hmmmm? New script for another Terminator sequel??
oh and...I'm not gonna say it....1

Well at least Arnold is an improvement on Clinton and about half the senior jurists in America who don’t seem to have made the connection yet.

It was illegal for Blacks to sit at public lunch counters in the south too, at one point. That law is just as dumb as the law that Gov. Terminator is presently defending. It's a good thing that somebody was finally smart enough to figure out how ridiculous that law was. Perhaps Gov. Terminator can ask his wife to help him figure this one out, too.

Hmm, maybe there is something to be said for putting a highly advanced artificial intelligence in the governor's seat. Program in a few simple directives and get a comprehensible legal policy out of it. Could it be that we should hold public officials, what's the word?, accountable before the law?

Much as I hate to say it, Gloria Alread may actually taking the right action in this matter. She is representing three same-sex couples who went to a southern California clerk's office and were denied liscences. Did I mention that they did this with camera crews from all of the local news stations in attendance? The clerk did what she was supposed to do, and they probably filed the paperwork for the lawsuit on the same trip.

Gloria Alread did this because the only way you can have your case heard before the Supreme Court is to to have been affected by a lwa currently in force.

Excellent move! Forcing the courts to hear your issue and act is the only way to deal with these sorts of ridiculous laws.

Oh, absolutely! let us rely on the courts to effectively create new law without the bother of going to the legislature to actually pass a law which will be, and has been, voted on. By all means let's use the black robed oligarchy to achieve our political ends. Just because there is a law on the books means nothing to us social engineer activists. We just throw fits until we get out way. Bad law, bad, bad, bad. Now go away and let the judges tell the voters how it's gonna be.

Whatever happened to the rule of law? This tyranny by the minority is nothing less that anarchy. And to suggest that homosexual "rights" are akin to what the blacks in America have gone through is BS and intellectually dishonest.

Sister: The difference between this & the civil rights movement is the ban on gay marriage is based on behavior, not color.

If governments would get out of the 'marriage business' entirely, this would become an instant non-issue. Marriage should be between a couple and their God. I don't think God needs the government's help with this.

Abraham Lincoln was once asked "If you count a tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog have."

Lincoln answered "four."

"But a tail is a leg."

Lincoln replied, "You can call a tail a leg, but it's still a tail."

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Not a man and a man.

Not a woman and a woman.

God didn't design the plumbing that way.

Let me make sure I got this right: 'gays' want to have the 'right' to get married? To each other? So they can enjoy the same advantages as their 'straight' neighbors... you know, divorce, alamony, etc.? This whole thing is really quite absurd.

SistersTalk:

It's Allred, not Alread. If you want to be considered well-read, you should spell your heroine's name correctly. But, whatever the spelling, I know you meant the notorious lesbian lawyeress with the penchant for publicity.

Allred, Newsom, et al. have resorted to the courts for only one reason: They can't get their radical homosexual agenda enacted legislatively, not even in California. They're trying to find a complicit black-robed pimp who will carry their water for them. Thus the "equal protection"/"due process" smokescreen.

Depravity sells in court, if you dress the sow in pearls and make it smell good with the right legal bromides. Larry Flynt wins the right to purvey porno by hiding behind the First Amendment. Newsom/Allred are no different--only the bromides are.

Gotta go. I'm taking one of my 13 wives out to dinner. At one point, polygamy was illegal, but it was a dumb and ridiculous law. All of my wives were smart enough to help me figure that out, and we forced the courts to hear our issue. Sisterhood is powerful, and the "lwa" is great.

SistersTalk is definitely in the minority here. I don't think the minority should dictate to the majority whether it be the populace or the MAJORITY of the legislators, who represent the people, who voted for that law. It is simply undemocratic to let the tail wag the dog. This happens every time. The minority runs to the most liberal courts (e.g. any within the 9th Circuit) to force their will down the throats of the majority. May God bless these United States and the 11th Circuit.

Santini - The disgusting [deleted] Allred is actually heterosexual. [deleted]

Ahh-Nuld is playing this whole circus fairly smart. Stay above it. Let extremists on both sides jabber, hope the Courts deal with it properly. Instead, keep his focus on dealing with the tremendous economic issues California faces - leave it to others to hash out the gay marriage bit, other than saying he is for rule of law. A smart, smart guy.

(Like most Californians, Arnie supports civil unions so gays can get the same tremendous legal and economic bennies married people can claim as their right, and so Arnie can get lots of political support from moderates and some liberals besides the conservatives attracted by his economic positions)

As I read all of this, some of us think that we should allow lawyers to take their case(s) in front of more courts. Courts are run by judges, who in most cases (like 99.9%) are lawyers. So we basically are abdicating our role as American's, because we don't want to be on jurys, we don't want to get involved, etc, and we are now going to let a bunch of lawyers make decisions for us? Let's face it, few people in America like lawyers except when it suits their purpose(s).

And for the other semi-rhetorical question, when did the American judicial system become a quest to seek the truth?

Oh, and let's face it, whether you like Ahnold or not, he's required to enforce the laws of the state of California, regardless of his own personal opinion about them. This is something that Gray never figured out, unless the wind happened to blow the right way when he checked.

Now, let's get back to the satirical answers, which are a heck of a lot funnier to read than everybody (myself included) pontificating!

Knights

PS - I'm last right now!

