Right, but polygamy was part of the original idea of Jewish marriage. Are you saying you want to… change the definition?
And you want a cite about divorce in Rome? No problem. From the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed.
I’m not sure I can think of any republican Romans who weren’t divorced at least once - Augustus, Caesar, Pompey and Cicero included.
I can give you a bibliography on studies of Roman family life, if you like. Believe me when I say that the marriage you want to be enshrined in law is not Roman marriage.
We simply want full equality. Others in this thread (and sections of society at large) have asked us to accept separate but equal, you’ve further clarified your position to be (my perception here) separate and not exactly equal.
And where exactly do you anticipate us just ‘shutting up’ to get us?
I don’t see it that way. Words don’t have inherent power, until we give them some power or meaning they are nothing but sounds. The power those sounds have change over time based on the power that we assign to them.
I think a lot of the people that voted no on these amendments personally believe a child shouldn’t grow up with two moms or two dads. Right now being gay is still not as socially acceptable as all you gays like to believe. For my cite on this statement see Prop 8 and the amendment in Florida which required 60% + to pass.
Besides do you all really want to lose half your stuff when you get divorced anyways?
Shodan. I admit, I was wrong on one point. When I said “you are not a complete fucking idiot” I was completely and utterly wrong. You apparently ARE a complete fucking idiot. And, in addition, you are the most dishonest debator I’ve ever had the displeasure of dealing with. You’re a liar, you misrepresent my posts and points, you ignore points you don’t like, you don’t answer any questions, and simply repeat the same crap over and over again. You are, I now realize, completely unable to actually debate an issue.
Your final post is mostly the same crap you’ve said over and over, and which I’ve refuted over and over. Here’s the capsule:
You state there is an individualized “power to establish rights” that is not in the Constitution. I point out that defining rights and their limits IS part and parcel to “the judicial power”. It is exactly what judges do, and have done, for centuries. I also point out that the “power to establish rights” is an inherent part of the judicial power, just as the President and Congress have a slew of inherent powers not specifically listed in the Constitution. You just ignore my points and repeat the same thing. Then, I point out that your reading of “the judicial power” and the 10th Amendment contradict the clear wording of the Constitution in the 9th Amendment. You respond, in effect, “Nuh uh! UR Dumb”. Great argument there.
You go on to repeat the “arising under the Constitution” and pretend that that means “rights must be specifically listed in the Constitution before they are protected.” I point out that the 9th Amendment, again, proves you wrong. In addition, Iadd the privileges and immunities, due process, equal protection, and the 9th Amendment are all in the Constitution and thus cases involving them, by definition, “arise under the Constitution.” I also point out that accepting judicial review only for enumerated rights adds words to “the judicial power” that aren’t there in the Constitution and contradict the 9th Amendment. In response to all those points of mine, you just call me names and pretend I didn’t refute your point.
A few final points:
This is the third time you’ve blatantly misstated my position. I can’t stop you from doing it over and over, but it just emphasizes, once again, what a dishonest little prick you are. In fact, I said the opposite of this, that the founders thought, by and large, the source of rights is from Nature or the Creator, not the Supreme Court.
True. If you think that having someone else pay your mortgage is a right, well argue it to the legislature and the Courts. I really don’t think you’re going to win, what with it being stupid and all, but have at it. Stupid is your strong point.
And, again, you’re misrepresenting my position. Four times now. Congrats on adding to your dishonesty total.
What I actually did was refer to the the 9th Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Nowhere in there does it say, as you pretend, that no rights can be denied or disparaged. That’s just you being a dishonest debater again. It says, as I’ve explained over and over to you, that they can’t be denied or disparaged simply because they are not enumerated. You can still deny or disparage rights, you just can’t do it, as you insist on doing, because they’re not enumerated.
Refute what? Even if you accept that interpretation by the Supreme Court, the other clauses I listed are in the Constitution. And therefore, cases involving those, arise under the Constitution.
Here is your biggest lie of all. I’ve pointed this out to you already, even with examples. Here it is again, just for you:
"You snip apart my posts (your last post), ignore the parts you don’t like (federalism v. separation of powers, THE JUDICIAL POWER and what it entails, the deny and disparage in the 9th Amendment), refuse to respond to my questions (can Congress “establish rights”? Can State Courts “establish rights” since there is no 10th Amendment issue), and simply repeat the same things over and over and over and over (your desperate reliance on “specifically in the Constitution). And, every time an issue comes up like this again, it’s the same fucking thing. At least you’re consistent in your piss poor ability to debate.”
I don’t look forward to your next post, where you ignore everything I said, refuse to answer the questions asked, and repeat yourself over again, and lie about my position. Same ole’ Same ole’ in SHODANland.
Yes, Antinor01 is right. I thought that was clear from my post, but if not it hopefully is now. I would just add that they also change from use to use based on the intent of the user.
It IS the real thing - when my friend Diane married her friend Michelle, they got married, and they are a married couple now, same as my friend Kelly and her husband Dave. They have the same benefits, and they get to make a divorce lawyer rich if they decide to split up.
I think you’re concentrating too much on the details instead of the bigger picture. A marriage is a legal arrangement between two consenting adults, as set forth by the laws of the country of which they are citizens. Your hotdog analogy is too specific; it would be more accurate to say a sandwich is two parts that taste compatible together, rather than specifying a wiener and a bun (at the risk of talking about wieners and buns in a discussion of gay people ). We’re saying two men or two women or a man and a woman are all viable types of sandwich.
No, but we only lost by about 3%. Ten years ago, it was closer to two thirds against. Ten years before that, the concept of voting for gay marriage would have been laughed off the ballot. Ten years before that, people still thought that being gay should get you arrested. Consider the rate of change in the acceptance of gay rights in general, and gay marriage in particular, and ask yourself what’s going to happen ten years from now. The writing’s on the wall for people like you. You could do us all a favor and stop struggling now, because all you’re doing is drawing out the inevitable.
You’re really topping yourself in not making any sense on this one. I’m not accepting anything but full equality for gays, including the right to marry. Obviously, I’d like the process to be done as quickly and easily as possible, but if it has to be a long hard fight, then I’m prepared for a long hard fight. What I’m saying is that you could avoid that long hard fight by giving up now, because you’re not going to be able to win this in the long run. And, also, because your position is inherently unjust, and deeply stupid, but that’s beside the point I’m trying to make, which is that your political struggle is doomed, and you might as well surrender. Because gays sure as fuck aren’t ever going to settle for second place in this fight.
But marriage doesn’t have an external reality beyond what we call it. If there were no humans, there would still be squares and triangles. If there were no humans, there would be no marriage. If we redefine marriage to include gay couples, then that’s what marriage means. There is no objective reality to marriage beyond what we say it is.
“Gay marriage” is not “creating a new right.” It’s extending the right to marry, as people have been doing since time immemorial, to gay couples. Same thing as with women’s suffrage. There’s not a new “right to women’s votes” created – women were accorded or extended the exact same franchise as men had previously exclusively enjoyed. There’s no inherent difference between a woman’s vote and a man’s vote. And there is no inherent difference in a marriage between two people just because of the sexes of the people involved. It’s a specific form of legal contract entered into by two people and recognized (or not) by the state, which may or may not accord the couple or its members specific rights vis-a-vis each other or the body politic.
Now:
– The Founding Fathers are on record as being aghast at the idea that one could exhaustively enumerate the Rights of Man. That’s why the Ninth Amendment is there. That the courts may not use it as the source of a newly recognized right is at the moment settled law (though all it takes is one opinion to change that). But it’s contrary to American jurisprudence to pretend that the American people have only those rights specifically guaranteed in an enumerated list.
– Marriage is a fundamental right. In terms of jurisprudence, established by a dictum in Loving. In terms of constitutional law, it is an unenumerated right demonstrable as such by showing the absurdity of a state totally abolishing marriage (not just refusing to recognize it, but forbidding it).
– Like some other rights, marriage may validly be regulated by the state. Example: The state may deem that Lolita McNubile is too young to consent with marriage with Humbert Humbert.
– It’s established law that when rights are being regulated, the regulation may not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be tied to a specific government purpose. The Dopers-at-law may get into levels of scrutiny and what they call for in terms of what sort of government purpose is required for each, but take the above as a broad generalized statement of law. To look at the previous example, the state’s interest in not seeing young persons be led astray by their hormones or inexperience leads them to set a minimum age of consent.
– Any two people may enter into a contract unless their doing so is prohibited by law. For example, I may contract with any store selling it to buy sugar, I may contract only with a licensed pharmacist and on condition of having a valid prescription from a doctor if I wish to legally buy a regulated medical drug; and I may not legally buy heroin from anyone.
Therefore:
Gay people are entitled to contract marriage and have that marriage licensed and recognized by the state, unless there is a valid governmental purpose rising to meet the proper level of scrutiny restricting them from doing so.
IMO, it’s necessary to demonstrate such a valid governmental purpose in order to restrict or prohibit gay marriages, or else permit them to occur and be recognized.
Sorry, I didn’t know that Montréal and/or PA were part of the Roman empire (I said yout presidents).
And Rome DID have presidents, well at least the Centuria Commitata.
Man, choosing the guys inthe first page of the a history book as representative of a whole civilisation is neurologically-challenged to say the list.
Definitely, I totally agree. My point was that if SSM cannot be passed on a very liberal state (I’m sure in fewer than ten years it will) federal recognition may still be 30 or 40 years down the road.
I completely agree the GLBT people have the right to petition for the rights they want , even when I disagree with their reuqests.(I repeat that I was answering to a hypothetical question). I completely disagree with your position that, because we’re going to lose (which I think is the likeliest scenario), I should stop fighting right now, to avoid the hard fight. Would you do the same? If California had voted 75% against SSM and in 5 years Mass. and Conn. also voted 70% agaisnt it, and 10 years later those numbers went to 85%, would you stop your fight even if it looked doomed?
Before Trenton, US independence looked absolutely doomed.
Rolling over is not the way to go; not on my book.
GLBT and pro-GLBT should and must fight, in a democratic way, for what they consider is theirs, you’ll never hear me say the contrary. And if they want, they shouldn’t settle for anything but 100% of their goals.
I only ask that you extend me the same cortesy of allowing me to stand for what I think is right, regardless of how misguided you or I could be.
The existence of triangles without humans is an interesting proposition to debate. Geometrical figures are abstractions, abstractions only happen in human minds. I’ll concede the debates, both geometrical and SSM if you could show me ONE SINGLE triangle, just one; solid, tangible, natural.
While I’m with you in spirit and theory, I see a problem here. Who will invalidate a constitutional amendment that restricts or prohibit gay marriages? If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (or state), who will overturn it if language is clearly written to avoid interpretation by the courts?
Oh my god I seriously cannot stop chuckling. Each link I clicked was better than the last. Bravo, Miller, bravo. Ají de Gallina . . . you’re going to go down in history as the person who got owned the most times in a single argument, ever. Yes, owned is the correct term here because it makes me laugh, just like you do. I can’t wait to see your excuse why you won’t concede the SSM debate after all (unless you just disappear from the thread in shame, which you really should have done a long time ago anyway.)
I wanna play! Kinda Triangular Snake Head- maybe Triangular? Ah, this shape seems familiar
[.I’ll concede the debates, both geometrical and SSM if you could show me ONE SINGLE triangle, just one; solid, tangible, natural.
[/QUOTE]
Though I have a feeling I know how these arguements are going to be refuted, I just wanted to show more triangles in nature. Though one can argue that just because something has 3 sides, and the angles add up to 180, it is not a “triangle” but the WORD “triangle” has been created by humans to define something that occurs in that sort of a pattern. In nature, it’s just a pattern or trend, but it takes a human to come along and afix the label of “triangle” to an object.
But that’s weak sauce to me. If it’s got 3 sides to it, and the angles add up to 180 degrees. It’s a triangle whether or not a human is there to say so. Just because we don’t come along and observe it and affix a label to it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just won’t have a name."]
Ah, can’t forget these guysNature’s Triangles
Though I have a feeling I know how these arguments are going to be refuted, I just wanted to show more triangles in nature. Though one can argue that just because something has 3 sides, and the angles add up to 180, it is not a “triangle” but the WORD “triangle” has been created by humans to define something that occurs in that sort of a pattern. In nature, it’s just a pattern or trend, but it takes a human to come along and afix the label of “triangle” to an object.
But that’s weak sauce to me. If it’s got 3 sides to it, and the angles add up to 180 degrees. It’s a triangle whether or not a human is there to say so. Just because we don’t come along and observe it and affix a label to it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just won’t have a name.
). We’re saying two men or two women or a man and a woman are all viable types of sandwich.
