SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[Mike64]

What's the point of this bullshit anyways? A small part of me blames the people who go to these backwoods shit holes for their "license". Or even bigger picture, the current implementation of marriage in the US is so goofy that it deserves the crap that happens.

We-e-ell, the couple in this case went to that backwoods shithole because they live in that backwoods shithole. Davis' lawyers apparently made a similar argument (and lost, of course.) Personally, I would counter that argument with the suggestion that if Davis doesn't like having to obey the Supreme Court ruling in favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, she should just go run for county clerk somewhere in that backwoods shithole known as Uganda. They even have evangelical protestant churches there, she would probably feel right at home... maybe even more than she does in Kentucky.:\

I can sign a valid contract for nearly any reason at anytime without getting some government dimwit involved. Why can't people just sign a standard contract between each other if they feel the need. There doesn't seem to be anything inherent to a marriage agreement that requires the oversight of elected officials.

Among a number of things seriously wrong with that whole line of reasoning is the fact that an agreement to be married is not a "standard" contract. It's a special one, with legal ramifications beyond the mutual rights and duties of the parties who enter into it to each other. Entering into a private contract wouldn't entitle the parties to it to recognition under the myriad laws that give married persons rights and upon whom obligations are imposed based on their marital status. Only a legally/government-sanctioned contract of the appropriate sort can do that. Essentially, a marriage contract is one between not only the people involved in the marriage, but between them, individually as well as jointly, and the state.

 

[Zorkorist]

Meanwhile, children today are saddled with $60,000 in debt, on the day they are born.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

But they can be gay, if enough people vote so.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Government rules.

-John

 

[Mike64]

Devout Muslim clerk - no drivers license for women
Devout Quaker clerk - no concealed carry permits.
Devout Baptist clerk - no liquor licenses for any bars or restaurants

I'm sure your willing to support these hypotheticals as well.

As you've basically said, your freedoms and rights should be restricted based on the religion of the representative of the state you interact with. Their rights supersede yours.

I really can't agree with your points but your welcome to have them.

I'll agree with that except for your comment about Muslim clerks. (Muslim) women are eligible for driver's licenses in many Muslim countries. It's those zany, fun-loving Wahhabiite Imams in Saudi Arabia that say women shouldn't get driver's licenses, not the Koran or even the religious authority figures among most of the major Islamic sects. (For that matter, the Koran also doesn't say, as the aforesaid Imams do, that high school girls should not participate in PE because it will encourage them to become prostitutes...)

 

[shira]

30 years, ahem.

-John

So you're able to live your later years depending on the benefits of big government. And most people who receive SS and Medicare have paid into the system longer than you did. So what's your beef?

 

[Humpy]

As has been discussed ad nauseam, marriage confers a host of benefits that would never be covered by a simple contract - from taxes, to hospital visitation rights, to automatic (and unquestioned) ability to make medical decisions for your spouse, etc...

There are contracts signed everyday that include far more complicated terms than those listed. A standardized contract could easily include them.

 

[Zorkorist]

So you're able to live your later years depending on the benefits of big government. And most people who receive SS and Medicare have paid into the system longer than you did. So what's your beef?

No. Government stole from me and forced me to pay into Medicare and Social Security. As we both know, Government is broke and in debt up to its teeth.

I expect to work the balance of my life.

-John

 

[Vic]

Government exists to serve Government today. It is it's own entity, and has lost all relation to the people that it purports to serve.

America was conceived as a country that would have limited Government, limited Religious interference.

The land of the free.

-John

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington

 

[shira]

I'll agree with that except for your comment about Muslim clerks. (Muslim) women are eligible for driver's licenses in many Muslim countries. It's those zany, fun-loving Wahhabiite Imams in Saudi Arabia that say women shouldn't get driver's licenses, not the Koran. (For that matter, the Koran also doesn't say, as the aforesaid Imams do, that high school girls should not participate in PE because it will encourage them to become prostitutes...)

But what a typical Muslim believes is beside the point. Davis doesn't have beliefs "typical" of most Christians, yet she claims that she should be allowed to follow her faith while acting in her capacity as County Clerk.

So presumably Davis would approve of some other person, appointed as, say, the head of a state's Department of Motor Vehicles, who then underwent a conversion of faith to Wahhabism, and decreed that no woman would henceforce be issued a drivers license (nor would drivers licenses be renewed for any woman) in the state.

Except that neither Davis nor her supporters would actually support THAT flavor of "religious freedom." Because what they actually support is the freedom to express only their particular version of Christian beliefs through their government acts.

 

[Zorkorist]

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington

Communism is beautiful.

Utopia.

-John

 

[Mike64]

There are contracts signed everyday that include far more complicated terms than those listed. A standardized contract could easily include them.

And just how would your "standardized contract" require the hospital, state tax authorities or the IRS, among numerous other similar entities, to honor its terms when they aren't even parties to the contract (ignoring, for the sake of argument, all the special legal rules that apply to public entities that are parties to contracts)?

 

[Humpy]

Among a number of things seriously wrong with that whole line of reasoning is the fact that an agreement to be married is not a "standard" contract. It's a special one, with legal ramifications beyond the mutual rights and duties of the parties who enter into it to each other. Entering into a private contract wouldn't entitle the parties to it to recognition under the myriad laws that give married persons rights and upon whom obligations are imposed based on their marital status. Only a legally/government-sanctioned contract of the appropriate sort can do that. Essentially, a marriage contract is one between not only the people involved in the marriage, but between them, individually as well as jointly, and the state.

Currently that is true. Still, there is no inherent reason why the state couldn't recognize a standardized marriage contract between those who enter into it. Except for taxes (that are already covered under their own set of laws that do not necessarily have to recognize married couples), what other interest does the state have? Hospitals could recognize the contract. Mortgage companies could recognize the contract.

An example where this already happens daily, all over the country, is the use of standard AIA construction contracts. The people involved in the project agree to the contract while the state is also heavily involved with licensing, permitting, inspecting, labor and environmental regulations, etc. There is little reason a marriage contract could not function similarly.

 

[Vic]

Communism is beautiful.

Utopia.

-John

Equal protection of the laws is not communism.

 

[Mike64]

Except that neither Davis nor her supporters would actually support THAT flavor of "religious freedom." Because what they actually support is the freedom to express only their particular version of Christian beliefs through their government acts.

No argument from me about that. Maybe I read the post too quickly or didn't read enough of the prior posts in that subthread of this overall topic, but I wasn't under the impression that Paratus was supporting Davis' position. (And if you read my other posts, it's obvious that I certainly don't.) I posted just to clarify what I saw as an overbroad statement about Islamic beliefs.

 

[Zorkorist]

Equal protection of the laws is not communism.

'Equally entitled" to anything, means Government is the most important thing. To make sure people are "equally entitled."

Pure Government.

Socialism, Communism.

-John

 

[Vic]

No. Government stole from me and forced me to pay into Medicare and Social Security. As we both know, Government is broke and in debt up to its teeth.

I expect to work the balance of my life.

-John

Sucks to be you. I expect to retire early after having spent an entire career in the private sector and paid a shitload in taxes. So if we both had the same obstacles, is it government's fault for your problems, or your own?

 

[Mike64]

Currently that is true. Still, there is no inherent reason why the state couldn't recognize a standardized marriage contract between those who enter into it.

Well, yeah, sure. Overhaul basically our entire legal system to ignore 1000+ (OK, maybe a mere 800-900) years of common law and what you suggest could be done as easy as 1-2-3.

What you're suggesting really boils down to what exists now, but just calling it something other than "marriage." Except for making people like Davis happy, I don't see the point. And they can, if you'll pardon the expression, go to hell for all I care...

 

[Vic]

'Equally entitled" to anything, means Government is the most important thing. To make sure people are "equally entitled."

Pure Government.

Socialism, Communism.

-John

Holy shit, you are stupid.

 

[Humpy]

And just how would your "standardized contract" require the hospital, state tax authorities or the IRS, among numerous other similar entities, to honor its terms when they aren't even parties to the contract (ignoring, for the sake of argument, all the special legal rules that apply to public entities that are parties to contracts)?

It wouldn't be much different than now. The state recognizing the contract as valid leads to other entities recognizing it as well. As far as I know there are other ways besides marriage for hospitals and taxation to accept a persons rights. There is no contract between a parent and child yet a hospital by law accepts certain truths. Unmarried people can appoint, through a contract, other family members as decision makers.

 

[Zorkorist]

I'm equally entitled to that guys house.

-John

 

[shira]

No. Government stole from me and forced me to pay into Medicare and Social Security. As we both know, Government is broke and in debt up to its teeth.

I expect to work the balance of my life.

-John

Government didn't steal anything from you. Even the founding fathers recognized the right of government to levy taxes. Was it stealing then?

Cry me a river over your problems with "big government." Yeah, yeah, we all recognize that you yearn for the world of 1792, when their were just 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the world was still mostly flat, when health care consisted of doctors bleeding patients and didn't drive families into bankruptcy, when life expectancy was 37 years and there was absolutely no need for SS and Medicare, when there was no need for an interstate highway system or $100 million fighter jets or $12 billion aircraft carriers.

But as much as you yearn for the past, you're obviously quite happy with the artifacts of the modern world (or am I mistaken in thinking you have internet access and drive a car and have made use of modern medicine?) And you can't have the benefits of the modern world without the costs, which in an organized society are inevitably imposed by "big government."

So either jump in your time machine or shut the fuck up.

 

[Zorkorist]

Sucks to be you. I expect to retire early after having spent an entire career in the private sector and paid a shitload in taxes. So if we both had the same obstacles, is it government's fault for your problems, or your own?

Good for you.

Shouldn't I be in the same place, with your miraculous Government oversight?

No. The oceans are failing, kids are born with $60,000 in debt, Religious fanatics are blowing up buildings.

Government is great?

-John

 

[Vic]

I'm equally entitled to that guys house.

-John

If I might happen to have more and bigger guns than you, what keeps me from taking your house?
Oh yeah, you love government then, don't you?

 

[Humpy]

Well, yeah, sure. Overhaul basically our entire legal system to ignore 1000+ (OK, maybe a mere 800-900) years of common law and what you suggest could be done as easy as 1-2-3.

The legal system is already in place. An example I gave is in the states authority/involvement over construction contracts. A simple law could be written in a few days that says "Standard Marriage Contract 1-A EZ is now recognized as an official marriage contract if it is witnessed and presented to the state blah blah blah." It doesn't have to be complicated.