Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[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?

[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?

[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!

[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!

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I know about that from SVU!

It's been on L&O original, too.

[Drolefille]

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/m...riagebyage.png
for full size.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/m...riagebyage.png
for full size.

Rhode Island and New York don't have gay marriage mostly because of specific situations in their legislatures, with people who oppose gay marriage holding either significant leadership positions in the Democratic caucus (for RI) or balance of Power (NY Senate).

Iowa does have gay marriage because the State Supreme Court ruled that it had to and unlike California, getting something like that overturned at the ballot box is incredibly difficult. A state constitutional amendment would be needed which *either* means it has to pass the state legislatures (both houses individually) in two consecutive sessions and then pass at the ballot box *or* through a state constitutional convention (which gets voted on every ten years, but could lead to things completely unrelated to gay marriage that no one can predict)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by naraht

Rhode Island and New York don't have gay marriage mostly because of specific situations in their legislatures, with people who oppose gay marriage holding either significant leadership positions in the Democratic caucus (for RI) or balance of Power (NY Senate).

Iowa does have gay marriage because the State Supreme Court ruled that it had to and unlike California, getting something like that overturned at the ballot box is incredibly difficult. A state constitutional amendment would be needed which *either* means it has to pass the state legislatures (both houses individually) in two consecutive sessions and then pass at the ballot box *or* through a state constitutional convention (which gets voted on every ten years, but could lead to things completely unrelated to gay marriage that no one can predict)

Yes but the far more important part to me is that the anti-gay marriage people are dying off

[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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Loving vs. Virginia was a correct decision and a relatively easy one to make in hindsight. This was more about race and not a definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman. It did not address gay marriage nor was it considered to have done such.

The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with apportioning 1 man/woman 1 vote. It overturned the Dred Scott decision. Again it does not address the claim for gay marriage unless one wants to cite the equal protection clause which I believe is more of an equal protection of a persons voting rights. Using due process is a huge stretch in my opinion.

So yes, I believe that states rights were infringed by the Federal judge in this decision as the state simply defined their definition of marriage. In this instance one's voting rights are not infringed nor was their due process My argument is that either the state can define marriage or it cannot. If it cannot then there is nothing that will not be litigated as an allowed marriage (polygamy, bigamy, group/communal, etc). This is the slippery slope. So if a state wants to endorse gay marriage that is fine with me it also cuts the other way if a state does not allow it.

I believe there are certain things that the Federal Govenment should have jurisdiction over. Interstate commerce, the common defense, the interstate highway system, foreign exchange (import/export controls) among others. Much/most of what is left should be the purveyance of the state.

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes but the far more important part to me is that the anti-gay marriage people are dying off

The deep South isn't, though...