Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

Starting with assumption that your remark was over his head. While I don't think a slippery slope is a completely off-the-wall concern in this area (though not nearly to the degree many are trying to make it), you're on a totally different hill because your example by definition involves minors, which raises an entirely different set of legal concerns.

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

MC can you elaborate on why SCOTUS is not likely to take up the case if it is overturned on appeal?

It's just a guess, and I could easily be wrong. Four of the nine justices have to vote to take a case for the Supreme Court to hear it. As a general rule, they prefer to take cases where there is a divurgence of opinions among the circuit courts of appeals -- split circuits, it's called. They view their job as being to resolve the split among the circuits.

Also as a general rule, they prefer to let cases percolate up among the circuits to see if a split or a consensus develops. Why should they use up their limited time on a case if the circuits end up being in agreement?

So my hunch on this one is that if the Ninth Circuit reverses, which would basically perserve a status quo in that circuit, they'll think it prudent to wait and see what happens in other cases in other circuits. But if the Ninth Circuit affirms, I think at least four of them will think the decision constitutes enough of a legal shift with potential effects outside California and the Ninth Circuit that they have to step in and decide themselves.

But I could be quite wrong.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The will of the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority.

Amazing how judges are only activist when they disagree with you.

Touche' - cuts both ways. So you won't disagree with a decision if it is something you don't agree with? What if I am of the minority and you are the majority and a judge finds for the minority? Will you exercise your right to disagree as well or will you just bend over and take it?

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Starting with assumption that your remark was over his head. While I don't think a slippery slope is a completely off-the-wall concern in this area (though not nearly to the degree many are trying to make it), you're on a totally different hill because your example by definition involves minors, which raises an entirely different set of legal concerns.

My example of NAMBLA was extreme to make a point. To my knowledge NAMBLA has not asked for marriage privleges. That does not mean that it is out of the realm of possibility (incremental creep has started) for them to attempt to have it legalized. It was somewhat "tongue in check" but I guess that was lost on everyone.

There is a "slippery slope", however and we are on it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Touche' - cuts both ways. So you won't disagree with a decision if it is something you don't agree with? What if I am of the minority and you are the majority and a judge finds for the minority? Will you exercise your right to disagree as well or will you just bend over and take it?

I can disagree with a decision and agree that it was the right one based on the law. I can also disagree and think it was the wrong one. I don't act like a well respected judge acted on a whim.

My example of NAMBLA was extreme to make a point. To my knowledge NAMBLA has not asked for marriage privleges. That does not mean that it is out of the realm of possibility (incremental creep has started) for them to attempt to have it legalized. It was somewhat "tongue in check" but I guess that was lost on everyone.

There is a "slippery slope", however and we are on it.

You neither made a point nor were particularly funny. There is no incremental creep to legalizing marriage contracts with minors who cannot consent to sex much less marriage. That's like saying a leash law means you can lock children in cages like animals.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Stop caring what consensual adults do in bed.

I don't and you based on what you quoted from me you know that as well.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You neither made a point nor were particularly funny. There is no incremental creep to legalizing marriage contracts with minors who cannot consent to sex much less marriage. That's like saying a leash law means you can lock children in cages like animals.

I hate to inform you of this but "tongue in cheek" does not necessarily mean funny.

If the legal age for marriage is less than 18 with parental or guardian consent and a man wants to marry a 16 year old boy and the parents/guardian approve does that make it acceptable to you? It certainly would be legal.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My example of NAMBLA was extreme to make a point.

Your example of NAMBLA was extreme to the point of apples and oranges, with apples being the case at hand and oranges playing into derogatory stereotypes. A truly valid point can usually be made, and made more effectively, without resorting to extremes.

I had gotten the impression from other posts of yours that you're more or less libertarian. Guess I was wrong about that?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your example of NAMBLA was extreme to the point of apples and oranges, with apples being the case at hand and oranges playing into derogatory stereotypes. A truly valid point can usually be made, and made more effectively, without resorting to extremes.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, but you did it with great eloquence. I wanna be like you when I grow up!