I guess some of the tremendous economic benefits married gays will be able to reap will be the marriage penalty tax!

Alph,
Let them also enjoy the higher tax rates for a married couple.
The whining may now begin, but not to my ears. Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it.

Yo, Alph:

"I don't think God needs the government's help with this."

You're right. But children do.

But, speaking of God, He ordained marriage as the union of man and woman (Gen. 2:20-24), to the exclusion of man/man and woman/woman, men/men, women/women, man/boy, woman/girl, man/ewe, woman/donkey, and all other menageries. For thousands of years, across all cultures and societies, civil governments have followed suit.

Until depravity acquired a political constituency the post-Christian era in the Western Hemisphere, that is. Following suit has now been supplanted by filing them, on behalf of a small minority of people, while the majority cowers in fear, gropes in moral vacuity, or gets disenfranchised by black-robed tyrants. The tail shouldn't be allowed to wag the dog.

I want to know when someone's going to fight for the equal protection of speeders. I love to drive fast, it's just so natural for me. It's not fair that I should be slapped with a fine for just being who I am.

Is it still illegal to marry inanimate objects?

I want to marry my Road King.

As they say about a women: "The intake is too close to the exhaust."

Santini - the problem is that Your God and His Platform was not elected. And, if we recognize the importance and magnitude of societal benefits Only given to married couples - full health care benefits, no estate tax passing with death towards spouses, legal privileges on the confidentiality and immunity of spouses, even the 2500-4,000 a year the military gives for spousal separation for "emotional compensation" ...

You might just have to say that civil unions giving gays or just good long term unmarried friends the same benefits from the state or private employment have a basis to be made into law - on fairness and equal treatment by employers grounds.

I agree that the definition of "marriage" should be left to voters, not judges, but everyone should be allowed to declare a "partner" and offspring if existant - designated to receive the benefits that only married couples have been entitled to, in years past.

If you say that those special benefits are reserved only for married couples to help rear families- fine, omit them from married couples unwilling or unable to have kids, and delete the benefits as soon as the last kid reaches age 18.

K of N hit a nail firmly on the head.
Juries are crucial, but many responsible members of society have excuses (valid or not) to avoid this. Also lawyers aim to get intellegent people off juries in favor of tose easier to sway, correct these two items and we will see a huge improvement in the system even with the current crop of judges.

K of N hit a nail firmly on the head.
Juries are crucial, but many responsible members of society have excuses (valid or not) to avoid this. Also lawyers aim to get intellegent people off juries in favor of tose easier to sway, correct these two items and we will see a huge improvement in the system even with the current crop of judges.

Surely Ranbutan the problem with your very rational proposal is that too many Americans would declare people from third world countries as their partners thus getting cheap labor and undercutting difficult, highly recompensed American spouses. After all their property is not really theirs to dispose of, the public has just as much a right to tell you who you can marry (since from the law’s point of view it is just a financial arrangement) as where you can invest your money. If it’s OK for government to force everyone to support steelworkers then what is the problem with forcing non-married people to support married ones and to forbid whomever you like to marry, just as everyone cannot be a steelworker.

Wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger pregnant with Danny Devito's baby a while back? He's certainly one to talk.

Santini,

First: if you want to start snide by way of spelling, start here 'cause I was the first one to mistake Allred/Alread.

Second: I grant that Allred is a complete glory hound, but in this case I grant that she is filling the role of a lawyer very well. We have a conflict of two stated points of law (at least in the view of the plaintiffs). How else should this matter be ajudicated rather than by a judge? If not here, then what possible purpose for a Judiciary in checking the power of government?

For everyone else asking what right the judiciary has in thwarting an elected majority, please remember that Constitutionality has nothing to do with majorities. That is, unless you think that the majority is not bound by the rule of law.

The question none of you seem to be asking is this: eventually a ruling will be made on this question.

In the meantime, a city official has taken it upon himself to issue marriage licenses in defiance of statute. If this statute is later upheld, those marriages will all be invalid, null, void, kaput.

1. What happens to all the money that was collected for these marriage licenses?

2. What about the potential legal liability of the city of San Francisco, since they have allowed an official with both apparent and actual authority to issue invalid licenses? The lawsuits alone could drag on for years.

3. What about the people who entered into these marriages? They now hold a worthless piece of paper, not to mention the mental anguish. I could make some really tasteless jokes here, but I won't.

I realize they knew it was a risky proposition, but the fact that an official of the city was willing to issue the license should mean something. He gave sanction to that license in the name of the state of California. Does he (and the state) bear no responsibility to these people?

It was just plain irresponsible for any court to allow this to continue, absent a final ruling on the constitutionality question.

Sorry Scott, my bad. It is just hard to describe Gloria Allred in non-deletable terms.

Were -penguin would be closer to the mark if we didn't already have abusive chain immigration of illegals through the institution of marriage. The Euros are finally cracking down on 3rd gen German Turks, Brit Paks, Dutch Arabs insisting on "only" marrying someone from their "native" country - pehaps we can do the same.

But the quandary still exists - we insist government or employers pay for a range of benefits to married workers/citizens - while some in our society insist that those benefits be denied or be grossly inferior in scope for unmarried partners. Civil union resolves that.

As for the who and why and relative degree of government subsidies - sterile marriages, steelworkers, millionaire Agribiz owners, unmarried welfare mammies - it's best in the interests of brevity not to go there.

ejandresen - Yes, Arnie was pregnant! One thing I liked about the guy was that he took risks like that with his image - and is one of the few movie stars that did well in action dramas AND comedy. Tom Hanks and Bill Murray also did. Eastwood, Newman, Stallone tried and sucked at it.

about-had-it wrote:

Oh, absolutely! let us rely on the courts to effectively create new law without the bother of going to the legislature to actually pass a law which will be, and has been, voted on. . . .

Whatever happened to the rule of law? This tyranny by the minority is nothing less that anarchy.

Anarchy? Wow. Have we forgotten that California has a Constitution? The only power in the "black robed oligarchy," as you put it, is to determine (when asked) whether California legislation is consistent with that basic law of the land. Law = good, unconstitutional law = bad.

Whether Gavin Newsom ought to be flouting the law while challenging it in court is another question (I bet I know your answer to that!), but if you indeed have any respect for the rule of law, then remember that we don't have pure majority rule in this country. The Constitutions of the states and of the United States protect minority positions from the wishes of the majority. Even (sorry) when you're in the majority.

What about the people who entered into these marriages? They now hold a worthless piece of paper--Cassandra

I have heard it said that these marriage licenses are not worth the paper they are printed on. So naturally I got to wondering just exactly what is that paper worth?

The price of paper varies considerably from the cheapest 20# copy bond to very expensive premium sulfides and 100% cotton paper. Given that it is a government office issuing the licences it is reasonable to assume that it isn't the most expensive but since it is used for something official it is probably nice paper. My best guess is it is probably a 28# 25% cotton content paper with at least 30% post consumer recycled content.

This paper would likely be sold on a government bid right around 125$/cwt. On an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet with a weight of 14lbs per thousand sheets this equals 1.75 cents per sheet.

Of course once it is printed on this renders it unusable for any other use, ie. worthless.

The Great Santini says the Bible defines marriage:

But, speaking of God, He ordained marriage as the union of man and woman (Gen. 2:20-24)

Okaaaay, that's the passage where God creates Eve out of Adam's rib, and it says there that "a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh." (racy stuff!) Yet Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all polygamists, and they're held up as moral examples none the less. The Bible also refers (without disapproval) to King Solomon having 700 wives (and 300 concubines!), 1 Kings 11:1-3 [though the Lord did express His displeasure with the fact that Solomon, influenced by his wives from foreign lands, turned his heart away from God toward pagan gods]. So I'm not sure we can use that to say just what "marriage" should be. (But cf. Deuteronomy 17:17, which says presciently that the king "shall not have many wives, lest his heart go astray.")

Anyhow, Ranbutan points out it's a government issue:

Santini - the problem is that Your God and His Platform was not elected.

Which brings us back to what Alph wrote way back in comment #8:

If governments would get out of the 'marriage business' entirely, this would become an instant non-issue. Marriage should be between a couple and their God. I don't think God needs the government's help with this.

Three cheers for that! If states would start using some other term to register 'civil unions' or certify 'partnership rights/benefits/obligations' for couples -- gay or straight -- and leave it to religious institutions to "marry" and otherwise bless couples, using that traditional and emotionally charged word, as their faith allows, wouldn't we be better off?

After all, that's the way it used to be when we started this country -- churches married people, and the government didn't get involved. See link below.

The burning question for me is: If the application just says applicant #1 and applicant #2, how will the judge know who gets the house when they divorce?

I have the disturbing feeling that Pile On is making fun of me...

Cassandra,

Funny you should mention the mental anguish aspect. I saw the people appearing in front of the cameras embracing and kissing. They were very happy and, I believe, had genuine feelings of justice in this ongoing pursuit for equality (choose your own definition of equality folks - I'm not taking a side in this particular argument). But, here's the counterpoint to the very compelling feelings they have: They knew that these licenses were being issued in contravention of the law, and that there was a good chance that they could be rendered invalid.

So my thinking is that the emotional impact shouldn't be that bad. However, I can't reconcile the logic of the previous sentence with the intensity of their feelings that I witnessed on the news, and that yes, the let-down could be tough after all.

And I agree that when a government official makes a decision that puts the imprimatur
of the government on this act, he implicates the government and creates a deep pocket that begs to be picked.

The only real answer is to have a capon as part of the equation....a "thirdsie", if you will...said mandate will elimimate obfuscation and legitimize these hallowed unions.

Earth is in the Balance.

Vote Gore in 2004!!!

Cassandra,

I found Pile On's logic/math quite compelling. I was going to mention in my previous post that these folks wouldn't be able to sell them on Ebay, and would Pile On do a cost benefit analysis of using these documents to start the fire in their fireplaces rather than using kindling. But I figured it would create a bias to what I was saying to you about the anguish aspect. Thus, creating a wonderful way for someone to pick my argument apart. So I left it out.

Silence, insolent peasants! It is not for you to question us or our use of the royal third-person to speak of ourselves. This so-called "constitution" of which you are blathering about is quite bothersome.

We find its constant "government is limited" this, and "Congress shall make no law" that to be a dreary bore. This is why we have dispensed with it altogether. After all, you dim-witted louts can hardly be expected to understand the deep meanings of this lofty document, so we have graciously agreed to "interpret" it for you.

It says whatever we SAY it says, and only we have the power to make this interpretation. Rule of Law? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ! Oh my, such naivete is priceless. WE MAKE ALL OF THE RULES, simpleton!

