Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Proposition 8 ruled "unconstitutional"; ...sets up Supreme Court battle
Topic Started: Feb 7 2012, 10:09 AM (2,434 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Iverythumper
 
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. :lol2:


Or for that matter agreed by most of us. I imagine there are no shortage of catholics that view it as nothing but divorce by another name.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Feb 10 2012, 12:31 PM
Or for that matter agreed by most of us. I imagine there are no shortage of catholics that view it as nothing but divorce by another name.
But it isn't.

The point is that at the time of the vows, both parties purportedly bind themselves to be faithful in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, until death to them part.

So if the marriage fails, the aggrieved party certainly has a right to ask whether or not the other party was actually capable of making such a vow at the time. That is the main determinate for a cause of nullification (there are others as well) -- if the court finds that there is serious reason to doubt the vow, then there can be a canonical dispensation from the vow since it requires consent on both parts to effect a marriage.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Ok, so they don't do no-fault. Yet.

Still it sounds like divorce by another name to many of us.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Also i suspect theres little difference in practice between 'determining if they were capable of making such a vow at the time' and 'determining that they subsequently broke their vow'.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
IOW, 'The marriage is null and void, since I didn't realise I was marrying a lying, cheating piece of sh!t when he made the vows' :lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 12:44 PM
So if the marriage fails, the aggrieved party certainly has a right to ask whether or not the other party was actually capable of making such a vow at the time.
That assumes there was an aggrieved party in the divorce.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Renauda
Feb 10 2012, 12:57 PM
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 12:44 PM
So if the marriage fails, the aggrieved party certainly has a right to ask whether or not the other party was actually capable of making such a vow at the time.
That assumes there was an aggrieved party in the divorce.
That's canon-speak for 'the one coughing up the $500'.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Pre-existing condition discovered, insurance coverage denied.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Renauda
Feb 10 2012, 01:13 PM
Pre-existing condition discovered, insurance coverage denied.
:lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 12:27 PM
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. :lol2:
I know it's hard for you to imagine anyone wanting to go on record with an opinion, and not wanting to argue about it until the second coming, but there it is anyway. :tongue:
"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dave Spelvin
Feb 10 2012, 12:31 PM
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?
Ahmmm.. the only thing that ought to matter is the best judgment of what is best for the child. Followed by an actual argument for what is reasonably in the best interest of the child. But don't try to claim this is "Distractions, digressions, everything but addressing the issue." I get the "evidence of harm" argument, and some states consider homosexual domestic partnerships, along with cohabitation and other arrangements to be effectively "presumption of harm" by statute. The prudential question is not properly "evidence of harm", but "promotion of benefit" to the vulnerable child, rather than promoting political agenda. I get that we live in a legal positivist society where law is detached from nature, but we can't escape it either -- though we can do our best despite juridical mandates to the contrary.

Of course, no doubt *your side* will prevail because *your side* really doesn't primarily care about what is in the best interest of the person who is most profoundly impacted by such decisions, or if they do care they don't care enough to let it actually form their judgment and risk being called names like "homophobic", or they consider the political implications more important than the good of the child and the primary purpose of granting legal guardianship.

But playing along, why not try to argue "evidence of harm" to the free love commune that wants to be socially and legally accepted as "marriage" and wants to adopt a child?

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Feb 10 2012, 02:59 PM
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 12:27 PM
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. :lol2:
I know it's hard for you to imagine anyone wanting to go on record with an opinion, and not wanting to argue about it until the second coming, but there it is anyway. :tongue:
No, it's not hard at all - you do this with some frequency. :lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Feb 10 2012, 12:48 PM
Ok, so they don't do no-fault. Yet.

Still it sounds like divorce by another name to many of us.
Do you understand the difference between a contract that has been nullified due to inability be a contractual party, and a contract that has been merely breached?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 12:23 PM
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.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 04:14 PM
jon-nyc
Feb 10 2012, 12:48 PM
Ok, so they don't do no-fault. Yet.

Still it sounds like divorce by another name to many of us.
Do you understand the difference between a contract that has been nullified due to inability be a contractual party, and a contract that has been merely breached?
Sure, but as I pointed out above, I suspect theres little difference in practice between determining someone was incapable of making such a vow at the time and determining that they subsequently broke their vow.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 9 2012, 01:51 PM
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?
Sure, why not? Forget letting the enjoying the same rights/benefits as "gay couple," they can enjoy the same rights/benefits as any couple, gay or straight.

You may get to a point where the number of parties in the structure is too large to manage (for custodial rights and property distribution/inheritance as a structure splits or its members die off or as it add new members, "generation" as a concept would also be harder to define then), but that is a management problem where answers can be sought from organizational management studies, not a moral or ethical question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Feb 10 2012, 04:59 PM
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 04:14 PM
jon-nyc
Feb 10 2012, 12:48 PM
Ok, so they don't do no-fault. Yet.

Still it sounds like divorce by another name to many of us.
Do you understand the difference between a contract that has been nullified due to inability be a contractual party, and a contract that has been merely breached?
Sure, but as I pointed out above, I suspect theres little difference in practice between determining someone was incapable of making such a vow at the time and determining that they subsequently broke their vow.
There is no doubt that they subsequently broke their vow -- that is an obvious determination or there would be no divorce.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Feb 10 2012, 05:00 PM
ivorythumper
Feb 9 2012, 01:51 PM
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?
Sure, why not? Forget letting the enjoying the same rights/benefits as "gay couple," they can enjoy the same rights/benefits as any couple, gay or straight.

You may get to a point where the number of parties in the structure is too large to manage (for custodial rights and property distribution/inheritance as a structure splits or its members die off or as it add new members, "generation" as a concept would also be harder to define then), but that is a management problem where answers can be sought from organizational management studies, not a moral or ethical question.
So the free love commune can adopt. Is the guardianship of the child entrusted to all the members by name, or by membership, or to the corporation, or to which legal party?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Right, but I repeat the sentence. In practice, person A could have broken his vow and exhibited behaviors X, Y, and Z earlier in life and be viewed as a guy who wasn't capable of making his vow. Person B exhibits behaviors X, Y, and Z early in life but doesn't break his vow. A's marriage 'didn't happen', B's marriage did. Again, I suspect in practice that's really how it shakes out. (except in some extreme - and rare - cases)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 04:03 PM
Dave Spelvin
Feb 10 2012, 12:31 PM
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?
Ahmmm.. the only thing that ought to matter is the best judgment of what is best for the child. Followed by an actual argument for what is reasonably in the best interest of the child.

Of course, no doubt *your side* will prevail because *your side* really doesn't primarily care about what is in the best interest of the person who is most profoundly impacted by such decisions, or if they do care they don't care enough to let it actually form their judgment and risk being called names like "homophobic", or they consider the political implications more important than the good of the child and the primary purpose of granting legal guardianship. But don't try to claim this is "Distractions, digressions, everything but addressing the issue."

But playing along, why not try to argue "evidence of harm" to the free love commune that wants to be socially and legally accepted as "marriage" and wants to adopt a child?

I understand you're emotional about this issue, IT, but have you completely lost your mind? I quite specifically and repeatedly requested evidence from you, evidence that the lawyer for your side of the argument failed to produce. I'll help you with this: There is no evidence that children are harmed by being raised by gay couples. This is why the lawyer couldn't make his case and why you have to twist yourself into all sort of colorful pretzel shapes. All of the evidence is on the other side. Remember all those words about how all children need is love? Turns out that the evidence supports this. Gay couples who provide a stable, loving home raise kids who are just as healthy and happy as kids raised in a heterosexual couple's stable, loving home.

Now, you could say that the evidence is inconclusive or there's not enough of it or maybe something else clever, but your side of the argument couldn't come up with expert witnesses who could or would convincingly state this. Instead, they put up a couple of boobs, who probably did the best they could. But facts can be very uncomfortable when they're not on your side.

Your accusations about what "my side" primarily cares about are gas; it's the desperation talking. On the other hand, "your side" is perfectly content to keep a group of people down as second class citizens for reasons that you can't even express in plain English much less prove.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
I'm cornfuzed.
Am I X Y or Z?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Feb 10 2012, 05:15 PM
Right, but I repeat the sentence. In practice, person A could have broken his vow and exhibited behaviors X, Y, and Z earlier in life and be viewed as a guy who wasn't capable of making his vow. Person B exhibits behaviors X, Y, and Z early in life but doesn't break his vow. A's marriage 'didn't happen', B's marriage did. Again, I suspect in practice that's really how it shakes out. (except in some extreme - and rare - cases)
Yes, which is why the canonical process involves rather in depth investigations, analysis and assessments based on evidence from sworn statements. There really is a prudential attempt and actual standards of evaluation for making these determinations.

Presumably only the case of person A would appear before the canonical process. All marriages are considered valid without evidence to the contrary, the most notable evidence being a divorce. Only at that point can a canonical examination take place to determine validity.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dave Spelvin
Feb 10 2012, 05:18 PM
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 04:03 PM
Dave Spelvin
Feb 10 2012, 12:31 PM
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?
Ahmmm.. the only thing that ought to matter is the best judgment of what is best for the child. Followed by an actual argument for what is reasonably in the best interest of the child.

Of course, no doubt *your side* will prevail because *your side* really doesn't primarily care about what is in the best interest of the person who is most profoundly impacted by such decisions, or if they do care they don't care enough to let it actually form their judgment and risk being called names like "homophobic", or they consider the political implications more important than the good of the child and the primary purpose of granting legal guardianship. But don't try to claim this is "Distractions, digressions, everything but addressing the issue."

But playing along, why not try to argue "evidence of harm" to the free love commune that wants to be socially and legally accepted as "marriage" and wants to adopt a child?

I understand you're emotional about this issue, IT, but have you completely lost your mind? I quite specifically and repeatedly requested evidence from you, evidence that the lawyer for your side of the argument failed to produce. I'll help you with this: There is no evidence that children are harmed by being raised by gay couples. This is why the lawyer couldn't make his case and why you have to twist yourself into all sort of colorful pretzel shapes. All of the evidence is on the other side. Remember all those words about how all children need is love? Turns out that the evidence supports this. Gay couples who provide a stable, loving home raise kids who are just as healthy and happy as kids raised in a heterosexual couple's stable, loving home.

Now, you could say that the evidence is inconclusive or there's not enough of it or maybe something else clever, but your side of the argument couldn't come up with expert witnesses who could or would convincingly state this. Instead, they put up a couple of boobs, who probably did the best they could. But facts can be very uncomfortable when they're not on your side.

Your accusations about what "my side" primarily cares about are gas; it's the desperation talking. On the other hand, "your side" is perfectly content to keep a group of people down as second class citizens for reasons that you can't even express in plain English much less prove.
Where did I ever agree that "all children need is love"? Good grief, David. Stop presuming your conclusion.

BTW, subsequently, I had edited to include: "I get the "evidence of harm" argument, and some states consider homosexual domestic partnerships, along with cohabitation and other arrangements to be effectively "presumption of harm" by statute. The prudential question is not properly "evidence of harm", but "promotion of benefit" to the vulnerable child, rather than promoting political agenda. I get that we live in a legal positivist society where law is detached from nature, but we can't escape it either -- though we can do our best despite juridical mandates to the contrary. "

So would you as the judge allow a free love commune to adopt? Or would you relegate them to second class citizens?
Edited by ivorythumper, Feb 10 2012, 05:41 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Dave Spelvin
Feb 10 2012, 05:18 PM
ivorythumper
Feb 10 2012, 04:03 PM
Dave Spelvin
Feb 10 2012, 12:31 PM
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?
Ahmmm.. the only thing that ought to matter is the best judgment of what is best for the child. Followed by an actual argument for what is reasonably in the best interest of the child.

Of course, no doubt *your side* will prevail because *your side* really doesn't primarily care about what is in the best interest of the person who is most profoundly impacted by such decisions, or if they do care they don't care enough to let it actually form their judgment and risk being called names like "homophobic", or they consider the political implications more important than the good of the child and the primary purpose of granting legal guardianship. But don't try to claim this is "Distractions, digressions, everything but addressing the issue."

But playing along, why not try to argue "evidence of harm" to the free love commune that wants to be socially and legally accepted as "marriage" and wants to adopt a child?

I understand you're emotional about this issue, IT, but have you completely lost your mind? I quite specifically and repeatedly requested evidence from you, evidence that the lawyer for your side of the argument failed to produce. I'll help you with this: There is no evidence that children are harmed by being raised by gay couples. This is why the lawyer couldn't make his case and why you have to twist yourself into all sort of colorful pretzel shapes. All of the evidence is on the other side. Remember all those words about how all children need is love? Turns out that the evidence supports this. Gay couples who provide a stable, loving home raise kids who are just as healthy and happy as kids raised in a heterosexual couple's stable, loving home.

Now, you could say that the evidence is inconclusive or there's not enough of it or maybe something else clever, but your side of the argument couldn't come up with expert witnesses who could or would convincingly state this. Instead, they put up a couple of boobs, who probably did the best they could. But facts can be very uncomfortable when they're not on your side.

Your accusations about what "my side" primarily cares about are gas; it's the desperation talking. On the other hand, "your side" is perfectly content to keep a group of people down as second class citizens for reasons that you can't even express in plain English much less prove.
I like you, Dave.
:wave:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I like him too. I just wish he'd answer a simple question about whether he as judge would allow a free love commune all the status and benefits of a marriage, including the right to adopt.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply