Law School Discussion

I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #630 on: February 08, 2008, 12:50:26 PM »
I agree - I can't remember the exact context.

(Wouldn't you differentiate between "value" and "intrinsic value?")

Yeah, but that wouldn't change my argument.  It's part of it.

Meh.  I'm bored with that debate anyway.  I'm all about teh lawz now.


I'm bored with both - I'm all about laying on my new couch and doing/thinking about nothing.

Beginning of the end for me.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #631 on: February 08, 2008, 12:54:40 PM »
If someone has a state marriage license, but hasn't been married by the church (let's use the Catholic church as an example), then they are married before the law but the church regards them as unmarried.  If that couple were to try to baptize a child, they would be turned away (or at least have a hard time) because they are considered unmarried.  So why couldn't a gay couple be married before the law, but still be considered unmarried by the church?  The government can't dictate church law, and the church shouldn't dictate civil law.

Bingo. That's exactly the point.

They certainly could. But what i'm saying the word "marriage" will cause such a controversy as to get nothing accomplished at all. there are people that will view marriage is primarily religious, and with such a large resistance, nothing will get accomplished. My whole argument is just that calling it a civil union renders it impossible for religious conservatives to make any type of religious based argument, and then things accomplished. So what if it's not called marriage?

I think this is a problem for several reasons.

1. The separate but equal issue. If the government is going to say we're calling it marriage for straights but civil unions for gays but it's the exact same thing and gives all the same rights, it brings the question - then why can't you call it the same thing? Call everything marriage OR everything civil unions. There is no purpose in separating things unless there is some underlying motivation to somehow "distinguish" the two. And as we've learned from history - when there is an underlying motivation to distinguish the two it is because they are being treated as inherently unequal.

2. This also leads to just logistics. Do you know how much wasted money/time/effort will be spent changing documents (no really, think about it) - to have the Civil Union option. Think of the hundreds of thousands of documents you fill out that would have to add the "civil union" box (from licenses, to tax documents, to insurance forms,  to filling out forms in your doctors office etc...) It would be much simplier and a much less waste of tax payers dollars to keep it all the same name. I know this may seem minor but if you really think about it...how tedious.

3. But lastly, marriage is important because people universally understand what "marriage" means. The New Jersey case for example is living proof of why the word "marriage" is so important. When NJ implemented Civil Unions it affords the EXACT same rights as marriage under the law. But do you know what's happening? Employers, insurance companies, and average citizens don't understand this. Couples are going to their employers/insurance companines and telling them how they have a civil union and they're saying "we only recognize marriage." They're having to seek legal counsel, time, effort, and money to SHOW these employers/insurance companies that, civil unions are the same thing as marriage and they have to provide them with the same benefits. It's time consuming, it's drawn out, and it's a headache that both sides wouldn't have to deal with if they just called it marriage. Read these articles. It's exactly why the NJ legislation is working to change civil unions to the name "marriage." It shows it's not just a word and it affects people's lives.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html




You are completely right on all of these points, Outlaw. Being right and convincing others you are right are two completley different things however. With my view of society and religion ( could be wrong, who knows) leads me to believe all of these legal arguments are a moot point when you have a substantial amount of the population (not saying homosexuals aren't a substantial part) against this type of move. I really think there would be too much outrage by larger groups of people to make this feasible nationwide any time soon. Considering I live in the Socialist Republic of MA, and i still notice a lot of outrage in political discussions about this, makes me wonder what it would be like in Huckabee land.

Honestly, i think it may be time to move to a new topic soon. This is becoming liek Thanksgiving. After 4 huge plates, the last thing I want to think about is turkey.

Hopefully I'll be joining you at Penn, but you'll have to wait till 2009 :(

Now off to do my taxes...

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #632 on: February 08, 2008, 01:05:05 PM »


You are completely right on all of these points, Outlaw. Being right and convincing others you are right are two completley different things however. With my view of society and religion ( could be wrong, who knows) leads me to believe all of these legal arguments are a moot point when you have a substantial amount of the population (not saying homosexuals aren't a substantial part) against this type of move. I really think there would be too much outrage by larger groups of people to make this feasible nationwide any time soon. Considering I live in the Socialist Republic of MA, and i still notice a lot of outrage in political discussions about this, makes me wonder what it would be like in Huckabee land.

Honestly, i think it may be time to move to a new topic soon. This is becoming liek Thanksgiving. After 4 huge plates, the last thing I want to think about is turkey.

Hopefully I'll be joining you at Penn, but you'll have to wait till 2009 :(

Now off to do my taxes...

Ditto. It's made the last two days at work fly by...boy did I need that. Perfect timing.  Now that the weekend is here, I know longer feel a compelling need get through my day by helping conservatives on LSD see the light  ;)

Pleasure debating with you (and in a civil manner too!).





Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #633 on: February 08, 2008, 03:20:26 PM »
Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

well, we come see many things differently over time.

you see biblical and natural violations in gay marriage.  some os uf see people who love each other and want make commitment as family.

who pro-family now, eh?

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #634 on: February 08, 2008, 03:24:17 PM »
um, so those are state court rulings; hardly the final word on constitutionality. furthermore, the second specifically refers to the equal protection clause of the new jersey constitution. state courts can interpret their own constitutions whichever way they want. it doesn't say anything about the US constitution. sorry. :)

Of course these are state courts. STATES issue marriage licenses. The Federal issue is about the federal government recognizing those marriages. They recognize some marriages and provide benefits, protections, securities to those marriages (that were licensed by a STATE) and not to others.

if states recognize gay marriages (and more will), what feds do become less and less relevant.  how can states not allowing own citizens marry not recognize them, ultimately.  (full faith and credit clause.)

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #635 on: February 08, 2008, 03:29:57 PM »
Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.


so julie assume you not believe in constitutional freedom of expression?

yes or no, numbnuts?

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #636 on: February 08, 2008, 03:33:25 PM »
Under Bush... embryos left over from fertility procedures can be and are THROWN IN THE TRASH but cannot be used for research. That's ridiculous. And for those who oppose it - you should hope no one in your family ever gets diabetes, MS, or Parkinsons.

damn straight.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #637 on: February 08, 2008, 03:35:55 PM »
If someone has a state marriage license, but hasn't been married by the church (let's use the Catholic church as an example), then they are married before the law but the church regards them as unmarried. If that couple were to try to baptize a child, they would be turned away (or at least have a hard time) because they are considered unmarried. So why couldn't a gay couple be married before the law, but still be considered unmarried by the church? The government can't dictate church law, and the church shouldn't dictate civil law.

julie starting like you teensy bit.  churches free do whatever want about this stuff.  just keep hands off government.

Sergio

  • ****
  • 527
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #638 on: February 08, 2008, 06:11:07 PM »
Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.


so julie assume you not believe in constitutional freedom of expression?

yes or no, numbnuts?

The problem with Roe vs. Wade was that it invented a right to an abortion in the Constitution.  Judges wanted to be "progressive" and so made the ruling.  This prevented abortion from being decided by the states, like it should have been, where the people can elect their representatives.  I actually believe in moderation on abortion  - legal, but with certain restrictions.  But the people should get to decide that, not judges.

Of course, illigitimate births were supposed to decrease afterwards, and, well, didn't really work out like that.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #639 on: February 08, 2008, 06:45:55 PM »
Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law. That is the job of the legislature.


so julie assume you not believe in constitutional freedom of expression?

yes or no, numbnuts?

The problem with Roe vs. Wade was that it invented a right to an abortion in the Constitution. Judges wanted to be "progressive" and so made the ruling. This prevented abortion from being decided by the states, like it should have been, where the people can elect their representatives. I actually believe in moderation on abortion - legal, but with certain restrictions. But the people should get to decide that, not judges.

Of course, illigitimate births were supposed to decrease afterwards, and, well, didn't really work out like that.

then you need answer same question, forrest.

come on.  you can do it.  just click heels together and give whirl,