New Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Maelakin: As a side point, even the Law should not be able to tell you morally what you can and can't do in your own home.

I could not disagree more strongly.

The law should be able to tell you that you cannot
1.Bash your spouse
2.Rape your spouse
3.Bash your children
4.Rape your children
5.Bash your pet
6.Rape your pet
7.Kill any of the above or any visitor.

The idea that a mans home is his legal kingdom is antiquated mate. Get into the 2000's. You can't hit a woman in your house. It is justifiably forbidden by the law. [/QUOTE]As in all cases, a person’s individual liberty comes first. In each of your examples, you are violating individuals’ personal rights, with the exception of the pet. As far as your pet goes, since you in essence DO own your pet, you should be able to do what you will with it. If they want to stop animal cruelty, they should start with outlawing the ownership of animals.

The above has absolutely nothing to do with moral law. As I have stated many times before, law should be the force that protects your personal liberty, and in the cases you suggest personal liberty is at stake. So, I stand by my remark.

A comment posted by myself in this thread previous to your statement:

Originally posted by Maelakin: To me, government should protect personal liberty to the extent of proven discourse to the populace. In any situation that contains a possibility derived from one unfounded conclusion, they should not have the power to pass laws governing those actions.

Read the thread before responding maybe? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Back on the topic of marriage, what you personally used marriage as does not matter. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a merger of financial estates. Just because you chose to keep all financial affairs separate does not mean the law looks at it that way. When you were divorced, was it quick and painless or did someone sue for a portion of the estate. I know from personal experience that separating funds does not mean you keep yours and she keeps hers upon divorce. It only happens that way if you choose that method and the other party agrees. [/QUOTE]We "own" the animal do we? I was under the impression we have a license to exclusively house, feed and care for it.

In Australia we've been introducing the term "animal partnering" rather than "pet owning" because of misconceptions you illustrated.

You do not own the pet in the sense that you do not have the right to abuse your pet or end it's life prematurely.

As to your comments that "my experience doesn't matter" I'm afraid it does. We kept our possessions seperate and the law definitely looked at it that way. We used a legal mediator and pretty much each kept all we brought in. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Marriage is not simply a "merger of finances". That would be a business partnership, and an aspect of marriage you CAN enter into.

Have you heard of "prenuptual agreements Maelakin?

I gave a personal experience of marriage and the law. Let's hear yours before you so quickly consign mine to the irrelevency bin.

As to "was it quick and painless" some sensitivity could be in order. It nearly killed me thanks Maelakin. Not because of the mere finances, but because of the social, emotional and spiritual conjoinment the union contains.

Again, let's hear your personal experience of marriage and divorce. I'd love to hear it.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Just to note: marriage is not simply the commingling of financial interests. Neither is Civil Union as it has come to pass (e.g. Vermont). Marriage is certainly more than financial. Deciding whether or not to pull the plug on someone who is hospitalized is more than financial. To be specific, marriage is the commingling of financial as well as other interests, such as Power of Attorney and Living Will. It is simply more.

yes, it's "more". so which of these elements of "more" definitively exclude homosexual tendencies? [img]smile.gif[/img]

edit - smiley added. sorry, i'm afraid that may have come across as contrary and trite, certainly not the way it was intended .

[ 11-24-2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Well I challenge that "usual consideration" but, even if given, what about morals such as "don't have sex with your four year old son" "don't sodomise your daughter" or other such things.

Yorick, for one I must point out that I wrote "once" when I mean "one" in the post you quoted. Sorry.

Look, there is one moral accepted in American, and all Euro-descended law: that you should not harm others in exercising your liberty. Once again, the examples you post are examples of harming others. Prohibiting that is in keeping with all of the law, and is not legislating morality (in your examples, the law presumes children cannot consent, meaning any sex with them is non-consensual, and is rape). (Oh, a picky point: if your daughter is over the age of consent, say 18 in most states, she can consent, meaning it is not a crime to have sex with her, as Jerry Springer may have pointed out to you at one time or another.)

Legislating morality is limiting liberty based on other rights than the universal of "the right to be free from harm caused by others." Legislating morality is limiting liberty of what the person does to themselves (e.g. masturbation or suicide or watching porn) or limiting the liberty of what two or more consenting people may do to each other (e.g. telling me and you we cannot agree to have a fistfight, or telling two lesbians they cannot have cunnilingus, or telling a room full of gay men they cannot have group sex, or telling a woman she may not sell sex).

Back to me telling Maelakin he is more libertarian than me. As I said, I think at some points it is acceptable to legislate morality. Why? Well, let us take one example or two that you, Yorick, have picked on before. Above I stated that suicide is a personal liberty issue. I know your argument against this is: "It harms others. It harms relatives and children and all those you leave behind."

That may be true in many instances. However, telling you I hate bouncing eggs may also harm you, hurting your feelings. The same is true for Rush Limbaugh stating things about black football players -- it may harm their feelings. At some point, however, the harm caused to another diminishes to the point that it is very minor compared to denying liberty to the one who is forbidden from exercising their liberty.

For this reason, it is logical to realize (and it is also, coincidentally, the current state of the law) that these things come down to a balancing test. The question to ask is: On balance, how does the inhibition of liberty weigh against the possible harm caused by the exercise of liberty?

Let us take suicide for instance. As far as I'm concerned, the right to live or not, the very essence of existence, is paramount, whereas some psychological scarring suffered by the child of a suicide "victim" is not paramount. We all suffer hurtful emotions, get the hell over it, life is tough, I say.

Now let's take Rush Limbaugh for instance. The right to free speech, the free exchange of ideas, however odd they may be, is paramount. Surely you agree, given your belief in the dialectic. The dialectic structure of our maturation as individuals and society is the essence of being, and, as such, I am glad that the freedom of speech is the "first among equals" when it comes to our Bill of Rights. For that reason, the ability of Rush to point out the controversial (yet true) view that our media really would like to see minorities succeed in whatever they do, be it quarterbacking or taking the SAT, is more important than the few feelings he may hurt in saying something that may (or may not) be true. The free exchange of ideas (even bad ideas) is more important than our individual sensibilities.

It is for this reason, the balancing test (inherent in so much of constitutional law, by necessity, because it is inherent in any "my rights" vs. "your rights" analysis), that I say I could, and perhaps do, support legislating morality. But only when the inherent paramount value of liberty can be overcome.

[ 11-25-2003, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[pritchke]

For those who believe that changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would signal the end of civilization as we know it:

"Do you want to know what's destroying the sanctity of marriage? Phone messages like the ones we'd get at my old divorce firm in Reno, Nev., left on Saturday mornings and picked up on Monday: "Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room—honey what room is this—oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."
It just doesn't get much more sacred than that."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091475/

They are not hurting anyone I don't see a problem.

I know of one lady who's second marriage lasted about a month or so. She confessed one time that, as she was walking down the aisle, she knew that it was the wrong thing to do but... "oh, what the hell the hall's paid for anyway." [her words, not mine].

I have no idea what a pastor or a marriage councillor could say to a person with an attitude like that, and she is harming someone financially.

[ 11-25-2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Yorick: As to your comments that "my experience doesn't matter" I'm afraid it does. We kept our possessions seperate and the law definitely looked at it that way. We used a legal mediator and pretty much each kept all we brought in. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Marriage is not simply a "merger of finances". That would be a business partnership, and an aspect of marriage you CAN enter into.

If you really want to go down this road we can. Did she sue you? Did you sue her? Or, did you accept the legal mediator’s decisions as they were given? Did you stand before a judge and have the judge make a ruling as to who retained what possessions? If you did not, then you made a decision together to forgo that process.

Your assumption that I have no idea what I am talking about is complete idiocy. I WAS married and kept separate finances from my spouse. When we were divorced, I was TOLD by a judge to give her money out of my separate bank account and she was allowed to take items I purchased with money I earned. In addition, I got to send her a lovely paycheck each week in return for her infidelity. So tell me again how I have no idea what I’m talking about.

Originally posted by Yorick: Have you heard of "prenuptual agreements Maelakin?

You mean those legally binding contracts used to keep specific portions of one’s finances and possessions separate during marriage? So tell me how using a business contract to keep financial ambiguity supports your assessment.

Originally posted by Yorick: As to "was it quick and painless" some sensitivity could be in order. It nearly killed me thanks Maelakin. Not because of the mere finances, but because of the social, emotional and spiritual conjoinment the union contains.

I obviously was referring to the possibility of a long and drawn out court battle that resulted from the divorce. There is no need to play the victim as a result of my comment.

Originally posted by Yorick: Again, let's hear your personal experience of marriage and divorce. I'd love to hear it.

At the age of 15 I met a girl whom I spent the next 4 years of my life with. At the age of 18 we were married before I went and served time in the Navy. During the time I was gone, she decided it was better for her to engage in sexual acts outside that of our marriage. As a result, we divorced due to irreconcilable differences and I was forced to pay as noted above.

As for the emotional mumbo jumbo everyone keeps referring too, that had absolutely nothing to do with the marriage. I would have felt the same even if we weren’t married. For all intents and purposes, marriage outside of religion has no bearing on the solidity of the vows. In religion you swear under God to live by your vows, and that actually means something to some people. For those of us who do not follow any particular religion, vows made in the courtroom are nothing more than allowing the state to view us as a single entity.

Maybe in my argument I have been using the wrong wording. People keep referring to business mergers instead of financial mergers. When two companies merge together financially, it also entails intertwining other facets of the business. Items such as Power of Attorney are included in these dealings. In all cases, each of the accepting parties gives the other power over them to make decisions on their behalf. Maybe many of you just haven’t been part of a merger and don’t understand all the ramifications one presents.

In all, I’m stating that marriage, outside of religion for those who can’t seem to separate these, has nothing to do with emotional unity. While many may marry for this reason that is something they choose to add to the marriage. If that were what marriage was, it would be required before two parties could be married.

One the subject of the pet, read what I wrote. If it is stated in the law that we do not own the pet, and ownership of the animal is outlawed, then there isn’t a problem. As it stands however, I should be able to kill my pet.

For example, I once owned a pig that was my pet for 2 years. After two years, I killed it and it was eaten. Does this constitute animal cruelty? Should I have not been allowed to kill and eat the pig? Does the type of animal now play a part in what we can and cannot kill to eat?

I can understand abuse, such are repeated beatings. But, you go too far when you mention ending its life prematurely.