Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Atticus Grinch]

First we had Grover Norquist, a man whose first name is his only redeeming quality, compare taxation to the Holocaust. Now we have Paul Craig Roberts, a man who obviously doesn't realize that only a person with an interesting middle name is allowed to use it in polite society, comparing taxation to antebellum slavery. Niiiiiiiiice. It appears chat boards aren't the only place the GOP has a problem with hyperbole in defense of virtue.

BTW, Roberts looks like a more evil Dick Gephardt:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
See all the arguments against polygamy can be used to argue against gay marriage. And all the arguments used to argue for gay marriage can be used to argue for polygamy.

When Burger said something before about "equal protection," he was referring to a part of the federal Constitution called the "Equal Protection Clause." If you are interested in learning more about it, find one of the sites with free Supreme Court cases and search for those words.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I wanna be a Champagne farmer.

I have a client whose "job" was going to Italy twice a year for a month visiting wineries. He order cases of wine. Back here he had a database of "wine enthusiasts" who'd receive his newsletter/sales catalog. He made a very comfortable living.
He came to see me because he wanted more, and had developed a product that he wanted to manufacture and bring to market. years later he's still slamming his head against the wall on the product.

I knew, when I first met him, that "helping" him move beyond his wine company was doing terrible harm to him. What the fuck was he thinking?

[bilmore]

I had been on the verge of becoming disillusioned with Bush because of his spending problems.

Now, however, with the new announcement, he has returned to my good graces completely.

Bush is going to NASCAR!

http://www.local6.com/news/2827771/detail.html

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
You obviously haven't read my posts.

Yes, I have and I know your position on that topic. That comment wasn't directed at you. I was just pointing out that point in general.

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I merely recognize that motive counts. If I drive poorly and kill someone, I recognize that this is not the same as an intentional taking of life. Similarly, killing in self defense means that my motive is not the killing, but the defense of my own life. (Also applicable, I think, in the "just war" scenario.)

Ok but none of that came through in your earlier post.

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm going to print this, cut it out, and frame it, and also forward it to Ag daily.

I think that would be a violation of my copyrights, but I could be wrong.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

I brought up this issue only because you (or some other person, you all look the same to me) said why not ban all marriages. I gave a reason why all marriages should not be banned. It is a social institution that was created to facilitate breeding. There you go. There is a reason not to ban all marriages.



Provide a link to which post you are talking about so I will know. TIA.

sure. it's easy to argue points if you separate them from the whole.

but let's recapitulate

forget bilmore's distinction/explanation, though. You asked at teh beginning of the day why teh argument for gay marriage doesn't also support polygamy. I asked how it does, when it's based on equal protection: the gender of the spouse should nto be defined. that rules out polygamy immediately and simply.

so you say, but there are reasons to bar gay marriage particularly. Okay, this is the compelling state interest. Or important state interest, or whatever test you want to apply to gender distinctions. You say money. I say, ban all marriages then. Your response?

You say breeding is a reason to distinguish the two.. I say, okay, but then why not also ban impotents. You're response? This is grounds for divorce. But that's no answer, because divorce is elected by the parties, not imposed by the states. Name a single instance in which a state has forced a divorce.

You say, religion. I say, okay, that's certainly why it's so limited, but doesn't that implicate teh state in religion (see discussion with watchtower; search for kosher).

Where are we left? Without an answer from you as to why equal protection doesn't get you to allowing gay marriage, other than a judiciary that doesn't honestly engage the argument?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
When Burger said something before about "equal protection," he was referring to a part of the federal Constitution called the "Equal Protection Clause." If you are interested in learning more about it, find one of the sites with free Supreme Court cases and search for those words.

Yes, I know all about Con Law, including how the Commerce Clause was used in Heart of Atlanta Hotel to uphold provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

However what I don't know is what Burger's argument is regarding the EPC and polygamy/gay marriage.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
When Burger said something before about "equal protection," he was referring to a part of the federal Constitution called the "Equal Protection Clause." If you are interested in learning more about it, find one of the sites with free Supreme Court cases and search for those words.

Judging by the local population, it appears this is a sentiment in search of an acronym. I suggest "IIAB/CYLL."*

*It's in a book. Check your local library.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me


However what I don't know is what Burger's argument is regarding the EPC and polygamy/gay marriage.

I'm sorry, I mistook your intransigence for laziness.

