|
0 members (),
24
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,593
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
I join with others in welcoming you, ChristianMiller, and applauding your first post as being very well written and well thought out. It helps my high opinion of your essay that it happens to be in very close agreement with my own position.  A slight quibble: In our idealized concept of marriage we imagine two people in love, committed to each other, living together, having a family, living happily ever after. Many of us here at the Rant are a little on the waning side of our child bearing/rearing years. In fact, one might say downright over the hill. So your "our" may not apply to our "us". More to the crux of the matter: to my mind, the idea of a "union" of two people that goes beyond mere "love relationship" definitely involves some vital contractural obligations and rights, such as legal and medical power of attorney, sharing of property, and sharing of decision making regarding guardianship of minor children. IMHO these rights cannot and should not vanish in the name of equality; rather they should be equally distributed in the name of equality. So I unite with Phil's opinion. First, equal rights. Then we can talk about abolishing the institutionalization of marriage relationships. I'll be arguing for the "con" side.
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
Thank you all for the warm welcome and I appreciate the kind comments. Steve, I too am over the hill, but I do find it easier going downhill than uphill. It was Social Security that brought me to my position on marriage. Last year my wife started getting a $700 payment each month from Social Security based solely on being married to me. A glorious thing for us and we would hate to give it back, but there are a lot of poor older unmarried folks that need the money more than we do. It is hard for me to rationalize the fairness, justice, equality or morality in our wonderful government marriage benefit that is being subsidized by unmarried people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28 |
Phil, Thanks for the welcome. At your suggestion I did read over the previous 50 pages and yes it not so easy. I do believe, however, that this issue, unlike global warming or Middle East conflicts, can be solved by thought experiments, intellectual rigor and some creativity.
Your observation about the disparity of women is probably true, but a box we dare not open.
“Despite gains by women, they are not on an equal footing with men when it comes to negotiating marital contracts. That might offend some, but I saw thousands of examples of the disparity.”
Even for an experienced lawyer as yourself, I would think that the argument that marriage laws are needed to protect weak women will be a tough sell. First it will alienate all the women and second such protection is not needed for same sex marriage since it is either two men or two women.
But yes I agree with 100% that we should teach finance and law in high school. It is more important than calculus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Mellow, this is, I think, the most eloquent, elegant elucidation of the topic I have ever seen: 1) If the issue is marriage for the sake of marriage, there are religious leaders who will perform gay marriages - not enough, but times are changing.
2) If the issue is recognition of marriage by the government, this appears to be an issue because government rewards marriage with certain benefits.
3) It is unfair for the government to reward relationships when participation in those relationships is dependent primarily upon a religious issue.
4) It is unfair for the government to give preference, in basic issues of kinship, inheritance, and family on the basis of religious definitions rather than on the basis of the rights of individuals. 
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge.
On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.
On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
Given the lies the YES ON 8 people put out in their ads, it'll be interesting to hear what tangled web of lies they'll argue before the Court.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
All of the briefs are available online at the link in my post above if you want to know what they are saying, Rick.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
What's the purpose of "oral arguments" if said "arguments" are already contained in a court brief? Isn't that a waste of time? Can't the Court read for themselves?
I don't understand that part of the legal process.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Oral arguments are usually a time for the Justices to poke into arguments made in the briefs, get answers to questions and deepen a particular point.
The worst is when they just sit there while you are speaking. Then you have to make points in response to other briefs and arguments that came before you in turn.
Often the justices signal where they are heading during oral arguments.
I never went to the Supreme Court but have argued a fair number of Appeal court cases, both federal and state. I love the process.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
