Suck it, haters.

2456712

Comments

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    of course not. We have hundreds of laws guaranteeing various legal rights and responsibilities for spouses, such as visitation, legal proxy, health care decision making, debt responsibility, custody, ownership, etc. You can't just invalidate those laws.



    All those things can be handled by private contractual arrangement. When X marries Y they sign a contract spelling those issues out.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Of course not! But to recognize union making bodies, as would be necessary to maintain those laws that depend on unions, the state must recognize all union making bodies equally. They couldn't, for instance recognize unions made by the Catholic Church but not by the Universal Unitarians. That means official recognition of gay marriage.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    The state, where there are laws that recognize unions.



    The state must say, "There was a ceremony performed by the West Hollywood Unitarian Church between Mr. Gerald Fitzpatrick and Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald. We recognize this as a legal union for purposes of law." Get it now?



    No. We seem to be talking in circles. Why does ant government need to recognize these unions at all?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Oops. What happens to a contract when someone dies? What happens to medical decision making when someone is incapacitated? Who gets the kid? Who gets the house?



    Those things can easily be handled as contractual arrangements. Nothing terribly complicated there.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    So, MJ...can we please allow marriage equality as a stopgap measure to level the playing field until the entire country can decide whether or not to ditch all the marriage laws and go straight to private contracts?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    So, MJ...can we please allow marriage equality as a stopgap measure to level the playing field until the entire country can decide whether or not to ditch all the marriage laws and go straight to private contracts?



    Why? Why go for stop gaps? Go for true liberty not bandages. All that happens by doing that is to legitimize that the state has any say. It shouldn't. Let's stop legitimizing it. Put all the energy to that goal instead of a ton of energy to some stop gap, then more energy to the real end goal.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    All those things can be handled by private contractual arrangement. When X marries Y they sign a contract spelling those issues out.



    Those things can easily be handled as contractual arrangements. Nothing terribly complicated there.



    Not everyone understands contracts and not everyone can afford a lawyer. We need laws to guarantee rights when a contract is absent.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Not everyone understands contracts and not everyone can afford a lawyer. We need laws to guarantee rights when a contract is absent.



    Hmmm. This seems like you're way over-thinking this. First of all most of that would become standardized right away. It would just be a standard part of getting "married." There wouldn't be much to it.



    Exactly what rights do you feel need guaranteeing here?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Hmmm. This seems like you're way over-thinking this. First of all most of that would become standardized right away. It would just be a standard part of getting "married." There wouldn't be much to it.



    Exactly what rights do you feel need guaranteeing here?



    Who defines and enforces these 'standards'? How is that agreement laid out when a contract is absent or insufficient?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Who defines and enforces these 'standards'?



    Well the standards (and by this I simply mean that things would evolve along de-facto standard lines) would evolve as they do with many other types of contracts. The only ones that need to be in agreement about it are the two parties getting married. They can be highly customized and detailed or simple and pretty vanilla covering the standard things that would need to be covered.



    Contracts are enforced by the courts as they are now. This isn't that complex. Again you're over-thinking this.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    How is that agreement laid out when a contract is absent or insufficient?



    What do you mean? If there's no contract, then there's no arrangement. What are you referring to? What would be insufficient? How? Why?



    You seem to have something (or things) specific in mind. What is it?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    That's not what the ruling says at all. It says that Prop 8 is against the California constitution. It may be perfectly fine under the Arizona constitution, who knows? It didn't say squat about validation based on previous ruling.



    You haven't read it then. Explain how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    You haven't read it then. Explain how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?



    In the same way Prohibition was unconstitutional. Or the 16th Amendment.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    You haven't read it then. Explain how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?



    It is all in judge roberts' original ruling, which this ruling specifically upheld on the same legal grounds. What part of that don't you understand? As it has been explained to you and apparently ignored dozens of times, the amendment is unconstitutional because the procedure for amendment according to the California constitution (which is what they're talking about when they say the decision is 'California specific'), was not followed.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    In the same way Prohibition was unconstitutional. Or the 16th Amendment.



    Sorry, you're wrong on this. Prohibition was not unconstitutional. It

    Was invalidated not by the courts but through additional amendment. It couldn't be invalidated by the courts because it wasn't unconstitutional. Prop 8 can be invalidated by the court because it IS unconstitutional. And that's exactly the job of the court to decide. Not some teacher (including myself) on the internet.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Why? Why go for stop gaps? Go for true liberty not bandages. All that happens by doing that is to legitimize that the state has any say. It shouldn't. Let's stop legitimizing it. Put all the energy to that goal instead of a ton of energy to some stop gap, then more energy to the real end goal.



    Right...so until we have "true liberty", as you describe it, let's live with this vastly egregious trampling of civil rights.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Right...so until we have "true liberty", as you describe it, let's live with this vastly egregious trampling of civil rights.



    Your hyperbole not withstanding, to seek half measures only weakens the rights you're concerned with.



    Don't you see it?



    You're saying "Let's get a permission slip from the state for this right."



    I'm saying "You don't need a permission slip from the state for this right so let's stop letting it think it has any right to say you need one."
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    So, by legally acknowledging that gays have the same rights as straights, we are weakening their rights? I have never heard such backwards doublespeak.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    So, by legally acknowledging that gays have the same rights as straights, we are weakening their rights? I have never heard such backwards doublespeak.



    No. I'm saying those rights exist with or without the state's acknowledgment.



    By going to the state and asking permission, all you're doing is furthering the state's ability to make people think they need to ask it for rights and this, in effect, weakens them. I'm saying the state really doesn't have any right, reason or purpose (except to restrict people's rights) to even have a say in this issue. So the best route to take is to end run it. Push the state out of private, personal relationships. Period.



    The state is basically just a big gang of force and coercion. Sure there's lots of window dressing to make seem more palatable, but when you boil it down that's all it really is. It is an organization that has asserted control (in varying degrees) over some region and group of people. It has some appearance of legitimacy, but in the end it tries to use that to control people, reduce and restrict and infringe on their rights. The more we keep asking it for permission to exercise our rights the more we legitimatize this behavior.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    You are living in a fantasy world completely divorced from reality. We are not going to suddenly repeal a bunch of laws to make your libertarian utopia. In the meantime, back in the real world, we have a group of people who are treated as second class citizens. We can undo that very quickly by simply passing marriage equality.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    No. I'm saying those rights exist with or without the state's acknowledgment.



    In terms of the law, this is completely untrue. We need a constitution and laws to clarify what rights we have. Without that we may have rights by moral standards, but those rights would not be enforceable in court.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    Hooray! Double suck it!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Governor Gregoire of Washington


    This is truly a historic day in Washington state, and one where I couldn’t be more proud. With today’s vote, we tell the nation that Washington state will no longer deny our citizens the opportunity to marry the person they love. We tell every child of same-sex couples that their family is every bit as equal and important as all other families in our state. And we take a major step toward completing a long and important journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.



    I commend our House members and thank Rep. Jamie Pedersen for sponsoring this bill. Our legislators showed courage, respect, and professionalism. I look forward to signing this piece of legislation, and putting into law an end to an era of discrimination.



  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    It is all in judge roberts' original ruling, which this ruling specifically upheld on the same legal grounds. What part of that don't you understand? As it has been explained to you and apparently ignored dozens of times, the amendment is unconstitutional because the procedure for amendment according to the California constitution (which is what they're talking about when they say the decision is 'California specific'), was not followed.



    To be polite, you are completely talking out your ass.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post






    Sorry, you're wrong on this. Prohibition was not unconstitutional. It

    Was invalidated not by the courts but through additional amendment. It couldn't be invalidated by the courts because it wasn't unconstitutional. Prop 8 can be invalidated by the court because it IS unconstitutional. And that's exactly the job of the court to decide. Not some teacher (including myself) on the internet.



    The reason for all the convoluted and narrow decisions is an attempt to push through something that doesn't stand on good reasoning. This is why the decision against it was has not allowed marriages to resume in California and it is also why the 9th decided not to invoke equal protection and limit their opinion to California. They are hoping to keep stringing their bad reasoning along much like a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Bigots who are against gays and minorities.



    I am for minorities and truthfully speaking I am for a man and a woman as a couple when they are married.To me this is not right when 2 men or women are married especially when children are involved. Psychologically this screws up the child's mind in my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.