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your example of NAMBLA was extreme to the point of apples and oranges, with apples being the case at hand and oranges playing into derogatory stereotypes. A truly valid point can usually be made, and made more effectively, without resorting to extremes.

I had gotten the impression from other posts of yours that you're more or less libertarian. Guess I was wrong about that?

Point taken.

I am libertarian in some things. Drugs, government oversight and such but really am more of a states rights conservative. I believe that power not enumerated to the Federal Government belong to the states. This was a main point of the Articles of Confederation and was a key basis for the framework of our Constitution. This is what James Madison believed and fought to maintain.

Alexander Hamilton believed the opposite that the government had all powers not denied it by the constitution. With the Republican assendency in the mid 1800's the power of the Federal government was increased to the point where Hamilton would be greatly pleased.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Point taken.

I am libertarian in some things. Drugs, government oversight and such but really am more of a states rights conservative. I believe that power not enumerated to the Federal Government belong to the states. This was a main point of the Articles of Confederation and was a key basis for the framework of our Constitution. This is what James Madison believed and fought to maintain.

Alexander Hamilton believed the opposite that the government had all powers not denied it by the constitution. With the Republican assendency in the mid 1800's the power of the Federal government was increased to the point where Hamilton would be greatly pleased.

The problem with states rights approach to this issue is that it causes problems as these citizens move from one state to another. The issue has already come up as there have been cases where couples married in one state, ie. Massachusetts, have moved to Texas for a job. They decide, like any other couple might, that things aren't working out and want a divorce. Texas refuses to grant a divorce because doing so validates the marriage that they have refused until then to acknowledge. This puts an undo burden on the couple to have to move back to Massachusetts to set up residency in order to seek a divorce. Imagine a straight couple having to go to those lengths. That is not separate but equal.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I am libertarian in some things. Drugs, government oversight and such but really am more of a states rights conservative. I believe that power not enumerated to the Federal Government belong to the states.

Thanks, this helps.

I guess I'm trying to see how the slipperly slope concern fits into this. The classic libertarian position would be that government has no business making rules about who can marry whom (and perhaps no business regulating marriage at all). The states rights position would say each state should figure this out for itself, without interference from the federal government or other states.

Is the slippery slope that it was a federal court that ruled on a matter that should be left to the states? (And if so, didn't the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving v. Virginia start us on that slope?)

I'm just trying to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

If the legal age for marriage is less than 18 with parental or guardian consent and a man wants to marry a 16 year old boy and the parents/guardian approve does that make it acceptable to you? It certainly would be legal.

What would the difference be if it was a boy rather than a girl?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I don't and you based on what you quoted from me you know that as well.



I hate to inform you of this but "tongue in cheek" does not necessarily mean funny.

If the legal age for marriage is less than 18 with parental or guardian consent and a man wants to marry a 16 year old boy and the parents/guardian approve does that make it acceptable to you? It certainly would be legal.

I'm not in favor of parental permission marriages that cross statutory rape laws. If it was an 18 year old and a 16 year old I'm fine with it, a 40 year old and a 16 year old, no. Generally statutory rape laws include an age window.

[AOII Angel]

Isolated consanguinous marriages aren't usually a huge problem, but inmarriages in a community over a long period of time like we've seen in the Azkanazi Jews and in a couple families in Zwolle, LA result in genetic diseases such as Tay Sachs and Proprionic Acidemia, respectively.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Isolated consanguinous marriages aren't usually a huge problem, but inmarriages in a community over a long period of time like we've seen in the Azkanazi Jews and in a couple families in Zwolle, LA result in genetic diseases such as Tay Sachs and Proprionic Acidemia, respectively.

I know about that from SVU!

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

It was somewhat "tongue in check" but I guess that was lost on everyone.

No. We understood what you were trying to do and that you intended it to be tongue in chEEk, but the very fact that you made that particular parallel is reflective of your presuppositions. You seem to be blind to your bias.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You neither made a point nor were particularly funny. There is no incremental creep to legalizing marriage contracts with minors who cannot consent to sex much less marriage. That's like saying a leash law means you can lock children in cages like animals.

Yes.