|
Proposition 8 ruled "unconstitutional"; ...sets up Supreme Court battle
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 7 2012, 10:09 AM (2,435 Views)
|
|
Renauda
|
Feb 9 2012, 04:04 PM
Post #101
|
- Posts:
- 10,507
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #505
- Joined:
- September 5, 2007
|
- KlavierBauer
- Feb 9 2012, 03:26 PM
Ren: I feel his pain.
I don't recall him saying that it was painful. Just a little bit outrageous and annoying that for a mere $500.00 the Church could wipe the slate clean as it were of his non Catholic fiancee's civil marriage and subsequent divorce settlement. He still describes his reaction to the priest at the time as being one of "who's frickin' kidding who here" as he got up to walk out the door. I also seem to think he called it a scam to the churchman's face. $500.00 for what? Notarizing an already notarized legal document?
|
|
|
| |
|
KlavierBauer
|
Feb 9 2012, 04:10 PM
Post #102
|
- Posts:
- 15,126
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
I'm worry for being too logical for you.
I can empathize with his frustration and outrage.
*eye roll*
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple
|
| |
|
Renauda
|
Feb 9 2012, 04:16 PM
Post #103
|
- Posts:
- 10,507
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #505
- Joined:
- September 5, 2007
|
That's okay. Not to worry. I just laugh along with him and his wife when they retell the story all these years later.
|
|
|
| |
|
John D'Oh
|
Feb 9 2012, 04:21 PM
Post #104
|
- Posts:
- 53,798
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #276
- Joined:
- October 19, 2005
|
I can empathise with his laughter. Before we got married they tried to make us attend church ever week for 6 months. We ended up having a civil ceremony.
|
|
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
|
| |
|
Renauda
|
Feb 9 2012, 04:22 PM
Post #105
|
- Posts:
- 10,507
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #505
- Joined:
- September 5, 2007
|
- John D'Oh
-
Unorthodox weddings are much cooler anyways. You can get hitched scub-diving naked, or recite your vows in Klingon.

Hey, P'takh big spender.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dave Spelvin
|
Feb 10 2012, 06:10 AM
Post #106
|
- Posts:
- 2,582
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #208
- Joined:
- May 18, 2005
|
Thought this was interesting: Is That All You Got?: How the proponents of a gay marriage ban just ran out of arguments
|
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Feb 10 2012, 09:43 AM
Post #107
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 06:10 AM
The fact that one lawyer made an insufficient argument hardly translates to 'there is no case to be made'. Srsly, that sort of argument is even more lame than Cooper's.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
John D'Oh
|
Feb 10 2012, 10:10 AM
Post #108
|
- Posts:
- 53,798
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #276
- Joined:
- October 19, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Feb 10 2012, 09:43 AM
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 06:10 AM
The fact that one lawyer made an insufficient argument hardly translates to 'there is no case to be made'. Srsly, that sort of argument is even more lame than Cooper's. I think we'd be hard pushed to find an argument lamer than the one worried about the slippery slope to state-sanctioned bestiality.
|
|
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Feb 10 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #109
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- John D'Oh
- Feb 10 2012, 10:10 AM
- ivorythumper
- Feb 10 2012, 09:43 AM
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 06:10 AM
The fact that one lawyer made an insufficient argument hardly translates to 'there is no case to be made'. Srsly, that sort of argument is even more lame than Cooper's.
I think we'd be hard pushed to find an argument lamer than the one worried about the slippery slope to state-sanctioned bestiality. Is anyone seriously making that argument? But while we're at it, let's bump this question for Ax, in case he missed it.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Dave Spelvin
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:09 AM
Post #110
|
- Posts:
- 2,582
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #208
- Joined:
- May 18, 2005
|
- Quote:
-
So I'll ask you: would you deny a free love commune of 15 people to have a corporate structure to ensure the same rights to establish a life of mutual companionship and benefit and legal standing as you would give a gay couple? Would you accord that arrangement the name of "marriage"? Would you let such a group adopt a child?
