Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby solicitr » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:56 am

I do wish that people (and especially the press, who as usual are dismal at reporting legal matters) would get off the notion that the Supreme Court "struck down" Prop 8. In fact SCOTUS punted, never reaching a consideration of the merits of the case. Instead they disposed of the whole matter on the strictly procedural question of standing, ruling that the petitioners weren't the proper persons to bring suit and therefore there was no case to be heard.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:10 am

You are technicslly correct, but is there a functional difference?
The effect is the same as if no-one appealed the trial court decision and the injunctions went into effect.

(Although the idea of the need for "standing" have been given extra strength, which may have effects in another case, somewhere.)
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby hamlet » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:26 am

The government is involved not least because there are significant financial aspects to a marriage that involve laws and the like and so it gets thrust right into it. Not to mention that everybody (EVERYBODY) seeks to involve the government in one way or another either defining marriage in their particular way or getting the government to forbid itself from defining marriage in a specific way.

The government can't not be involved.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10540
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby solicitr » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:40 am

portia wrote:You are technicslly correct, but is there a functional difference?
The effect is the same as if no-one appealed the trial court decision and the injunctions went into effect.


Well, a very functional difference is that there was no precedent set, no basis for future parties to argue "the Supreme Court has established a nationwide right to gay marriage."

Personally I'm much less concerned over that issue, on which I'm pretty ambivalent, than the fact that as a result there is no effective challenge to the California Supreme Court's dadaist ruling that managed to find that a constitutional amendment violated the state constitution it was amending!
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:02 am

As a supporter of marriage equality, I do wish California had decided to pursue the case up to the SCOTUS, simply because of the standing issue. It is a risk, but I would have liked it if the Supremes had struck down Prop 8 instead of simply ruling that the anti-equality side lacked standing. It would have set a nation-wide precedent instead.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Arvegil » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:45 am

portia wrote:I would go farther. I would remove the government from deciding what marriage is and who can enter into it. I think the most government OUGHT to do is maintain a registration of who claims to be married (Very much like a real estate recording service) and if the people decide to divorce they can record that, too (and a judgment if property rights are involved, or children). That way there would be a central spot so that people could tell whether another person is married.

I suppose that the only requirement of who can marry would be that everyone involved would have to be human beings of some "mature" age.


Not really feasible, until one manages to spin out all of the tax and benefits qualification issues related to marriage. Survey says that will happen in the USA- never.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:25 pm

portia wrote:I suppose that the only requirement of who can marry would be that everyone involved would have to be human beings of some "mature" age.

So, brother can marry sister, and mother can marry son, and uncle can marry niece? As long as they are adults?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:56 pm

That is one pssibility. It deserves thought.

However, I do not see that the courts would have a problem sorting out the rights of those people who decided to marry, and registered their marriage, but then changed their minds and de-registered. All sorts of property, business, etc. problems have been sorted out in the courts and I do not see why marriage issues could not be. And, of course, if a pre-nup were involved, that would control.
Unfortunately, some people are more interested in controlling other people's lives, than their own, so I agree that I doubt if such a thing would ever pass.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:03 pm

solicitr wrote:Personally I'm much less concerned over that issue, on which I'm pretty ambivalent, than the fact that as a result there is no effective challenge to the California Supreme Court's dadaist ruling that managed to find that a constitutional amendment violated the state constitution it was amending!


It do not think that is what they ruled. The first time around, they ruled that the LAW violated the CA Constitution (that was "Prop 22, in 2000, an amendment to the Family Code). Then, when Prop 8 passed as a Constitutional Amendment, it could not violate the CA Constitution, and was upheld.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:42 pm

The Heretic wrote:
portia wrote:I suppose that the only requirement of who can marry would be that everyone involved would have to be human beings of some "mature" age.

So, brother can marry sister, and mother can marry son, and uncle can marry niece? As long as they are adults?

Such a question is supposed to provoke our "ick" factor, but I don't believe "ick" factor is a good reason to make a law. I believe "someone is being hurt by it" is a good reason to make a law. So as such, the answer is "yes".
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:46 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
The Heretic wrote:
portia wrote:I suppose that the only requirement of who can marry would be that everyone involved would have to be human beings of some "mature" age.

So, brother can marry sister, and mother can marry son, and uncle can marry niece? As long as they are adults?

Such a question is supposed to provoke our "ick" factor, but I don't believe "ick" factor is a good reason to make a law. I believe "someone is being hurt by it" is a good reason to make a law. So as such, the answer is "yes".

Well, it is 'icky', but the intent of the question was to find out if Portia actually did mean there should be no restriction on marriage other than some unspecified age and human.
Although, I have noticed that pro traditional marriage folks often invoke a slippery slope argument, and pro gay marriage folks deny it. In Portia's case, it would seem she does not deny it, but wants it.
You of course, Cenedril, tend be entirely consistent.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Minardil » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:35 am

Are there large rallies of brothers and sisters out there demanding sibling marriage rights?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:22 am

Minardil wrote:Are there large rallies of brothers and sisters out there demanding sibling marriage rights?

