Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That said, it's easy to win the heterosexual-marriage-only argument if you narrowly define the purposes of recognizing marriage to be purely procreative. Last time I checked, the rights and obligations of married persons to each other went well beyond that and, given rape laws, perhaps even are expressly not that.

I'm curious - are there any surviving legal distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate offspring anymore? I guess I'm thinking particularly in terms of inheritance, but otherwise? Do children of, say, divorced parents have better protections than those having claims in paternity suits?

BR(think of the children - the CHILDREN!!)C

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I do know that he submitted a brief in one case that was horribly, hatefully homophobic, (and I've also seen evidence suggesting that that was his specific assignment), but that's about all I know. And I know I've had to submit briefs that do not exactly mirror my own philosophies in the past, so I can't just automaticaly buy into the idea that he submitted his own beliefs in that brief.

I question whether, when a State's Attorney General is an elected official (rather than a cabinet appointee of a Governor) -- which I believe to be the case in Alabama -- the Attorney General ever receives "specific assignments" or in a practical sense even truly works for the Governor.

Also -- given Judge Pryor's publicly-avowed devout religious beliefs and his vehement opposition to abortion, there seems to be little reason to doubt that his decision to file an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas urging that Texas' anti-sodomy law be upheld (which brief was joined only by two other states) reflected his own opinions and desire to protect Alabama's anti-sodomy law.

I also see no reason to doubt that the language of the brief written by his office, which apparently argued that if one could not forbid homosexual sex, then one also could not forbid necrophilia, pedophilia, beastiality, etc., etc. reflects his own (mistaken) beliefs -- unless you think the Governor was editing over his shoulder.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I question whether, when a State's Attorney General is an elected official (rather than a cabinet appointee of a Governor) -- which I believe to be the case in Alabama -- the Attorney General ever receives "specific assignments" or in a practical sense even truly works for the Governor.

Also -- given Judge Pryor's publicly-avowed devout religious beliefs and his vehement opposition to abortion, there seems to be little reason to doubt that his decision to file an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas urging that Texas' anti-sodomy law be upheld (which brief was joined only by two other states) reflected his own opinions and desire to protect Alabama's anti-sodomy law.

I also see no reason to doubt that the language of the brief written by his office, which apparently argued that if one could not forbid homosexual sex, then one also could not forbid necrophilia, pedophilia, beastiality, etc., etc. reflects his own (mistaken) beliefs -- unless you think the Governor was editing over his shoulder.

S_A_M

Without getting into the detail of his brief, in a country where 50% of the popualtion is anti-abortion and even more is anti gay rights, is it surprising that an occasional member of one or the other group is nominated for Judge?
How can either be a litmus test?
The man was being an advocate, does that mean he cannot rule impartially?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What exactly is a net/net? I've never understood the expression.

I agree with you, there should only be one net. But i-bankers always use at least net/net, and sometimes, if they really want to make a point, net/net/net, so I've stopped fighting the convention.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Without getting into the detail of his brief, in a country where 50% of the popualtion is anti-abortion and even more is anti gay rights, is it surprising that an occasional member of one or the other group is nominated for Judge?
How can either be a litmus test?

Because the pool of potential judges is heavily skewed toward college graduates and against 78 IQ Rush Limbaugh listeners?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with you, there should only be one net. But i-bankers always use at least net/net, and sometimes, if they really want to make a point, net/net/net, so I've stopped fighting the convention.

Okay. Further evidence for my "business people are corrupting the language" thesis. Never gotten someone so worked up to go triple net on me, though.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tradition be damned, this is what should be done.

The State-sanctioned contract now typically called "marriage" should be changed to be called domestic partership or whatever. Regardless of M-F, F-F, M-M, whomever. And anyone who wants to enter into such a contractual relationship - barring legitimate state interests like protecting minors, etc. - should have this right.

"Marriages" should be then left to the church under whatever rationale they choose.

Takes the church/state issue out of it and puts everyone on equal footing.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) There is no purported reason. It's just always been done that way.

Actually, there is Supreme Court case law on the purported reasons. It is in the polygamy cases that barred polygamy. The US Supremes struck down the equal protection and due process arguments of the polygamists as well as the freedom of religion arguments because of the biological necessity of one man/one woman to create a child and the historical use of marriage between one woman and one man as the foundation of our societal structure.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(2) Cite, please.

Check the Supreme Court cases from the late 1800's upholding the ban on polygamy. I have posted them before. The definition of marriage in those cases and the reasoning for limiting marriage to one man and one woman used by the Supreme Court in those cases is what Congress used in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(3) We let, e.g., single fathers raise kids, even if it might be for the best in some abstract, academic way for the kid to have a mother. Thus, we don't force couples to stay together for the good of the children, because sometimes it would be worse. I can say this from personal experience.