Now leave us, your presence has grown tiresome.

-- some random judge

duhhh, what's a "dim-witted lout"?

What I want to know is where were all these gay-rights advocates when a certain judge in Alabama was also exercising civil disobedience as a matter of principle. It seems that the media and liberals and all the rest were happy to malign him to no end, but when gays break the law, no problem!

The hypocrisy is ridiculous. Those attacking Judge Moore went on and on about how he was breaking the law, and I agree, he was, and shouldn't have. But now, suddenly, when it serves the interests of gays and liberals in general, civil disobedience is perfectly ok!

spangineer:

It's really quite simple: to a liberal, the end always justifies the means. So if they agree with what you're doing, it's OK to break the law. Which means that if you can get enough people to agree that killing someone is OK, it's OK to break that law, too I suppose. It's all relative and infinitely flexible.

CatManToo: please do not encourage Pile On.

spangineer, the difference is that Judge Moore defied court orders ruling that his stunt was, indeed, unconstitutional. (When the Chief Justice decides to ignore court rulings, that kinda takes the cake for hypocrisy.) Courts haven't yet ruled SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's stunt unconstitutional (the case hasn't even been heard yet!).

Yes, they are both cases of civil disobedience. Now, as then, some people are railing against what's happening, and now, as then, nothing's going to stop it until the courts do. It's been less than a week since this all started . . . patience.

...and not a drop to drink...

This is probably a result of an unwelcome "bad touch" incident in his pre-fame Gold's Gym days. All the groping was a desperate and sad attempt at compensation and reassurance of his hetero orientation and now he gets to stick it to the gays.

Cassandra supposes:

if you can get enough people to agree that killing someone is OK, it's OK to break that law, too

Say what you want about the left, even the really loony left fringe; today's liberals aren't the killing type. Doubt they have the fortitude. But the extremist right wing, some religious nuts, have convinced themselves that it is okay to kill, e.g., doctors who perform abortions. Combine the belief that the ends justify the means with moral certitude that actions are correct and justified no matter what the law says, and...no, wait, on second thought don't combine those things.

Radical centrist, I don't for a minute condone murdering abortionists. That's breaking the law - murder is murder.

However, it would appear that to them, abortion is murder. Just a thought. One does not justify the other. That's why we have laws. It just makes their motivation more understandable - like the motivation of Gavin whats-his-face. I understand how he feels. I just don't agree that his actions are justified.

As I heard on some Right wing radio show yesterday.. Can you imagine, what the Libs would say/do if the Mayor of New York City started allowing everyone to carry a hand gun, not that this one would.

If I'm not mistaken somewhere in the constitution, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" but that didn't stop them from making it illegal.

I still don't understand that one, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" pretty specific, or are they talking about our appendages in the constitution. Or did they really mean "the right of the people to keep bear arms" but then PETA would put a stop to that.

Anyway, I've said this before, this is the subject, Homosexual Marriage, that scares me the most. If society can't keep Homosexuals from getting married, then we can't keep anyone/thing from getting married.

Hey CKC are you available? I mean, MEOW, MEOW, MEOOOW !!

KEG, the 2nd Amendment is a thorny one, mostly because of the first clause: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I'm not going to touch that one here. But NYC Mayor Bloomberg doesn't have to "allow" everyone to carry a handgun; you can already go into a gun shop or a pawn shop in any city and buy one. You can't do anything with a gun in a city though; might have to worry about, e.g., concealed weapons laws, safety-related regulations on waving a loaded gun around, etc.

BTW, why does the idea that same-sex couples might get a state marriage license scare or threaten us? Is it going to somehow weaken our own marriages? Make marriage less valuable to us?

Uhhh...Have you ever heard of the slippery slope?

Once a legal definition has been challenged once, it is easier to challenge it again. If marriage can be between two same-sex people, why not between brother and sister? Why not between three people? Why not twelve now that that has been established? What about me and my dog? He's kinda cute and I'm awful fond of him. Don't laugh - it's already been tried.

Now what is the meaning of marriage? It has no meaning because it has lost its identity. Marriage has had a special place in law and society because it has been reserved for a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of creating children and perpetuating the species.

True, not every marriage results in children. But a lawyer is surely capable of understanding public policy arguments - shucks - I'm just a dumb military wife and I get the concept and I don't even have a JD. Society does have some interest in ensuring stable families.

I have no problem with civil unions. I have no problem with gay couples living together permanently - in fact, I think it's a swell idea. I think they should be able to inherit each other's property and all that great stuff. I think they should be able to make medical decisions for each other if they are in a committed relationship. I don't think we need to call it marriage. Marriage has a definition. We can create a new institution for gay couples that is unique to their situation - that is just fine with me. I don't call a dog a fish. I don't see why we should something one thing, when in fact it is something else.

I happen to believe society has a vested interest in monogamous gay relationships. The benefits are obvious. I will be interested to see how many long-term ones survive. No one will be happier than I will if civil unions are a smashing success. Everyone wins. I am quite serious about this.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" pretty specific, or are they talking about our appendages in the constitution.

Posted by KEG at February 20, 2004 10:14 PM

Well, KEG, when I lived in Saudi Arabia it was well-known that people did not have the right to bare arms, especially women. If arms were bared, the mutawa felt obliged to paint the bare arms with black paint, and switch the ankles of the offender with his cane. (Come to think of it, one did not have the right to bare ankles, either, but that is for another thread...) If the offender was a woman, her husband might go to jail for failing to keep her under control. Even after all these years, I have trouble baring arms.

The moral to this sad tale is: Fight for the right to keep bare arms - do not become warped like me. No one will even offer to have a telethon to help pay for your re-education. *sniff*

Silly Tricks and Lawyers are for Kids,

Frankly, I agree that Homosexuals, should be allowed Civil unions, if for no other reason that when they die, they should be able to give their belongings to whomever they want. I want them to happy, although I can't see how they can be.

But frankly, the idea that their relationship is equal to the relationship I have with my "much better half" bothers me.

I know that most are born that way, but to me it is a freak of nature, and although it can't be helped, it should not be celebrated.

But of course, me having this opnion makes me either a Homophobe, or a closet Homosexual.

And a poor speller...

P.S whats with all the lawyers on this blog, I knew we had a couple, but man there are way to many now. I've got to moveon.org to another site. Next thing you know, they'll allow Lawyers to marry, then they'll want to reproduce, then we are toast.

CatManToo:
You suggest I do a cost/benefit analysis on using those document to start a fire in a fireplace?

Thanks for the encouragement, but please, how do we put a cost on deforestation for the luxury of warmth and comfort in the homes of those well enough off to have a fireplace. And don't even get me started on the cost of global warming caused by the senseless and needless burning of our friends and oxygen providing trees.

"Hey CKC are you available? I mean, MEOW, MEOW, MEOOOW !!"

KEG,
I didn't mean for that innocent Valentine Kissing Bear card to trip you up so badly! hehehe.

I took a chance here at the convent, already...just doing THAT. I'm constantly being threatened with banishment to the catacombs. *shudder* Marrying you would be out of the question. Just ask your wife! hehehe

Cassandra,

Now of course I'm familiar with the concept of the 'slippery slope' -- that kind of argument doesn't usually pull much weight. After all, there are plenty of valid public policy rationales that stand in the way of marrying your relatives (funky kids) or pets or inanimate objects (concept has no meaning where there's no mutual consent or responsibilities or rights). However, you can marry a dead person in France (actually, a pretty interesting article).

What I was trying to elicit is, why does this make us feel so threatened? Your answer was, "Marriage has had a special place in law and society because it has been reserved for a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of creating children and perpetuating the species." I'm not sure that gets to the core of it. Yes, marriage is a special, traditional institution imbued with religion and love -- a bond between one man and one woman who make a lifelong [one hopes] commitment. If two people of the same sex who profess to love each other can convince the state or a religious person to unite them in a commitment they want to call marriage, why do we recoil? Does letting someone else join the club (esp. if we thought the club rules kept them out) devalue our own memberships?

I think it's remarkable that the fallback position almost everyone is agreeing on with respect to letting homosexuals marry is the idea of civil unions: full marriage-like rights without the marriage rites (sorry, couldn't resist the rhyme). Essentially, marriage by another name. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that some kind of "civil union" institution to encourage monogamous gay relationships and provide equivalent rights is the ideal solution. In fact, I think the state should limit itself to bestowing that "civil union" status for everyone, including straight couples, and leave the terms "marriage" and "holy matrimony" to the churches, mosques, and synagogues where they belong. That, I figure, will make marriage even more special (if Britney had called off a 55-hour state-endorsed civil union rather than a religious "wedding", it probably wouldn't have caused such a stir.)

One last thing: You wrote, "I don't call a dog a fish." Actually, in Hebrew, "dog" means "fish." Check it out.

Time to break out the lawyer jokes!

Q: What's wrong with Lawyer jokes?

A: Lawyers don't think they're funny, and nobody else thinks they're jokes.

More linked below.

What is the difference syntactically between these two statements:

Maintaining body temperature being necessary to avoiding pneumonia, the right of the people to wear warm clothing shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Does anybody but a lawyer or a lunatic think the first does not recognize (not bestow by the way) a right to individuals to wear warm clothing? Where did sanity and the ability to read English go in this country?

‘Militia’ by the way had two definitions at the time of the Constitution; the entire body of the people in arms, and the military establishment of a nation. The phrase for a ‘national guard’ type official body of semi regular troops was ‘select militia’. Regulate meant ‘facilitate, make regular or smooth’, not ‘control or direct with rules’, that definition dates from the 1890’s.

If you don’t like the law, try to change it, if you fail, accept it, migrate or take the consequences.

Lawyer whose name changes:

Slippery slope arguments may not carry much weight with you but what if two consenting adults who love each other want to marry and just happen to be cousins, or perhaps siblings. Do they get equal protection under the law as well?

Sam, I said the Second Amendment is thorny, and it is. Maybe the first clause is predicative, i.e., the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on the need for a well-regulated militia. So as long as we need people armed to make up a well-regulated militia, the right shall not be infringed. Reading the first clause as merely descriptive is an equally (not more or less) valid interpretation, and it's not worth trying to solve the issue here. There have been reams of law review articles, impassioned polemics, and arguments -- on both sides -- about the Constitutional significance and meaning of every word and comma, and it's still not a settled question either way. Sorry. If it's clear to you, fine, but there is solid reasoning on both sides of this debate; it's not simple or black and white, and consensus is not easy to come by.

