Dead State Troopers Family Denied Benefits

[dross]

Just for a rhetorical follow-up then, Dross... theoretically then a) plural marriage of any variety should be sanctioned and b) I should be able to marry my donkey...

Just illustrating by carrying it to the logical conclusion...

A donkey can't consent.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

and plural marriage? Obviously assuming all are adults and consent?

and yeah... I was being a bit of a smart errr.. a$$ with the donkey reference... (grin)

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

My view is unimportant, but just to show I'm not some racist prick, I have no problem with it. The public policy need was that all men were finally declared equal. The repeal of these laws was necessary to implement full equality.

As far as laws prohibiting sex between consenting adults of the same sex, these laws were outside the bounds of where government should focus attention. They were properly repealed.

Homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. Everyone is prevented from marrying outside the boundaries of the law, which is one man of age and one unrelated woman of age.

What is your view on interracial marriage, and what was the public policy need to repeal those laws? For that matter, what was the public policy need to repeal the laws against consensual sex between members of the same sex?

And don't all of the above violate the "natural order"?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

One last thought... the PETA folks might disagree with you (and me) about the donkey's ability to consent...

just sayin'...

 

[Joe Williams]

A donkey can't consent.

You sure? I once had a horse kick me across a stall because it didn't like the way I picked up it's hoof. Betting if I did something else it didn't consent to, it would do the same thing!

 

[CarmelHP]

What is your view on interracial marriage, and what was the public policy need to repeal those laws? For that matter, what was the public policy need to repeal the laws against consensual sex between members of the same sex?

And don't all of the above violate the "natural order"?

Miscegenation laws are Constitutionally distinct because they involved a per se invalid racial classification. Couples, one man and one woman, similarly situated, except for race, could not be married. Male couples, female couples, and other combinations are not similarly situated. There is no Constitutional basis for a court overturning marriage laws (1M,1W) as there was for miscegenation laws, invalid due to the effect of Reconstruction amendments.

 

[dross]

My view is unimportant, but just to show I'm not some racist prick, I have no problem with it. The public policy need was that all men were finally declared equal. The repeal of these laws was necessary to implement full equality.

As far as laws prohibiting sex between consenting adults of the same sex, these laws were outside the bounds of where government should focus attention. They were properly repealed.

Homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. Everyone is prevented from marrying outside the boundaries of the law, which is one man of age and one unrelated woman of age.

My point wasn't to hang you up on race, just to show the parallel arguments for both issues.

Again, I don't care about marriage. I think the government should be out of the business of marriage. I do think if they recognize one form of legal binding between consenting adults, they should recognize another.

 

[kludge]

Police are civilians.

THANK YOU!


(Rep if I could)

 

[dross]

and plural marriage? Obviously assuming all are adults and consent?

Again, marriage isn't the issue for me, but if we're discussing the contract aspect of marriage, then yes, I do not think the law should limit consenting adults from a plural marriage. Now, I also have no problem with the government only recognizing one spouse per customer for benefits purposes.

Miscegenation laws are Constitutionally distinct because they involved a per se invalid racial classification. Couples, one man and one woman, similarly situated, except for race, could not be married. Male couples, female couples, and other combinations are not similarly situated. There is no Constitutional basis for a court overturning marriage laws (1M,1W) as there was for miscegenation laws, invalid due to the effect of Reconstruction amendments.

The Constitutional grounds would be the Ninth Amendment, in my view. This is a natural rights issue, and even if the court didn't find a constitutional basis, I would like to see the legislature overturn what I consider to be archaic and oppressive laws.

 

[IndyMonkey]

You sure? I once had a horse kick me across a stall because it didn't like the way I picked up it's hoof. Betting if I did something else it didn't consent to, it would do the same thing!

Did it kick you in the head?

 

[dross]

You sure? I once had a horse kick me across a stall because it didn't like the way I picked up it's hoof. Betting if I did something else it didn't consent to, it would do the same thing!

Admit it, Joe. You're in the company of friends. You did more than pick up its hoof, didn't you? I think we both know you did.

Here's some info that may help:


http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/CFB38D8C-0BC9-4080-AA1B-D3DF7025D015/1445/curriculum_12.pdf
http://www.childhelp.org/gtbt

 

[CarmelHP]

The Constitutional grounds would be the Ninth Amendment, in my view. This is a natural rights issue, and even if the court didn't find a constitutional basis, I would like to see the legislature overturn what I consider to be archaic and oppressive laws.

Though the Supreme Court has created rights out of whole cloth before, it is bad jurisprudence consisting of little more than judges legislating from the bench. To argue that a right exists in the 9th Amendment, there should be at least some colorable argument that such a right existed in common law prior to the adoption of the Constitution. I don't know of such a right existing anywhere in human history until about 20 years ago. There may be some 14th Amendment due process evolving standards argument, but there's that judicial legislating again. It's best left a legislative issue.

 

[dross]

Though the Supreme Court has created rights out of whole cloth before, it is bad jurisprudence consisting of little more than judges legislating from the bench. To argue that a right exists in the 9th Amendment, there should be at least some colorable argument that such a right existed in common law prior to the adoption of the Constitution. I don't know of such a right existing anywhere in human history until about 20 years ago. There may be some 14th Amendment due process evolving standards argument, but there's that judicial legislating again. It's best left a legislative issue.

I take a different view.

I think if there was a ruling on the issue then yes, we should refer back to that. The fact that the legislature created a law back in that period that was not challenged on that basis is not enough reason for me to assume it was never intended to be a right.

I think if the 9th is to mean anything, an appeal that it is a natural right reserved to the people must not require a research to the world of the late 18th century.

To me, judicial activism was like Roe v. Wade. I don't have a problem with them deciding that a total ban on abortion is unconstitutional under the Ninth, but I do have a problem with them laying out the timetable they did. To me, that was activism.

 

[Redemption]

All it takes for the abomination of queer marriage to become legal everywhere is for moral men to do nothing, or rather allow themselves to be desensitized by arguments from an immoral minority. These arguments may even sound reasonable if one throws out morality, or for those who detest that word...we can substitute normality. Morally speaking, homosexuality is wrong. No discussion there. If you are offended, too bad.

Having been friends with several homosexuals over the years, including one I have known since childhood, I have heard from these insiders what a violent, self loathing, hateful and eventually insipid lifestyle that these individuals pursue. Bottom line being that most of them hate being homosexual and all of the recognition and "rights" they could ever manage to manipulate from society will never make them happy. It is a disease of the soul. Perhaps it is inborn- (some sort of hormonal problem), but if this is true then it is a birth defect that should be attempted to be cured not exonerated.
They should not be beaten or abused but neither should they be given special treatment including marriage rights. This is the problem with our society, no one wants to make a stand and say something is not right, that enough is enough. Acceptance of immorality as right is the first fissure in the foundation and leads to the ultimate decay of a society.

 

[dross]

All it takes for the abomination of queer marriage to become legal everywhere is for moral men to do nothing, or rather allow themselves to be desensitized by arguments from an immoral minority. These arguments may even sound reasonable if one throws out morality, or for those who detest that word...we can substitute normality. Morally speaking, homosexuality is wrong. No discussion there. If you are offended, too bad.

Having been friends with several homosexuals over the years, including one I have known since childhood, I have heard from these insiders what a violent, self loathing, hateful and eventually insipid lifestyle that these individuals pursue. Bottom line being that most of them hate being homosexual and all of the recognition and "rights" they could ever manage to manipulate from society will never make them happy. It is a disease of the soul. Perhaps it is inborn- (some sort of hormonal problem), but if this is true then it is a birth defect that should be attempted to be cured not exonerated.
They should not be beaten or abused but neither should they be given special treatment including marriage rights. This is the problem with our society, no one wants to make a stand and say something is not right, that enough is enough. Acceptance of immorality as right is the first fissure in the foundation and leads to the ultimate decay of a society.

Even if I were to agree with you about the basic immorality of homosexuality, I disagree about it being the business of the government. Nor do I agree with anti-discrimination laws as they apply to private entities, for any reason.

The problem with declaring something immoral, is that that argument can be used against you.

For instance, the Quakers, a christian sect, believe that violence even in self-defense is immoral. Should "immorality" be used as an argument to pass laws against self-defense.

I have no problem with your opinion that homosexuality is immoral. I have a problem with using the coercive power of the government to enforce your morality on others.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Not a Constitutional scholar myself, but this issue certainly seems to draw a fine line between Conservatives, Libertarian-thinking conservatives, and Libertarians.

One cannot have their cake and eat it too... Either we take the argument that there should be NO regulation of marriage between consenting adults of all types and combinations - or we say that there is some societal overarching reason for things.

You mentioned earlier, Dross, that this requires a great degree of logical rigor for some folks - I tend to agree. One is forced to choose between absolute libertarian principle, and weigh that against what they see as being good for society. I for one can understand a choice on either side of that line - and I can't bring myself to ridicule anyone who might choose to the other side of that very fine line. And we will find many people who are VERY libertarian in their views, that can't bring themselves to go THAT far.

But if one chooses the absolute libertarian ideal - one has to admit that it carries all of the way - not just as far as you want it to go. Plural marriage, gay marriage, whatever oddball thing gets dreamed up next... Otherwise, there is no difference, and we're just picking how far down the road we want to travel.

 

[dross]

Not a Constitutional scholar myself, but this issue certainly seems to draw a fine line between Conservatives, Libertarian-thinking conservatives, and Libertarians.

One cannot have their cake and eat it too... Either we take the argument that there should be NO regulation of marriage between consenting adults of all types and combinations - or we say that there is some societal overarching reason for things.

You mentioned earlier, Dross, that this requires a great degree of logical rigor for some folks - I tend to agree. One is forced to choose between absolute libertarian principle, and weigh that against what they see as being good for society. I for one can understand a choice on either side of that line - and I can't bring myself to ridicule anyone who might choose to the other side of that very fine line. And we will find many people who are VERY libertarian in their views, that can't bring themselves to go THAT far.

But if one chooses the absolute libertarian ideal - one has to admit that it carries all of the way - not just as far as you want it to go. Plural marriage, gay marriage, whatever oddball thing gets dreamed up next... Otherwise, there is no difference, and we're just picking how far down the road we want to travel.

To me, it's a simple issue. You sign a contract with a person that binds you to them similar to the legal bonds of marriage. Now the state must honor that contract at the level the state honors other similar contracts. That's it.

Now, in my ideal world, I could refuse to hire that person, or to rent him a house, or any other private choice I wanted to make, and the state would have no business in that, either. And I apply that to all types of discrimination.

Want to do drugs? Fine. No tax dollars from me for your rehab or medical treatment. Your addiction causes you to lose your home and you might freeze to death? Too bad. Better hope there's a charity that will help you, because the government won't.

I know it's not going to happen in our current world, but the fact that we can't change everything doesn't meant that we can't change some things. To me, we can start by getting government out of the business of deciding which unions are okay and which are not.

 

[Redemption]

I have no problem with your opinion that homosexuality is immoral. I have a problem with using the coercive power of the government to enforce your morality on others.

I can agree with you to a point. No one likes to have the morality of others forced upon them. However, there is a standard for moral observation in this country and in the last half of this century it has been slowly denigrated.

The pedophile could make the same argument for his predation upon children that you made about pacifism within the Quaker sect.
We can all agree that the pedophile has no moral or legal ground upon which to stand. However, an argument can be made for the Quaker.
Pacifism has never been thought of as immoral and while self deprecating when confronted by those who would do one harm, is not in and of itself immoral. It will however be dealt with legally when this conviction conflicts with the law of the land. Hence the many CO's (cell occupants) claiming pacifism during the Vietnam conflict.
Again, I do not advocate abuse of homosexuals, however, there are certain societal privileges that are reserved for normal citizens. The pursuit of a homosexual lifestyle precludes inclusion in this group.

 

[dross]

I can agree with you to a point. No one likes to have the morality of others forced upon them. However, there is a standard for moral observation in this country and in the last half of this century it has been slowly denigrated.

The pedophile could make the same argument for his predation upon children that you made about pacifism within the Quaker sect.
We can all agree that the pedophile has no moral or legal ground upon which to stand. However, an argument can be made for the Quaker.
Pacifism has never been thought of as immoral and while self deprecating when confronted by those who would do one harm, is not in and of itself immoral. It will however be dealt with legally when this conviction conflicts with the law of the land. Hence the many CO's (cell occupants) claiming pacifism during the Vietnam conflict.
Again, I do not advocate abuse of homosexuals, however, there are certain societal privileges that are reserved for normal citizens. The pursuit of a homosexual lifestyle precludes inclusion in this group.

The pedophile can't make the argument because his victim has no power of consent.

I would argue that pacifism IS immoral, but that's another discussion.

Again, I point out that the argument you used about moral standards being denigrated could and was used to oppose interracial marriage.

 

[Redemption]

The pedophile can't make the argument because his victim has no power of consent.

This includes 18 year old boys with 15 year old girlfriends......by law. Not that I agree.

Again, I point out that the argument you used about moral standards being denigrated could and was used to oppose interracial marriage.

They allow that now!!!!!

Just kidding

Miscegenation has no biological backing......different races can interbreed. Intersex couples cannot breed, hence this falls outside of not only moral boundaries but natural boundaries as well.