I never said we should force couples to stay together and I never said we shouldn't allow single people to raise kids. So what is your point? My point is that it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father all else being equal. If you use an analogy in which the hetero couple are bad parents and the single parent is a good parent, that is not all else being equal. Of course it is better to have one good parent than two bad parents.

But if you can have both a good mother and a good father, that is the best environment to raise a child in. Children a best raised by both a good mother and a good father.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(4) During WWII, when we were mobilizing the country to fight Hitler and Tojo, there was a government program that forced single parents to marry government-provided spouses of the opposite sex. In the euphoria after VJ Day, the program was abandoned. It is now widely acknowledged to have been a failure.

That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. That is a government mandated arranged marriage. I am not talking about arranged marriages.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(5) Love is best for kids. And, as the Beatles noted, all you need is love. Yeah. Love, love. Although love was formerly believed to be exclusively available only to traditional (tm) couples, The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name now dares to speak its name.

It is best for kids to have both a good mother and a good father raising them. That is the best option. The other options might also result in a happy, well-adjusted child, but the child still would have been better off with both a loving mother and a loving father.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(6) Why is the government involved at all? A fine question. You and the five other people who believe that there is any chance that the government will get out of the business of legislating morality should get together in the lobby of the Radisson at the next libertarian (tm) convention and discuss this. Perhaps the six of you should pick a state to move to where you can vote to change the laws so you can all marry each other.

Providing legal recognition of marriage isn't legislating morality. Banning sodomy is legislating morality and I am glad that is no longer constitutional to do in the US.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Without getting into the detail of his brief, in a country where 50% of the popualtion is anti-abortion and even more is anti gay rights, is it surprising that an occasional member of one or the other group is nominated for Judge?
How can either be a litmus test?
The man was being an advocate, does that mean he cannot rule impartially?

The particular opposition to Pryor is not simply based on the fact that he is anti-choice (in the abortion and sexual preference senses), though it surely does not help him.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm curious - are there any surviving legal distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate offspring anymore? I guess I'm thinking particularly in terms of inheritance, but otherwise? Do children of, say, divorced parents have better protections than those having claims in paternity suits?

BR(think of the children - the CHILDREN!!)C

I think on gov't benefits the answer is basically no, other than perhaps on burdens of proof, which can matter (e.g., you're presumed to be the son of your mother's husband at the time of your birth, but if no such husband you have to prove him to be your father (absent his haveing acknowledged it).

But any differences aren't an argument for/against marriage, but rather a documentation argument--that is, it should be better. (Do we want people getting married simply because it avoids offspring having to prove their lineage?)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with you, there should only be one net. But i-bankers always use at least net/net, and sometimes, if they really want to make a point, net/net/net, so I've stopped fighting the convention.

I've seen it in long term commercial leases (ugh). Net lease = tenant pays utilities, RE taxes, and any special assessments. Net net lease = tenant pays all of the above plus insurance. Net net net lease = all of the above plus maintenance, upkeep and repairs.

The triple net lease is really only used for industrial property where the tenant probably can get cheaper repairs and lawnmowing than the owner.

I think it's just a wonky way of saying "at the end of the day."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Tradition be damned, this is what should be done.

The State-sanctioned contract now typically called "marriage" should be changed to be called domestic partership or whatever. Regardless of M-F, F-F, M-M, whomever. And anyone who wants to enter into such a contractual relationship - barring legitimate state interests like protecting minors, etc. - should have this right.

"Marriages" should be then left to the church under whatever rationale they choose.

Takes the church/state issue out of it and puts everyone on equal footing.

If you think this has a snowball's chance in Kona of happening, you should meet up with Not Me and her friends at the Radisson. Don't promise to move to Wyoming unless you're clear on what you're getting into, though.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

Check the Supreme Court cases from the late 1800's upholding the ban on polygamy

You can defend segregation on the basis of S. Ct. cases from that era as well.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I question whether, when a State's Attorney General is an elected official (rather than a cabinet appointee of a Governor) -- which I believe to be the case in Alabama -- the Attorney General ever receives "specific assignments" or in a practical sense even truly works for the Governor.

A certain action movie star just got this same civics lesson shortly after a "Meet the Press" appearance.

Of course, he also said he didn't think it was fair that taxpaying families should suffer for the overspending in Sacramento by state legislators, which calls into question his complete understanding of what, exactly, a bond measure is.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I've seen it in long term commercial leases (ugh). Net lease = tenant pays utilities, RE taxes, and any special assessments. Net net lease = tenant pays all of the above plus insurance. Net net net lease = all of the above plus maintenance, upkeep and repairs.

The triple net lease is really only used for industrial property where the tenant probably can get cheaper repairs and lawnmowing than the owner.

I think it's just a wonky way of saying "at the end of the day."

Hm, so it comes down to whether one wants to be hokey or wonky, it appears. Also hokey: starting a sentence with "Thing is,". I'm sure there are others, but I'm blocking them.