Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,644
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Feb 2012, 11:21 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Yes, yes, go on! It is obvious to me that you are disgusted with the fact that churches are better, more generous, more econimical and more efficient with charity than the government. Oh, what a bitter pill for you to swallow! Can I stand the irony of it all? :lmao:


They are? Last time I looked, churches have limited resources, while governments do not. And so the government can reach far more people for the unforeseen future.
And for the record, I have absolutely no problem with churches helping people. My own home congregation helps out people in need - and my family have been the recipients of their generosity more than once. But that can only go so far. As far as I'm concerned, both the government and religious institutions can - and should - work side by side to help those in need.
And by the way, when did I ever say what you're accusing me of?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,877
Location: the island of defective toy santas

12 Feb 2012, 3:51 am

shouldn't this battle be in PP&R?



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,412
Location: Over there

12 Feb 2012, 8:07 am

^^ Agreed.

[Moved from News and Current Events to PPR]


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

12 Feb 2012, 8:44 am

The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Feb 2012, 9:41 am

Jacoby wrote:
The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in.


This is a dicey position when certain benefits accrue to people, precisely because they are legally married. If you wish to take this position, then get rid of the benefits paid for at public expense.

ruveyn



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,013
Location: Northern California

12 Feb 2012, 11:34 am

Longshanks wrote:
Irrelevent. Just like being a licensed professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) is a privilege, so is marriage.


I think that is a huge stretch. No one has to prove competence or pass a test to get married, they simply have to be of age (in most states, at least, given that there are some variations of old racial laws, etc still on the books).

No can have their marriage revoked by the state unless they, themselves, ask the state to revoke it (divorce).

It is basically treated as something completely within the control of consenting adults, with the restraints that do exist designed to protect the state from the burden of a suddenly indigent divorcee or neglected child or similar.

The real question with marriage, in my opinion, doesn't concern rights, however, it concerns the interests of society in making sure that as many citizens are properly cared for within family units as possible. And in that situation, gay marriage has reached its time. When science disassociated the ability to have children from being the exclusive domain of a man and woman engaging in intercourse, everything changed.

I had to really think about this one, between being Catholic and having many gay relatives and family members I felt divided for a while, and decided the real question to ask was, what is different now thousands of years ago, which is basically the time our current concept of marriage comes from?

I voted against proposition 8, but am concerned about what will happen at the Supreme Court. It was the Supreme Court, after all, that upheld the blatantly biased property tax laws from prop 13 simply because it was the will of the voters. Still, I am hopeful that they can and will see an issue of social construction differently than they did a financial one.

I know you are looking for cold, hard legal facts in this argument, but I honestly find that to be the wrong approach. Marriage is a social institution, evolved for social reasons. To figure out where to take it going forward, and what changes mean, I believe you have to look at where it came from and the purposes it has served in our society. As those change, so should the institution.


_________________
Mom to an amazing AS son, who recently graduated from the university (plus an also amazing non-AS daughter). Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 12 Feb 2012, 11:58 am, edited 3 times in total.

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,013
Location: Northern California

12 Feb 2012, 11:45 am

Longshanks wrote:
Now, it has been argued that gay marriage is a civil right. If this were true, than marriage itself would have to be a civil right. This is not the case. If this were so, that legal phenomenon known as common-law marriage would have to be recognized by all fifty states. As of this writing, only sixteen states in the United States recognize common-law marriage.


I think the situation with common law marriage shows something completely different: it is the state imposing its choice about a pair of adults outside of the decisions (specifically, not to be married) they have made themselves. There was a point in time the concept could protect a family unit that either was too indigent to get married, or where one of the parties was exerting unfair control in withholding marriage from the other. In the past 50-60 years, however, most states have come to realize that most unmarried couples living together made a conscious and joint choice to not become a legal family unit, and decided they did not have a significant interest in interfering with that choice.


_________________
Mom to an amazing AS son, who recently graduated from the university (plus an also amazing non-AS daughter). Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

12 Feb 2012, 4:55 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Marriage is a privilege - not a right.


Legal adults have the right (not the privilege) to enter into a legal contract. Marriage is a legal contract between two adults.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

12 Feb 2012, 5:07 pm

What i find amusing about prop 8 is that the proponents appear to not understand the concept of standing.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

12 Feb 2012, 6:41 pm

Regardless of any immediate legal wrangling, it's just a matter of time before it's widely accepted.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first ... riage.aspx

Last year gallup had a slim majority favoring gay marriage for the first time. But that's less interesting than the demographic breakdown. Young people overwhelmingly support it. The writing is on the wall.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Feb 2012, 6:59 pm

The final paragraph of the 'Loving v. Virgina' descision of the SCOTUS:

Quote:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

The 9th Circuit judgment on Prop.8:
Quote:
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

12 Feb 2012, 7:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in.


This is a dicey position when certain benefits accrue to people, precisely because they are legally married. If you wish to take this position, then get rid of the benefits paid for at public expense.

ruveyn


Sounds good to me. Don't see why married people should get special benefits that the rest of us don't. If people want to enter agreements with each other then more power to them?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Feb 2012, 8:25 pm

Jacoby wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in.


This is a dicey position when certain benefits accrue to people, precisely because they are legally married. If you wish to take this position, then get rid of the benefits paid for at public expense.

ruveyn


Sounds good to me. Don't see why married people should get special benefits that the rest of us don't. If people want to enter agreements with each other then more power to them?


Amen and even Selah!

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

13 Feb 2012, 6:27 pm

Longshanks wrote:
In view of the current controversy, and the fact that there are doubters out there who just can’t seem to take the hint, one of them being a Canadian Barrister, I suppose that it is incumbent upon me to drop some napalm to wipe out the resistance that I am now getting from all sides. Because I am in an area without a law library and do not have access to Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw, I shall have to do this from the top of my head. So be it. You’ve asked for fight. You shall have your request granted. I claim the disclaimer that the citations may be off a little. Again, I am not near a law library. At least, if nothing else, you’ll understand why my fellow officers warn people that I am the last man anyone wants to surround or corner. But then again, having served in an Air Force search and rescue squadron, being surrounded is something I’ve become accustomed to. Of course, as a gentle reminder to my learned Canadian British Commonwealth Colleague, Canadian and British Law do not apply in the completely independent United States.


First of all, the Law of England & Wales prior to your Reception Date are good and binding law unless contradicted by subsequent jurisprudence or legislation. When you inherited the Common Law, you inherited it whole and entire. Your several jursidictions have done much to create distinct and unique systems of law, to be sure, but the Common Law jurisprudence of England & Wales, of Canada, of Australia and of New Zealand are all available as illustrative in the Courts of the 49 Common Law state jursidictions and the federal jurisdiction--and vice-versa.

Your rhetoric is grounded in politics an romanticism, not in the law and reason.

Quote:
So let’s get on with it.

First Issue: Is marriage a right, privilege, or benefit of law? To answer this question, one must first define these terms as the US and State Courts do.

A marriage is an institution and is the foundation of American Society Am Jur 1st Mar 8. The status or relation of a man and a woman legally united as husband and wife. Baker v State, 86 Neb 775, 126 NW 300. Marriage is also a civil contract, but unlike other contracts, cannot be modified or abrogated by the parties themselves. In Re Campbell’s Estate, 260 Wis. 625, 51 NW 2d 709. And of course, marriage is a religious institution, and, in some religions, a sacrament.

A right is defined as a just and valid claim to what may be land, land or a privilege. Shaw v Proffitt, 57 Or 192, 109 P 584. Civil rights are necessarily distinguished from the elemental idea of absolute rights. If we were to consider civil rights as absolute, nothing but chaos could result. Nickell v Rosenfield, 82 Cal App 369, 255 P 760.

A privilege is defined as an advantage held by way of license, grant, or permission not possessed by others. Wisener v Burrell, 28 Okla 546, 118 P 999.

A benefit of law I shall define as a legal or equitable right not enjoyed by others originating by statute or case law. As we never used that term in first year law, the definition supra is the best I could do. I haven’t seen any American case law on it, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Now, it has been argued that gay marriage is a civil right. If this were true, than marriage itself would have to be a civil right. This is not the case. If this were so, that legal phenomenon known as common-law marriage would have to be recognized by all fifty states. As of this writing, only sixteen states in the United States recognize common-law marriage. Furthermore, while the broad definition of civil rights “means the enjoyment of constitutional guarantees or statutory provisions preventing discrimination based on color, creed, gender, etc., marriage is not listed as one of them.” 15 Am Jur 2d Civ R 1. Folks, if it’s not defined by law specifically as a right, it’s not a right – period.

Marriage is allowable upon license, which fits into privilege. Again, a privilege is defined as an advantage held by way of license, grant, or permission not possessed by others.

Benefit of law may or may not apply, but I would require proof of American law that it does. I have seen none.

Thus, marriage is a privilege. The privilege of marriage can be denied as a matter of public policy in the United States if it is deemed best for the public interest. Klitzman v. Klitzman, 167 Wis. 308, 166 NW 789. Furthermore, marriages may be valid, except those contrary to the law of nature and those declared invalid on the grounds of public policy. In Re Campbell’s Estate, 260 Wis. 625, 51 NW 2d 709. Clearly, gay marriage is against the laws of nature, and is not viewed by a majority of American society as being sound public policy.


Well, let's look at what the United States Supreme Court has to say on the subject.

U.S. S.C. wrote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
...
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1

Now, I will grant you that this Fourteenth Amendment finding is based on race, rather than sexual orientation, and a legitimate question might arise as to whether sexual orientation gives rise to a Fourteenth Amendment argument. But what you cannot escape is that the Courts have disallowed legislative attempts to deny access to marriage (describing it, inter alia as a right) on the basis of equal protection arguments.

For my part, I have never maintained that marriage is a right. I have maintained, rather, that individuals have a right to equal protection that is enforcable against states. When a state purports to deny access to a legal institution, that denial must stand up to judicial scrutiny. If the state cannot demonstrate a bona fide interest to be protected through its action, then the denial of access will offend the Fourteenth Amendment.

For my part, I don't care if marriage is a right, a privilege, a sacrament or a bagel. What I care about is the state attempting to deny citizens access to marriage without a legitimate reason for doing so.

Quote:
And now, the final broadside for the benefit of our Canadian friend who is a citizen of a British Commonwealth: Being a said citizen of said commonwealth does not give you legal standing on this issue in the United States. And in case said British subject tries to pull that move on me, I would like to respectfully educate said British subject of the fact that I am a registered law student of the State of California and thus have standing amici on this issue.


First, there no such entity as "a British Commonwealth." There is The Commonwealth--but the Commonwealth confers citizenship on no one. The countries of which I am a national are properly described as "Commonwealth Realms" because their legally distinct Crowns are in personal union--but that means nothing when it comes to matters of citizenship.

Second, being registered as a law student gives you no particular standing on an issue. Any layperson is free to seek standing as amicus curae (if you are going to use Latin terms, for Heaven's sake please use them correctly). Your reach exceeds your grasp.


_________________
--James


raisedbyignorance
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,225
Location: Indiana

15 Feb 2012, 6:49 pm

Longshanks wrote:
Yes, yes, go on! It is obvious to me that you are disgusted with the fact that churches are better, more generous, more econimical and more efficient with charity than the government. Oh, what a bitter pill for you to swallow! Can I stand the irony of it all? :lmao:


I disagree with this. Imagining how much money the churches get to spend it on whatever they want. I just cant see the ethical implications of spending millions upon millions of dollars to get an anti-gay bill into law or turning your megachurch into a mansion when the money could actually be used for more useful purposes such as helping the poor. Worst offenders are "Family Organizations". They serve no real purpose only to protest things that go against their beliefs yet activist organizations such as this get millions in donations compared to charities that serve to actually help people. The government has many problems with their charities but I don't think the churches do it any better. Every institution has a different idea about charity and only a few of these actually work to truly benefit others.



Magdalena
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 205
Location: United States

15 Feb 2012, 8:48 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-un-constitutional-175942895.html


:D :D :D :D :D

(Yay!)


_________________
Male-bodied pansexual and panromantic.

Your Aspie score: 130 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 90 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
EQ Score: 37/100 ("low empathy")