Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

This just sent my memory to highschool law class.

oh here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

edit: mostly off topic but yea I found law very interesting but I didn't see myself having a career in that area. Still you reminded me of an interesting case.

How would you feel about allowing single adoption?



These marriage rights are the products of the legacy of traditional marriage (homemaker/breadwinner) and have no meaning in the context of a same-sex couple.



Next of kin and power of attorney exist for the very reason that people can give those rights to people who are not normally entitled to them.



The United States does not use Common Law so this has no meaning here. The Fifth Amendment provides protection against self-incrimination but it says nothing about spouses.

Most of the "rights" you mention are of no utility in a relationship for its own sake but would be totally abused by those who had a reason to. What's to stop people from "marrying" on their deathbed or mobsters getting "married"?

Hence my point - people are free to have relationships, that's life. Laws are dangerous and if they aren't absolutely necessary according to the circumstances (e.g., the Civil Rights Act), then the status quo should prevail.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I suspect most people feel the same way about this as they do about single mothers.


Yeah, how dare those same-sex couples want to streamline the tax-filing process and continue to receive the benefits they'd be entitled to upon a partner's death were they hetero. Everyone knows it's totally archaic to want equal treatment.

Sometimes I'm not sure you hear yourself.


That's great, but all those things are default "on" when you're married, so they should default "on" when you're gay-married.


The United States most certainly does use Common Law. We just use a whole bunch of other things we've since constructed on top of it all. It's not written into the Constitution, but there are plenty of laws that aren't in the Constitution (and plenty that are derived from cases).

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Taking these two replies in context, regarding adoption, isn't that a contradiction, so far as "equal treatment" goes?

Regarding insurance and taxation: it's not equal treatment because the situation is unequal.



The point is, there's a mechanism to provide for them. How is the status quo unsatisfactory?



Point stands. This protection doesn't exist as-is. The status quo is fine.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Single adoption is legal here. I believe the difference is that, prior to same-sex marriages being legalized here, only one member of a gay couple was legally the parent of an adopted child.


As long as the members of the couple have different incomes (which is almost always the case), they are still relevant.


These rights are automatic in the case of married couples, and there's no reason they shouldn't apply to gay couples. They also come with additional benefits, such as no estate taxes in the US on assets left to a spouse.


It's implemented in state laws (perhaps not all states, but in many).


The status quo is a lazy argument. If the status quo is unjust, and it is, it should be changed. There's nothing stopping straight couples from getting marriages of convenience, why would a gay mobster getting married be a bigger threat?

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

GL getting a social worker to sign off on it.



It's not about "income", it's about breadwinner/homemaker (not to mention the physical burden of being taken out of commission for a year whenever they make a baby). Archaic, yes, but it is what it is.


The reason that spouses and NOT parents or children or other blood relatives get that benefit is for caring for widowed homemakers and orphaned children. Again, given that gay marriages have two members of the same gender, with the same gender role, that argument doesn't apply.


How is the status quo unjust? Gay people are free to have relationships and they can selectively pick and choose what rights they want to give their spouse.

Arguing "equality" is obtuse because the items in question are archaic and obsolete, and the relationships are NOT equal. A relationship between two people of dissimilar gender is different than one between two people of similar gender because:

1) they can bear young naturally and even (often) involuntarily
2) they live in a world in which they both bring the same gender role to the table, with all the social and economic repercussions



This is a really good question with a really good answer that illustrates how ludicrous the "equality" debate is.

How many men are in organized crime?
How many women are in organized crime?

How many men are in jail?
How many women are in jail?

Your argument would have merit if all lifestyles were "equal opportunity". They aren't. That's just not how it is. Your argument isn't valid because criminals are not 50/50 male/female because that's just not how it is. And this is true of every area of life.

So to base a criticism of the status quo on total PC unreality betrays how ludicrous this entire issue is.

And it's also a strawman. These pro-gay marriage arguments are like people arguing in favor of medicinal marijuana or "commercial self-regulation". The terms of the debate are a red herring. Gay marriage isn't about equal economic rights for gays any more than medicinal marijuana is about curing the sick or self-regulation is about ensuring prosperity.

What anyone with any common sense understands those issues are about is something else. In this case, it's that some gay people are engaging in self-righteous attention seeking. To make laws on such a basis remember the Equal Rights Amendment?) is bad legislation.

The Equal Rights Amendment had all the same lame arguments behind it ("equality for its own sake, etc"), it got shot down, and you know what...? The world wasn't any worse off than it would have been had it passed.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's legal and there are single adoptive parents here, so social workers don't seem to have a problem with it. I'm not sure what your argument is here.


Yes it is about income (or employment benefits). The idea of a breadwinner and a homemaker has no legal relevance, and increasingly no cultural significance either, but being married to someone who makes more or has better benefits than you has significant economic benefits. Lesbian women can and do have babies, as well.


That's not the entire reason they exist (hospital visitation rights, for example, predate any widowing or orphaning that occurs), but regardless of why you think those rights exist, they currently apply to any married couple regardless of any division of labour or presence of children. They are denied to gay couples, even in cases where there are divisions of labour or children in their family.


Some rights can be given if the couple can afford a lawyer and has the foresight to negotiate the rights straight couples get automatically, but many others are simply unavailable to gay couples (eg. Social Security benefits).


Having biological children is neither necessary nor restricted to marriage, nor is fulfilling traditional gender roles necessarily needed for or characteristic of marriage. There's no moral or economic justification here for restricting marriage to straight people.


I thought you said "really good answer". You didn't answer my question - what does the gender bias of criminals have to do with the theoretical threats of your hypothetical gay marriage-of-convenience-seeking mobster? And your latter position is simply ridiculous. Not only are there real economic and legal benefits to marriage that gay people should have access to, but lots of straight people support equal marriage too. What is my reason for supporting equal marriage in your mind?

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

I believe most people choose what causes to support purely by psychological association.

To answer your assorted points: no, you don't need an attorney to give someone power of attorney or next of kin status. Marriage as we know it being anachronistic, this debate would seem to be only one small facet of a much larger issue that should be addressed in a comprehensive way rather than putting more knots in the social/legal yarnball.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Homosexual marriage sounds gay.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I wonder how it feels to argue the legal system with someone in law school and still being entirely unable to say that you're maybe a teensie bit wrong.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Psychological association with what?

Of all my valid points, that's the one you have issue with? You may not technically need a lawyer to write legal documents, but few people have the knowledge to write one properly themselves. Passing on equal marriage because there are larger issues is missing the point: marriage as it exists in the US is unequal and unjust, and allowing same-sex couples to marry makes it much more equitable. Whether or not you like the institution of marriage as currently implemented in US law, barring gay people from participating in it doesn't improve it in way.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

Watching Aestu argue social issues is like watching a first year psych major. They know just enough to think they know it all, but not enough to keep from looking like fools.

Given your replies Aestu, you don't understand the real, functioning dynamics of marriages any better than you understand lubricants.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

not gonna lie, I lol'ed

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

With the beliefs and attitudes that are common to a particular segment of society. How often do you meet someone pro-gay but anti-environment? How often do you meet someone anti-immigration and anti-gun?



A marriage license is itself a legal document.


My concern is not "to improve", my concern is to avoid potentially problematic developments.

Also see: California Proposition 13

I'm a vegetarian, but I opposed a plebiscite to ban the sale of horsemeat for human consumption for the same reason. I don't approve of eating horses any more than I disapprove of gay marriage, but I think the legislation was inappropriate and unnecessary.



You know, I get called out for pulling the "anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" spiel, but in practice I have pretty thorough reasoning for my views, whether or not individuals happen to agree with the conclusions I reach.

As it happens, though, your argument IS "anyone who disagrees with me is wrong", which is a form of circular logic. And like all faulty circular logic, it is based on a faulty assumption.

So: in what respect do I not understand marriage?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.