Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is there something here I'll need to know for the bar exam?

Not just for the bar exam; you'll need to know those important points of law to be able to win cases in court, too.

[Not Me]

http://www.malawyersweekly.com/archi...up/1017603.htm

The link above is the MA Supreme Court decision that ruled that gay marriage was required under the MA constitution.

Can anyone point out an argument that they have advanced in support of gay marriage that cannot also be used to argue for polygamy?

TIA.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.malawyersweekly.com/archi...up/1017603.htm

The link above is the MA Supreme Court decision that ruled that gay marriage was required under the MA constitution.

Can anyone point out an argument that they have advanced in support of gay marriage that cannot also be used to argue for polygamy?

TIA.

Look, here is how deep I can get into the issue: "It is fucked up that people mess with Gay people, and they have to argue for such basic rights." That is my only position substantively.

Next week, when you and Ty continue your discussion I would note that procedurally one win in Con. Law cases by carefully picking your plaintiff.

Say NYC passes a law saying "Vehicles cannot carry ads." The city thinks ads on vehicles distract drivers.

A NYC resident owns a company that carts ads around on trucks. He challenges the law, but loses. The city need only show a legitimate reason for the restriction against the guy's freedom to K.

But, what if he had a Newark cabbie bring the suit? Ad on top of cab, can't bring fairs from the airport into the city- RESTRICTION ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE- bad law!

That hypo, and my agressive use of Plaintiff picking made me the "Atticus" of my Con Law class, and got me out of having to even take the final, "Why bother wasting time grading a paper I'll barely be able to comprehend," she said.

So remember, pick you a good plaintiff. Pick a Mormon, Atticus will show a link that the church ruled out polygomy in 18whatnot. You hypo a splinter sect, or query if the change wasn't due to the law, and ask whether Mormons aren't in fact entitled to reparations.

ps I spelled edict right on FB. what did you mean with your response to ncs?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ps I spelled edict right on FB. what did you mean with your response to ncs?

My bad. I thought you meant to say edit and that she was mocking you. I was drunk by then.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Look, here is how deep I can get into the issue: "It is fucked up that people mess with Gay people, and they have to argue for such basic rights." That is my only position substantively.

But why is it a basic right for two men to marry each other yet it is not a basic right for a man to marry two women?

What argument in the MA opinion could not also be used to justify polygamy? Especially as practiced by those who are convinced that god is ordering them to engage in this practice and that they cannot achieve eternal salvation for their souls lest they marry more than one woman? But even putting aside those who engage in it for religious reasons, what about those who just want to?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Next week, when you and Ty continue your discussion I would note that procedurally one win in Con. Law cases by carefully picking your plaintiff.

My plaintiffs are the Donald, the Ivana, and the Marla.

What if Donald Trump wants to be married to both Ivana and Marla and both Ivana and Marla want to be married to the Donald? Which of those reasons articulated by the MA SC to require gay marriage could not be used to justify that union?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Say NYC passes a law saying "Vehicles cannot carry ads." The city thinks ads on vehicles distract drivers.

A NYC resident owns a company that carts ads around on trucks. He challenges the law, but loses. The city need only show a legitimate reason for the restriction against the guy's freedom to K.

But, what if he had a Newark cabbie bring the suit? Ad on top of cab, can't bring fairs from the airport into the city- RESTRICTION ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE- bad law!

Find a ferryboat captain, and all of a sudden you can use Gibbons v. Ogden too! Then you're stylin'.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But why is it a basic right for two men to marry each other yet it is not a basic right for a man to marry two women?

Because marriage is not really about breeding. It is about Avoiding Loneliness, which only requires one person. Once you have one spouse, you are not lonely anymore, and you no do not have a basic right to marry someone else. This is also why you do not have a basic right to marry a labrador retriever, even one with hip dysplasia. Although dog's are man's best friend, and good for some companionship, you can have a dog and still be lonely.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Because marriage is not really about breeding. It is about Avoiding Loneliness, which only requires one person. Once you have one spouse, you are not lonely anymore, and you no do not have a basic right to marry someone else. This is also why you do not have a basic right to marry a labrador retriever, even one with hip dysplasia. Although dog's are man's best friend, and good for some companionship, you can have a dog and still be lonely.

Unless someone can come up with a better argument for why marriage should be limited to two people, polygamy is next.

At the point where polygamy is allowed, I think we need to just chuck the whole marriage license thing and just tell people to form whatever relationships they want to with each other and confer rights and obligations on each othere via contract.

I would also like to know if the basis for allowing marriage in the first place isn't breeding, doesn't the existence of marriage sanctioned by the state and which confers government benefits or other benefits discriminate against single people under equal protection laws?

The plaintiff I pick is one who wants to get married but cannot find anyone to marry them. AG, for instance.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
In the past few years, every city that has won a championship, including Boston, has seen widescale, or at least mass, disturbances and violence following the championship game.

Not a sports fan so maybe I am missing something here. Why is it that the riots occur in the city that won the game and not in the city that lost the game?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[Clark papers allege Clinton times Kosovo war for political purposes]

I'm not sure how this cuts or who it reflects badly on, but interesting in any event.

I think if true it reflects badly on Clinton and Gore. I don't think that anyone outside of the Clinton administration would hold it against Clark for discussing it openly if true.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Unless someone can come up with a better argument for why marriage should be limited to two people, polygamy is next.

If you keep repeating this someday someone may believe you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
My plaintiffs are the Donald, the Ivana, and the Marla.

What if Donald Trump wants to be married to both Ivana and Marla and both Ivana and Marla want to be married to the Donald? Which of those reasons articulated by the MA SC to require gay marriage could not be used to justify that union?

Look. If you need to pick someone famous instead ofa hypo, go for an Osmund. And be careful of where Ty's heading with the gay boat captain argument.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If you keep repeating this someday someone may believe you.

Back in the day when Bowers v. Hardwick was the law of the land, people thought gay marriage would never happen, either. Bowers said it was OK for a state to make it a crime for male homosexuals to have sex in their own bedroom. That was decided a whopping 17 or 18 years ago.

Didn't take long for the pendulum to swing from gay sex is a crime to not allowing gays to marry is unconstitutional.

I agree with Lawrence v. TX that Bowers was a bad decision. However, it does go to show you how quickly things can change in this arena.

Only time will tell, but I would not be surprised at all if the polygamists at least try to challenge the marriage statutes to recognize their plural relationships in those states that legalize gay marriage. If there aren't good arguments to justify not allowing it, I don't know how the courts are going to reconcile it.

The only way I can think of is to just state a bare conclusion that there is a fundamental right to marry one other person regardless of that other person's gender and that there is no fundamental right to marry more than one person. How you would explain why one is a fundamental right and the other is not once you have removed the one woman and one man requirement, I don't know. And I certainly haven't heard anyone here articulate how you would explain it.

Once you have removed the one women, one man requirement, I don't see how you can exclude polygamy under an equal protection argument, either, especially if this is a practice required by a person's religious beliefs. I haven't heard anyone explain that here either.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Look. If you need to pick someone famous instead ofa hypo, go for an Osmund.

Good point. Donald just popped into my mind as a guy who I see as wanting to do it for purely secular reasons.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Once you have removed the one women, one man requirement, I don't see how you can exclude polygamy under an equal protection argument, either, especially if this is a practice required by a person's religious beliefs. I haven't heard anyone explain that here either.

If you keep repeating this someday someone may believe you.