Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

Strangely – I find myself agreeing as well. I feel somehow violated by admitting I agree with him.

” I feel somehow violated”
Marry me??

C’mon…we all know this debate isn’t about Love. Lot’s of people Love their dogs but don’t expect to be able to marry them to get benefits for the dog.

Right?

I have been in agreement with Jesse on a few occasions as well but either he is mispeaking here or is totally missing the point of the debate.

Nah, Jesse’s saying what he thinks, and as is usual, he’s nuts. One of the things that is curiously lost in this whole debate is “why does government bother with marriage law at all?” As Roosh notes, it’s not just love; I love my dog, but I’m not about to put a ring on her paw and become a bigamist that way, law or no.

What’s at stake here is very simple; what happens when a relationship fails, and there are children (or a pregnant woman) involved? All of family law is predicated upon that basic question, really. And as such, inherently sterile relationships don’t fall into the same categories as ones that could possibly be sterile.

It’s not discrimination, but rather simple common sense. The law rightfully protects those (mothers & children) who are less able to protect themselves.

And as such, inherently sterile relationships don’t fall into the same categories as ones that could possibly be sterile.

OK, then. The state should be issuing reproductive licenses rather than marriage licenses. Right?

The law rightfully protects those (mothers & children) who are less able to protect themselves.

God help us if Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi get married. My wife and kids will be in a world of hurt.

All of family law is predicated upon that basic question…. speaking of missing the point of the debate.

Of course relationships will fail and if children are involved then people not involved in the original partnership are affected and that is very sad. But I fail to see why same-gender relationships with children that fail are any different (worse) than man-woman relationships that fail.

The CBO produced a report in 2004 that summarized 1138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving “benefits, rights, and privileges.”

That seems to be the debate.

You know, I’ve grown really tired of this parochial, absurd, and dehumanizing comparison that the conserva-nuts pull out likening homosexuals to animals. Your rhetoric has grown really old and worn thin.

And as such, inherently sterile relationships don’t fall into the same categories as ones that could possibly be sterile.

I assume you refer to hetero couples who turn out to be incapable of natural conception… if a person can be born sterile, how is it not guaranteed that any future union incorporating this individual be anything but fruitless?

It’s not discrimination, but rather simple common sense.

Please be careful employing common sense in support of your argument — just because it’s law doesn’t mean it is common sense. Moreover, our laws have and continue to prove themselves capable of discrimination. After all, we make them.

The law rightfully protects those (mothers & children) who are less able to protect themselves.

Funny how you don’t call it “government meddling” every time.

Bubba – one more nit-pick. As skeptical as I was about your assertion that:

All of family law is predicated upon that basic question, really. And as such, inherently sterile relationships don’t fall into the same categories as ones that could possibly be sterile.

I decided to pose your argument to a friend with more legal understanding and knowledge than I. His reply:

“Marriage law has very little to do with children…. it is primarily about assets, insurance, etc… (in other words, joint liability and ownership). The argument you just listed is irrelevant to a marriage discussion.”

gotta agree with Smithers the whole relationship with pet could be equal with relationship between two humans does kill the debate.

Funny how those who rail against same sex unions do nothing to police or improve the state of opposite sex unions. If the later were done we could prevent a larg number of Vegas weddings that end up in divorce 24 to 48 hours later.

With heterosexuals, regardless of political stance, doing a fine job of dragging the institution of marriage through the mud (via messy divorces, marriages of convienence, etc.) I don’t see how same sex marriage is going to do any more damage.

Checkbook, suggest your friend needs a better legal education. Anglo-American family law derives from English common law, which in turn derives from Roman and Mosaic law, which are strongly based on the need to protect “weaker vessels.” The fact that lawyers today might not know this does not change this fact. Upon what other basis would you justify the state’s intrusion into family matters?

And of course I don’t call it “government meddling” every time. There are legitimate areas for government, and those that are not so crucial. You want to have someone to take care of you when you’re too old to work? Better get these things right, no? On the meddling side, we have ethanol subsidies and such….

And no, Smithers, I’m not trying to compare the two; it simply that if you suggest that the legalities of marriage are just about love, then what difference is there between monogamy, homosexual relationships, polygamy, and so on? The logic suggested by Ventura does not allow us to differentiate.

Now if, on the other hand, we differentiate on the basis of the interests of women and children for support in vulnerability, the state’s establishment of monogamy and rejection of other relationships makes perfect sense. Homosexual relationships are inherently sterile, as are bestial ones. Polygamous relationships, while not sterile, are inherently abusive.

and is it so unreasonable for the law to assume that a heterosexual couple will be fertile…..it’s the case “only” about 80% of the time that such a couple can have children, after all. (vs. 0% for homosexuals) Statistically, I think we can legitimately differentiate these categories.

Bubba, you certainly laid the smack down on that one so I thought I’d take it back to my friend and give it to him; let him know who’s who and all that. You can imagine my surprise at his response:

“Apparently, this person has never taken any law and doesn’t understand what the state law says about marriage and marriage rights. Ignorance is bliss! You can believe whatever you want!”

I don’t presume to know everything about everything so I defer to those who probably do. Obviously you disagree.

I’m surprised the conserva-nuts haven’t wrapped this issue in the American Flag as some sort of patriotism issue….

Bike Bubba -
American law does derive from English Common law which in turn does come from a variety of sources (hence why Henry II established Common Law.)

But… Family law is a recent concept. I would be willing to bet most of family law precedent has been set post 1950s.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

No, family law is not a recent concept. It’s been heavily modified in the past few decades, but the premise behind it remains the same as it ever has been. Man marries woman. Man fathers children. Man leaves mother of his children. What does the law have to say about it? Historically, it’s said that if you leave, you leave behind your assets, too, to protect the weaker vessels.

Yes, it’s true that even most lawyers today don’t fully appreciate the true nature of our laws. I can concede that. That doesn’t mean that old common law, Blackstone, and the like are any less important than they ever have been. The founders would cringe at a lot of what passes for law these days–crime without intent, jury not allowed to judge the justness of the law, and the concept of a “liquid” or “evolving” Constitution are just a few things that come to mind.

Which is why this is important. Our host is correct, I’d guess, that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships wouldn’t totally make every kid homosexual. That’s not the point; if you mis-define law about marriage to make it just about love, and where are your precedents intended to protect the weaker vessels? They’re gone. You’ve made it all about love and forgotten about the children.

The results of the mis-definition of marriage are pretty clear in nations that allow it, by the way. Marriage rates plunge, and ever more kids are left without a dad. This stuff matters.

Oh, and the ruling that banned anti-homosexual conduct laws? Already being used to try to overturn laws against polygamy. These things have side effects. Maybe we’d do well to listen to our ancestors on this one, too.

Bubba,

Do you actually believe that crap?

You’re like the John Goodman character in “The Big Labowski”…you know, the one with the cogent philosophy that was useless to argue against because it is sealed tight in its own bizarre logic, but set in a larger context was shown to be nothing more than a caricature of a philosophy? I’m sensing that you are a devout christian who has worked hard to bastardize numerous intellectual ideas over the years to bend them towards your predetermined ideological/theological ideas. When something in the world falls outside of your ideological/theological bent, you get angry at that thing and construct a means of declaring it immoral, rather than recognize the inadequacy of your construct. It’s really nice that you’ve gone through the trouble of learning all sorts of wonderful philosophers.

You’re the irritating guy at the bar who strikes up a conversation with you, when you’re just sitting there trying to have a drink, for no other purpose than to prove you wrong. You’ll quote from Hegel, Kant, Kierkegaard. When you want to be sassy you’ll add an affirmation from Nietzsche. Then, when you want to get intimate and go in for the kill you pull out Thomas Aquinas or St. Francis of Assisi, or better still Plato. To show how well rounded you are you’ll throw in Keyes and Veblen, and to show you have an open mind you’ll cite the summary of Das Capital you read once in class. Do you read “The Nation”, “The Republic”, or “The National Review”? Through the lovely elocution, the wonderful narration, the point and counter-point where you earn point after point after point against the guy who just wanted to have a drink in peace, you’ll feel so smug, so self assured, so intellectually superior. But you’ll miss the fact that all you were trying to do the entire time was convince yourself of your own woefully inadequate ideas, and you’ve managed to miss the mark. In addition, the whole process was pettily academic in the end. After all, how can you say you actually know what any of these ideas are about when you read them only to find proofs for your own predetermined ideas? In the end, all you’ve proven is that you just don’t fucking get it.

So Anglo-American Civilization will collapse if homosexuals are to the same rights as heterosexuals, because this somehow violates Mosaic Law? Really? You suggest you have evidence supporting this. Could you please provide it?

Could you also please define for me your concept of Anglo-American Civilization, and then explain to me why preserving the purity of this stream is the most important responsibility we have as Americans?

Additionally, you agree that family law has been altered substantially in the past few decades. Did you oppose all instances where the alterations were not consistent with the traditions of Mosaic and Roman Law? How do you get to be the sole determiner for what is accepted to pass through the tradition and what leads to the end of Anglo-American Civilization? Were you opposed to eliminating the “rule of thumb”? Were you opposed to laws making it illegal to sell your wife? Did you think it was awful when laws were eliminated that prevented blacks from marrying whites?

You “guess” that allowing homosexuals to marry wouldn’t make ever kid homosexual. What are you “guessing” about? Again, your rhetoric is tiresome.

I appreciate your use of the founding fathers to support your point. I will chalk that up to invoking that flag, which, as redBeard says: “I’m surprised the conserva-nuts haven’t wrapped this issue in the American Flag as some sort of patriotism issue….”

Great…just great.

Since I have to think about this crap all the time, I thought I would add my 2 cents (please note that I don’t know what I’m talking about, especially on this issue)- The nature of the common law is that it is always changing, and it can be displaced by statutory and constitutional law- like the equal protection clause, the civil right act, or the Minnesota Human Rights Act (which protects people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other things). Laws that recognize the marriage of opposite sex couples but not same sex couples discriminate not only based on sexual orientation but also on gender. An lesbian individual whose marriage is not legally recognized would have recognition if she were a similarly situated man. The same is true for a gay man- the equal protection laws work both ways. I think more and more state courts will have to recognize this, and hopefully states won’t write discrimination into their constitutions (on that note- if anybody wants to support the organization that will be fighting a ballot initiative in California come November, check out http://www.eqca.org.)

Bubba, please elaborate with examples:

Oh, and the ruling that banned anti-homosexual conduct laws? Already being used to try to overturn laws against polygamy.