Marry for Love

[Joyce Melton]

Here's the part of the CA Constitution I think the countersuit about
marriages in SF should be brought under:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

With an inalienable right to privacy, what business does the state
have asking you what sex you are?

Exactly this part of the CA constitution was used in part by the
conservatives to overturn various racial balancing shemes, which may
or may not have been a good thing. :)

BTW, since my SO and I are registered civil partners, we have to get a
dissoulution of that before we could get married if getting married
were legal.

Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?

- Erin

[BastetsMuse]

Post by Joyce Melton
Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?

That's an interesting question!

However, I do not believe I have the right to comment on the state of
someone ELSE's belief or the state of his/her heart -- and so I cannot
answer this above-stated question in good faith.

I will, however, answer it for myself --

I did not marry just for love, and I am sadly reaping exactly what was
sown in the planting.

I married for security, for safety, for friendship -- and I did not
marry for love. I did not love my husband in the way I knew he loved
me. I did not then believe myself capable of that kind of love, due
to the damages I took as a child.

I thought what I had to offer was enough -- and I was honest about it
at the time. He accepted me, but hoped I'd change.

And so I have, but not the way he wanted.

So now we have grown widely apart -- sadly apart -- without love to
serve as an anchor, even in the beginning.

All folk should have the right to marry for love, in my very humble
opinion.

BastetsMuse


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"CPR: "Coffee Provides Resuscitation"

[Engr Bohn]

Good morning,

Hail, Joyce Melton! We who are about to post salute you.

[...]

Post by Joyce Melton
Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?

"Dunno," cb begins, hunched over his morning tea. "But here's a random
thought. Hypothesize the existence of someone who believes marriage is
only about the continuation of the species, about procreation. Now let's
further assume this person recognizes that, absent advanced and expensive
medical techniques, the only way to make a baby is with the, er,
babydance (as Caryl and I called it when we were actively trying to make
one)."

cb grins evilly, "Logically, then, this person believes a marriage should
be only about sex."

cb returns to his normal "the caffeine will kick in any moment" morning
grimmace. "Well, okay, there's another couple of decades to raising the
child after you make it, but just imagine the look on the hypothesized
person's face."


Take care,
cb

[Jean Hoehn]

Post by Engr Bohn
"Dunno," cb begins, hunched over his morning tea. "But here's a random
thought. Hypothesize the existence of someone who believes marriage is
only about the continuation of the species, about procreation.

Which is pretty much the way the RRR looks at it. Which, by logical
extention, makes my marriage invalid, since the Bear and I both agreed that
we didn't want kids at this stage of our lives. So where does that leave
us?

[Mike Andruschak]

Post by Jean Hoehn

Post by Engr Bohn
"Dunno," cb begins, hunched over his morning tea. "But here's a random
thought. Hypothesize the existence of someone who believes marriage is
only about the continuation of the species, about procreation.

Which is pretty much the way the RRR looks at it. Which, by logical
extention, makes my marriage invalid, since the Bear and I both agreed that
we didn't want kids at this stage of our lives. So where does that leave
us?

one of many similar pages:

http://www.catholicireland.net/gettingmarried/ceremony/vowstextus.htm

Contrary to what the RRR might hold, marriage is the bonding of two
people until death. None of the standard vows contain any mention of
children. If the purpose of marriage was to bear and raise children
then marriage would only be for the duration of the child rearing.

IMHO there is no logical reason to have children.

[ghostwriter]

Post by Mike Andruschak
IMHO there is no logical reason to have children.

Very true, but there is no logical reason to have sex either. IMO,
logic has little or nothing to do with love, sex, or choosing to have
children. The pleasure from each is intense and primal, and while you
maybe able to temper the urges, complete suppression is destructive in
the long run both to the individual and the group.

Ghostwriter

[Lee S. Billings]

news:<4041276c.1991805

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Mike Andruschak
IMHO there is no logical reason to have children.

Very true, but there is no logical reason to have sex either. IMO,
logic has little or nothing to do with love, sex, or choosing to have
children. The pleasure from each is intense and primal, and while you
maybe able to temper the urges, complete suppression is destructive in
the long run both to the individual and the group.

Destructive to the group *if widely practiced*, I will grant you. Destructive
to the individual? Depends on the individual and his or her reasons for making
that decision. I am assuredly not damaged by my lack of desire to have
children, despite what the RRR would have you believe. And I will argue
vehemently that it is not destructive even to the group if *some* individuals
choose not to act on their "primal urges", as long as enough continue to do so
that the gene pool remains viable.

Celine

[David C. Pugh]

Post by Lee S. Billings
news:<4041276c.1991805

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Mike Andruschak
IMHO there is no logical reason to have children.

Very true, but there is no logical reason to have sex either. IMO,
logic has little or nothing to do with love, sex, or choosing to have
children. The pleasure from each is intense and primal, and while you
maybe able to temper the urges, complete suppression is destructive in
the long run both to the individual and the group.

Destructive to the group *if widely practiced*, I will grant you. Destructive
to the individual? Depends on the individual and his or her reasons for

making that decision. I am assuredly not damaged by my lack of desire to
have > children, despite what the RRR would have you believe. And I will
argue > vehemently that it is not destructive even to the group if *some*
individuals > choose not to act on their "primal urges", as long as enough
continue to do so that the gene pool remains viable.

Yeah!!!

[ghostwriter]

Post by Lee S. Billings
news:<4041276c.1991805

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Mike Andruschak
IMHO there is no logical reason to have children.

Very true, but there is no logical reason to have sex either. IMO,
logic has little or nothing to do with love, sex, or choosing to have
children. The pleasure from each is intense and primal, and while you
maybe able to temper the urges, complete suppression is destructive in
the long run both to the individual and the group.

Destructive to the group *if widely practiced*, I will grant you. Destructive
to the individual? Depends on the individual and his or her reasons for making
that decision. I am assuredly not damaged by my lack of desire to have
children, despite what the RRR would have you believe. And I will argue
vehemently that it is not destructive even to the group if *some* individuals
choose not to act on their "primal urges", as long as enough continue to do so
that the gene pool remains viable.
Celine

I think you are oversimplifing my stance quite a bit there Celine.
Individual choose is as important in reproduction as it is in sex, the
idea that all people are damaged by being given options would normally
be a strawman arguement if not for the fact that the RRR seems to
actually believe it. Some members of the gene pool have always choosen
not to reproduce just as some have choosen not to engage in sexual
activity. It does sadden me that the a lot of the most intelligent and
capable of our society are the ones choosing not to have families.

However that is a choose for the individual, for someone who wants
children the arguement that there is no logical reason to have them is
very similar to the arguements against love and sex.

Ghostwriter

[Lee S. Billings]

news:<6_O0c

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by ghostwriter
Very true, but there is no logical reason to have sex either. IMO,
logic has little or nothing to do with love, sex, or choosing to have
children. The pleasure from each is intense and primal, and while you
maybe able to temper the urges, complete suppression is destructive in
the long run both to the individual and the group.

Destructive to the group *if widely practiced*, I will grant you.
Destructive to the individual? Depends on the individual and his or her

reasons for making

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
that decision. I am assuredly not damaged by my lack of desire to have
children, despite what the RRR would have you believe. And I will argue
vehemently that it is not destructive even to the group if *some*
individuals choose not to act on their "primal urges", as long as enough
continue to do so that the gene pool remains viable.

I think you are oversimplifing my stance quite a bit there Celine.

I was responding to what you said, left quoted above. If you were engaging in a
"devil's advocate" argument and didn't say so, that's one thing. But if you
really believe that suppression of the "primal urges" for sex and children is
ultimately destructive to the individual *without qualification* (which is what
you said), then I have to disagree.

Post by ghostwriter
However that is a choose for the individual, for someone who wants
children the arguement that there is no logical reason to have them is
very similar to the arguements against love and sex.

I think that's the point. If you *want* children, then you want them regardless
of logic. If you have to be convinced that having children is the logical thing
to do, then in the absence of something like an "after Armageddon" scenario
when repopulation is an imperative, there is really no solidly logical reason
to be brought to bear. The "marching morons" argument you advanced is nothing
but an appeal to ego; in the current state of civilization, there is absolutely
no reason for any individual to believe that his or her choice not to reproduce
will make any difference whatsoever.

Celine

[ghostwriter]

Post by Lee S. Billings
news:<6_O0c

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by ghostwriter
Very true, but there is no logical reason to have sex either. IMO,
logic has little or nothing to do with love, sex, or choosing to have
children. The pleasure from each is intense and primal, and while you
maybe able to temper the urges, complete suppression is destructive in
the long run both to the individual and the group.

Destructive to the group *if widely practiced*, I will grant you.
Destructive to the individual? Depends on the individual and his or her

reasons for making

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
that decision. I am assuredly not damaged by my lack of desire to have
children, despite what the RRR would have you believe. And I will argue
vehemently that it is not destructive even to the group if *some*
individuals choose not to act on their "primal urges", as long as enough
continue to do so that the gene pool remains viable.

I think you are oversimplifing my stance quite a bit there Celine.

I was responding to what you said, left quoted above. If you were engaging in a
"devil's advocate" argument and didn't say so, that's one thing. But if you
really believe that suppression of the "primal urges" for sex and children is
ultimately destructive to the individual *without qualification* (which is what
you said), then I have to disagree.

Suppression is an active verb, it assumes existance. A desire that
does not exist cannot be suppressed. *Complete* suppression of any
sane urge is damaging to the individual on *average*.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/long%20run

The "long run" is an *qualification* that means after all contrubting
factors have had their effect.

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by ghostwriter
However that is a choose for the individual, for someone who wants
children the arguement that there is no logical reason to have them is
very similar to the arguements against love and sex.

I think that's the point. If you *want* children, then you want them regardless
of logic. If you have to be convinced that having children is the logical thing
to do, then in the absence of something like an "after Armageddon" scenario
when repopulation is an imperative, there is really no solidly logical reason
to be brought to bear. The "marching morons" argument you advanced is nothing
but an appeal to ego; in the current state of civilization, there is absolutely
no reason for any individual to believe that his or her choice not to reproduce

Or vote, or sign a petition, or protest, or write letters to the
editor, or love, or work with the poor, or throw starfish back into
the sea...

Post by Lee S. Billings
will make any difference whatsoever.

It made a difference to that one.

Ghostwriter

[Lee S. Billings]

news:<Mv31c

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
I think that's the point. If you *want* children, then you want them
regardless of logic. If you have to be convinced that having children is the

logical thing

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
to do, then in the absence of something like an "after Armageddon" scenario
when repopulation is an imperative, there is really no solidly logical
reason to be brought to bear. The "marching morons" argument you advanced is
nothing but an appeal to ego; in the current state of civilization, there is
absolutely no reason for any individual to believe that his or her choice
not to reproduce

Or vote, or sign a petition, or protest, or write letters to the
editor, or work with the poor,

Apples and oranges. There is hard evidence that any of these actions can, and
sometimes do, make a difference.

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
or throw starfish back into the sea...
will make any difference whatsoever.

It made a difference to that one.

And this is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Logic would dictate that
*not* being born to a parent who was less than wholeheartedly enthusiastic
about the idea is a better outcome. Logic would also dictate, if you want a
genuine logical argument, that choosing not to have children in an ecosystem
already strained by overpopulation is a *more* responsible decision to make.

Celine

[ghostwriter]

Post by Lee S. Billings
news:<Mv31c

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
I think that's the point. If you *want* children, then you want them
regardless of logic. If you have to be convinced that having children is the

logical thing

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
to do, then in the absence of something like an "after Armageddon" scenario
when repopulation is an imperative, there is really no solidly logical
reason to be brought to bear. The "marching morons" argument you advanced is
nothing but an appeal to ego; in the current state of civilization, there is
absolutely no reason for any individual to believe that his or her choice
not to reproduce

Or vote, or sign a petition, or protest, or write letters to the
editor, or work with the poor,

Apples and oranges. There is hard evidence that any of these actions can, and
sometimes do, make a difference.

Too easy, they are all (including reproduction) actions based upon an
individuals values and belifs. All of them make one Nth of a
difference, sometimes that Nth carries the day but most of the time it
is only a statement. The "marching morons" arguement you used is just
as applicable to the vote as it is to childrearing, is it not an
appeal to ego to say that if the intelligent dont vote then only the
unintelligent will.

Reproduction and childrearing are voting in the evolutionary sense.
They are a statement of where I want my species to go in the future.
And just as in voting "none of the above" is a perfectly legitimate
answer.

Are you really saying that there is no hard evidence that anyones
decision to reproduce ever had an effect? I willing to assume you
slipped while trying to make another point, unless you honestly dont
see the ignorance of that position.

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
or throw starfish back into the sea...
will make any difference whatsoever.

It made a difference to that one.

And this is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Logic would dictate that
*not* being born to a parent who was less than wholeheartedly enthusiastic
about the idea is a better outcome. Logic would also dictate, if you want a
genuine logical argument, that choosing not to have children in an ecosystem
already strained by overpopulation is a *more* responsible decision to make.

Trying to change the subject I see. If someone doesnt want children
they shouldnt have them, that is the point to personal freedom.
Another point of personal freedom is that people are free to make
mistakes. And in a civilized society that means that we have to pay
to clean of the mess that results all too often.

Unfortunatly lack of options and societies pressure has caused a lot
of children to be born unwanted but that has little to do with someone
who IS enthusiastic being forced to suppress the urge to have them.

Although for myself, I would not feel justified in having children by
birth if I were not also a foster parent, or as one of the animal
right groups put it "If you dont rescue dont breed". But that is for
ME only and while I feel that it would be a good when possible the
difficulty of foster care is not for everyone by any stretch of the
imagination.

As far as overpopulation goes, not completely suppressing the urge
does not mean having 6 kids. Education and development of the third
world are every bit as important if not more so than reducing the size
of the first world family. Most of the pressure for change in
evironmental and safety drives comes from parents not childless
adults.

Ghostwriter

[Lee S. Billings]

news:<Xvb1c

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
news:<Mv31c

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
I think that's the point. If you *want* children, then you want them
regardless of logic. If you have to be convinced that having children is
the logical thing
to do, then in the absence of something like an "after Armageddon" scenario
when repopulation is an imperative, there is really no solidly logical
reason to be brought to bear. The "marching morons" argument you advanced
is nothing but an appeal to ego; in the current state of civilization,

there is

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
absolutely no reason for any individual to believe that his or her choice
not to reproduce

Or vote, or sign a petition, or protest, or write letters to the
editor, or work with the poor,

Apples and oranges. There is hard evidence that any of these actions can,
and sometimes do, make a difference.

The "marching morons" arguement you used is just
as applicable to the vote as it is to childrearing, is it not an
appeal to ego to say that if the intelligent dont vote then only the
unintelligent will.

But I didn't say that, and I don't believe that. Please do not assign positions
to me that I do not hold.

Post by ghostwriter
Reproduction and childrearing are voting in the evolutionary sense.
They are a statement of where I want my species to go in the future.
And just as in voting "none of the above" is a perfectly legitimate
answer.
Are you really saying that there is no hard evidence that anyones
decision to reproduce ever had an effect? I willing to assume you
slipped while trying to make another point, unless you honestly dont
see the ignorance of that position.

I am saying that there is no logical reason for any individual to *believe*
that their decision to reproduce or not will have any effect. This is not the
same thing as saying that no one who was born has ever had any effect -- but
absent clairvoyance, it is the height of hubris to assume that YOUR child would
be one of those people. The vast majority of us live out our lives without
doing anything that makes any difference whatsoever (in the long view).

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by ghostwriter

Post by Lee S. Billings
or throw starfish back into the sea...
will make any difference whatsoever.

It made a difference to that one.

And this is an emotional argument, not a logical one. Logic would dictate that
*not* being born to a parent who was less than wholeheartedly enthusiastic
about the idea is a better outcome. Logic would also dictate, if you want a
genuine logical argument, that choosing not to have children in an ecosystem
already strained by overpopulation is a *more* responsible decision to make.

Trying to change the subject I see. If someone doesnt want children
they shouldnt have them, that is the point to personal freedom.
Another point of personal freedom is that people are free to make
mistakes. And in a civilized society that means that we have to pay
to clean of the mess that results all too often.

You seem to be making an unexpressed assumption that the decision not to have
children is a mistake -- or at least, this is what you've just implied. If
that's not what you meant, feel free to re-word your argument.

Post by ghostwriter
Unfortunatly lack of options and societies pressure has caused a lot
of children to be born unwanted but that has little to do with someone
who IS enthusiastic being forced to suppress the urge to have them.

Now who's trying to change the subject? We weren't talking about people being
FORCED not to have children, we were talking about people who for one reason or
another choose not to do so, and your claim that this is somehow damaging to
the individual.

Post by ghostwriter
As far as overpopulation goes, not completely suppressing the urge
does not mean having 6 kids. Education and development of the third
world are every bit as important if not more so than reducing the size
of the first world family. Most of the pressure for change in
evironmental and safety drives comes from parents not childless adults.

Most of the *people* in this world are parents rather than childless adults.
Therefore this is a null argument -- it's "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Unless
you can show that people without children are *disproportionately*
under-represented in those pushing for environmental and safety issues, there's
no reason to claim that they are any less interested in them than parents.

Celine

[David C. Pugh]

"Lee S. Billings" <***@mindCHEMISEspring.com> skrev i melding news:kuo1c.17371$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

(....)

Post by Lee S. Billings
Most of the *people* in this world are parents rather than childless adults.
Therefore this is a null argument -- it's "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

Unless > you can show that people without children are *disproportionately*

Post by Lee S. Billings
under-represented in those pushing for environmental and safety issues,

there's no reason to claim that they are any less interested in them than
parents.

Actually, a gene that 'says', "Under conditions X, do not have children
yourself but do good things for your community" would tend to do very well,
since the kin of the person in which it was expressed would have a
reproductive advantage in relation to groups that contained only parents.
This is thought to be a possible (probably the only possible) genetic
component of homosexuality -- a group-selection device, freeing up parenting
resources for some specialist altruism.

[Joyce Melton]

Your point is well taken but it may contain a hint of one of those
hidden assumptions about genetics, that all genes have a purpose.

Not all gene variation has an evolutionary "purpose". Some are just
easy accidental misreproductions that occur again and again. Others
are leftovers from something that may once have had an advantage but
hasn't been selected out. And some are unavoidable consequences of
some process. And others are nil content variants that don't
necessarily affect anything enough to be selected out, or balance good
with bad as your post could be read to be supposing.

It may well be that humanity has genes that can be expressed as
homosexuality under some circumstances. And this may be an advantage
in some way for the tribe. But it isn't necessary to suppose any
advantage to support the hypothesis that some homosexuality has a
genetic basis.

Another hidden assumption is that homosexuals don't reproduce
themselves directly and must depend on their kin to pass on the queer
gene. :) About half of my homosexual friends have children, which is
very nearly as much as the proportion of my heterosexual friends.

So if there are homosexual genes, they probably get passed on in the
normal way instead of diagonally.

In that case, if there is advantage in having homosexuals in the
tribe, maybe the advantage is that that is one more way of looking at
the world. Like the incidence of red-green colorblindness in males
that may have had an advantage in the days when men did most of the
hunting. Having a red-green color blind person in a hunting party gave
you a person who saw the world differently, literally, and who might
detect prey or dangers that others did not see.

Maybe it's a case of The Queer Eye for Humanity? :)

[The Yeoman]

Post by Mike Andruschak
Contrary to what the RRR might hold, marriage is the bonding of two
people until death. None of the standard vows contain any mention of
children. If the purpose of marriage was to bear and raise children
then marriage would only be for the duration of the child rearing.
IMHO there is no logical reason to have children.

Could you please clarify this? Are you saying there's no logical
reason to have children in relation to marrying? Or there is no
logical reason to have children at all?

The Yeoman

[Mike Andruschak]

Post by The Yeoman

Post by Mike Andruschak
Contrary to what the RRR might hold, marriage is the bonding of two
people until death. None of the standard vows contain any mention of
children. If the purpose of marriage was to bear and raise children
then marriage would only be for the duration of the child rearing.
IMHO there is no logical reason to have children.

Could you please clarify this? Are you saying there's no logical
reason to have children in relation to marrying? Or there is no
logical reason to have children at all?

There is no logical reason to have children at all. They are the
ultimate exercise in vanity. A little bit of you to carry on after
you are dead and gone. Not that there is anything wrong with vanity.

[Jean Hoehn]

Post by Joyce Melton
Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?

Even if he'd done nothing else to piss me off during these last 3 1/2 years,
that alone is more than enough to insure I not only don't vote for him but
actively campaign for Kerry (or whoever wins the Dems primary). I want this
man OUT of Washington, he's done enough damage.

[mickie fynne]

Post by Joyce Melton
Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?
- Erin

That's a toughy. I would hope so, but I think he believes there is
only one *type* of love when it comes to marriage. Possibly it has to
do with fear of the different and unknown, but many people think the
same way. The fact that people think that love between same sex
couples is different than between man and woman, disturbs me. Love is
love, it may not take the form or shape one is used too, but that
hardly invalidates it, or makes it less than what it is.

