• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

So what do you haters think....?????

IML Gear Cream!
Decker said:
If the US military is so advanced how come we can't even secure Iraq--a country the size of california?

Decker, are you really going to say that the US military isn't the most advanced in the world?

We can and will secure Iraq, it takes time. How long did it take to obliterate the Iraq army? Not long. Insurgents don't exactly wear uniforms, though they will eventually be killed in due course.
 
DOMS said:
Because, thanks to some bleeding hearts, we have the most powerful army in the world...that's now touchy-feely. We should have simply gone over there are started killing until they couldn't fight back, then smoke 'em if you got 'em, and went home.

Now we have to worry about hurting people's feelings during a war...
I don't think anyone wants to obliterate a country that didn't attack us. I don't think opposition to mass murder is touchy-feely.
 
clemson357 said:
Decker, are you really going to say that the US military isn't the most advanced in the world?

We can and will secure Iraq, it takes time. How long did it take to obliterate the Iraq army? Not long. Insurgents don't exactly wear uniforms, though they will eventually be killed in due course.
Technologically, you bet. Strategically and politically--not even close. GWB is the cmdr in chief of the military. Look at how he's bungled Iraq. What good is a state of the art weapon in the hands of a monkey?
 
Decker said:
Al if you ever saw Rainman and the scene where there's an idiot savant talking about the history of the pony express--well, I'm like that minus the savant part. SS was originally off the federal budgetary books and subjet to its own accounting. LBJ did away w/ that. Now the budget is "unified" so that more unscrupulous politicians can plunder any reserves in the SS trust.


Now, now. Don't call yourself an idiot..............................that's my job.:D
 
clemson357 said:
And yet that has nothing to do with explaining how not funding something equates to censorship...


First you would have to show that the government specifically provided funding for that particular project, and it wasn't a part of an overall grant for artistic expression. If it was a grant, and you advocate certain "exclusions" to that artistic funding, that constitutes government censorship.
 
kbm8795 said:
If it was a grant, and you advocate certain "exclusions" to that artistic funding, that constitutes government censorship.

No, it doesn't. Not by any means. If someone is free to express themselves, yet simply doesn't recieve a paycheck from the government, that is censorship in your eyes? I guess the government is censoring this conversation then, aren't they?

For the record, I don't think the government should be paying people to paint pictures of anyone covered in feces. I am not sure the government needs to be taking money from the working man to pay someone else to paint, no matter what they are painting. People are free to paint, and if they are good they should be able to make some money.

I guess that is liberal america for you, cut spending on national security so that we can pay people to draw pictures. Hey, I just wiped my ass and called it art, can I get a pay check please?
 
clemson357 said:
No, it doesn't. Not by any means. If someone is free to express themselves, yet simply doesn't recieve a paycheck from the government, that is censorship in your eyes? I guess the government is censoring this conversation then, aren't they?

Actually, the owner of the web site can censor this conversation. Where exactly is that part of a "conservative" brain that has an inherent disconnect?
If the government offers a blanket grant for arts development, and then turns around and limits the "approved" expression based on your personal or religious point of view, that is an attempt to censor expression. This is where conservatives seem to have a major disconnect - and perhaps a good explanation is when they demand that certain books (like the two male penguins who raised a penguin chick) be removed from the children's shelves of a library because (even though it's a childrens book and a true story) the idea of parenting (even like that show "My Two Dads" or "Full House") "offends" certain people. In the conservative mind, that point of view takes automatic precedent over all others, but it isn't censorship because someone can still WRITE the book - they just can't sell it or put it in places for the intended audience to READ it.

When a government grant is issued on a general basis of artistic expression, "conservatives" subscribe to the idea that, just like the "official" churches and televangelists it deems qualified to accept federal tax monies (which of course includes the looney organizations and excludes the mainstream churches) they should control the types of acceptable art expression which all taxpayers are allowed to support with public funds. The standard is set by a select group of self-appointed "conservative" decency officers who make the decisions based on their own personal beliefs.

For the record, I don't think the government should be paying people to paint pictures of anyone covered in feces. I am not sure the government needs to be taking money from the working man to pay someone else to paint, no matter what they are painting. People are free to paint, and if they are good they should be able to make some money.