I have an answer: Your questions are irrelevant to the facts at issue in the case at hand. Courts are not supposed to imagine the world that results from their decisions but only to follow the law. (Isn't this the conservative position on judicial restraint?) No one in this case has asked for the right to call 15 people married. Perhaps in some other case today or later, but not in this one. Therefore, the court should not consider your 15-people marriage but restrict itself to the facts at hand. Once they have isolated the facts, they should then apply the law to the facts as best they can.
So where are the facts? Prove that gay couples do not raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Don't waste breath on definitions or natural orders or anything else that is extraneous to the matter at hand. Only evidence will do. After all, a large group of people will lose their rights if you win. Demonstrate the harm and maybe you'll be able to argue the appeal at the Supreme Court level, if they're willing to hear this case. (Though I doubt they will.)
|
|
| |
|
The 89th Key
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:14 AM
Post #111
|
- Posts:
- 36,249
- Group:
- Moderators
- Member
- #209
- Joined:
- May 19, 2005
|
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:09 AM
- Quote:
-
So I'll ask you: would you deny a free love commune of 15 people to have a corporate structure to ensure the same rights to establish a life of mutual companionship and benefit and legal standing as you would give a gay couple? Would you accord that arrangement the name of "marriage"? Would you let such a group adopt a child?
I have an answer: Your questions are irrelevant to the facts at issue in the case at hand. Courts are not supposed to imagine the world that results from their decisions but only to follow the law. (Isn't this the conservative position on judicial restraint?) No one in this case has asked for the right to call 15 people married. Perhaps in some other case today or later, but not in this one. Therefore, the court should not consider your 15-people marriage but restrict itself to the facts at hand. Once they have isolated the facts, they should then apply the law to the facts as best they can.
So where are the facts? Prove that gay couples do not raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Don't waste breath on definitions or natural orders or anything else that is extraneous to the matter at hand. Only evidence will do. After all, a large group of people will lose their rights if you win. Demonstrate the harm and maybe you'll be able to argue the appeal at the Supreme Court level, if they're willing to hear this case. (Though I doubt they will.)No. FIFY
|
|
|
| |
|
Copper
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:17 AM
Post #112
|
- Posts:
- 29,873
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #426
- Joined:
- February 14, 2007
|
- Renauda
- Feb 9 2012, 04:04 PM
I also seem to think he called it a scam to the churchman's face. $500.00 for what?
One man's answer.
http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp
- Quote:
-
3 How can you require an intended spouse who is not a Catholic to endure this annulment process?
In simplest terms, if a Catholic wishes to marry in the Church when there has been a previous marriage, then either one of the partners in the earlier union must have died or the Church must have issued a declaration of nullity, an annulment of that previous marriage. Why is this so?
The Catholic Church views all marriages with respect. It presumes that they are true or valid. Thus, it considers the marriages, for example, of two Protestant, Jewish or even nonbelieving persons to be binding in the eyes of God, unions covered by the words of Christ about divorce. Consequently, it requires a Church annulment process to establish that an essential ingredient in the relationship was missing from the start of the previous marriage.
Such a requirement often represents an unpleasant challenge to Protestant, Jewish or nonbelieving persons who wish to marry a Catholic after the civil termination of a previous marriage. They may have no difficulty with remarriage after divorce and even feel resentful about the prospects of a Roman Catholic formal annulment procedure.
I would never try to explain or resolve this thorny and emotional issue over the telephone, but only face-to-face. The explanations above may help to clarify the issue, but negative feelings often remain. After hearing their often painful stories and explaining the Church's procedures, I offer a comment along these lines: "The only reason you would go through this process is out of love for your prospective marriage partner. Without the annulment, marriage in the Church is not validly possible. This is a prospect that will trouble your intended spouse now and in the future. For you to complete the procedure would be a great act of self-giving love."
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
|
| |
|
Dave Spelvin
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:21 AM
Post #113
|
- Posts:
- 2,582
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #208
- Joined:
- May 18, 2005
|
- The 89th Key
- Feb 10 2012, 11:14 AM
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:09 AM
- Quote:
-
So I'll ask you: would you deny a free love commune of 15 people to have a corporate structure to ensure the same rights to establish a life of mutual companionship and benefit and legal standing as you would give a gay couple? Would you accord that arrangement the name of "marriage"? Would you let such a group adopt a child?
I have an answer: Your questions are irrelevant to the facts at issue in the case at hand. Courts are not supposed to imagine the world that results from their decisions but only to follow the law. (Isn't this the conservative position on judicial restraint?) No one in this case has asked for the right to call 15 people married. Perhaps in some other case today or later, but not in this one. Therefore, the court should not consider your 15-people marriage but restrict itself to the facts at hand. Once they have isolated the facts, they should then apply the law to the facts as best they can.
So where are the facts? Prove that gay couples do not raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Don't waste breath on definitions or natural orders or anything else that is extraneous to the matter at hand. Only evidence will do. After all, a large group of people will lose their rights if you win. Demonstrate the harm and maybe you'll be able to argue the appeal at the Supreme Court level, if they're willing to hear this case. (Though I doubt they will.)No.
FIFY  My answer would be yes or no, depending on the question. Yes, I think there are probably any number of reasons, with evidence supporting them, to deny people the right to marry into a group of 15. But, again, courts don't take on the world's problems: only the specific problem in front of them. We don't want them legislating from the bench, do we?
|
|
| |
|
John D'Oh
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:30 AM
Post #114
|
- Posts:
- 53,798
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #276
- Joined:
- October 19, 2005
|
- Copper
- Feb 10 2012, 11:17 AM
- Renauda
- Feb 9 2012, 04:04 PM
I also seem to think he called it a scam to the churchman's face. $500.00 for what?
One man's answer. http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp- Quote:
-
3 How can you require an intended spouse who is not a Catholic to endure this annulment process?
In simplest terms, if a Catholic wishes to marry in the Church when there has been a previous marriage, then either one of the partners in the earlier union must have died or the Church must have issued a declaration of nullity, an annulment of that previous marriage. Why is this so?
The Catholic Church views all marriages with respect. It presumes that they are true or valid. Thus, it considers the marriages, for example, of two Protestant, Jewish or even nonbelieving persons to be binding in the eyes of God, unions covered by the words of Christ about divorce. Consequently, it requires a Church annulment process to establish that an essential ingredient in the relationship was missing from the start of the previous marriage.
Such a requirement often represents an unpleasant challenge to Protestant, Jewish or nonbelieving persons who wish to marry a Catholic after the civil termination of a previous marriage. They may have no difficulty with remarriage after divorce and even feel resentful about the prospects of a Roman Catholic formal annulment procedure.
I would never try to explain or resolve this thorny and emotional issue over the telephone, but only face-to-face. The explanations above may help to clarify the issue, but negative feelings often remain. After hearing their often painful stories and explaining the Church's procedures, I offer a comment along these lines: "The only reason you would go through this process is out of love for your prospective marriage partner. Without the annulment, marriage in the Church is not validly possible. This is a prospect that will trouble your intended spouse now and in the future. For you to complete the procedure would be a great act of self-giving love."
That's a bloody lot of words for 'Cha-ching'.
|
|
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
|
| |
|
Axtremus
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:33 AM
Post #115
|
- Posts:
- 35,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
- article quoted by Copper from http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp
-
The Catholic Church views all marriages with respect. It presumes that they are true or valid. Does this extend to same-sex marriages too?
|
|
|
| |
|
The 89th Key
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:33 AM
Post #116
|
- Posts:
- 36,249
- Group:
- Moderators
- Member
- #209
- Joined:
- May 19, 2005
|
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:21 AM
- The 89th Key
- Feb 10 2012, 11:14 AM
[FIFY 
My answer would be yes or no, depending on the question. Yes, I think there are probably any number of reasons, with evidence supporting them, to deny people the right to marry into a group of 15. But, again, courts don't take on the world's problems: only the specific problem in front of them. We don't want them legislating from the bench, do we? I think Ivory's question is about your opinion, not what would a court's opinion be.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dave Spelvin
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:46 AM
Post #117
|
- Posts:
- 2,582
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #208
- Joined:
- May 18, 2005
|
- The 89th Key
- Feb 10 2012, 11:33 AM
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:21 AM
- The 89th Key
- Feb 10 2012, 11:14 AM
[FIFY 
My answer would be yes or no, depending on the question. Yes, I think there are probably any number of reasons, with evidence supporting them, to deny people the right to marry into a group of 15. But, again, courts don't take on the world's problems: only the specific problem in front of them. We don't want them legislating from the bench, do we?
I think Ivory's question is about your opinion, not what would a court's opinion be. Not to be too nitpicky, it was about Ax's opinion and I just jumped in. Apologies all around.
|
|
| |
|
Renauda
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:47 AM
Post #118
|
- Posts:
- 10,507
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #505
- Joined:
- September 5, 2007
|
- Copper
-
One man's answer. http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp- Quote:
-
3 How can you require an intended spouse who is not a Catholic to endure this annulment process?
In simplest terms, if a Catholic wishes to marry in the Church when there has been a previous marriage, then either one of the partners in the earlier union must have died or the Church must have issued a declaration of nullity, an annulment of that previous marriage. Why is this so?
The Catholic Church views all marriages with respect. It presumes that they are true or valid. Thus, it considers the marriages, for example, of two Protestant, Jewish or even nonbelieving persons to be binding in the eyes of God, unions covered by the words of Christ about divorce. Consequently, it requires a Church annulment process to establish that an essential ingredient in the relationship was missing from the start of the previous marriage.
Such a requirement often represents an unpleasant challenge to Protestant, Jewish or nonbelieving persons who wish to marry a Catholic after the civil termination of a previous marriage. They may have no difficulty with remarriage after divorce and even feel resentful about the prospects of a Roman Catholic formal annulment procedure.
I would never try to explain or resolve this thorny and emotional issue over the telephone, but only face-to-face. The explanations above may help to clarify the issue, but negative feelings often remain. After hearing their often painful stories and explaining the Church's procedures, I offer a comment along these lines: "The only reason you would go through this process is out of love for your prospective marriage partner. Without the annulment, marriage in the Church is not validly possible. This is a prospect that will trouble your intended spouse now and in the future. For you to complete the procedure would be a great act of self-giving love."
Regardless of one's opinion of it, it is an interesting, if not curious, rationale. While I have no reason to doubt the general sincerity of the stated church policy in cases when a Catholic wishes to wed a non Catholic divorcee, I can't help but suspect that in reality the professed "great act of self-giving love" toward your intended spouse is actually subordinate to the traditional Catholic tendency towards and open encouragement of endogamy.
Still in my friend's case it was not his non Catholic divorced financee who balked at the notion of an annulment. In fact I think he met with the priest without her present. Besides, it made no matter to her whether they were married by a priest, minister or licensed provincial marriage commissioner. It was my nominal, but decidedly non practicing Catholic friend who wanted no part of the requirement and fee to have her previous marriage annulled. He spent the $500.00 instead towards a party for friends and family in celebration of their marriage.
It's clearly a divisive topic.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dewey
|
Feb 10 2012, 11:50 AM
Post #119
|
- Posts:
- 17,117
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #74
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
What exactly does the church do, whether it costs $500 or five million, to reverse the facts of time and space and declare that a marriage that everyone around it recognized had occurred and was valid, never actually occurred?
Please don't offer an argument to support what the church is doing. I understand the church's explanation; I just think it's ridiculous, and I'm not going to get into an equally ridiculous debate over it. If you believe that the doctrine has merit, more power to you. I think it's the worst kind of denial, and that it flies in the face of the truthfulness that the church should accept and live into as it follows Christ and works out its theology. There is some tiny sliver of marriages that could arguably be annulled and said to never have been "valid." But the majority of annullments, in my opinion, are nothing more than a convenient way of denying reality and trying to preserve an underlying theological position that's untenable and needs to be revised. It is a transparent, artificial construct which allows people to pretend that they were never married despite the fact that they were; and to pretend, therefore, that if they remarry they aren't really living contrary to Jesus' teaching regarding divorce.
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.
"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous
"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011
I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Feb 10 2012, 12:16 PM
Post #120
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:09 AM
- Quote:
-
So I'll ask you: would you deny a free love commune of 15 people to have a corporate structure to ensure the same rights to establish a life of mutual companionship and benefit and legal standing as you would give a gay couple? Would you accord that arrangement the name of "marriage"? Would you let such a group adopt a child?
I have an answer: Your questions are irrelevant to the facts at issue in the case at hand. Courts are not supposed to imagine the world that results from their decisions but only to follow the law. (Isn't this the conservative position on judicial restraint?) No one in this case has asked for the right to call 15 people married. Perhaps in some other case today or later, but not in this one. Therefore, the court should not consider your 15-people marriage but restrict itself to the facts at hand. Once they have isolated the facts, they should then apply the law to the facts as best they can. That is not the point of the inquiry. The point has to do with what principles you would use to make a determination. You seem to fall back on the idea that "no one is asking" -- but that is not a particularly interesting answer to probe the validity of an argument for changing the status of legal marriage from one of man and woman to anything else. Certainly there are a bunch of muslims and mormons who would be happy to ask. You can consider the "15 people" to be anything more than 2.
You are making a claim that "marriage" is subject to State definition -- so do you have a limit to the flexibility of that definition to only two people? If so, why so? (I am trusting that you actually do have *reasons* for making legal determination, actual principles, rather than an ad hoc "gee, someone is asking this in court, what do I feel like answering").
So, come on, David -- offering a legal opinion won't kill you -- take a stand -- how would you are for or against that? Why shouldn't a free love commune be able to adopt?
- Quote:
-
So where are the facts? Prove that gay couples do not raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Don't waste breath on definitions or natural orders or anything else that is extraneous to the matter at hand. Only evidence will do. After all, a large group of people will lose their rights if you win. Demonstrate the harm and maybe you'll be able to argue the appeal at the Supreme Court level, if they're willing to hear this case. (Though I doubt they will.)
I don't need to make a determination as to whether either aggregately or in individual cases that gay couples do not raise children as well as heterosexual couples. No one has a natural (human) right to adopt a child regardless. The State steps in due to extraordinary circumstance to supply in case of need in order to look out for the child's best interest -- not that of the gay community who want kids but refuse to marry people who are actually capable of engendering children with them.
All of *that* is entirely extraneous to the matter at hand -- the only thing that ought to matter is the best judgment of what is best for the child. So in cases of extraordinary need, what is reasonably best: to place the child in a home that models the natural family of one man and one woman, where the child learns to bond appropriately with both sexes? or a homosexual domestic partnership where the child is deprived of either paternal and maternal (approximations) of familial emotional patterns?
You seem to care more about the politics than the good of the child, at least in the abstract argument you are making.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Feb 10 2012, 12:23 PM
Post #121
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:46 AM
- The 89th Key
- Feb 10 2012, 11:33 AM
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:21 AM
- The 89th Key
- Feb 10 2012, 11:14 AM
[FIFY 
My answer would be yes or no, depending on the question. Yes, I think there are probably any number of reasons, with evidence supporting them, to deny people the right to marry into a group of 15. But, again, courts don't take on the world's problems: only the specific problem in front of them. We don't want them legislating from the bench, do we?
I think Ivory's question is about your opinion, not what would a court's opinion be.
Not to be too nitpicky, it was about Ax's opinion and I just jumped in. Apologies all around. I had asked you directly in post #71.
I asked Ax later due to his subsequent comment.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Copper
|
Feb 10 2012, 12:23 PM
Post #122
|
- Posts:
- 29,873
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #426
- Joined:
- February 14, 2007
|
- Dewey
- Feb 10 2012, 11:50 AM
Please don't offer an argument to support what the church is doing. I understand the church's explanation; I just think it's ridiculous, and I'm not going to get into an equally ridiculous debate over it.
Getting into a ridiculous debate by saying you're not getting into a ridiculous debate is ridiculous.
I am willing to pretend this never happened.
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Feb 10 2012, 12:23 PM
Post #123
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Axtremus
- Feb 10 2012, 11:33 AM
- article quoted by Copper from http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp
-
The Catholic Church views all marriages with respect. It presumes that they are true or valid.
Does this extend to same-sex marriages too? As much as it applies to square circles.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Feb 10 2012, 12:27 PM
Post #124
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Copper
- Feb 10 2012, 12:23 PM
- Dewey
- Feb 10 2012, 11:50 AM
Please don't offer an argument to support what the church is doing. I understand the church's explanation; I just think it's ridiculous, and I'm not going to get into an equally ridiculous debate over it.
Getting into a ridiculous debate by saying you're not getting into a ridiculous debate is ridiculous. I am willing to pretend this never happened. Indeed -- but that would mean Dewey couldn't soap box, as if everything he said subsequently could not have been anticipated by any of us.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Dave Spelvin
|
Feb 10 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #125
|
- Posts:
- 2,582
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #208
- Joined:
- May 18, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Feb 10 2012, 12:16 PM
- Dave Spelvin
- Feb 10 2012, 11:09 AM
- Quote:
-
So I'll ask you: would you deny a free love commune of 15 people to have a corporate structure to ensure the same rights to establish a life of mutual companionship and benefit and legal standing as you would give a gay couple? Would you accord that arrangement the name of "marriage"? Would you let such a group adopt a child?
I have an answer: Your questions are irrelevant to the facts at issue in the case at hand. Courts are not supposed to imagine the world that results from their decisions but only to follow the law. (Isn't this the conservative position on judicial restraint?) No one in this case has asked for the right to call 15 people married. Perhaps in some other case today or later, but not in this one. Therefore, the court should not consider your 15-people marriage but restrict itself to the facts at hand. Once they have isolated the facts, they should then apply the law to the facts as best they can.
That is not the point of the inquiry. The point has to do with what principles you would use to make a determination. You seem to fall back on the idea that "no one is asking" -- but that is not a particularly interesting answer to probe the validity of an argument for changing the status of legal marriage from one of man and woman to anything else. Certainly there are a bunch of muslims and mormons who would be happy to ask. You can consider the "15 people" to be anything more than 2. You are making a claim that "marriage" is subject to State definition -- so do you have a limit to the flexibility of that definition to only two people? If so, why so? (I am trusting that you actually do have *reasons* for making legal determination, actual principles, rather than an ad hoc "gee, someone is asking this in court, what do I feel like answering"). So, come on, David -- offering a legal opinion won't kill you -- take a stand -- how would you are for or against that? Why shouldn't a free love commune be able to adopt? - Quote:
-
So where are the facts? Prove that gay couples do not raise children as well as heterosexual couples. Don't waste breath on definitions or natural orders or anything else that is extraneous to the matter at hand. Only evidence will do. After all, a large group of people will lose their rights if you win. Demonstrate the harm and maybe you'll be able to argue the appeal at the Supreme Court level, if they're willing to hear this case. (Though I doubt they will.)
I don't need to make a determination as to whether either aggregately or in individual cases that gay couples do not raise children as well as heterosexual couples. No one has a natural (human) right to adopt a child regardless. The State steps in due to extraordinary circumstance to supply in case of need in order to look out for the child's best interest -- not that of the gay community who want kids but refuse to marry people who are actually capable of engendering children with them. All of *that* is entirely extraneous to the matter at hand -- the only thing that ought to matter is the best judgment of what is best for the child. So in cases of extraordinary need, what is reasonably best: to place the child in a home that models the natural family of one man and one woman, where the child learns to bond appropriately with both sexes? or a homosexual domestic partnership where the child is deprived of either paternal and maternal (approximations) of familial emotional patterns? You seem to care more about the politics than the good of the child, at least in the abstract argument you are making. Please note that it is precisely what you're saying here that doomed your side to defeat in the courtroom. Distractions, digressions, everything but addressing the issue. You're doing what Cooper, the losing lawyer, did and you see where that got him. Put up the evidence of harm. Evidence that addresses itself to the question before the court. You do not set the rules, IT, and neither do I. The courts do. This is a matter under law. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to play by the rules of this game doesn't make them any less the rules. Your side is sinking down to defeat and it cannot be bothered to put up a fight. Why is that?
|
|
| |