Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[Blog] Memo to California
I Read This
September 26, 2018, 06:37:10 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
  Print  
Author Topic: [Blog] Memo to California  (Read 35480 times)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2008, 19:49:44 EST »

make it impossible to see anybody in the hospital you haven't descended from or given birth to, end of story.

HELL NO! that would mean my SO would have died alone!
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Comrade Ogilvy
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2008, 19:58:18 EST »

HELL NO! that would mean my SO would have died alone!

Tough luck. You do know what a modest proposal is, don't you?

Or we could go the other way and let anybody who's anybody visit people in the hospital. Frankly, that works too for this mental exercise.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2008, 20:01:15 EST »

Swift, you ain't. Here's a hint; you need to go over the top. This wasn't, it's been proposed already.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Comrade Ogilvy
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2008, 20:10:10 EST »

Okay, we'll lead all currently known married couples into gas chambers, and we'll establish a singles-empowerment organization for youths known as the Junior Anti-Sex League. We'll also give mandatory sex changes to pre-pubescent children for no reason at all.

Oh, and we'll have a Fourth Reich, just for fun.
Logged
sraf
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


I made it myself.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2008, 23:28:20 EST »

... Nope, nope, still not working. Still just a jerk.
Logged

"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." - Oscar Wilde
My Livejournal
Comrade Ogilvy
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2008, 23:32:35 EST »

Right, because you can assess the quality of my character in three posts.

This is a mental exercise. I'm playing Devil's Advocate. But please continue with your effete indignation.
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2008, 00:05:42 EST »

This is a mental exercise. I'm playing Devil's Advocate. But please continue with your effete indignation.

umm the point of Devil's Advocate. is to be argued against, and not be a strawman. While my counter argument wasn't "reasoned response" but it was still a fair counter because it object to the idea on the grounds of emotional value. I don't deny it. BUT reason arguments need premises, and you suggestion violates a primes for me.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Conservative Cat
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2008, 00:18:38 EST »

Personally, I roll my eyes at this whole affair.  For all practical purposes, whether or not Prop. 8 passed or not (and by all means it did), I have to ask what changed?  Did those homosexual couples all of a sudden lose the benefits and responsibilities of being "married"?  Not really, since they have a domestic relationship, and by California law, a domestic relationship has the same rights, responsibilities, benefits, etc, as those who have a marriage license.  So, by law, they can't be discriminated against simply because they don't have a piece of paper.

On the other hand, if the Prop. 8 failed, nothing would change.  While there was much fearmongering on the Pro-8 side, I really saw it as a bunch of fluff.  It was something that the Pro-8 people were trying to create as a worst-case scenario, which by no way would happen.  But the way I saw it, if Prop. 8 failed, nothing much would change in the ordinary life of the average Californian.  Life would, more or less, continue on as normal.

So, I ask myself, what this whole mess was about?  Simple, ideology.  That's all that this was about.  To be honest, the only real meaningful argument from either side was simply this.  One should not change the constitution on a whim.  That's pretty much it.

With that said, I would like to respond to one thing.

Quote
And this is what bugs me about the whole issue: I have seen almost no positive evidence that the people who support expanding the legal definition marriage to include same-sex couples would also, in the same stroke of the pen, expand it to include groups of more than two.

It's not so much as "support" as it is the legal logic that applies as to why the state support same sex couples could be applied to polygamous marriages as well.  To demonstrate:

The logic to allow same sex marriages is that they're two people who love each other, and want to live with each other, and are willing to support each other for the rest of their lives.  Thus, they should have the same rights and privileges that married people share, even if the people are of the same sex.

And to apply the same logic to polygamous marriages...

The logic to allow multiple persons marriages is that they're three (or more) people who love each other, and want to live with each other, and are willing to support each other for the rest of their lives.  Thus, they should have the same rights and privileges that two persons domestic relationships share, even if there are three of us.

It's not so much as "support" as it is that the logic used to allow same sex marriages can also apply to other non-traditional relationships.
Logged
John
Talking Head
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 529


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2008, 01:29:48 EST »

I have seen almost no positive evidence that the people who support expanding the legal definition marriage to include same-sex couples would also, in the same stroke of the pen, expand it to include groups of more than two.
I would, as long as the marriage would be for all parties involved.

Part of most marriages is the idea that those involved will only be sexually involved with those in the marriage. If a three (or more) people want to marry each other then I'm okay with that. What that means is if Bob, Jan and Sam get married then:
* Bob is married to Jan
* Jan is married to Sam
* Sam is married to Bob

I don't think we as a society are at a point where Bob can be married to Jan and Bob can be married to Sam but Sam and Jan aren't married to each other. This would too easily lead to fraud and abusive relationships (IMO). We already have instances where 1 man is with multiple women without it being illegal and often it is fraudulent or abusive or both. I think this would only be heightened by legalising it.

However marriage where all parties are involved and willing, is a separate and IMO permissible thing.

I don't, however, comment on it anywhere near as much as I comment on homosexual marriages because people have trouble grasping the idea of gay marriages, let alone ones with more then 2 people. I also don't know if my ideal is what most people who are in favour of "multiple marriages" mean.

suggest that marriage shouldn't be a government-controlled thing in the first place.  Because ultimately, you're suggesting that people should have to conform to the government's definition of marriage, regardless of whether that definition includes you and your friends, personally, or not.  I should remind everyone here that the marriage license was invented (here in the US, at least) specifically as a way to prevent interracial couples.  Think about it.
Good point. What would happen if marriage was abolished? Well we'd:
1) No longer have a clear line of who the next of kin was.
2) Partners wouldn't be eligible for medical insurance from an employer
3) We'd lose the "Sanctity of Marriage" allowance in courts where a wife can't be compelled to provide testimony on what her husband said (at least from my understanding of watching Law & Order Wink).
4) We'd lose tax benefits for being married.

Anything else? I think these would be pretty difficult to surmount in America. In Australia all but the third and fourth ones are surmountable and I'm not sure if they should exist.

Florida is always doing stupid shit. Ours also got rid of common-law marriage.
What's that?

Personally, I roll my eyes at this whole affair.  For all practical purposes, whether or not Prop. 8 passed or not (and by all means it did), I have to ask what changed?
Unfortunately nothing changed beyond adding further credibility that its acceptable to treat homosexuals differently to heterosexuals.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 01:31:28 EST by John » Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2008, 01:57:55 EST »

Personally, I roll my eyes at this whole affair.  For all practical purposes, whether or not Prop. 8 passed or not (and by all means it did), I have to ask what changed?  Did those homosexual couples all of a sudden lose the benefits and responsibilities of being "married"?  Not really, since they have a domestic relationship, and by California law, a domestic relationship has the same rights, responsibilities, benefits, etc, as those who have a marriage license.  So, by law, they can't be discriminated against simply because they don't have a piece of paper.

So, if I tell you that you can never get married because you're conservative, but that you can have a domestic relationship, you'd be OK with that? I certainly wouldn't be OK being told that I'd never be able to be married because of any of my own intrinsic properties.

It's not just "a piece of paper". It's a marriage certificate, indicating that the two people mentioned on the certificate are bound in the eyes of the law. Telling people that they're not allowed to have one, because they're gay, is a "get to the back of the bus" moment. It's segregation, whether or not the difference between one and the other is the name. "You're not allowed in our special marriage club; you're gay. But you can join the domestic relationship club! So, it's all OK, right?!"

Florida is always doing stupid shit. Ours also got rid of common-law marriage.
What's that?

Common law marriage is a situation whereby if a couple have been living in a marriage-like relationship for a given period, their relationship is elevated to the status of marriage in the eyes of the law, negating the requirement for a licence. Licences can still be sought, both before and after the relationship gains common-law marriage status.

It's a complicated pickle. If you break up with your common-law partner, divorce-like proceedings can occur, despite no actual marriage. But it means that unmarried people can have children without worrying about any stupid crap like the child protection authorities worrying about single parents.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2008, 02:28:57 EST »

Good point. What would happen if marriage was abolished? Well we'd:
1) No longer have a clear line of who the next of kin was.
2) Partners wouldn't be eligible for medical insurance from an employer
3) We'd lose the "Sanctity of Marriage" allowance in courts where a wife can't be compelled to provide testimony on what her husband said (at least from my understanding of watching Law & Order Wink).
4) We'd lose tax benefits for being married.

Anything else? I think these would be pretty difficult to surmount in America. In Australia all but the third and fourth ones are surmountable and I'm not sure if they should exist.

Well depends do you have Next of kin for inheritance as well as next of kin for medical notification/decision making ?

There is also Shared Property.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 02:39:25 EST by rogue-kun » Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Comrade Ogilvy
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2008, 04:02:56 EST »

So, if I tell you that you can never get married because you're conservative, but that you can have a domestic relationship, you'd be OK with that? I certainly wouldn't be OK being told that I'd never be able to be married because of any of my own intrinsic properties.

Back up. Assuming you're male, if you were told you could have something that was completely identical to a marriage, except that it wouldn't be called a "marriage," you would not, in that instance, be allowed to call your partner a "husband?"

The reality is that everybody would. "Civil union" and "domestic partnership" are too wordy for informal discourse. In a society that instituted civil unions alongside marriages, almost everybody would say that man X and man Y were "married." And they absolutely would call each other "husband."

This debate has almost always been about the formal use of the word "marriage." Religious people are terrified about the definition of that word changing.

It's kind of hypocritical, too, when you think about it, because while Christians will hem and haw about any of their words or concepts evolving or becoming redefined, I'd wager that the vast majority of them will never regard the swastika as anything other than a symbol of oppression and hate.
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2008, 04:08:13 EST »

So, if I tell you that you can never get married because you're conservative, but that you can have a domestic relationship, you'd be OK with that? I certainly wouldn't be OK being told that I'd never be able to be married because of any of my own intrinsic properties.

Back up. Assuming you're male, if you were told you could have something that was completely identical to a marriage, except that it wouldn't be called a "marriage," you would not, in that instance, be allowed to call your partner a "husband?"

The reality is that everybody would. "Civil union" and "domestic partnership" are too wordy for informal discourse. In a society that instituted civil unions alongside marriages, almost everybody would say that man X and man Y were "married." And they absolutely would call each other "husband."

This debate has almost always been about the formal use of the word "marriage." Religious people are terrified about the definition of that word changing.

It's kind of hypocritical, too, when you think about it, because while Christians will hem and haw about any of their words or concepts evolving or becoming redefined, I'd wager that the vast majority of them will never regard the swastika as anything other than a symbol of oppression and hate.

Except this country as a extremely poor track history with separate as equal, but I would settle as a first step.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Comrade Ogilvy
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2008, 04:19:04 EST »

And it's an excellent first step. Because, by adopting a legal definition for gay marriages so loquacious that no layman would use them, the word "marriage" would, as I said, be used in it's place, obfuscating the difference between the two anyway.

Within two generations, domestic partnerships and marriages would become so intertwined in the comprehension of the common citizen that from there it wouldn't be much of a stretch to simply issue marriage licenses to all holders of domestic partnerships. Think of it from a child's perspective; if there's no discernable difference between what two men have and what a "married" couple have, clearly the men are "married."
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2008, 04:24:13 EST »

And it's an excellent first step. Because, by adopting a legal definition for gay marriages so loquacious that no layman would use them, the word "marriage" would, as I said, be used in it's place, obfuscating the difference between the two anyway.

The point is not layman's though it the lawyers that say "you medical insurance said married, you have a civil union we not going to pay a cent.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!