Not that I know of, but what does that have to do with Portia's statement that the only requirement for marriage should be human and adult, and me trying to find out if she actually meant that?
Speaking of which, it would also seem she is perfectly fine with polygamous marriage as well, if her no restrictions on marriage is what she actually meant.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Arvegil » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:52 am

From a legal standpoint, polygamous marriage would be much more difficult to work into the current taxation and benefits qualification framework than monogamous same sex marriage. It is also much more open to the possibility of abuse for financial purposes (i.e. in order to accomplish tax-free gifting that would otherwise be subject to estate or gift taxation).
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:50 am

I understand that, but per Portia's statement, she would have all types of marriage allowed, traditional, gay, polygamous, plural, incestuous etc as long as the involved parties are of some unspecified age. Or so it seems.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Minardil » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:10 pm

The Heretic wrote:
Minardil wrote:Are there large rallies of brothers and sisters out there demanding sibling marriage rights?

Not that I know of, but what does that have to do with Portia's statement that the only requirement for marriage should be human and adult, and me trying to find out if she actually meant that?
Speaking of which, it would also seem she is perfectly fine with polygamous marriage as well, if her no restrictions on marriage is what she actually meant.



In the absence of anyone anywhere advocating "sibling marriage" (certainly there is no movent supporting this, as you admit) I think it is unfair of you to put words into Portia's mouth, as if SHE is arguing for it. Personally I think you could legalize "sibling marriage" and it still wouldn't ever happen. So why bother even discussing it? Makes more sense to focus on issues that real people are really pushing, don't you think?

On plural marriages (since there are some real people in the real world dealing with this) I will say that I have no problem wi the theory, but major problems with the practice. By which I mean that most polygamous societies are highly oppressive to women, with it being very common for VERY young girls to be forced into marriages with much older men, just to flesh out the old geezer's harem. This is how that "Mormon" splinter group under Jeffords worked. I don't think that should be permitted at all. However, if consenting ADULTS wish to join themselves together into plural marriages of any structure, I don't have any problem with that either. And really, I don't think those arrangements would be very commonplace either, even if legalized amd recognized.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:05 pm

Minardil wrote:
The Heretic wrote:
Minardil wrote:Are there large rallies of brothers and sisters out there demanding sibling marriage rights?

Not that I know of, but what does that have to do with Portia's statement that the only requirement for marriage should be human and adult, and me trying to find out if she actually meant that?
Speaking of which, it would also seem she is perfectly fine with polygamous marriage as well, if her no restrictions on marriage is what she actually meant.

In the absence of anyone anywhere advocating "sibling marriage" (certainly there is no movent supporting this, as you admit)

I did not admit that. I said I did not know of what you asked, ie "large rallies".
I think it is unfair of you to put words into Portia's mouth, as if SHE is arguing for it. Personally I think you could legalize "sibling marriage" and it still wouldn't ever happen. So why bother even discussing it? Makes more sense to focus on issues that real people are really pushing, don't you think?

I don't think I put words in her mouth. She made the broad statement about marriage, and I questioned it with examples. She has posted since then, certainly did not dispute it. The first portion of her post may have been in response, saying that it was possible and deserved thought. Then again the entire post that may also have been a response to Arvegil, but as she did not quote him either, in her reply I can't tell. Presuming Portia is a 'real person', and that she actually might that the only restriction on marriage should be human and some unspecified age, then I think I will focus on that, while it interests me.
On plural marriages (since there are some real people in the real world dealing with this) I will say that I have no problem wi the theory, but major problems with the practice. By which I mean that most polygamous societies are highly oppressive to women, with it being very common for VERY young girls to be forced into marriages with much older men, just to flesh out the old geezer's harem. This is how that "Mormon" splinter group under Jeffords worked. I don't think that should be permitted at all.
I think the focus is on the US not other 'societies', and Portia's purported restriction on marriage involves some sort of maturity, so none of the forgoing is relevant, while the following at least gives your opinion it.
However, if consenting ADULTS wish to join themselves together into plural marriages of any structure, I don't have any problem with that either. And really, I don't think those arrangements would be very commonplace either, even if legalized amd recognized.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:20 am

I really am able to speak for myself.

On close relative marriage (again, among adults), I think it deserves some studies. What are the genetic issues? What are the other issues, if any? I do not think that these have been done, even in lab rats (?). It may be that the reasons are not very real. However, if there is no particular public interest in it, it might be deferred while we work on somethng else.

As to my attitude to polygamous marriage, Minardil and I seem to be on the same track. I have two basic objections to it and both can be dealt with. 1. Very young girls being forced into it. They need to be real adults and have a real alternative. and 2. Some secondary wives are claiming to be "married" but, since these marriages are not legally recognized, they then file for welfare, and other benefits claiming to be "unwed" mothers. They are either wed or not wed and should not decide which, based in the day of the week.

(If you have read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" you will have a pretty good idea of my attitude toward plural marriages. :)

BTW, in Heretic's post of 5 Jul 22:05 I found what I think were 3 mis-understandings of what I was saying.
Last edited by portia on Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Minardil » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:42 am

Ah Heretic, back to your old habits of misstating other people's beliefs while refusing to offer any of your own? What a waste if time it is to try to discuss anything with you, so cowardly you are, afraid to commit any idea of your own to the page.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:44 am

Minardil wrote:Ah Heretic, back to your old habits of misstating other people's beliefs while refusing to offer any of your own? What a waste if time it is to try to discuss anything with you, so cowardly you are, afraid to commit any idea of your own to the page.

I did not misstate anyones beliefs. Indeed Portia's post confirms what I was asking about. But how typical of you to engage in lies, it's all you have.

As for 'cowardly'. You are to laugh. At, that is, not with.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:50 pm

The Heretic wrote:
Minardil wrote:Ah Heretic, back to your old habits of misstating other people's beliefs while refusing to offer any of your own? What a waste if time it is to try to discuss anything with you, so cowardly you are, afraid to commit any idea of your own to the page.

I did not misstate anyones beliefs. Indeed Portia's post confirms what I was asking about. But how typical of you to engage in lies, it's all you have.

As for 'cowardly'. You are to laugh. At, that is, not with.


So, what ARE your opinions?
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:02 pm

portia wrote:So, what ARE your opinions?

What a concept, someone actually asking.
Do my opinions matter? Are they somehow important to the topic?

If you can say they are, I may tell you.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:44 am

You are still evading the question.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:00 am

portia wrote:You are still evading the question.

No, I am giving you the opportunity to tell me that my opinion on the subject matters or is somehow important to the topic. Because, at this point, I don't actually see how or why my opinion is important to the topic.

Now, if you were actually interested in my opinion, you could say yes. I'm not even asking you to justify it.
If you can't say 'yes' then it is obvious they are of no relevance to you, and you actually have no interest in what they are.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:50 am

OK, I will bite. "YES"
But I still think you are evading answering.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:04 am

My opinion is that government should get out of the marriage business (except to enforce basic contract and relevant law), leave that to churches and such. The government should just do civil unions and such benefits should apply to that.

There, now is that at all important to the topic?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby portia » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:37 pm

Ah, well, let's face it none of us is in Congress, or likely to have an out of proportionate voice in public poicy, so whether the comment has "importance to the topic" is not the main idea. The idea is to share our opinions, learn something, and have a good discussion.

Don't be shy.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Denethor » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:00 am

The problem with incestuous marriage is consent: with the power dynamics between one generation and the next, you'd have a hard time proving that both parties consented. There might be brother/sister people out there, but it'd be incredibly rare, and preventing child abuse must take precedence.

Polygamy is simply a legal nightmare, and would only serve to make divorce lawyers extremely wealthy.

Same-sex marriage has neither problem.
User avatar
Denethor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4519
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 9:33 pm
Location: New Zealand
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby The Heretic » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:43 am

Denethor wrote:The problem with incestuous marriage is consent: with the power dynamics between one generation and the next, you'd have a hard time proving that both parties consented. There might be brother/sister people out there, but it'd be incredibly rare, and preventing child abuse must take precedence.

Yet the other poster indicated that it must be of between adults. If they are adults, It is not child abuse.
Polygamy is simply a legal nightmare, and would only serve to make divorce lawyers extremely wealthy.

How is it any concern of yours what somebody else's lawyer makes? How is it a legal nightmare?
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Will California deny peoples' rights in November?

Postby Denethor » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:17 am

The Heretic wrote:
Denethor wrote:The problem with incestuous marriage is consent: with the power dynamics between one generation and the next, you'd have a hard time proving that both parties consented. There might be brother/sister people out there, but it'd be incredibly rare, and preventing child abuse must take precedence.

Yet the other poster indicated that it must be of between adults. If they are adults, It is not child abuse.


A 40 year old father and his 18 year old daughter are both adults, but it'd be insane to ignore the power dynamics. Is the daughter really consenting?

Polygamy is simply a legal nightmare, and would only serve to make divorce lawyers extremely wealthy.

How is it any concern of yours what somebody else's lawyer makes? How is it a legal nightmare?

[/quote]

Suppose Mr A is married to Ms B and Ms C, then marries Ms D. Ms D is also married to Mr E and Mr F. Are Mr A and Mr E married? Suppose Ms B hates Ms D - does she need a divorce? Is Mr F responsible for Ms B's child support? Are the children of Ms C entitled to inherit Me E's property? And so on. Marriage is, at its core, a property contract. A situation where the courts are clogged up endlessly by disputes over property is undesirable.
User avatar
Denethor
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4519
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 9:33 pm
Location: New Zealand
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest