Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[Q]ZAPOPAN, Mexico - The Mexican crowd hooted "The Star-Spangled Banner." It booed U.S. goals. It chanted "Osama! Osama! Osama!" as U.S. players left the field with a 2-0 victory.

And that was in a game against Canada on Thursday before just 1,500 people.[/Q]


http://www.azcentral.com/sports/azet...ussoccer.html#

A week after US planes accidently killed a few Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a Toronto/Detroit basketball game was the scene of a boo-filled rendition of the Canadian nat'l anthem.
I say to you Club, this story just points out Mexico may be close to being ready to join the Union.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ducking questions? if Kerry is a Mass. senator, why has he never drowned a woman or been accused of rape? i submit he is HOMO.

Good point. However, I think this is much worse than my jokes about Chelsae Clinton and fully expect that you will be verbally cyber spanked by GGG.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think it is derived from the natural world in that the institution of marriage was created by society to promote breeding.

Perhaps so, but that does not prevent legislatures from defining it to serve other ends. E.g., people who do not breed can still get married, nor do you suggest the law should be otherwise. Just as we wear eyeglasses when nature makes us nearsighted, we can change the law when we want.

For some reason, the USSC seems to think that this is fundamental to our survival as a species.

So what?

I don't think that two men marrying each other is fundamental to our very existence and survival. The reason that marriage is thought to be fundamental to our very existence and survival is because of the breeding that usually, but not always, ensues.

So noted. I think love between two people is a wonderful thing. It's going to be the trendy thing to say by the end of next week -- join me and get out in front of the curve.

As another once said, John Locke was considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers.

Idiots at law schools may smirk or deride his theories, but the founding fathers didn't.

Where do you think they got the concept of inalienable rights? If you had read Locke, you would know.

The substantive due process fundamental rights are based on our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This all is derivative from John Locke's natural rights philosophies.

Am I the only person who studied political and legal philosophers and understands which ones influenced our founding fathers? I sure do feel like it around here.

I have read Locke. I don't question his importance as a philosopher. And yet, if you make legal arguments now based on Locke's conception of natural rights, you should be laughed at. Because legitimacy in our system of government comes from our constitution and laws, not from Locke's writings.

etfs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But yet it is clear to you that polygamists are less likely to work when they are married. But whatever.

When I deride the proposition as "crap," I am not suggesting that I believe it to be valid, or that it is clear to me.

Wrong. Gays can give each other medical power of attorney. Then you get to visit the person if they are unconscious since you are the one legally authorized to make the medical decisions for the person. They can do everything by private contract that a civil union gives them.

Got any other examples?

That's a nice theory but I don't think it works like that. I believe I've seen leagl post about this; maybe she can help me out. I have heard other examples, but can't find them now.

You seem to be arguing that marriage is of no economic significance at all because anything it accomplishes can also be done by contract. I think you are wrong, but even if you are right, you are ignoring a tremendous set of transaction costs.

No. It is to not morph a social institution that since the beginning of human civiliation was a union between one woman and one man created to promote breeding to further the survival of the species into something else so that gays can get government and employer benefits for their partners.

Sure, and the civil rights movement just aimed to morph the traditions of Southern society so that minority-owned contractors could get government contracts.

polygamy stuff

I've told why same-sex marriage and polygamy are different from a constitutional perspective. I don't really want to talk about polygamy otherwise, sorry.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Good point. However, I think this is much worse than my jokes about Chelsae Clinton and fully expect that you will be verbally cyber spanked by GGG.

Sorry; GGG, Ty and I all live in parts of the country where being called a homo is considered a rather neutral observation and perhaps a compliment. We are unable to relate. You should describe for us the psychic trauma you suffered as a child when you were called this in your neck of the woods, so we can begin to empathize. Empathy is the highest form of understanding.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sorry, GGG, Ty and I all live in parts of the country where being called a homo is considered a rather neutral observation and perhaps a compliment. We are unable to relate. You should describe for us the psychic trauma you suffered as a child when you were called this in your neck of the woods, so we can begin to empathize. Empathy is the highest form of understanding.

and I didn't mean it derogatory, 'cept to Teddy.

I do think its funny that Ty and burger spent the day arguing with not me about blurring gender roles.
and not me this doesn't mean I'm backing down on my promise not to question your gender. I'm just not sure Ty and burger think you are a woman, as I have committed to say I believe you are.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Perhaps so, but that does not prevent legislatures from defining it to serve other ends. E.g., people who do not breed can still get married, nor do you suggest the law should be otherwise. Just as we wear eyeglasses when nature makes us nearsighted, we can change the law when we want.

Nice non-sequiter. No one said the legislatures were prevented from defining it from serving other ends.

The issue we were discussion is whether our US constitution bars legislatures from defining marriage as between one woman and one man. Got it now?

The state legislatures can make gay marriage legal. No one (or at least I didn't) said anything otherwise. The issue was can courts use the US constitution to force the legislatures to open up marriage to gays.

My whole point in bringing this up was that if they can be forced to open up marriage to gays, under what theory of US con law would they not also have to open it up to polygamists also. I have not yet heard one way to force legislatures to allow gay marriage that couldn't also require polygamy under the US constitution.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So what?

Ty - you keep quoting Loving as the basis for which gay marriage will be required under US Constitutional Law. I keep quoting Loving and other USSC caselaw to show you why that is unlikely to happen. That is why I quoted Loving. Because you say it somehow requires gay marriage.

The other reason I quoted that is because when I did an FYI post about where the definition of marriage that is used in the DOMA comes from, you went off about how marriage was a legal right not something that derives from nature. So then I gave you that Loving quote in which the USSC seems to be saying that marriage is a fundamental right that belongs to the individual and bases this at least in part because our very existence and survival depend on it (the USSC's words, not mine). So it seems to me, the USSC finds these marital rights accrue from our need to survive as a species. But I could be wrong. And so could all the other legal scholars who think that way.

That is so what.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So noted. I think love between two people is a wonderful thing.

However, wonderful it may be, it is not something that entitles one to marry any person simply because they love that person. For instance if the person is your adult child. You don't get to marry them. Even if you say you will not try to have children together.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I have read Locke. I don't question his importance as a philopher. And yet, if you make legal arguments now based on Locke's conception of natural rights, you should be laughed at. Because legitimacy in our system of government comes from our constitution and laws, not from Locke's writings.

Ty, that is not what I said and you are either drunk already and have forgotten what I said that started all this, or you are just saying stupid things because you lost the argument and now want to annoy me.

This all started by me posting an FYI about where it was the DOMA got its defintion of marriage from. It is from an 1885 USSC polygamy case and the USSC defined it as one man and one woman. Then you started in with marriage is a legal right not a right of nature. And I talked about how marriage is considered by USSC precedent to be a fundamental right, and the constitutional basis for fundamental rights is derived from Locke's theories of natural rights (whether you think this is funny or not is irrelevant). And I quoted the USSC in Loving, which certainly seems to support the idea that the fundamentality of the right of marriage springs from it's role in our very existence and survival (the USSC's words, not mine).

The USSC's fundamental rights case law is replete with natural rights type arguments. Go read a few of those cases and it should become clear to you quickly. Unless you are already drunk.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe it's what we get for leaning on Mexico to support the Iraq war. According to this AP story, Mexico was "one of the most outspoken supporters [on the Security Council] of continued weapons inspections instead of war." It then changed its position under heavy pressure from us.

Or maybe it's what we get for taking away Texas and California. It's not like Mexico has a new-found hatred for American soccer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
The USSC's fundamental rights case law is replete with natural rights type arguments. Go read a few of those cases.

Maybe if I haven't had too much to drink, I will add to this latter, but suffice to say that you are trying define away the equal protection argument that Burger and I keep making, and are arguing that instead there is a fundamental rights argument with which you disagree. None of us are interested in arguing with you about the fundamental rights argument so we're not. The fact that you found something about your position in Loving does not change the fact that it is an Equal Protection case.

We say, A. You say, you must say B instead, and B is wrong. Well, we're saying A, and until you come up with something better (or just responsive), it's a little pointless to invest more in it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Ty, that is not what I said and you are either drunk already and have forgotten what I said that started all this, or you are just saying stupid things because you lost the argument and now want to annoy me.

On bad nights we get the combination of the two, synergism if you will

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think that two men marrying each other is fundamental to our very existence and survival. The reason that marriage is thought to be fundamental to our very existence and survival is because of the breeding that usually, but not always, ensues.

I've been sitting out this debate, and if I rehash things already stated feel free to spank me appropriately, but this is just wishful thinking. As far as our existence goes, there is no difference between 2 men marryig and a hetero couple marrying. Have you seen the out of wedlock birth rates in this country recently? And are you saying that but/for marriage the human race would not survive?

I don't care much for Constitutional justifications, because (much to my dissappointment) that document does mean all that much these days. But if we are talking what the law should be, I don't see any justification for not letting two men or two woman marry. I see nothing wrong with polygamy either, so long as everyone involved has consented. Fuck the slippery slope, it's a bullshit argument anyway. We are always drawing one line or another. Does that mean once it's drawn, we cannot change it to remedy a misstake?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I do think its funny that Ty and burger spent the day arguing with not me about blurring gender roles.

On slashdot this could have been resolved with an expeditious YHBT YHL HAND. But over there they place less value on argument for argument's sake. Piteous fools.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
. . . if I rehash things already stated feel free to spank me appropriately . . .
And are you saying that but/for marriage the human race would not survive?

Spank. No.

This all started when I asked for people to come up with arguments in support of gay marriage that could not also be used to support an argument for polygamy.

MmmmBurger then started in with US constitutional equal protection theories, which were not unique to gays as opposed to polygamists and therefore did not answer my question. So I ignored him.

However, he relentlessly pursued me in an attempt to get me to address his non-response to my query. So I obliged him and explained why I did not believe that the US constitution's EP clause can be used to force state legislatures to allow gay marriage and how if you want to argue for gay marriage using the US Constitution (as MmmBurger wanted to do) you had to argue fundamental rights under due process because EP won't get you gay marriage. (I am not rehashing the reasons why I think that). And I also noted that if you do go there, you are well on your way down that slippery slope that leads to polygamy. Which is my point in the first place. It is pretty hard to come up with arguments that support gay marriage that cannot also be used to support allowing polygamy.

They (Ty and Burger, or vaginaman* if you will) kept citing Loving, which is a criminal case and a fundamental rights case by and large. So I brought up the reasoning behind the USSC finding the criminal statute at issue in Loving was unconstitutional. It has to do with why marriage is a fundamental right under the US constitution.

It is not my argument. It is the argument that the USSC has used on at least 2 occassions. Apparently, the USSC thinks that marriage is a fundamental right at least in part because of the social utility of breeding. I disagree that in an over-populated world that breeding has any social utility.

*this is why he hates me. Because I said my last boyfriend creeped me out because he was WAY too into my vagina. Only breast men like me [] .

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't care much for Constitutional justifications, because (much to my dissappointment) that document does mean all that much these days. But if we are talking what the law should be

Spank. No. We were not talking about what the law should be. We were talking about whether the US Constitution could be used to force state legilsatures to allow gay marriage.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Does that mean once it's drawn, we cannot change it to remedy a misstake?

Spank. No. That is a different discussion which we weren't having.

These were the main discussions that we were having:

1. Are there any arguments that you can advance to argue for gay marriage that cannot also support an argument for polygamy; and

2. Can you use the US constitution's EP clause to force state legislatures to allow gay marriage.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm just not sure Ty and burger think you are a woman, as I have committed to say I believe you are.

Is this because you think I do the cyber-equivalent of talking too much? If so, I think you are a misogynistic bastard who will not earn enough money in his lifetime to ever get to have sex with me.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
the psychic trauma you suffered as a child

The only psychological trauma (which I believe is what you meant by psychic trauma) I suffered as a child, well actually as a teenager, had to do with my small breasts. The situation has been remedied. Thanks for your concern, though.

BTW - I believe I live in your neck of the woods, only a bit farther south where we have worse restaurants but better weather.