means and the fact that our country was actually founded on a very narrow version of equality).
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  18. #178  
    Why are we denying those type of rights to some people and granting it to others? To say two men or two women can't be married "because marriage is between a man and a woman" is simply a restatement of the problem and brings absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

    I have yet to hear/read a rational reason as to why our laws should deny the legal marriage designation to two women or two men who want it.
    Great, thoughtful post. And all legal distractions aside, the question I quoted sums up my feelings as well. I continually hear circular arguments about the definition of marriage, that generally boils down to "it's tradition". Not all traditions are worth keeping forever.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #179  
    Quote Originally Posted by ADGrant View Post
    Your assertion is completely false. Marriage in many civilizations is/was between one man and several women and it doesn't always work. It seems to fail at least half the time.
    I think that's right in line with one man and one woman failure stats.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by ****-richardson View Post
    As I said, governmental recognition of marriage really only comes into consideration when viewed in terms of taxation.
    It's a wee bit more involved than that. Marriage is a legal contract. If it was only about taxation, then you'd think the gov would welcome polygamy... mo-money! mo-money! mo-money!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions