Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[MRT144]

I never said I agreed with ben, man. To the extent I do it is primarily happenstance. My position is quite a bit more nuanced.

Hopefully so nuanced that it doesnt even resemble ben's theocratic state.

[MichaeltheGreat]

1st Amendment says, yes I can. You asked me, "why do *I* wish to do this". And I answered your question.

The government can not enjoin you from running your mouth on the subject for the rest of your life. However, First Amendment protections don't extent to acts, only to expression.

[DinoDoc]

The government can not enjoin you from running your mouth on the subject for the rest of your life. However, First Amendment protections don't extent to acts, only to expression.

Texas v Johnson?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes we do. Murder does not involve consent of the parties, hence it is a public offense, not private.

And marriage is a public affair because it requires witnesses.

[Ben Kenobi]

You want to have laws based on religion. GTFO.

Absolutely.

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness.

Just because I believe it to be moral, doesn't mean that I believe it should be a law, nor do I believe that just because it's the law, that it's based on morals.

[Hauldren Collider]

Hopefully so nuanced that it doesnt even resemble ben's theocratic state.

Yeah, Ben and I don't agree on very much at all actually, we just both happen to occupy the vague, broad space of "right wing".

[Hauldren Collider]

The government can not enjoin you from running your mouth on the subject for the rest of your life. However, First Amendment protections don't extent to acts, only to expression.

This is false. Flag burning is an act, but is also an expression.

Bit of an edge case though. But some acts are protected as speech.

[MichaeltheGreat]

They can, just not to each other. Hence my crucial distinction between being able to marry, which everyone can, and being able to marry whomever they want, which no one can do.

Your arguments against my arguments have amounted to the following - that bigamy and polygamy ought to be permitted and that it's really no one's business whom you are married to and how many people you are married to.

Once again, you misstate. Ignorance or a lie? I haven't stated they should be allowed. I have stated there's no reason they should be prohibited, IF you first develop a framework for handling all the related property, custody, visitation, survivorship, etc. issues. As the American legal system stands, many of those matters are handled differently state by state, with the first fundamental division being community property vs. non-community property states, but all states handle them as binary issues where there are only two primary parties. It's possible to create a benefit framework for multi-party marriage, but not much demand for it.

In general, if you look at the countries where polygamy is legal, the legal framework is simple. Women are not much more than property, so they don't have any rights.

You're not advancing a sincere or genuine argument in any case. Your argument is nothing more than a "if we don't stop the evil God-mocking ******s, then next thing you know, there will be polygamy and marriage to animals and kids and the sky is falling and the day of judgment is at hand" slippery slope.

If there's enough demand for polygamous marriage, let the proponents be the ones to answer the property and similar questions, provide a legal framework for those rights, and make their case. It's a separate thing entirely from the present issue, which is binary marriage of unrelated consenting adults.

Which I find intriguing because if that's the case - then I don't see how one can argue for all the components of 'civil' marriage. If no one cares or no one has a business to get involved, then none of these protections are there either.

Benefits of civil marriage are distinct from the parties to that marriage. Who gets survivor's benefits, who owes creditors, clean title on sold real property, etc. are all public benefits, as the property rights of third parties are affected.

It seems to me that you want to remove one thing - but keep all the rest. Which is inconsistant. You want involvement, insofar as it agrees with you and no involvement where it is inconvenient or unwanted. Like I said earlier - you aren't going to be able to keep the provisions attached to civil marriage. Either it is kept and one thing goes, or the protections go and you get the rest.

Nope, parties != benefits.

[self biased]

[Hauldren Collider]

self biased makes an excellent point. This thread really should just be pictures of Scarlett Johansson.

[Sava]

Stirring rebuttal Sava. I'll have to add that to "Sava's greatest hits of 2013".

There is no "stirring rebuttal" to hatred and bigotry. God didn't fill your heart with love.

You are just a sad, evil little man.

[DinoDoc]

self biased makes an excellent point. This thread really should just be pictures of Scarlett Johansson.

I'll raise you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And marriage is a public affair because it requires witnesses.

Nice try. When you go to ****ing law school and pass the bar and go into practice, then feel free to resume wasting my time.

Recording of a marriage certificate requires a witness - again, because the specific rights, title and interests conferred on the parties directly, affect third parties indirectly. Selling a piece of real property requires a witness, in the form of a notarized deed or other instrument in most jurisdictions (IIRC there are a few states that allow some forms of interests in real property without a written document).

In no event is a witness a party. No rights, title or interest is affected - only the authentication of the recorded document.

[regexcellent]

DinoDoc

[MichaeltheGreat]

This is false. Flag burning is an act, but is also an expression.

Bit of an edge case though. But some acts are protected as speech.

Actually, technically it's not, because SCOTUS has defined those "acts" to be protected only to the extent they are integral to protected expression. This is the sort of thing where Scalia is full of "dead document" ****. A literal reading of the relevant First Amendment clause protects only speech, not writing, which is clearly absurd and not consistent with the Framers' intent. So writing and such were obviously included. Later on, though, you get things like photoshopped images, editorial cartoons, our whole obscenity law fetish (love some of those cases, lol) broadcast rights, etc. So the definition of "speech" for First Amendment purposes expands into areas where the nature of the medium or expression combines expression with action.

For example, if you burn a flag on public property, say a national forest which has burn regulations in effect due to fire hazards and fire danger conditions, you can be arrested and prosecuted - not for the expression, but for the hazards of the act and the generalized violation of laws and regulations in effect to reduce fire hazard.

By the same token, you can wipe your ass with the flag. But if you drop your drawers in a public place to do it, and leave it on the ground, you can be prosecuted for the related offenses of indecent exposure and littering, because those are general statutes without an effect or intent of limiting free expression. So the ass wiping per se is legal, but best to do it at home and put it properly in the trash.

I forget which issue, but Army Lawyer magazine had an awesomely good article about this in a military context, illustrating First Amendment modifications in the military context and general article prosecutability.