Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 268

SlaveNoMore · 10-26-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Since the New Jersey Supreme ruled that gay civil unions must receive the same benefits and privileges as married couples, but declined to rule that gays could marry, I'm not getting the "patent" part. Anyhow, Hank has my proxy as to what Bush was implying.

They kept the door open to litigation that civil unions aren't sufficient.

Quote:

You should ask all the people who are OK with civil unions but not gay marriage. There are lots of them.

That's because they think the word "marriage" has this warm and fuzzy conotation affixed to it, which is asinine.

SlaveNoMore · 10-26-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
A contract is only good between the contracting parties. Legal marriage comes with a bundle of rights that must be respected by third parties as well.

Third parties don't have to respect contracts?

You did go to law school, no?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-26-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You tell me. I don't think the state should be marrying anybody in the first place. If anything, people should be rallying AGAINST the right of the state to be involved, not the other way around.

You want marriage, go to church.

You want to sign a contract, get a lawyer.

Question: Have any of the plaintiffs in the various cases seeking judicial rulings on the issue argued (or, alternatively, failed to argue) that if the existing marriage laws are constitutionally infirm, one possible remedy is to bar the state from issuing marriage licenses to anyone?

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Yeah, well what of the rights of a boy and his dog?

piece of advice? don't let the wife get any pictures of you with Fido.

Sidd Finch · 10-26-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
A contract is only good between the contracting parties. Legal marriage comes with a bundle of rights that must be respected by third parties as well.

Like the right to get hosed on the standard income tax deduction?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-26-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Third parties don't have to respect contracts?

You did go to law school, no?

alienation of affection is a dead tort.

That said, are there no statutes that recognize marriage as a distinct status for the conferral of government-provided benefits?

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Third parties don't have to respect contracts?

You did go to law school, no?

Yes, an accredited one at that! Presumably you did too, so I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse when you claim not to be able to see the difference between a private contract between two parties and a state-conferred bundle of rights.

Replaced_Texan · 10-26-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
alienation of affection is a dead tort.

That said, are there no statutes that recognize marriage as a distinct status for the conferral of government-provided benefits?

I imagine that Gerry Studd's widower isn't aware of such a statute.

Sidd Finch · 10-26-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Third parties don't have to respect contracts?

You did go to law school, no?

You think you could write a contract between an unmarried man and woman that would require their employers to grant one leave if the other was sick? That would require a state to hold that one was the first-in-line, intestate heir to the other? That would preclude the federal government from taxing transfers of property from one to the other?

Sure, 3d parties cannot "interfere" with contracts -- though that's hardly an easy claim to make.

But that doesn't mean that third parties are bound by contracts.

Or did your law school teach you different?

Sidd Finch · 10-26-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I imagine that Gerry Studd's widower isn't aware of such a statute.

They should have signed a contract.

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You think you could write a contract between an unmarried man and woman that would require their employers to grant one leave if the other was sick? That would require a state to hold that one was the first-in-line, intestate heir to the other? That would preclude the federal government from taxing transfers of property from one to the other?

Sure, 3d parties cannot "interfere" with contracts -- though that's hardly an easy claim to make.

But that doesn't mean that third parties are bound by contracts.

Or did your law school teach you different?

if a man catches another man having sex with his wife, is he still allowed to kill him in Texas? we're taking a 2 family vacation with the Penske's and I'm just finishing logistics.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-26-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I imagine that Gerry Studd's widower isn't aware of such a statute.

At least they avoided the marriage penalty.

bilmore · 10-26-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you believe that marriage as an institution is between a man and a woman - as an overwheming majority of this country outside of this Board seems to think - then his statement is patently true.

Would forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus be okay if whites were forced to sit in the front?

It seems disingenuous to me to say that equal rights are being protected as long as any person - gay or straight - is free to marry any other person of the the opposite sex. I think that leaves the state making an equal-rights distinction based on tradition and religious-based morality, and I'm not comfortable with that.

And, keep in mind that I'm not speaking of the religious component to marriage. Churches should probably be left alone to work out, in their own doctrinal fashion, on whom and on what combinations they're willing to confer their blessing. I'm only speaking in terms of state-confered benefits. I don't think our Constitution, in its present form, nor the body of existing con-law caselaw, allow for the distinction of gender this way. So, I end up thinking that the courts that are ruling like the NJ court are correct, legally, and I also end up thinking that we should make the religious component and the civil-law component of marriage separate.

bilmore · 10-26-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The polls on gay marriage in Massachussetts moved from the 50-55% range right after the decision to the 60-65% today; there is a huge split by age, with the young being overwhelming in favor and the over 65 crowd being overwhelming opposed.

Are there any amendment votes coming up in two weeks? It seems that some court always releases one of these rulings right before those votes. Rove couldn't plan this any better.

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Would forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus be okay if whites were forced to sit in the front?

It seems disingenuous to me to say that equal rights are being protected as long as any person - gay or straight - is free to marry any other person of the the opposite sex. I think that leaves the state making an equal-rights distinction based on tradition and religious-based morality, and I'm not comfortable with that.

And, keep in mind that I'm not speaking of the religious component to marriage. Churches should probably be left alone to work out, in their own doctrinal fashion, on whom and on what combinations they're willing to confer their blessing. I'm only speaking in terms of state-confered benefits. I don't think our Constitution, in its present form, nor the body of existing con-law caselaw, allow for the distinction of gender this way. So, I end up thinking that the courts that are ruling like the NJ court are correct, legally, and I also end up thinking that we should make the religious component and the civil-law component of marriage separate.

:love: