Married? Again?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Married? Again?

It costs a male teenager more for car insurance regardless of their character, driving record, etc. than a female of the same age. Fair or not?

Definitely unfair. Have you seen how teenage girls drive?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Married? Again?

True. The discussion of marriage with more than one other person is more germaine, as then you would have consenting adults. Consent is one reasonable dividing line between certain types of possible marriage.

Of course if we believe marrying children is wrong here, then we shouldn't be a big fan of it elsewhere, or else we should reexamine why we aren't a big fan of it. Of course what we do with our not being a big fan of it elsewhere is then a challenging question.

Yeah, the problem with going to Nigeria or the Congo or someplace like that and telling someone that they can't give their 12 yr old daughter away in marriage is that for the most part, in areas of the world where this goes on, this type of a transaction is all about money. It's essentially a father selling his daughter in exchange for cattle, higher standing in the tribe, etc... And it's pretty hard for us to throw that stone because we (our ancestors, and European forebears) used to do the same thing.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Married? Again?

Sounds like a win-win situation, so why aren't more guys signing up to live as girls so they can dominate at softball?

Because boys don't want to be ridiculed for playing a girls' sport. Can you imagine the humiliation if Joe Cool got struck out by a GIRL!?!

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Married? Again?

Yeah, the problem with going to Nigeria or the Congo or someplace like that and telling someone that they can't give their 12 yr old daughter away in marriage is that for the most part, in areas of the world where this goes on, this type of a transaction is all about money. It's essentially a father selling his daughter in exchange for cattle, higher standing in the tribe, etc... And it's pretty hard for us to throw that stone because we (our ancestors, and European forebears) used to do the same thing.

I live in a small town in East Africa. This practice of "selling the bride" is still ritualized in most of the country, but in practice doesn't really exist. The wedding ceremonies I've been to have featured a ritual "sale" or negotiation, but that has as much relevance to the actual practice of marriage here as the father "giving away" the bride does in our culture. Theres far more autonomy in marriage practices in sub saharan Africa than most Westerners believe.

In short, from my experience here on the ground, mass sale of child brides is not a common occurrence. This could be different though in other developing regions (i.e. closer towards the Middle East and South Asia).

 

[burd]

Re: Married? Again?

Our society accepts discrimination in a variety of ways, with sometimes good, sometimes dubious cause.

And that is why we apply a number of standards, from rational basis to compelling state interest.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Married? Again?

Because boys don't want to be ridiculed for playing a girls' sport. Can you imagine the humiliation if Joe Cool got struck out by a GIRL!?!

Jennie Finch has struck out many a major leaguer. It's actually harder to hit a Softball from 43' than a baseball from 60'. Especially if the Softball pitcher has a good riseball.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Married? Again?

Jennie Finch has struck out many a major leaguer. It's actually harder to hit a Softball from 43' than a baseball from 60'. Especially if the Softball pitcher has a good riseball.

I remember Mike Felger (local sports radio guy) bragging that he could homer off Finch and then people started calling up saying she had struck out Pujols and others...he quickly changed his tune. Still, there's a difference between being struck out by an Olympian and the pitcher on your local high school team. The social stigma boys would face would be brutal.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Married? Again?

Any time a law is created it's society discriminating against an activity and favoring another. That's life. Like you said, sometimes they're good (discriminating against murderous behavior), and sometimes it's bad (whites only toilets).

If it's just life, why do people think they have the right to sue and change it?

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Married? Again?

I remember Mike Felger (local sports radio guy) bragging that he could homer off Finch and then people started calling up saying she had struck out Pujols and others...he quickly changed his tune. Still, there's a difference between being struck out by an Olympian and the pitcher on your local high school team. The social stigma boys would face would be brutal.

Really? I don't know.

I don't believe that getting struck out by a girl would carry the same stigma as getting beat up on the playground by one would.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Married? Again?

It costs a male teenager more for car insurance regardless of their character, driving record, etc. than a female of the same age. Fair or not?

Fair in the sense that insurance is meant to spread out the risk among a specified group of individuals (and, in general, males carry greater risk). I am no actuary but I do know the insurance companies pay big to actuaries whose sole job is to determine risk differentials between different groups of people. Students with better grades are (apparently) safer drivers (in general) so growing up, my report card always had to go to the insurance man.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Married? Again?

Fair in the sense that insurance is meant to spread out the risk among a specified group of individuals (and, in general, males carry greater risk). I am no actuary but I do know the insurance companies pay big to actuaries whose sole job is to determine risk differentials between different groups of people. Students with better grades are (apparently) safer drivers (in general) so growing up, my report card always had to go to the insurance man.

Yes, but is it fair to a safe teenage male driver to get lumped in with those who are not as safe. Maybe it'd be fairer to charge a lower initial rate and then sock it to those who get DWIs and cause accidents. So those who don't have these happen would not get averaged in with those who do. Insurance companies do this to a minor extent in certain cases by giving a discount to people who haven't had a violation or claim in a number of years.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Married? Again?

Yes, but is it fair to a safe teenage male driver to get lumped in with those who are not as safe. Maybe it'd be fairer to charge a lower initial rate and then sock it to those who get DWIs and cause accidents. So those who don't have these happen would not get averaged in with those who do. Insurance companies do this to a minor extent in certain cases by giving a discount to people who haven't had a violation or claim in a number of years.

The question isn't "is it fair?" It doesn't matter whether it's fair or not (in the playground justice sense of the word). The question is, "does it violate his civil rights?"

I really, really don't want the government to start stepping in to regulate the "fairness" of every transaction between consumer and provider.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Married? Again?

The question isn't "is it fair?" It doesn't matter whether it's fair or not (in the playground justice sense of the word). The question is, "does it violate his civil rights?"

I really, really don't want the government to start stepping in to regulate the "fairness" of every transaction between consumer and provider.

I would lean towards this. I only used fair in my reply because it was the term Bob used which, in hindsight, was the wrong term to continue using.

 

[burd]

Re: Married? Again?

The question isn't "is it fair?" It doesn't matter whether it's fair or not (in the playground justice sense of the word). The question is, "does it violate his civil rights?"

I really, really don't want the government to start stepping in to regulate the "fairness" of every transaction between consumer and provider.

I would lean towards this. I only used fair in my reply because it was the term Bob used which, in hindsight, was the wrong term to continue using.

To a some extent, fairness is a consideration in discrimination cases. For example, among the factors courts use to determine whether the person claiming discrimination belongs to a suspect class (like race), triggering the strictest level of scrutiny, are historical treatment of the class, whether the members of the class share an immutable trait or characteristic, and the class' powerlessness in the political process. There is a fairness quality to those factors.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Married? Again?

To a some extent, fairness is a consideration in discrimination cases. For example, among the factors courts use to determine whether the person claiming discrimination belongs to a suspect class (like race), triggering the strictest level of scrutiny, are historical treatment of the class, whether the members of the class share an immutable trait or characteristic, and the class' powerlessness in the political process. There is a fairness quality to those factors.

I don't follow. You say these are factors used to "determine whether the person belongs to" a protected class, but it seems like the factors you list are ones that would be used to determine whether a particular class should be designated as a protected class in the first place.

"Fairness" certainly does enter into the debate when the government (legislature) is picking and choosing which classes deserve protection. However, once they've done that, any individual discrimination suit should be decided (by the courts) only on the facts of the case: is the person in a protected class and was the person discriminated against based on the characteristics of that class?

In any case, the larger point is that while it may not seem "fair" that an insurance company charges male drivers more, or that the oil change place on the corner is only open during business hours so you can't make an appointment, or that a fast food restaurant cuts back on workers' hours to avoid paying for health care, the government should not be stepping in to try to ensure that life is fair. Life is not fair. Accept that truth, and you will live a much happier life.

 

[burd]

Re: Married? Again?

The question isn't "is it fair?" It doesn't matter whether it's fair or not (in the playground justice sense of the word). The question is, "does it violate his civil rights?"

I really, really don't want the government to start stepping in to regulate the "fairness" of every transaction between consumer and provider.

I don't follow. You say these are factors used to "determine whether the person belongs to" a protected class, but it seems like the factors you list are ones that would be used to determine whether a particular class should be designated as a protected class in the first place.

"Fairness" certainly does enter into the debate when the government (legislature) is picking and choosing which classes deserve protection. However, once they've done that, any individual discrimination suit should be decided (by the courts) only on the facts of the case: is the person in a protected class and was the person discriminated against based on the characteristics of that class?

In any case, the larger point is that while it may not seem "fair" that an insurance company charges male drivers more, or that the oil change place on the corner is only open during business hours so you can't make an appointment, or that a fast food restaurant cuts back on workers' hours to avoid paying for health care, the government should not be stepping in to try to ensure that life is fair. Life is not fair. Accept that truth, and you will live a much happier life.

The legislature does not decide which classes deserve what levels of protection for equal protection purposes--the Supremes do (or have). But technically speaking, you are right, Lynah, when you say the factors are used to determine whether the class is protected. I was just speaking in practical terms. I come to the court asking to have state action declared unconstitutional and I claim that I am being treated differently because of my race (that I belong to a protected class) and therefore the law or action affecting me should be subjected to strict scrutiny. There are other levels of scrutiny in the equal protection analysis that apply to different groups, but I'm just talking about equal protection analysis, which requires state action, and not violations of employment statutes or other allegedly unfair actions by private businesses.

Not very helpful for this discussion, I know . . .

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Married? Again?

The legislature does not decide which classes deserve what levels of protection for equal protection purposes--the Supremes do (or have). But technically speaking, you are right, Lynah, when you say the factors are used to determine whether the class is protected. I was just speaking in practical terms. I come to the court asking to have state action declared unconstitutional and I claim that I am being treated differently because of my race (that I belong to a protected class) and therefore the law or action affecting me should be subjected to strict scrutiny. There are other levels of scrutiny in the equal protection analysis that apply to different groups, but I'm just talking about equal protection analysis, which requires state action, and not violations of employment statutes or other allegedly unfair actions by private businesses.

Not very helpful for this discussion, I know . . .

Furthering the tangent, Protected Classes actually are designated by legislation.

 

[burd]

Re: Married? Again?

Furthering the tangent, Protected Classes actually are designated by legislation.

Further furthering the tangent: The Supremes established the equal protection "protected class" analysis prior to the civil rights act. The Act was based upon the bill of rights, which have been defined, in part, by the Supremes. But the designation of various classes and the different levels of scrutiny applied to state actions that affect them was developed by the Supreme Court, not congress. In many cases, the court set these standards in the process of invalidating legislative action.

I don't want to sound like I think I'm a constitutional law expert, I'm not. But it is interesting stuff. And this thread has been a dam good one.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Married? Again?

Further furthering the tangent: The Supremes established the equal protection "protected class" analysis prior to the civil rights act. The Act was based upon the bill of rights, which have been defined, in part, by the Supremes. But the designation of various classes and the different levels of scrutiny applied to state actions that affect them was developed by the Supreme Court, not congress. In many cases, the court set these standards in the process of invalidating legislative action.

I don't want to sound like I think I'm a constitutional law expert, I'm not. But it is interesting stuff. And this thread has been a dam good one.

Me, neither! I agree that the Supremes came up with the concept of "protected classes" (i.e. the analysis, as you say), but I would still argue that it is Congress who does (at least most of) the picking and choosing whether a given group should be designated as a protected class.

 

[burd]

Re: Married? Again?

Me, neither! I agree that the Supremes came up with the concept of "protected classes" (i.e. the analysis, as you say), but I would still argue that it is Congress who does (at least most of) the picking and choosing whether a given group should be designated as a protected class.

Maybe our discussion should move over to the SCOTUS thread. Congress does not designate any classes for the purposes of deciding whether laws violate the equal protection clause. But I think you are talking about the many laws Congress passes which treat some groups differently than others for various purposes, such as taxation and regulation. And you are right that Congress usually has the final word on those "classes," since most laws are clearly constitutional. But if the constitutionality of a law is challenged under the equal protection clause, it is the Supremes who will determine which classes deserve special protection and what tests will be applied to the laws affecting those classes. Since the protections afforded by the constitution are given to individuals against legislation and other forms of governmental action, the legislative branch will have little if any say in how the constitutionality of those laws will be evaluated other than by constitutional amendment.

Now that burd has blabbed on about this, he is prepared to be embarrassed by a smarty-pants poster who happens to know this stuff. And if it happens to be a gopher fan, burd will just jump in a hole and ask to be buried alive. And that would not be punishment enough.