The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The same arguments being made today against Gay Marriages were made against mixed racial marriages.

Not apples and oranges at all.

That wasn't the intention.

If the courts strike down DOMA, what is the legal definition of marriage? Is it just two people or can it be more? Let me give examples:
Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice all live in the same house. If DOMA is struck down, can Bob be married to Carol, Ted, and Alice irregardless of who has sex with whom?
Or, we have a line marriage like in Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Does that become legal?

Now, I'll go farther out -- would a brother be able to marry a sister?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice

Rec'd for this reference.

Or, we have a line marriage like in Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Does that become legal?

Trick question. The answer is it is not a possible scenario since nobody would ever marry somebody as obnoxious as the characters in a Heinlein novel.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

That wasn't the intention.

If the courts strike down DOMA, what is the legal definition of marriage? Is it just two people or can it be more? Let me give examples:
Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice all live in the same house. If DOMA is struck down, can Bob be married to Carol, Ted, and Alice irregardless of who has sex with whom?
Or, we have a line marriage like in Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Does that become legal?

Now, I'll go farther out -- would a brother be able to marry a sister?

We lived many years without the DOMA. But you get down with your bad self and your slippery slope.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Without even dissecting the differences there, I'd have you note that Priceless's comparison I was responding to was marrying things such as box turtles. You liberals aren't paying close attention to postings today.

It's a slippery slope!

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

That wasn't the intention.

If the courts strike down DOMA, what is the legal definition of marriage? Is it just two people or can it be more? Let me give examples:
Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice all live in the same house. If DOMA is struck down, can Bob be married to Carol, Ted, and Alice irregardless of who has sex with whom?
Or, we have a line marriage like in Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Does that become legal?

Now, I'll go farther out -- would a brother be able to marry a sister?

Marriage will be just as the Bible intended....800 women and 1 man.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It's a slippery slope!

You might want to make your arguments, not mine.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think I have a solution.

Get the government out. We don't need a legal definition of marriage.

It seems like we do, because (for instance) of the overcomplicated tax code. So rather than respond to unnecessary complexity with more unnecessary complexity, get rid of it entirely.

We can still have civil laws regarding parental rights. It's not an intellectually taxing fix to come up with provisions regarding inheritance and medical visitation rights (hint: start and end with individual liberty to decide).

Leave marriage to the church. If the Catholic church doesn't want to marry two women, they can go to a more liberal denomination. Or get a nondenominational ceremony. Or whatever.

Once we've eliminated the legal ramifications, then I don't give a rat's tail what strangers do. And since it doesn't implicate law in any way, or connote governmental approval (or disapproval), I can't fathom why anyone else would, either.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

If the courts strike down DOMA, what is the legal definition of marriage?

Why have a "legal" definition of marriage at all? Let each church figure out how they want to define it and people can decide whether they want to join that cult, or just opt out.

Edit: abb beat me to it. Exactly what he said.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

We lived many years without the DOMA. But you get down with your bad self and your slippery slope.

Scooby

But we've not had many years of legal same sex marriage, or recognized domestic partners. It's opened up a whole new realm of contract, inheritance, and insurance law, to name a few.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Scooby

But we've not had many years of legal same sex marriage, or recognized domestic partners. It's opened up a whole new realm of contract, inheritance, and insurance law, to name a few.

Don't use their own arguments against them. That's not fair. Only they can use them.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Scooby

But we've not had many years of legal same sex marriage, or recognized domestic partners. It's opened up a whole new realm of contract, inheritance, and insurance law, to name a few.

From a legal perspective, wouldn't elimination of the legal concept of marriage (advocated below) be simpler than tacking on one ad hoc exception after another?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Scooby

But we've not had many years of legal same sex marriage, or recognized domestic partners. It's opened up a whole new realm of contract, inheritance, and insurance law, to name a few.

So?

Your answer to that is to eliminate legal same sex marriage, or recognized domestic partners?

Well, that certainly is easier.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

So?

Your answer to that is to eliminate legal same sex marriage, or recognized domestic partners?

Well, that certainly is easier.

Nice duck. Try rambling again. You did better when you rambled.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Nice duck. Try rambling again. You did better when you rambled.

What duck. You want the easy way out. It's fine with me. I really don't care. I do think its stupid, lame, and petty. But I have no dog in the fight.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Depends on how you feel about the Libertarians -- they have been faithfully nominating fiscal conservatives since the 70's. Of course, their social policies make a lot of social conservatives' hair stand on end.

The only true (in the sense of post-1950 Bob Taftian) conservative major party nominee since the 40's was Goldwater. Reagan liked to talk the talk when he needed money, and the movement used him as a great-looking figurehead, but when all was said and done he was perfectly happy naming a Rockefeller Republican VP in 1976. As with All Things Reagan, his "conservatism" was a Potemkin village.

I'm starting to wonder if Reagan was actually a very bad thing for conservative ideology, in the long run.
It's before my time, but wasn't Ike also quite conservative?
For me, the only trouble with the Libertarian party is that they're just a smidgen too libertarian...

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm starting to wonder if Reagan was actually a very bad thing for conservative ideology, in the long run.
It's before my time, but wasn't Ike also quite conservative?

Ike was a centrist pragmatist. Both parties actually had movements to draft him, and he took a lot of abuse from both sides whole in office. He didn't have any time for ideologues of either side.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Ike was a centrist pragmatist. Both parties actually had movements to draft him, and he took a lot of abuse from both sides whole in office. He didn't have any time for ideologues of either side.

I know almost nothing about him, which I know is a crying shame, but I remembered a story of my dad's about a very good friend/long time pastor who told him in the late 80s that Ike was the last presidential candidate he felt he could vote for.
(and was the last time he did vote)

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

What duck. You want the easy way out. It's fine with me. I really don't care. I do think its stupid, lame, and petty. But I have no dog in the fight.

You sure fight a lot for having no dog in the fight, allegedly.

The easy way out would be to jump on the liberal, media driven bandwagon, as you apparently have. I'm not interested in the easy way out here, just doing what's right as best I can see it.

 

[goldy_331]

Trick question. The answer is it is not a possible scenario since nobody would ever marry somebody as obnoxious as the characters in a Heinlein novel.

Pfft, you and Scoobs are both married, right?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I know almost nothing about him, which I know is a crying shame, but I remembered a story of my dad's about a very good friend/long time pastor who told him in the late 80s that Ike was the last presidential candidate he felt he could vote for.
(and was the last time he did vote)

As an undergrad I was fortunate enough to take an American foreign policy class from a legendary history professor named Walter LeFeber. Despite being somewhat left of center, LeFeber considered Eisenhower to be one of the only two great presidents of the 20th century.