LWLRA:

Oy ve! I give up! Only a lawyer would find a way to use my seemingly innocuous "I don't call a dog a fish" statement against me. Now I know why I refused to go to law school in the face of constant pressure from my professors.:)

Actually my problem with this whole issue is partly one of semantics. Increasingly, there seems to be a movement to eliminate distinctions ("discrimination", if you will) between one thing and another from both our language and our thought process. They are being systematically removed from textbooks, speeches, newspapers, TV shows... it is really a bit sinister.

If you turn the question on its face, why is it necessary to call it marriage when it doesn't involve a man and a woman? If it is indeed a new thing, why not recognize this by giving it a new name? Why try to blur over the distinct nature of this new relationship by calling it something which it, in fact, is not?

The answer to that question is simple. By calling it marriage, there is the hope that this will equate it in the minds of people with marriage. That calling it marriage confers legitimacy on the relationship - the same legitimacy that the marriage relationship has. And also there is the assumption (and I guarantee you that this assumption will be followed up with legal challenges) that all the legal rights that go with marriage will also be conferred upon civil unions. Whether or not they are appropriate. Whether or not society has a public policy interest in conferring them.

The argument will be thus: it's marriage, so by rights, you must give us this right that goes with marriage.

What's in a name? Plenty.

" there are plenty of valid public policy rationales that stand in the way of marrying your relatives (funky kids) or pets or inanimate objects (concept has no meaning where there's no mutual consent or responsibilities or rights)"

We believe your laws do not prohibit persons of diminished mental capacity from marrying. There is no test. How does this differ in terms of consent from marrying a parrot which you have trained to say, "I do"?

Provided there are no genetic abnormalities there is no medical impediment to marrying your own child or other close relative. Several royal families practiced sibling marriage with no ill effects.

The fundamental argument at the base of all this is "should the majority have the discretionary power to make laws in areas which do not violate the fundamental rights of individuals and if so what are those rights". The advocates of same sex marriage basically argue they have a natural right (it’s certainly not in the Constitution) to the privileges society bestows on married couples. It’s interesting that the argument is rarely couched this way. We suspect it’s because the sort of people who advocate same sex unions are very uncomfortable with the idea of natural rights.

A right, you see, requires you be allowed all reasonable means to exercise it, otherwise it’s like saying you have a right to free speech but only if you speak Esperanto while standing on top of a 100 ft. pillar at three in the morning.

A natural right to enjoy the fruits of your labors would be a very sticky issue for those who advocate a welfare state.

Pile On: nope. Asked and answered. "there are plenty of valid public policy rationales that stand in the way of marrying your relatives (funky kids)."

Oh you devil...

Actually that's not a valid argument, since gays can't have kids then the purpose of marriage for them is not to have kids. Therefore quite possibly the purpose of a marriage between brother and sister may not be to have kids (in fact, they might be fixed).

Sorry about that - somehow I posted as Lawyer when I meant to address the post to Lawyer.

Whoops. Just call me a Troll.

And the devil remark was directed at WP.

Were-Penguins of Seville:

1. Parrots, even well-trained ones, ... oh, this is too silly for words. And I'm not sure but I believe that someone of such diminished mental capacity that he/she couldn't understand the ramifications of a wedding vow wouldn't be bound by marriage (like any contract).

2. no ill effects? That's a good one. Start with hemophilia and work your way down. Genetic abnormalities are virtually guaranteed by procreating with close relatives, so marrying them is generally forbidden (specifics vary from state to state re: cousins)

5. (3, sir, -- 3.) Natural law doesn't come into play, as there are no "natural rights" to state benefits created for married couples. The specific privileges the state bestows are neither in the Constitution nor in natural law, but in state and federal statutes. Gay rights advocates in MA and CA are arguing their states' constitutions prohibit the states from denying those statutory privileges to gay couples based on their constitutions' gender discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination protections. So it's limited to those states so far (witness New Mexico's response when someone tried offering wedding licenses to gay couples there this week).

To make is predicative you have to change it by adding the phrase, "so long as" and changing "being" to "is". No doubt you can find lots of people willing to ignore the meaning of words in laws they don’t like and no doubt they think this a solid argument, especially is they are professionals trained to argue either side of anything no matter how inane. Does anyone who argues anything have a legitimate case provided enough people agree? If enough people decided a free press really meant you couldn’t charge money for newspapers would that be a ‘solid argument’?

The world has changed a lot since the Constitution was written, it has been altered and maybe it should be altered more but this isn’t the way to do it.

I am not Cassandra, said the Lawyer.

Lawyer:

You may want to check your facts.

1. Genetic mutations from sibling pairings have been proven to be grossly exaggerated.

2. For genetic diseases, we have the lovely prospect of amniocentesis and abortion to prevent any unpleasant consequences. After all, the couple's wishes are paramount - who cares about a few more aborted fetuses here and there? "Normal" couples can do it? Why not sibling couples?

Lawyer:

I apologized and even called myself a Troll. What more can I do to abase myself? Cut off the offending typing fingers? What must I do to gain your forgiveness?

Woe is me. I have offended a Litigious One...

You don't have to rewrite it, even in your head, to read the purpose clause as predicative of the operative clause. It doesn't trump the operative language, but you can't legitimately read the operative clause to depart from the purpose clause. They have to be read together to produce a single, consistent meaning. Which could be either "this is what we were thinking when we protected this right" or "this is what we're protectng this right for".