Feces is, while perhaps not the most pleasant topic of conversation, a natural part of bodily function. Having not seen the artwork or interviewed the artist, I can't comment on the symbolic intent of the artwork. . .though most art tends to have underlying messages beyond the surface appearance. Just because that is all you can see in the painting doesn't mean that is all that is there.
As for taking money from the "working man" - a rather interesting term for a conservative to use, since the examples of Republican government employees we've seen this year "heckuva job Brownie" doesn't indicate much commitment to hard work - I don't think the working man should be paying for Pat Robertson to threaten people on television, or the Concerned Women for America to pre-select Supreme Court justices for the entire country instead of our President and Senate. I doubt the working man is too interested in watching the infrastructure of the country continue to crumble while we pass the $300 billion mark paying for a war in Iraq, or that the working man cares about donating money to Reverend Moonie Tune to counsel people on the Moonie abstinence plan. The "working man" sure as hell ain't too interested in paying for a military that couldn't respond for days to a hurricane hitting our own country, a bridge to an island in Alaska where no one lives, for use of the broadcast airwaves by Faux News, or for a major political party to spend most of its unproductive time in Congress and the state houses screaming about a few thousand gays who want to make health decisions for each other.


I guess that is liberal america for you, cut spending on national security so that we can pay people to draw pictures. Hey, I just wiped my ass and called it art, can I get a pay check please?

Actually, it's far too easy for "conservatives" to dismiss everything they don't like as "liberal" America. Except the list of wingnut sexual offenders continues to grow - the latest one being a deacon in the Baptist church being caught in a police sting in a city park soliciting a police officer.
As for national security, at some point this country needs to ask itself why it is necessary to be so paranoid of the rest of the world that we absolutely need to spend three - five times as much as the next level of world power on "security." Our national borders aren't in Afghanistan and they aren't in Iraq or Iran. They aren't in Israel. And judging from our initial lame reaction to 9/11 (where were our jet fighters?) and our inability to protect our own southern border - hell, we can't even patrol the 90 miles between Havana and Key West enough to catch all the boat people, just what kind of "security" are we getting for that $457 billion?
 
People like you are too partisan to even talk to. Here is the second time I have said it, pay attention this time and see if you can fucking get it:

I AM NOT RELIGIOUS

That means you can drop the shit about pat robertson, the 700 club and anything else having to do with religion. I agree the government shouldn't be involved in sponsoring religion.

Is that clear, or am I going to have to say it again?


Now, if you are saying the military is inefficient, and we could be getting more bang for the buck, I would agree. The military is a branch of the government, so you can expect it to be inefficient. If you want to downsize the military, I would disagree.

I would especially disagree with downsizing the military while we are paying people to finger paint.
 
clemson357 said:
People like you are too partisan to even talk to. Here is the second time I have said it, pay attention this time and see if you can fucking get it:

I AM NOT RELIGIOUS

That means you can drop the shit about pat robertson, the 700 club and anything else having to do with religion. I agree the government shouldn't be involved in sponsoring religion.

Is that clear, or am I going to have to say it again?


Now, if you are saying the military is inefficient, and we could be getting more bang for the buck, I would agree. The military is a branch of the government, so you can expect it to be inefficient. If you want to downsize the military, I would disagree.

I would especially disagree with downsizing the military while we are paying people to finger paint.


Go read a bible, church boy. :thumb:
 
And, kbm, I am pretty sure the average working man is happy with the two new supreme court additions. I know you aren't, but suck it up. I believe almost every president in the last couple decades has gotten two nominations, including your beloved Clinton.
 
IML Gear Cream!
clemson357 said:
And, kbm, I am pretty sure the average working man is happy with the two new supreme court additions. I know you aren't, but suck it up. I believe almost every president in the last couple decades has gotten two nominations, including your beloved Clinton.

Just because kbm doesn't agree with the current admin, it does not equate to him liking Clinton. :rolleyes:
 
clemson357 said:
People like you are too partisan to even talk to. Here is the second time I have said it, pay attention this time and see if you can fucking get it:

Spare me the nonsense.

I AM NOT RELIGIOUS

But your political party is operated and financed by specific religious groups which are also receiving federal funding.

That means you can drop the shit about pat robertson, the 700 club and anything else having to do with religion. I agree the government shouldn't be involved in sponsoring religion.

Good. You finally started reading the Constitution.

Is that clear, or am I going to have to say it again?

