What are you getting out of all this, Bricker?

The BBQ Pit
221

During the Massachusetts brouhaha, a senator introduced a bill to replace all marriages with civil unions in the state. I’ll dig up a cite if necessary.

Never know till you try.

Yes it is, as I’ve discussed.

Oh, fuck off. Do you completely lack reading comprehension, or are you just totally inexperienced with arguing a point without resorting to ad hominems?

A rose, by any other name, smells as sweet. Changing the name of the state’s bundle of rights from “marriage” to “civil union” doesn’t change the rights conferred. Abolishing public school changes the education the students receive. That flaw in the analogy is so obvious, it qualifies the analogy for fuckin’ stupid.

Daniel

222

But the public schools were replaced by – no public alternative. Marriage would be replaced by civil unions for all.

In fact, given the divorce rate, this is a an added benefit: civil unions would not have to be “for life.” A couple so-inclined could agree to a three-year, ten-year or twenty-year union, and have the option of renewing or going their own way when the term ended.

Or they could always be the more traditional “forever” brand. Either way. The government would not be in the business of regulating an essentially religious term.

  • Rick
223

Again, this is pretty fuckin’ stupid. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, possibly, convenience would be involved?

C’mon. If your arguments are this weak, don’t bother making them.

Daniel

224

It isn’t essentially religious. Millions of people get married with no religious involvement. Marriage was civil centuries before it was religious.

As I said, France (and I doubt it’s the only one) does not allow its ministers to solemnize legal marriages. All marriages are to be solemnized by civil authorities, following which the couple may have a religious ceremony if they like. Why is this not an acceptable alternative?

225

Because there is no Big Book o’ Principles and Core Beliefs whose authority we have all agreed to abide by. If there were, then we would simply turn to the 'M" section and resolve this matter.

You allege that there is a Principle-and-Core-Belief that says X. I say, “No, it’s actually Y.” That’s a useless waste of time. Neither of us may point to any authority that proves our respective positions.

226

They haven’t ruled either way yet, Rick. They haven’t *had * to, and may not for some time yet, even though there is now a federal level (full faith and credit) issue that didn’t exist before the Massachusetts case. That fact in no way supports your claim that the principle “obviously” does not apply.

Or are you claiming that the principle that “separate but equal” accommodations are unconstitutional has never come up since Brown in any other arena? That seems to have guided a considerable number of court rulings on civil rights ever since, and you don’t have to be a lawyer to know that.

Look, pal, you’re only seeing those references because they get closer to enlightening the core of the matter than any others readily available.

BTW, do you have an answer for why this new institution you propose should not be called “marriage”? Or, for that matter, why the side benefits you list are not and could not be applied to the existing institution of marriage?

Left, do you have an argument left either?

Then why change the name at all?

227

Good point–I can’t believe I didn’t address this at all in my posts in this thread!

Oh, wait. I did.

Given the case I’ve put forward above for changing the name, why not change the name?

Daniel

228

Then how do you argue for the creation (or the repeal) of any form of legislation or human rights? Let’s say it’s the 19th century, and we’re debating slavery. How does one argue against slavery when there’s no “Big Book o’ Principles and Core Beliefs we have all agreed to abide by?” How does one argue for any proposition which isn’t already endorsed by some authoritative source?

229

Or, instead of convenience, a lack of principle. If you truly believed that the government had no business involved in your marriage, then you compromised your principles by going along with that involvement. I consider charitable giving something I do out of principle. I don’t claim any of it on my taxes because I don’t think it should be deductible.

230

And there were 167 years between the day the Constitution was adopted and the time Brown was decided, when that argument could have been brought up. (BTW, SCOTUS held two sessions per year for the overwhelming majority of the nation’s existence, so there’s a nitpick to your figure about sessions as well.) And this proves absolutely nothing, as you who claim to be a lawyer versed in Constitutional law know far better than most members here – the Court decides actual cases and controversies, bud. It doesn’t magick a circumstance out of nowhere to enable it to “legislate by judicial fiat” – despite what your halfassed interpretation of why this country loves and respects its Constitution would hold. The term “pettifogger” is applied to someone who focuses on picayune details while ignoring the larger issues of fairness and justice and human rights. The more you post on your philosophy of Constitutional interpretation, the better it appears to fit.

Here’s a rope, Rick. Toss up that shovel, and get out of the hole. You don’t need to dig it any deeper.

I agree with you that, in the best of all possible worlds, the legislature would pass laws supporting and underscoring freedoms and protecting people. This, sadly, ain’t it. So stop saying what the legislatures ought to do – because they are not doing it, and take a stand – if there is a perceived right seen by a plaintiff as guaranteed by the broad language of the Constitution, and claimed in connection with an instant case or controversy, does or does not the court system have the right to adjudicate whether that right does in fact exist and is applicable to the case at hand? Yes or no.

231

Yes, you caught me: I’m not Saint Daniel. I’m human. I also pay income taxes that go toward the US military effort; I also eat gelatin; I also drive my car. All of these things compromise my principles. What’s more, I suspect that you sometimes compromise your principles, when the principle is not central to your self-identity and the consequences of sticking to your principles in a certain case would be severe.

Let me know if I’m wrong, and I’ll start calling you Saint Homebrew.

In this case, my compromising my principle hurt nobody but myself, however, so I’m really not too worried about it.

Daniel

232

I want to be crystal clear, because people tend to get really stupid in these discussions:

**I would love for SSM to be legalized. That would be, for me, almost exactly as good as having all marriages replaced with civil unions. I only prefer the latter choice for two reasons:

  1. I think it would be likeliest to further the tangible rights and benefits of SSCouples, as discussed in my posts above; and
  2. I don’t like the government sticking its nose into my personal life.
    But if SSM were legalized, I’d do a happy dance. When, briefly, it looked like SSM was spreading across the country, I was exhilarated.**

Clear enough? Folks saying I’m not compassionate toward gay folks, or saying I lack principles, are being obtuse assholes.

Daniel

233

Hey, you could call me St. Miller, 'cause I never compromise my principles.

It’s easy to do, when you don’t have any.

234

Rick, can we take a second here? Just a couple seconds, a few deep breaths. I realize this issue is important to you, but you’re starting to sound really scary again. Take a stroll around a park, smell some roses. Follow your conscience and let others do the same.

Enjoy,
Steven

235

Hey, you’re talking about my favorite Bricker thread of all time.

236

I think it’s fascinating that you think that those two concepts are equivalent.

237

Bricker, this argument would imply that the “seperate but equal” doctrine was constitutional until May 15, 1954 and was unconstitutional thereafter and by an amazing coincidence there happened to be a case before the USSC that allowed them to make the announcement in a fortuitous manner.

Obviously, the reality is that many things are theoretically constitutional or unconstitutional long before the Supreme Court implicitly states so. Unless the USSC has already ruled that “seperate but equal” is not an applicable precedent in the issue of same-sex marriages, you can’t assume a ruling from their silence.

I believe Mexico has the same system. Only civil authorities can legally marry a couple.

238

Can Rick confirm whether he’s a lawyer or not? I’ve noticed on the boards that as temperatures rise, comments appear casting doubt on the qualifications that other posters have claimed.

239

I grant that was a trifle snide in its tone – my point was not to question whether he was, as claimed, an attorney, but rather to point out his seeming myopia as to some of the fundamentals of the legal system when they relate to issues that seem to be hot-button for him, as in “judicial activism.”

I suspect that if there ever comes a need for someone to validate the credentials of a professional person posting on this board, some member of the staff would in fact do so – but in over five years such a circumstance has not, AFAIK, happened. And it was not my intent to question whether Rick was a lawyer, but rather to get a bit snitty about his claimed expertise in constitutional law, given the comments he had been making. I.e., there was a restrictive clause in that sentence.

240

This is really stupid. Bricker has clarified his position. He does not beleive marriage is a government issue, but a religious one. The government should not be expanding marriage, but rather recharacterizing marriages as civil unions whether the person is straight or gay.

What the fuck is wrong with you assholes? Do you not get it? Bricker is so smart and so polite and just reasonable in decent in his postings. Rarely does he take offense or return vituperation regardless of the provocation.

He shames me with his decency and good nature. He is one of the top people on this board in so many ways. His quality veritably pours forth from him, and unless such qualities are totally alien to your nature you cannot but recognize them in Bricker.

Disagree with him? Fine. I disagree. To asassinate his character as I’ve seen here is to render oneself vile.
There’s an old joke:

This kid gets hired at a lumber camp. After a couple of weeks he goes to the boss and the boss says “how are things going?”

The kid says “Pretty good. I have no complaints. Well maybe I have one.”

The boss says “what is it?” but the kid is clearly reluctant. Finally he draws it out of him.

“Everything’s great here, but what you do for… you know… female company?”

The boss says “Oh that. Well, you see that barrell over there? There’s a knothole on the other side. That’s what we use.”
That night the kid visits the barrel.
The next day he sees the boss and he’s got a big smile on his face. “Boss, I got to tell you. I was skeptical of that barrel, but that thing’s amazing. I mean amazing! I feel so much better now. It was incredible!”

The boss says “Good kid, I’m glad you feel that way. Tonight it’s your turn in the barrel.”

Well Bricker, welcome to the barrel. Nice group of people around it, waiting there turn, huh?