I am male. I am allowed to marry a woman. I am not (except in Massachusetts) allowed to marry a male. Now, substitute the work "black" for "male" and "white" for woman and you have the fact pattern of Loving v. Virginia, the holding of which, if not recalled by you , IIAB/CYLL.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I had been on the verge of becoming disillusioned with Bush because of his spending problems.

Now, however, with the new announcement, he has returned to my good graces completely.

Bush is going to NASCAR!

http://www.local6.com/news/2827771/detail.html

I'm having a Venn diagram moment. I think you are the entire subset of the intersection of kayakers and NASCAR fans. I feel a little bit like the South African fisherman who found a coelacanth in his nets, if it was a kayaking, NASCAR-loving coelacanth.

I understand that the analogy doesn't quite hold, but I wanted to work in a gratuitous reference to your age. Carry on, you liberal you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Judging by the local population, it appears this is a sentiment in search of an acronym. I suggest "IIAB/CYLL."*

*It's in a book. Check your local library.

After Ty's calling bullshit with those CAM Charles references, I must admit I did not attend Harvard. No, I went to a more vocational law school where my greatest interest in Constitutional law was whether I could take it pass/fail. Admitting that, and begging your indulgence, I think not me's question could be stated as:

one cannot legally distinguish between who can get married based upon the two genitals the couple may have. Such a distinction would violate equal protection.
How then can one distinguish between who can get married based upon the present marital status of the two.

I merely wish to help frame your further discussion. I am fully for all gay rights, and against polygamy. I fear in a society allowing polygamy I would not have been able to convice a women to marry me at all. to me its more a "common sense" thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I understand that the analogy doesn't quite hold, but I wanted to work in a gratuitous reference to your age.

plus an evolution reference. well played!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

I submit that the answer to all of this is to eliminate marriage entirely as an institution. That should satisfy the equal protection clause and demolish any standing myths regarding the sanctity of marriage.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think not me's question could be stated as:

one cannot legally distinguish between who can get married based upon the two genitals the couple may have. Such a distinction would violate equal protection.
How then can one distinguish between who can get married based upon the present marital status of the two.

One is a gender-based distinction, and gets something like strict scrutiny. The other is not a distinction based on any sort of protected class, and gets only rational basis review. One can articulate any number of rationales relating to polygamy that would satisfy rational-basis review, even if they are likely founded in anti-LDS animus. The pro-polygamy response would be to rely on this animus, a la Romer, but that seems like a stretch.

I take it that Not Me supports gay polygamous civil unions.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
forget bilmore's distinction/explanation, though. You asked at teh beginning of the day why teh argument for gay marriage doesn't also support polygamy. I asked how it does, when it's based on equal protection: the gender of the spouse should nto be defined. that rules out polygamy immediately and simply.

How does the Equal Protection clause bar defining marriage as between one woman and one man? Explain that to me.

If marriage is defined as between one woman and one man, gays aren't treated differently. A gay person can still enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex. They just may choose not to.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
so you say, but there are reasons to bar gay marriage particularly.

First of all, gay marriage isn't banned. It is just that the state only confers specific legal rights and obligations on a union between one man and one woman. Under the current law, gays can privately contract with each other to give each other all those rights and obligations (wills, medical power of attorney, property rights, etc.) except for the government benefits and they cannot force their employers to give them spousal benefits. That is the only difference between being married and privately contracting with each other.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Okay, this is the compelling state interest. Or important state interest, or whatever test you want to apply to gender distinctions. You say money. I say, ban all marriages then. Your response? You say breeding is a reason to distinguish the two..

No I did not say breeding is a reason to distinguish the two. I said historically that is why marriage was created in the first place.

But you are starting from a flawed premise. Your premis is that gays are being treated differently and then you invoke the Equal Protection clause. That is wrong. Gays are not being treated differently if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. A gay woman can marry a man under that definition just like a hetero woman may marry a man under that defintion. No one is being treated differently.

It is simply that the gay woman doesn't want to marry a man. But that is her choice. Gays are not being prevented from marrying a member of the opposite sex. So a law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman does not discriminate against gays.

Your analysis presupposes a law that bans gay marriage. That is differnt from defining a marriage as between one man and one woman and allowing one man and one woman to marry. That doesn't discriminate against gays because gays can if they choose get married to a member of the opposite sex.

You are framing the issue wrong for an Equal Protection analysis.

The MA state supreme court did not invoke the US constitution to support its ruling for good reason. The MA state constitution was used, not the US constitution.