Sure. . .say it again if it makes you feel better.


Now, if you are saying the military is inefficient, and we could be getting more bang for the buck, I would agree. The military is a branch of the government, so you can expect it to be inefficient. If you want to downsize the military, I would disagree.

The military is a branch of the people - not the government. One of the consistent mistakes conservatives make is the argument that the military "belongs" to the government - in a free society and a free republic, the military answers to the people. Yes, it might be through their representatives in Congress, but ultimately they exist to protect the people of the United States, not the government. Dictatorships use the military to enforce and protect the government.

I would especially disagree with downsizing the military while we are paying people to finger paint.


If our military is incapable of defending our borders and acting as support in national crises within those borders, it doesn't have enough personnel. But it certainly has enough money. This country has no constitutional provision to arbitrarily invade and occupy foreign nations at will or on the basis of constructing an empire - our own history in the last century shows the fallacy of having too many entangling alliances. We were unable to protect our own territories during World War II and left Hawaii virtually naked to a Japanese invasion. We lost the Phillippines, Guam, many of our mandated Pacific Islands, and two Aleutian Islands because we didn't have the men or material to defend official territories and protectorates of the United States. That is the only responsibility of the U.S. military and it shouldn't require $457 billion a year to accomplish.
 
clemson357 said:
And, kbm, I am pretty sure the average working man is happy with the two new supreme court additions. I know you aren't, but suck it up. I believe almost every president in the last couple decades has gotten two nominations, including your beloved Clinton.

I wouldn't bet on that working man being very happy with anything this Administration has accomplished. President Bush has not had an approval rating above 50% in 15 months - in the last three months, there have only been four states in the country in which over 50% approve of his performance. The Republican Congress is even worse off. And in many states where Republicans have been running all three branches of government, approval ratings for the Party have slipped. The governor of Ohio has managed to recover - slightly - from an 8% approval rating to 18% - the worst performance in the country. A culture of corruption.

Those same working men paid close attention when the American Taliban demanded that President Bush dump Harriett Miers for the Supreme Court - and the President caved. And he couldn't appoint Alito without having them pre-screen the selection and approve of him before any of the representatives of the Senate got to interview the man.

By the way, Clinton, even with a blowjob deception scandal, never had approval ratings below 40% for nearly a year.
 
Kbm8795 and Clemson257's arguments could easily keep the US better informed of what is going on in politics, better than Oreilly, Hannity, Ingraham, Limbaugh, Savage, and Boortz combined.
 
kbm8795 said:
Clinton, even with a blowjob deception scandal, never had approval ratings below 40% for nearly a year.

and who the fuck cares?

if 'my party' is run by the religious, your party is run by those who would like to pay for sex change operations of state employees with tax payer's money, as they do in san fransisco. given a choice between the two, I'll stick with the conservatives. :thumb:
 
clemson357 said:
and who the fuck cares?

if 'my party' is run by the religious, your party is run by those who would like to pay for sex change operations of state employees with tax payer's money, as they do in san fransisco. given a choice between the two, I'll stick with the conservatives. :thumb:

That I'd be real interested in seeing the research about. But actually, at this point, the smart thing for a tranny to do - after those "marriage" amendments are passed, is to sue the state for a sex change operation claiming the only way to meet the requirements for equal protection is to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. The trannies can probably mount a pretty convincing case, given the over 1000 special rights reserved for straights.

Now what rights are religious people, who we all know choose their lifestyle and their prejudices and can also change them whenever they like, being denied?
 
kbm8795 said:
But actually, at this point, the smart thing for a tranny to do - after those "marriage" amendments are passed, is to sue the state for a sex change operation claiming the only way to meet the requirements for equal protection is to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. The trannies can probably mount a pretty convincing case, given the over 1000 special rights reserved for straights.
Actually, the smartest thing for a transexual to do would be to get therapy, but thats just my opinion.

Funny you should bring up equal protection, though your phrasing suggests you don't completely understand it. There is no 'requirement' for equal protection under the law, everyone recieves equal protection. And in this case, there are no rights reserved for straight people. The government (and society, as Decker would point out) define the boundaries of a legally cognizable institution: marriage. Marriage comes with certain benefits, as does other legal institution such as guardianship, employer/employee status...etc. Everyone in the country gets the same rights with respect to those institutions, in the case of marriage, any adult in the country can get married. You can't marry someone of the same sex, regardless of whether you are straight or gay. Equal protection is just that, protection; it isn't defined in terms of 'wants.' Thus, you do not have an equal protection claim just because you 'want' to marry someone of the same sex. You have been afforded the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry. To say that the government (and society) cannot define the boundaries of a specific legal institution is ridiculous.

The government defines the boundaries of the employer/employee relationship, and they provide certain protections for that relationship, such as statutory protection against discrimination. You can't go walking down the street and get discriminated against by just anybody and bring an employment discrimination suit; they must actually be your employer. Is it an equal protection claim for me to sue the goverment for not allowing me to define who my employer is, regardless of whether I actually work for them? No. The government has the right to define what is and isn't an employment relationship for purposes of employment protection. The government (and society) correspondingly can define what is a marital relationship for purposes of marital protection. Just because you want something outside the definition of marriage to be included doesn't mean you have an equal protection claim, so long as you have been provided equal access to what actually constitutes marriage.
 
clemson357 said:
Actually, the smartest thing for a transexual to do would be to get therapy, but thats just my opinion.

Why would you even feel qualified to have an opinion about that subject?

Funny you should bring up equal protection, though your phrasing suggests you don't completely understand it.

Oh...this is gonna be good.

There is no 'requirement' for equal protection under the law, everyone recieves equal protection.

Really. And this is based on the Equal Protection Clause, no doubt.

And in this case, there are no rights reserved for straight people. The government (and society, as Decker would point out) define the boundaries of a legally cognizable institution: marriage.

I'm not sure cognizable is a good word to use here.

Marriage comes with certain benefits, as does other legal institution such as guardianship, employer/employee status...etc. Everyone in the country gets the same rights with respect to those institutions, in the case of marriage, any adult in the country can get married.

Actually, that isn't true. People with certain mental disabilities often have to go to court to seek the right to marry.

You can't marry someone of the same sex, regardless of whether you are straight or gay. Equal protection is just that, protection; it isn't defined in terms of 'wants.' Thus, you do not have an equal protection claim just because you 'want' to marry someone of the same sex. You have been afforded the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry. To say that the government (and society) cannot define the boundaries of a specific legal institution is ridiculous.

That's almost an interesting spin, except for some glaring flaws. The rights to marriage have long been recognized as HUMAN rights - not constitutional ones, meaning the choices of intimate relationships are supposed to rise above the interference of the state and the law. This is one reason why the state cannot allow a dowry or financial payment between potential spouses as a requisite for marriage, or that adult children are not required to participate in arranged marriages by the family or the state. When the state requires that individuals surrender their right to make that choice without proving any inherent harm, that is certainly a violation of their rights to equal protection. Moreover, the state has no constitutional foundation to declare that "marriage" between two members of the opposite sex is the only avenue in which to seek equal statutory protection for events which are individual experiences in life. Health decisions, life arrangements, property dispersal, and funeral/burial arrangements are clearly defined as areas where the State has limited health risk interest in the private decisions of individuals - yet the attempt to pass constitutional amendments to "protect" marriage is actually an attempt to force those who cannot marry or choose not to marry to construct other means to only partially protect their legal rights to control events in their individual lives. And let me make something else clear here - the State does not afford the "right" to marry - Supreme Court decisions for decades have made it rather clear that the State is only allowed to interfere in personal choices when it can PROVE that there is an inherent harm to society. Conservatives have been unable to prove any inherent harm with same-sex marriages, though they desperately attempt to create research (which is usually quickly debunked) in order to support their contention and provide the State with some legitimate reason to deny those statutory protections. The State can only define marriage along certain guidelines in which it can prove harm - not simply because the neighbors don't "like" it or their corner church thinks it is sinful.

The government defines the boundaries of the employer/employee relationship, and they provide certain protections for that relationship, such as statutory protection against discrimination. You can't go walking down the street and get discriminated against by just anybody and bring an employment discrimination suit; they must actually be your employer. Is it an equal protection claim for me to sue the goverment for not allowing me to define who my employer is, regardless of whether I actually work for them? No. The government has the right to define what is and isn't an employment relationship for purposes of employment protection. The government (and society) correspondingly can define what is a marital relationship for purposes of marital protection. Just because you want something outside the definition of marriage to be included doesn't mean you have an equal protection claim, so long as you have been provided equal access to what actually constitutes marriage.

Residence in a state is not an employment contract, unless you wish to look at the state government as the employee of the people. And marriage is certainly not the same as an employment contract.

The definition of marriage has been evolving for centuries. Either there is an inherent harm beyond "I think it's icky for THOSE people to marry" or there isn't.
 
kbm8795 said:
Why would you even feel qualified to have an opinion about that subject?
Because I live in the real world, and in the real world when someone wants to have their genitals surgically turned inside out, it is safe to say they may be in need of a little therapy. Second, I said it was an opinion, correct me if I am wrong but people are still free to have opinions aren't they? Or do you think the government is censoring opinions because they don't pay people to have them?:laugh:


kbm8795 said:
And this is based on the Equal Protection Clause, no doubt.
It is, actually.

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution: "...nor [shall the state] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It doesn't say, 'nor shall the state deny to any person who meets certain requirements equal protection of the laws.'


I'll respond to the rest of your post when I get done with with my work.
 
clemson357 said:
Because I live in the real world, and in the real world when someone wants to have their genitals surgically turned inside out, it is safe to say they may be in need of a little therapy. Second, I said it was an opinion, correct me if I am wrong but people are still free to have opinions aren't they? Or do you think the government is censoring opinions because they don't pay people to have them?:laugh:

While your attempt at sarcasm is almost admirable, perhaps you need to be reminded that you only live in clemson357's little world. You really have no basis for an opinion on that matter - unless you'd care to cite experiences or materials that provide you with insight. Interestingly enough, people who are born with only partial genital development have often been assigned their gender by a doctor, not by how they were born. Those operations and decisions made at birth have also caused identity confusion as a child grew older - the therapy required was one which helped them come to terms with who they really were - not what the doctor prescribed them to be at birth. The baby doesn't receive "therapy" or have any say in those decisions.



It is, actually.

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution: "...nor [shall the state] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are such things as state constitutions, too.

It doesn't say, 'nor shall the state deny to any person who meets certain requirements equal protection of the laws.'

"any person" should be rather self-explanatory. It doesn't say "any heterosexual person," "any married person."


I'll respond to the rest of your post when I get done with with my work.

Ok. I've got another class to teach.
 
IML Gear Cream!
kbm, I have to ask if your post is opinion, are you just making things up, or do you think this is actually the law? Notwithstanding, you have several things completely wrong.

kbm8795 said:
The rights to marriage have long been recognized as HUMAN rights - not constitutional ones, meaning the choices of intimate relationships are supposed to rise above the interference of the state and the law.
Marriage, originally, was recognized as a religious union, not a human right. Regardless, I don't know what a HUMAN right is, unless you are referring to abstract concepts of 'natural rights' that aren't recognized in any legal sense. You might have a natural right, in some philosophers mind, to kill the person who rapes your wife, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished under the legal system.

Marriage, in the sense that it exists for purposes of US law, is a legal institution that is recognized and specifically defined. You might have some other form of religious 'marriage' that has nothing to do with filing papers or recieving rights from the state, but that is a seperate idea.

kbm8795 said:
When the state requires that individuals surrender their right to make that choice without proving any inherent harm, that is certainly a violation of their rights to equal protection.
Interesting wording here, though I don't know how you 'surrender' something that you never had.

Anyway, you do actually have a 'freedom of association,' which is a First Amendment right which precludes the government from telling you who you can and can't sleep with, spend time with...etc. That, however, does not mean you have a constitutional right to redefine any legal institution in anyway you see fit, as 'your choice,' and recieve the corresponding rights that go along with it.
kbm8795 said:
Moreover, the state has no constitutional foundation to declare that "marriage" between two members of the opposite sex is the only avenue in which to seek equal statutory protection for events which are individual experiences in life.
I don't know exactly what this is supposed to mean, or how it relates here. The government isn't precluding other means of achieving the same result, that I know of. For instance, in marriage the state recognizes community property. There are other means of achieving the same legal result, such as joint tenancies, or tenancies in common. I don't know where you would get the idea that the government is saying that marriage is the only avenue to get certain rights, such as property rights, which can be actually be had through other legal means.
kbm8795 said:
Health decisions, life arrangements, property dispersal, and funeral/burial arrangements are clearly defined as areas where the State has limited health risk interest in the private decisions of individuals - yet the attempt to pass constitutional amendments to "protect" marriage is actually an attempt to force those who cannot marry or choose not to marry to construct other means to only partially protect their legal rights to control events in their individual lives.
I read this several times, and I think it might form an actual thought, but I am not sure. What is a 'health risk interest in private decisions?' The government regulates certain things, like where you can bury a body, or how property is distributed in the event that someone dies without a will, but I don't know that those are 'health risk interests.' Anyway, those things can be decided and contractually agreed on between people outside of marriage. For instance, someone can set up a trust of $1,000 and specify that this money is to be used to bury John next to Jim with a joint headstone reading 'forever in love.' Also, anyone can write a holographic will relatively no trouble whatsoever. I don't know that there is a constitutional right to have the state recognize a scheme of property distribution for you in case you die without a will, in any event, isn't it easier just to write a will? As far as health decisions go, people can draft legal instruments specifying how it is to be handled if they end up like Terry Schiavo, or presumably who is to make the decision.
kbm8795 said:
And let me make something else clear here - the State does not afford the "right" to marry - Supreme Court decisions for decades have made it rather clear that the State is only allowed to interfere in personal choices when it can PROVE that there is an inherent harm to society. Conservatives have been unable to prove any inherent harm with same-sex marriages, though they desperately attempt to create research (which is usually quickly debunked) in order to support their contention and provide the State with some legitimate reason to deny those statutory protections. The State can only define marriage along certain guidelines in which it can prove harm - not simply because the neighbors don't "like" it or their corner church thinks it is sinful.
This is completely backwards. The Supreme Court has recognized a 'right of privacy' in personal choices having to do with one's own body. Thus, the government cannot tell you that you can't sleep with a someone of the same sex.

I don't know that any court has ever construed a right of privacy to mandate State's rewriting the definitions of legal institutions to correspond to anyone's whim.



I think you can make the argument that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples, but I don't think you can make the argument that existing law prohibits government and society from defining legal ideas such as marriage (or employment rights). Things have to have definitions, that is the nature of the world. Marriage, conventionally, has been defined as being between two consenting adults of opposite genders.
 
kbm8795 said:
Ok. I've got another class to teach.


I didn't read all of the convo... but for some reason... I've gotta say...


pwned.jpg
 
clemson357 said:
kbm, I have to ask if your post is opinion, are you just making things up, or do you think this is actually the law? Notwithstanding, you have several things completely wrong.

Have you read any Supreme Court cases involving these applications? Highly personal relationships are seen as a critical buffer between the individual and the power of the State. That's why a wife is not forced to testify against her husband in court.


Marriage, originally, was recognized as a religious union, not a human right. Regardless, I don't know what a HUMAN right is, unless you are referring to abstract concepts of 'natural rights' that aren't recognized in any legal sense. You might have a natural right, in some philosophers mind, to kill the person who rapes your wife, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished under the legal system.

Nonsense. Marriage did not originate as a religious union. Its roots are in pagan cultural custom. . .which may have some spiritual components. No church owns marriage.

Marriage, in the sense that it exists for purposes of US law, is a legal institution that is recognized and specifically defined. You might have some other form of religious 'marriage' that has nothing to do with filing papers or recieving rights from the state, but that is a seperate idea.

Exactly. But what conservatives are attempting to do is have the "religious" idea of marriage enshrined in the Constitution, even though marriage itself is a human right, not a constitutional one. The statutory benefits of marriage are legislated, the relationship is not. . .which is one reason why the Supreme Court has ruled several times that a state needs a compelling reason to limit recognition of highly individual relationships. "I don't like them" statements by religious groups and neighbors isn't a compelling reason.

Interesting wording here, though I don't know how you 'surrender' something that you never had.

Just because the state etends something doesn't exist doesn't mean it isn't there. The right is there already - the state attempts to deny that right.


Anyway, you do actually have a 'freedom of association,' which is a First Amendment right which precludes the government from telling you who you can and can't sleep with, spend time with...etc. That, however, does not mean you have a constitutional right to redefine any legal institution in anyway you see fit, as 'your choice,' and recieve the corresponding rights that go along with it.

Wingnuts don't believe in an inherent freedom of association, nor do they believe in an inherent right to privacy. They believe the State has an inherent role in designating and defining approved relationships - that is why they want all those state constitutional amendments. They also want Supreme Court rulings guaranteeing freedom of association and the right to intimate privacy overturned because they believe those protections should only be provided heterosexuals.

I don't know exactly what this is supposed to mean, or how it relates here. The government isn't precluding other means of achieving the same result, that I know of. For instance, in marriage the state recognizes community property. There are other means of achieving the same legal result, such as joint tenancies, or tenancies in common. I don't know where you would get the idea that the government is saying that marriage is the only avenue to get certain rights, such as property rights, which can be actually be had through other legal means.

By this reasoning, statutes involving special rights for "married" couples should be declared unconstitutional, since they are just as capable of making arrangements through the same means as everyone else.

I read this several times, and I think it might form an actual thought, (oh, are you the "decider" of actual thoughts now too?) but I am not sure. What is a 'health risk interest in private decisions?' The government regulates certain things, like where you can bury a body, or how property is distributed in the event that someone dies without a will, but I don't know that those are 'health risk interests.'

The government's only compelling interest in regulating where a body can be buried is because of potential health risks. However, "family" law is constructed to limit those decision making powers to a listing of only "approved" family members. When those aren't available, the STATE has the power to make those decisions even if an "unapproved" family member has lived with someone for 20 years.

Anyway, those things can be decided and contractually agreed on between people outside of marriage. For instance, someone can set up a trust of $1,000 and specify that this money is to be used to bury John next to Jim with a joint headstone reading 'forever in love.' Also, anyone can write a holographic will relatively no trouble whatsoever. I don't know that there is a constitutional right to have the state recognize a scheme of property distribution for you in case you die without a will, in any event, isn't it easier just to write a will?

Marriage alone is no justification for claiming that all unmarried people have no right to 'scheme" with distribution of property. Wills and trusts are regularly challenged, but "family" statutes are almost always automatically upheld. Again, your argument contends that marriage statutes are not necessary and are unconstitutional because the parties can provide all these things on their own.

As far as health decisions go, people can draft legal instruments specifying how it is to be handled if they end up like Terry Schiavo, or presumably who is to make the decision.

This is where the Right has attempted to demand State intervention and invalidation of the marriage statutes. If they don't recognize the marriage rights of Michael and Terri Schiavo, they aren't going to recognize the legal instruments drawn up by people outside of marriage. They attempted repeatedly to demand and force the State to dissolve a marriage without the consent of the parties.

This is completely backwards. The Supreme Court has recognized a 'right of privacy' in personal choices having to do with one's own body. Thus, the government cannot tell you that you can't sleep with a someone of the same sex.

The Supreme Court did not extend that right of privacy to gay citizens until 2003. The Right wants that overturned - they believe the State has an interest in arbitraily regulating and enforcing the behaviors of gay citizens because of "morality."

I don't know that any court has ever construed a right of privacy to mandate State's rewriting the definitions of legal institutions to correspond to anyone's whim.

The State rewrites definitions of institutions all the time. Someone's whim in Georgia was that a minor could marry anyone without parental permission if one party was pregnant. Someone's whim in Illinois was that a first cousins could marry as long as the woman was over 50 and could show she could not become pregnant.


I think you can make the argument that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples, but I don't think you can make the argument that existing law prohibits government and society from defining legal ideas such as marriage (or employment rights). Things have to have definitions, that is the nature of the world. Marriage, conventionally, has been defined as being between two consenting adults of opposite genders.

Existing law prohibits the State from making unreasonable demands on one group of citizens simply because another group "doesn't like them." "Conservatives" don't like that idea. The definition of marriage has changed numerous times over the years, and the idea of "consenting adults" is not grounded in tradition. Tradition was that marriage was a family arrangement, often involving dowries, almost always involving approval of the Church or arranged by the parent, even if the child was an emancipated adult. There is nothing historically conventional about two consenting adults of the opposite gender being the test for marriage competence. That is a relatively modern concept and consent is not automatic. And things don't have to possess definitions which exist forever, particularly when it is obvious that they do not adequately or equitably serve all members of society.
 
kbm8795 said:
Have you read any Supreme Court cases involving these applications? Highly personal relationships are seen as a critical buffer between the individual and the power of the State. That's why a wife is not forced to testify against her husband in court.

