Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Club, I missed your monthly jobs bulletin last month. Maybe you can remind us what happened? Or do you only do this every other month?

Have you compared this 113K number to the number of jobs that need to be created to keep up with population growth?

My bad, seemed to have slipped on that one. For those who don't know, the net gain was 1,000 jobs last month.

I understand the conventional widsdom is 300K per month, right? I don't dispute that, but I'm wondering whether that number includes illegals, whose employment is never reported as a "job" in the first place.

Another point I think is worth mentioning. The popular refrain is that there has been a net job loss under Bush of between 2.5 million and 3.0 million. Newsflash: we will not make up all of those jobs anytime soon, so the DEMs will be able to rightly say that there was a net job loss. The reason is that the baseline for the comparison is the bubble economy (though, the tail end I realize, otherwise it would be much worse). Is it any surprise that we have far less jobs than we did at the tail end of the bubble? It isn't to me.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Not Me
Can anyone articulate an argument in support of gay marriage that could not also be used as an argument for making polygamistic marriages legal?

There may be a prize involved for the best answer. But I could be wrong.

You are worried about a word.

Is there anyone here who would deny gays the right to having a long-term, loving and committed relationship? I believe those people are the only ones who can argue without hypocrisy that gays should not be allowed to marry.

For everyone who would permit gays to have a long-term, loving and committed relationship, I say: why do YOU care what THEY call it, and require that THEIR state treat THEM differently (and worse)? I suspect you will come back to the religious meaning you personally have imbued a word with, and I, for one, do see the benefit of separation of church and state. I do not want the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury defining the meaning of legal terms in the US, and I do not want the meaning of any one church imposed on us all.

Is this an argument for letting anyone do what they want anywhere and call it what they like? No. Look at social security benefits, for example, and you will see is a rational basis for treating a group of 20 people connected by "marriage" with a single wage earner differently than treating any two people connected by "marriage". Find me a rational basis for distinguishing between couples based on preference that isn't tied to religion.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Watchtower
Is there anyone here who would deny gays the right to having a long-term, loving and committed relationship? I believe those people are the only ones who can argue without hypocrisy that gays should not be allowed to marry.

If I had to come up with a reason to deny marriage to gay people, it would be based on a sort of paternalistic recognition that they already have enough crosses to bear in our rather homophobic society, and so why add the living hell of marriage to their list?

("Yes, dear. Just kidding, dear.")

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you could demonstrate that a 13 yo is capable of knowing what it means to be married, then I have no problem allowing the marriage. But I don't think you can. Or, probably, even a 16 yo. It's a different calculus, though. Not one of what we think is "morally' right (other than in the loosest sense)--it's a question of whether we believe teh capability of informed consent exists in a 13 yo.

Can a 13 year old consent to having sex in your world?

And as to knowing "what it means to be married" as some test, you'd have to set the bar higher than my age when I got married.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Watchtower

Is there anyone here who would deny gays the right to having a long-term, loving and committed relationship? I believe those people are the only ones who can argue without hypocrisy that gays should not be allowed to marry.

IF by "here," you mean this board, well never mind.

But I'm guessing a sizable percent of americans would deny that right as well. You don't need to add too many people in the "relationship okay, but just don't use the term marriage" to get majority opposition.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
IF by "here," you mean this board, well never mind.

But I'm guessing a sizable percent of americans would deny that right as well. You don't need to add too many people in the "relationship okay, but just don't use the term marriage" to get majority opposition.

I am more concerned with the logic of the argument than who wins an election. What argument do you think those people would use OTHER THAN their faith?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Watchtower
I am more concerned with the logic of the argument than who wins an election. What argument do you think those people would use OTHER THAN their faith?

I'm not the one to make it, other than the one you've already rejected: that "marriage" is at least partially a religious institution that the state has decided to recognize legally. Therefore, a union that is not recognized in christian religions* cannot be recognized by the state. But obviously that's burdened with the church/state intersection. But so is state enforcement of Kosher laws--how do those come out?



*excepting certain individual ministers who perform such unions.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Therefore, a union that is not recognized in christian religions* cannot be recognized by the state. But obviously that's burdened with the church/state intersection. But so is state enforcement of Kosher laws--how do those come out?

As I understand it, State enforcement of Kosher laws is based on fraud/consumer protection premises. Very different issue.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
As I understand it, State enforcement of Kosher laws is based on fraud/consumer protection premises. Very different issue.

S_A_M

I understand it's different, but to be fraud there has to be a misrepresentation. And to determine whether there's a misrepresentation, the state has to determine whether the product actually met the kosher laws, either itself or by asking a designated rabbi. so there's at least some entanglement.

Similarly, the state is deferring to religious institutions, at least somewhat, to determine what constitutes a marriage. That, too, creates a church-state relationship that watchtower (i think) was suggesting might not be appropriate (and I tend to agree), but there is precedent for it (possibly) in the enforcement of kosher laws. although there definitely was a challenge to those laws in NY--I just forget how they came out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I bet the first year of law school was really rough on you. Professor Kingsfield got all medieval on your ass.

I took most of first year AP in high school.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I took most of first year AP in high school.

I remember the guy in my first-year contracts class who got called upon and explained that he would have resolved the issue in some case by applying "common sense." The professor's eyes lit up -- you could see em thinking, "Oh my God, I've got a live one."

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Similarly, the state is deferring to religious institutions, at least somewhat, to determine what constitutes a marriage. That, too, creates a church-state relationship that watchtower (i think) was suggesting might not be appropriate (and I tend to agree), but there is precedent for it (possibly) in the enforcement of kosher laws. although there definitely was a challenge to those laws in NY--I just forget how they came out.

An interesting argument, and you have exactly my point.

It does strike me that the consumer/anti-fraud argument makes some distinction, but would be problematic if, for example, there are two different "koshers" enforced by difference branches of Judaism. Are there?

My gut reaction to this is to see the Kosher enforcement as un-Kosher and to stick by my position on gay marriage. But I'd be interested if someone is familiar with the law here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I remember the guy in my first-year contracts class who got called upon and explained that he would have resolved the issue in some case by applying "common sense." The professor's eyes lit up -- you could see em thinking, "Oh my God, I've got a live one."

My point was somewhat deeper than the strict contract/criminal law divide you seek. Burger is surely among the deeper thinkers here, and I was challenging him to move past the shallow "what is the Law" analysis you seem to propose here as the sole point of discussion.
No, I asked, much like my Jurisprudence Professor would ask on snowy afternoons in Cambrdge 3rd year winter term, "why is the law."
Too often Ty you engage in focused practical reasoning, solid reasoning to be sure, but perhaps too focused on the here and now.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Watchtower
It does strike me that the consumer/anti-fraud argument makes some distinction, but would be problematic if, for example, there are two different "koshers" enforced by difference branches of Judaism. Are there?

No. It's like being pregnant. You either are or you are not.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Watchtower


My gut reaction to this is to see the Kosher enforcement as un-Kosher and to stick by my position on gay marriage. But I'd be interested if someone is familiar with the law here.

A quick google suggests your position may have the support of the 2d circuit:

linky

I'm sure you can find the decision, but I can guess teh phrase "excessive entanglement" appears somewhere in it.