Do you guys charge by the word? Or by the letter?

The law you may know but your history you obviously do not. The Ptolemys (of Cleopatra fame) married brother to sister for a dozen generations with no ill effects, likewise the Inca and many others. The hemophilia in Queen Victoria’s line had nothing to do with marrying cousins, it is a defective X chromosome which expresses itself in half the male offspring no matter who a carrier female marries.

We do not believe for a moment the ambitions of same-sex marriage advocates are limited to certain states. The underlying assumption is sexual behavior (fill in what kind) is a natural right which the nation must recognize and overturn any and all ‘discrimination’ against.

Abase yourself not. I don't think you're a Troll. But you had me going there for a second . . . I'm glad you're a quick typist! You posted a correction before I even saw the mis-attribution. To gain my forgiveness, you must, um, lemme think here, oh, I don't know, treat yourself to an ice cream this weekend. That seems fair. :)

Make it a beer and we have a deal.:)

And now I must turn into a pumpkin. It's past my bedtime and a very patient little Dachshund and a good novel await.

Cheers.

G'night, Cassandra!

Y'know, there's an awful lot of flak flying around here considering most of us agree that gay relationships shouldn't be labeled "marriage" but that civil unions with similar partnership rights and obligations are a good idea. I think we're mostly on the same page.

I will admit my knowledge of hereditary birth defects among royal families in England, Peru, and Egypt alike is lacking, and I defer to y'all, for what it's worth.

As far as "natural rights", no one will succeed making the argument that the nation must recognize some right (any right) to engage in specific sexual behaviors. No one believes, as Scalia put it in Bowers v. Hardwick, that "homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right." Scalia used the notion as a straw man, easy to knock down. So you need not fret about that line of reasoning.

And while gay rights advocates certainly want to push the notion of granting and legitimizing "marriage" (or other unions) between gays everywhere, the truth is they only have a legal hook in MA and maybe CA. After that it's just a matter of whether other states have to recognize those marriages or civil unions or whatever comes out of this. And when it's all over, traditional couples will get married by the state and by their pastors and rabbis and imams (I think), and gay couples might have their relationships honored by the state and/or by their religious institutions. In the end, the sky won't fall, whatever happens.

Good Night, all.

Being somewhat of a lead foot I used to be concerned about speeding tickets, but now thanks to my brethern in San Francisco showing me the way I now drive just as fast as I want, the law being whatever I say it is.

Lawyer who went to bed - The sky may not fall, but the wrath of God will.

An abomination by any other name...

Let me get this straight, hetrosexuals want to live together and have sex without a long term commtitent because mariage is obsolete.

Gays want to be married for the commitment and the money the system allows for hetro married people. Also it ticks off the conservatives.

I say letem do it and move to there own country and within a hundred years they will be genetically removed through natural selection.

Darwin was right.

"what it's worth"

You’ve got to hand it to a lawyer, he makes an argument and when the premise on which it is based is demonstrated to be unfounded he implies that it doesn’t matter.

You and Justice Scalia may think the idea of a natural right to sodomy is absurd but not so many others. The legal reason and public perception of the reason can be quite different. Ask a few ordinary people who favor ‘abortion rights’ without much legal understanding why they think a woman has this right. We find they generally describe a ‘natural’ right not the tenuous argument of Roe V Wade.

Certainly the sky will not fall and compared to other absurdities in this civilization this one is not very important. Every age seems to have it’s bizarre obsessions, humans just seem to find sanity and balance boring.

Whereas were-penguins think...?

The final answer to this question requires an answer to the purpose and meaning of life, a religious answer, since agreement is unlikely and logically compelling argument does not exist as far as we know, it is up to the people to decide. The question is at what level. The rational thing would be to let people decide locally what behaviors (which are not protected by right) are acceptable and which are not, but people aren’t rational. In the face of uncertainty humans often feel compelled to try and force their point of view on others, to find reassurance in numbers, conviction in overcoming resistance.

The Were-Penguin viewpoint on this religious question (you see we aren’t trying to dodge after all) is that humans exist as part of a chain, parent to child. An individual life is just the temporal manifestation of the life which has gone before. In other words people who choose not to reproduce are perverse, just as those who cannot have a defect. Now perversity is a common human characteristic and if it’s harmless (in the case of choosing not to reproduce it could even be socially useful) it’s nobody’s business but your own. It is, however, a mockery of rights to call it a right an insult to those who suffer discrimination demand protection for it.

Perhaps were-penguins are not as different from humans as some may have thought.

Oh No....Lawyers!!!
Where`s a good anarchist when you need one?
I think some laws are stoopid and some not so stoopid. I fully intend to follow the laws of the land until the day I have conqored the planet and declared myself Dictator of Earth. Then all lawyers will have to find new jobs. Since I`ll be making laws as I go and changing them at my whim the only one who will know what`s legal and what isn`t will be MEEEEEE!!!!

I like your style Joatmoaf! With that viewpoint, could I offer you a position on the Massachusetts Supreme Court, or perhaps the Ninth Circuit?

Quote: The Bible also refers (without disapproval) to King Solomon having 700 wives (and 300 concubines!).

Shouldn’t we let the Bible interpret the Bible?
You can’t interpret someone’s intentions by someone’s silence
In my opinion God is actually the guy who wrote it.
He may have chosen to use ghostwriters,
But I think it is obvious that his omnipresent stamp is upon it.
I think he wants us to read all the chapters.
In my opinion it seems to develop a moral pattern with a final conclusion.
Sometimes silence speaks very loudly,
You just have to listen…

Speaking of silence,
I wish the “Parasitic” Mayor in San Francisco would learn to shut up and listen,
He might hear that the majority of us believe we should let law interpret the law.
[He apparently doesn’t understand the original authors intent – legal or otherwise].
Ironic, that this mayor thinks nothing of condemning the majority’s life style to promote the minority’s lack of social acceptance/life style.
Is history/religion/politics repeating itself?
The numbers just don’t add up in his favor…
Apparently, the politically correct Pharisees have run amuck in San Francisco…
The Pharisees were an un-silent minority also…
We all know what happened to them.
They were voted out of office.

Nothing that disregards the wishes or obligations of the law to protect the rule of the majority is Democratic. It is politically correct fascism. Sexist anarchy in this case. Legal Democracy is the system we choose and they need to deal with it. God - like our choice of government also deals with majorities. Sometimes to the detriment or disadvantage of a minority group. It is the system he chose to use – they need to deal with that also. Sodom and Gomorrah did. San Francisco may someday have to. Some will say that San Francisco is like Sodom and Gomorrah, a city sitting on sinkhole waiting for the righteous judgment of God and his preference for the cleansing effects of sodium chloride. They may be right. It will take them years to get rid of the effects of Willie Brown alone.Sometimes you need a good cleansing to remove the tough stains.

I would like to now address the present mayor of San Francisco before he turns into a pillar of salt he is already becoming in the community.

Dear Mr. Mayor,

Like the budget and taxpayers of California need another can of worms- you politically correct fascist! [Expensive, court costs, etc, ad nauseum]. I suggest we put a lien on your paycheck. Paybacks a bitch. And when you are tired of being someone else’s, it might make you appreciate your fiscal responsibilities more. I also wish you would be as enthusiastic about the ever increasing crime rate on Market street. But oh no – this would too easy. Pandering to the effeminate left and testosterone abundance of a confused body type is much easier.

You and I both know this is all about an unhappy group of [minority] illegal activists running out of options and an opportunistic mayor, [fill in your name here], who want to gain some type of advantage at the expense of others beliefs – and you think, we the quiet majority will just sit back and take it in our collective heterosexual lifestyles, once again at the cost of our majority beliefs and pocketbooks. There are ample ways to deal with this legally. Breaking the law isn’t one of them. Other people/minorities have done it legally. There actually are one or two minorities that have excelled regardless of life’s unfortunate social or pigment placement. They know who they are. You apparently don’t. They didn’t need opportunists like you and at the risk of furthering your confusion- gender or otherwise – the fact that your father or constituents fathers may of dressed all of you funny, is of no vital importance to me.Keep it to yourself.

This law is based on behavior that we, the voters of the state of CA have already decided on as being unacceptable in terms of marriage.

And there are already enough laws on the books that protect the RIGHTS of gays and lesbians in terms of healthcare, inheritance, property, etc.

Already curriculum is being FORCED down children's throats with regard to false teachings about homosexuality being genetic and latent. It is a learned behavior, which means CHOICE.

You know Harden, keeping your thoughts bottled up like that is very unhealthy. Have you considered therapy so you can learn how to share with others?

Learn to let go. It's OK - we're your friends, and we're here for you. Feelings are your friends. :)

L F Dog:

In my mind it makes no difference whether homosexuality is genetic or learned behavior. God has given us all personal challenges to overcome.

I have posted here about people I know who were gay, and had it ruin their marriages but stayed true to their faith and did not act upon it. That is a huge burden for God to place on anyone but it can be done.

If being gay is genetic and scientist find a genetic marker that can be determined in the womb, will the gay lobby do a 180 and become pro-life?

If being gay is genetic and scientist find a genetic marker that can be determined in the womb, will the gay lobby do a 180 and become pro-life?

Posted by: Pile On at February 21, 2004 04:56 PM

No they will just want all the straight babies to be aborted, that way in a generation it will be nothing but fun and games for them.

Even though I wasn`t here or able to vote in 1976, Florida seems to have passed a blanket law that covers gay marriages pretty well. It has defeated all challanges so far.

Thanks Cassandra,
Like the last survivor of the Titanic. Sometimes I do tend to go a little overboard...:)
Thank goodness people like you are around to keep both of my oars in the water.
But then if I din't say it some one else would.
San Francisco used to be such a happy place.

Harden:

I always look forward to seeing your name here - your posts never fail to make me laugh or bring a smile to my face. They are one of the few sane things in a very crazy world :)

People can acknowledge weaknesses, but not following through is one that is very difficult for people who can be tempted.

And they resist and get stronger. I have never known of a man or woman who went to a shrink and said 'help, I think I am straight!'

If choice is what the gay community wants, then why force their agenda down our throats with the teaching/brainwashing really of innocent children? THAT is inconscionable.

They have to indoctrinate the children, LFD. After all, it's not like they're breeding like rabbits. Teaching the 'It's OK to be gay' message in schools is just their means of reproduction. Tax-payer funded, no less! I wonder how many less homosexuals there would be if it weren't so brazenly displayed in society?