Nonsense. Marriage did not originate as a religious union. Its roots are in pagan cultural custom. . .which may have some spiritual components. No church owns marriage.
You know, it doesn't appear as if you are actually trying to have a logical conversation here. Everything you are writing appears to be flowing off the top of your head rather than based in anything that is actually law or fact.

Yes, I have read lots of Supreme Court decisions having to do with all sorts of applications, including privacy rights, freedom of association, and the fifth amendment. A wife is not forced to testify against her husband in court, that is true. This is an extension of the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, rather than any imaginary right of 'highly personal relationship buffers.'

And I didn't say that the church owns marriage. Where did you get this? Are you just making things up? And pagan beliefs are religious beliefs, so I guess you just agreed with me.

I may or may not wade through the rest of your compilation of fabrications later tonight. If I do, it will only because I am EXTREMELY bored. I don't think it will do any good though, as I can already see you are proceeding with your argument as if I didn't say anything at all. What is a 'human right?' Where is the legal authority for this? Is there a Bill of Human Rights in the Constitution, seperate from the Bill of Rights that I am familiar with, or are you just depending on imaginary rights to support your argument?

If I do decide to respond further, can you do me a favor? Try to stop being so extremely partisan. I am sure you are correct that SOME conservative would like to get right of the right of privacy, though I hardly see how blanket generalizations are relevant. I could proceed with the rest of my argument in a similar fashion, making the generalization that liberals would like to distribute the morning after abortion pill in Middle Schools using tax payer dollars, though I hardly see how that would be productive. Obviously generalizing this belief to all liberals is false.
 
clemson357 said:
You know, it doesn't appear as if you are actually trying to have a logical conversation here. Everything you are writing appears to be flowing off the top of your head rather than based in anything that is actually law or fact.

Uh. . .I haven't seen you post a single legal citation. Are you borrowing someone else's head?

Yes, I have read lots of Supreme Court decisions having to do with all sorts of applications, including privacy rights, freedom of association, and the fifth amendment.

Then you should be able to easily cite them.

A wife is not forced to testify against her husband in court, that is true. This is an extension of the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, rather than any imaginary right of 'highly personal relationship buffers.'

The concept comes from the idea that certain highly personal relationships are critical buffers between individuals and the power of the State.

And I didn't say that the church owns marriage. Where did you get this?
You said marriage originated in religion.

Are you just making things up? And pagan beliefs are religious beliefs, so I guess you just agreed with me.

I qualified it as spiritual.

I may or may not wade through the rest of your compilation of fabrications later tonight.

Unless you can show they are fabrications, your statement is meaningless.

If I do, it will only because I am EXTREMELY bored.

Is that supposed to mean something?

I don't think it will do any good though, as I can already see you are proceeding with your argument as if I didn't say anything at all.

Hmm...maybe you didn't.

What is a 'human right?' Where is the legal authority for this?

Birth.

Is there a Bill of Human Rights in the Constitution, seperate from the Bill of Rights that I am familiar with, or are you just depending on imaginary rights to support your argument?

You need a course in colonial American history.

If I do decide to respond further, can you do me a favor? Try to stop being so extremely partisan.

Any American patriot would appear partisan to someone supporting fascism.

I am sure you are correct that SOME conservative would like to get right of the right of privacy, though I hardly see how blanket generalizations are relevant. I could proceed with the rest of my argument in a similar fashion, making the generalization that liberals would like to distribute the morning after abortion pill in Middle Schools using tax payer dollars, though I hardly see how that would be productive. Obviously generalizing this belief to all liberals is false.

Nice try, but I haven't seen that "liberal" policy in print anywhere. However, I've read lots of wingnut policy pieces constantly arguing that there is no right to privacy. They wanted rightwing activist judges precisely for that reason. Hey. . .vote Republican.
 
Try Griswold v. Connecticut (381 US 479 - 1965) - marriage. . ."is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma) 312 US 535 (1942) - marriage is a "basic civil right of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The right to marry derives from the right to privacy: Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (414 U.S. 632 - 1974). The Supreme Court declared that "it has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment."

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (468 US 609 - 1984). . .freedom of association extends to "certain kinds of highly personal relationships" that "act as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State."
 
WHat do you teach, KBM, and where? :confused:
 
Back
Top