Mickie Fynne

[Denny Wheeler]

Post by Joyce Melton
Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?

Sure. As long as my child marries in a Christian church, and to
one--and one only--member of the opposite sex.

Otherwise? I seriously doubt Georgie-boy believes my child (or me,
ftm) has any right to act in *ANY* way which isn't recognized by the
RRR as acceptable and desirable.
--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

[John Vinson]

Post by Joyce Melton
Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?

Interesting question on Weekend Edition Sunday this morning:

What's VP Dick Cheney's take on same-sex marriage? And what about his
openly-gay daughter, the Republican party activist?

John the Wysard jvinson *at* WysardOfInfo *dot* com

[Ellen K Hursh]

Post by John Vinson

Post by Joyce Melton
Here's a question though: Does George Bush Believe Your Child Has the
Right to Marry for Love?

What's VP Dick Cheney's take on same-sex marriage? And what about his
openly-gay daughter, the Republican party activist?

http://dearmary.com/mary/index.html

[David Cox]

"Joyce Melton" <***@qnez.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
<snip>
I want to throw out one more possible worm in this discussion. A suggestion
has been made concerning a possible constitutional amendment that would
define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Some of the
presidential candidates (Kerry and Edwards both, IIRC - not sure about any
others) have stated that instead, the choice should be left up the each
individual state.

Here's my hypothetical situation then: At some point down the road, this
issue gets resolved, and the answer is that each state gets to decide how
they want to handle it. I live in State A, which overwhelmingly favors a
"traditional" definition of marriage - let's say that a referendum on the
issues passes with over 80% in favor. Next door, in State B, the mood is a
bit different. Their referendum states that marriage is between any two
individuals (sorry polys, you're sh** out of hypothetical luck this time
around! :) and passes by the same amount - 80%. There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right? So, despite the clear will of the majority in State A, their
position would be invalidated by State B.

So my question is this: is leaving the decision up to the states a devious
way to sneak around the supposed will of the majority, or it is a legitimate
deferral to state's rights? Which method would be fairer, and why? Which
method would be more indicitave of the will of the people? Anyone have any
thoughts - from either side of the issue?

Dave

[Denny Wheeler]

Post by David Cox
So my question is this: is leaving the decision up to the states a devious
way to sneak around the supposed will of the majority, or it is a legitimate
deferral to state's rights? Which method would be fairer, and why? Which
method would be more indicitave of the will of the people? Anyone have any
thoughts - from either side of the issue?

Yes, I have some thoughts. The majority should have no say on the
issue of 'who may marry whom.' Nobody that I know of is saying, 'you
must marry against your beliefs'--but many are saying, 'your beliefs
should not govern my beliefs.'

Note that this country came to be when some who were minorities got
fed up with majority tyrrany.
--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

[Lee S. Billings]

Post by Denny Wheeler
Note that this country came to be when some who were minorities got
fed up with majority tyrrany.

In at least one notable case, the "majority tyranny" they got fed up with was
being told that they couldn't enforce *their* religious beliefs on everyone
else.[1] So they came over here to set up their own tyranny instead, and it's
surprising how many of their odd notions have become widespread in American
culture. You can blame them for just about everything Europeans laugh at us
about.

[1] The Puritans

Celine

[Ace Lightning]

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by Denny Wheeler
Note that this country came to be when some who were minorities got
fed up with majority tyrrany.

In at least one notable case, the "majority tyranny" they got fed up with was
being told that they couldn't enforce *their* religious beliefs on everyone
else.[1] So they came over here to set up their own tyranny instead, and it's
surprising how many of their odd notions have become widespread in American
culture. You can blame them for just about everything Europeans laugh at us
about.
[1] The Puritans

I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous
Puritanism that still hinders this country's social progress. My
ancestor was John Howland, who was not a Pilgrim, but simply a
ne'er-do-well type who was hanging around the docks when the boat
was getting ready to leave. I've always wondered why he seemed to
feel that getting on a leaky, creaky sailboat with a bunch of
religious crazies and sailing across a treacherous sea to a howling
wilderness was preferable to staying in London...

[Jean Hoehn]

Post by Ace Lightning
My
ancestor was John Howland, who was not a Pilgrim, but simply a
ne'er-do-well type who was hanging around the docks when the boat
was getting ready to leave. I've always wondered why he seemed to
feel that getting on a leaky, creaky sailboat with a bunch of
religious crazies and sailing across a treacherous sea to a howling
wilderness was preferable to staying in London...

I think you may have answered your own question, Ace. A leaky boat full of
religous crazies might've been safer than whatever law enforcement and/or
lynch mobs looking for the ne'r-do-well in question <grin>.

[Joyce Melton]

Post by Jean Hoehn

Post by Ace Lightning
My
ancestor was John Howland, who was not a Pilgrim, but simply a
ne'er-do-well type who was hanging around the docks when the boat
was getting ready to leave. I've always wondered why he seemed to
feel that getting on a leaky, creaky sailboat with a bunch of
religious crazies and sailing across a treacherous sea to a howling
wilderness was preferable to staying in London...

I think you may have answered your own question, Ace. A leaky boat full of
religous crazies might've been safer than whatever law enforcement and/or
lynch mobs looking for the ne'r-do-well in question <grin>.

Some of my ancestors were on the other boat, the Supply, the one that
didn't get lost and actually landed in Virginia. They weren't Pilgrims
either, just part of the crew, apparently. :)

[Ace Lightning]

Post by Jean Hoehn

Post by Ace Lightning
My
ancestor was John Howland, who was not a Pilgrim, but simply a
ne'er-do-well type who was hanging around the docks when the boat
was getting ready to leave. I've always wondered why he seemed to
feel that getting on a leaky, creaky sailboat with a bunch of
religious crazies and sailing across a treacherous sea to a howling
wilderness was preferable to staying in London...

I think you may have answered your own question, Ace. A leaky boat full of
religous crazies might've been safer than whatever law enforcement and/or
lynch mobs looking for the ne'r-do-well in question <grin>.

That was always my suspicion - that even a boatload of
Puritans was preferable to "gaol".

Irrelevant factoid: During the Atlantic crossing, at different
times, two people fell overboard from the Mayflower. One of
them was a sailor, who drowned, despite efforts to rescue
him by throwing him a rope. (Keep in mind that most sailors of
that period didn't know how to swim.) The other was John Howland,
who was rescued by being "fished out of the water with the boat
hook". They never mentioned how he fell overboard in the first
place, though.

[Arri London]

Post by Ace Lightning

Post by Lee S. Billings

Post by Denny Wheeler
Note that this country came to be when some who were minorities got
fed up with majority tyrrany.

In at least one notable case, the "majority tyranny" they got fed up with was
being told that they couldn't enforce *their* religious beliefs on everyone
else.[1] So they came over here to set up their own tyranny instead, and it's
surprising how many of their odd notions have become widespread in American
culture. You can blame them for just about everything Europeans laugh at us
about.
[1] The Puritans

I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous
Puritanism that still hinders this country's social progress. My
ancestor was John Howland, who was not a Pilgrim, but simply a
ne'er-do-well type who was hanging around the docks when the boat
was getting ready to leave. I've always wondered why he seemed to
feel that getting on a leaky, creaky sailboat with a bunch of
religious crazies and sailing across a treacherous sea to a howling
wilderness was preferable to staying in London...

Ah but that's easy enough. People often choose to forget the many of the
original 'Pilgrims' were criminals and debtors. The bulk of the original
colonists couldn't farm, make tools or otherwise take care of themselves
in the absence of a sophisticated infrastructure. They needed the skills
and labours of those who could.

[Ace Lightning]

Post by Arri London

Post by Ace Lightning
I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous
Puritanism that still hinders this country's social progress. My
ancestor was John Howland, who was not a Pilgrim, but simply a
ne'er-do-well type who was hanging around the docks when the boat
was getting ready to leave. I've always wondered why he seemed to
feel that getting on a leaky, creaky sailboat with a bunch of
religious crazies and sailing across a treacherous sea to a howling
wilderness was preferable to staying in London...

Ah but that's easy enough. People often choose to forget the many of the
original 'Pilgrims' were criminals and debtors. The bulk of the original
colonists couldn't farm, make tools or otherwise take care of themselves
in the absence of a sophisticated infrastructure. They needed the skills
and labours of those who could.

The Pilgrims had already been kicked out of England once
for refusing to be Anglicans. They went to the Netherlands,
where even the Dutch found their form of Puritanism too
much to deal with, and sent them back to England. I don't
know if any of them were debtors or criminals, but they
definitely *weren't* farmers - I believe most of them were
more or less middle-class city types. If the Indians hadn't
given them food, and shown them how to grow more food,
they would have all starved to death before they'd been
there a year.

[D.J.]

Ace Lightning <***@verizon.net> wrote:
] I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
] descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous

Family tradition says I am to.

] Puritanism that still hinders this country's social progress. My

Ayup. I like to think that some of them are rotating at high speed
when ever I say something they wouldn't like.

D.J.
--
djim70 at tyhe cableone dot net. Disclaimer: Standard.
My Web pages Updated: Feb 15, 2004:
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/index.html
Registered Linux user#185746

[Ace Lightning]

Post by D.J.
] I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
] descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous
Family tradition says I am to.

Do you know which one you're descended from?

Post by D.J.
] Puritanism that still hinders this country's social progress. My
Ayup. I like to think that some of them are rotating at high speed
when ever I say something they wouldn't like.

Heh. I'm a Wiccan Priestess. That ought to get the rev
count up ;-)

[D.J.]

Ace Lightning <***@verizon.net> wrote:
] "D.J." wrote:
] >] I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
] >] descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous
] >Family tradition says I am to.
]
] Do you know which one you're descended from?

Not a clue. Its just family tradition. I was told as a kid we
couldn't possibly have an Native American ancestry. We do. Of
course, when they told me as a kid we didn't, it would have been
physically dangerous, maybe life threatening, for it to have been
known back in the 1950s. So there is no certainty as to all of my
ancestry.

D.J.
--
djim70 at tyhe cableone dot net. Disclaimer: Standard.
My Web pages Updated: Feb 15, 2004:
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/index.html
Registered Linux user#185746

[Ace Lightning]

]>] I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
]>] descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous
]>Family tradition says I am to.
] Do you know which one you're descended from?
Not a clue. Its just family tradition. I was told as a kid we
couldn't possibly have an Native American ancestry. We do. Of
course, when they told me as a kid we didn't, it would have been
physically dangerous, maybe life threatening, for it to have been
known back in the 1950s. So there is no certainty as to all of my
ancestry.

There's also some "family tradition" that I am part Native
American as well... seems that one of John Howland's
grandchildren or great-grandchildren disappeared into the
woods for a while, and came back with a woman he said was
his wife, who had a name no one recognized. It's actually
in the "old family Bible", except a cousin of mine has the
actual book in her possession.

[Jette Goldie]

Post by D.J.
] I'm perversely ashamed to admit that I'm an authentic Mayflower
] descendant. But I can't (quite) take the blame for the ridiculous
Family tradition says I am to.
] Puritanism that still hinders this country's social progress. My
Ayup. I like to think that some of them are rotating at high speed
when ever I say something they wouldn't like.

ye got to remember that the majority of old Europeans who
emigrated to the new world weren't necessarily "adventurous
go-getters" but were often leaving the old world because they
*had* to for one reason or another.

that their descendents built a sucessful country would probably
come as a shock to the creditors of the original emigrants.

[Ace Lightning]

Post by Jette Goldie
ye got to remember that the majority of old Europeans who
emigrated to the new world weren't necessarily "adventurous
go-getters" but were often leaving the old world because they
*had* to for one reason or another.
that their descendents built a sucessful country would probably
come as a shock to the creditors of the original emigrants.

I like the Australian attitude. They're mostly descended
from outright criminals, prisoners who were already accused
and convicted of crimes so heinous that the Crown was willing
to "transport" them halfway around the world, just to be rid
of them. Naturally, the Aussies are *proud* of being no more
than a few generations removed from murderers, burglars,
and prostitutes.

[Lee S. Billings]

Post by Ace Lightning
I like the Australian attitude. They're mostly descended
from outright criminals, prisoners who were already accused
and convicted of crimes so heinous that the Crown was willing
to "transport" them halfway around the world, just to be rid
of them. Naturally, the Aussies are *proud* of being no more
than a few generations removed from murderers, burglars,
and prostitutes.

"Was your grandma a whore? Was your grandpa a thief?
Were they bounders and grifters who fell to their grief?
If ye're born of Australia, I know who ye be --
Ye're the son of a son of a scoundrel like me!"

(Probably by Eric Bogle -- I've only heard it once or twice)

Celine

[sfw]

Post by Lee S. Billings
"Was your grandma a whore? Was your grandpa a thief?
Were they bounders and grifters who fell to their grief?
If ye're born of Australia, I know who ye be --
Ye're the son of a son of a scoundrel like me!"
(Probably by Eric Bogle -- I've only heard it once or twice)

Shel Silverstien actually, from a movie soundtrack:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066130/

Sarah

[D.J.]

"Jette Goldie" <***@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
] ye got to remember that the majority of old Europeans who
] emigrated to the new world weren't necessarily "adventurous
] go-getters" but were often leaving the old world because they
] *had* to for one reason or another.

I know about the prison ships to Australia. Its also funny when some
people claim 'high society' dating back to certain families in
California. When those specific families are descended from 1849
gold rushers and hookers.

D.J.
--
djim70 at tyhe cableone dot net. Disclaimer: Standard.
My Web pages Updated: Feb 15, 2004:
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/index.html
Registered Linux user#185746

[John Vinson]

Post by D.J.
I know about the prison ships to Australia. Its also funny when some
people claim 'high society' dating back to certain families in
California. When those specific families are descended from 1849
gold rushers and hookers.

Geneology, n. The list of one's ancestors back to one who did not
particularly care to trace his own. - Bierce

John the Wysard jvinson *at* WysardOfInfo *dot* com

[The TheatrElf]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:32:19 -0800, "David Cox"

Post by David Cox
So my question is this: is leaving the decision up to the
states a devious way to sneak around the supposed will of
the majority, or it is a legitimate deferral to state's
rights? Which method would be fairer, and why? Which
method would be more indicitave of the will of the people?
Anyone have any thoughts - from either side of the issue?

Yes, I have some thoughts. The majority should have no say
on the issue of 'who may marry whom.' Nobody that I know
of is saying, 'you must marry against your beliefs'--but
many are saying, 'your beliefs should not govern my
beliefs.'
Note that this country came to be when some who were
minorities got fed up with majority tyrrany.

And then set up a Constitution specifically designed to
prevent the Majority from sticking it to the Minority.

[Denny Wheeler]

Post by The TheatrElf

Post by Denny Wheeler
Note that this country came to be when some who were
minorities got fed up with majority tyrrany.

And then set up a Constitution specifically designed to
prevent the Majority from sticking it to the Minority.

Precisely.
--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

[Pat Kight]

Post by David Cox
<snip>
I want to throw out one more possible worm in this discussion. A suggestion
has been made concerning a possible constitutional amendment that would
define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Some of the
presidential candidates (Kerry and Edwards both, IIRC - not sure about any
others) have stated that instead, the choice should be left up the each
individual state.
Here's my hypothetical situation then: At some point down the road, this
issue gets resolved, and the answer is that each state gets to decide how
they want to handle it. I live in State A, which overwhelmingly favors a
"traditional" definition of marriage - let's say that a referendum on the
issues passes with over 80% in favor. Next door, in State B, the mood is a
bit different. Their referendum states that marriage is between any two
individuals (sorry polys, you're sh** out of hypothetical luck this time
around! :) and passes by the same amount - 80%. There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right? So, despite the clear will of the majority in State A, their
position would be invalidated by State B.
So my question is this: is leaving the decision up to the states a devious
way to sneak around the supposed will of the majority, or it is a legitimate
deferral to state's rights? Which method would be fairer, and why? Which
method would be more indicitave of the will of the people? Anyone have any
thoughts - from either side of the issue?

"I don't have an answer, but I do have another question:

"Why should `the will of the people' (aka the tyranny of the majority)
determine issues of civil rights? "

[Noah Singman]

Post by Pat Kight
"Why should `the will of the people' (aka the tyranny of the majority)
determine issues of civil rights? "

"It shouldn't, of course. I used to wonder about that one every time a bunch
of poor people, or their representatives, voted on how much to take from my
salary and savings, directly assaulting my property rights. The correct
answer seems to be that there are lots more of THEM, and if enough of them
want something, they simply rewrite the rules (16th Amendment, anyone? 18th?
22nd?) to legitimize their tyranny."

Noah

[Jiri Baum]

Post by Noah Singman
"It shouldn't, of course. I used to wonder about that one every time a
bunch of poor people, or their representatives, voted on how much to
take from my salary and savings, directly assaulting my property
rights.

"I'd be careful about that - it's probably better for you if the
government takes a proportion of your property in an orderly fashion and
distributes it according to some formula than if the mob took out the
guillotine and everyone grabbed what they could."


Jiri

[Lee S. Billings]

Post by Jiri Baum

Post by Noah Singman
"It shouldn't, of course. I used to wonder about that one every time a
bunch of poor people, or their representatives, voted on how much to
take from my salary and savings, directly assaulting my property
rights.

"I'd be careful about that - it's probably better for you if the
government takes a proportion of your property in an orderly fashion and
distributes it according to some formula than if the mob took out the
guillotine and everyone grabbed what they could."

Not to mention that in one of the Giant Libertarian Threads, I was *repeatedly*
informed (by Noah among others) that my financial welfare is by no means a
right, and I should not seek to protect it against whatever my neighbors want
to do to it. The same principle would appear to apply here.

Celine

[Kris Overstreet]

Post by Lee S. Billings
Not to mention that in one of the Giant Libertarian Threads, I was *repeatedly*
informed (by Noah among others) that my financial welfare is by no means a
right, and I should not seek to protect it against whatever my neighbors want
to do to it. The same principle would appear to apply here.

I believe the specific issue there was that -property values- were not
a right, i. e. you have no right to expect the value of your property
to be artificially inflated through laws which restrict the freedom of
others.

Me, I incline slightly towards the 'tax is theft' line of thought.
There are services for which taxation is a fair payment for debts- the
court system, the military, basic infrastructure of the common market-
but welfare, wealth redistribution, foreign aid, etc. are out-and-out
theft from the American taxpayer.

And the "gimmes" can always outvote the "gots," but the "gimmes" are
controlled by the "got lots..." meaning that the very rich get off
virtually free, but the middle-class and working poor take it in the
ass.

Who was it- Tacitus?- who said that a nation, empire, civilization,
whatever, was doomed when the people were given the power to vote
themselves more and more handouts?

Redneck

David Cox wrote:

<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

[Jerry Hollombe]

Post by David Cox
<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to
look it up right now) which would require State A to recognize
marriages from State B - right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

Unless the SCOTUS says it didn't.

[Prophet]

Post by David Cox
<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

And according to some of the experts around here, Full Faith does
not apply to marriage - it is a custom rather than a requirement that
states recognize each others' marriage laws but there have been cases
where they didn't. (Inter-racial marriages back in the day being
examples.)

Marc C Allain http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
Native American Cultural Association. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca/naca.html
Mein Gedanken Sind Frei!

[ghostwriter]

Post by David Cox
<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

I find it unlikely that the DOMA will stand up to too much
examination. The full faith and credit clause trumps it pretty well.
As soon as one state legalizes same-sex marriage you can bet that a
dozen lawsuits will be filled in each of the other states based on the
full faith and credit clause. At this point the only thing that can
IMO significantly slow the progress to same-sex marriage is an
amendment to the federal constitution. That may be unlikley but if it
does happen it will set the fight back decades.

I understand the desire of those fighting for full marriage rights,
but giving the enemy a rallying point during what has the potential to
be a closely fought battle this election year is not good stradegy. I
am tempted to distrubte copies of the "Art of War".

Ghostwriter

[Joyce Melton]

Post by David Cox
<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

Not really. A mere law can't override the Constitution. But, it had
been tacitly accepted that states did NOT always have to recognize out
of state marriages that violated their own laws for maybe more than a
century. The case law is incredibly complex and states usually DID
accept out of state marriages. But not always.

- Erin

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Joyce Melton

Post by David Cox
<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

Not really. A mere law can't override the Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. *And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.*


*Emphasis* mine.

[Denny Wheeler]

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Joyce Melton

Post by David Cox
<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

Not really. A mere law can't override the Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. *And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.*

But note the emphasized part doesn't allow the full faith and credit
to be withheld--it's simply about what is needed to document the acts,
records, and proceedings.

Post by Matthew Russotto
*Emphasis* mine.

--
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Denny Wheeler

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Joyce Melton

Post by David Cox
<snip>

Post by David Cox
There is something in the
Constitution (don't remember exactly and ain't gonna bother to look it up
right now) which would require State A to recognize marriages from State B -
right?

No. The defense of marriage act cratered that protection.

Not really. A mere law can't override the Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. *And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.*

But note the emphasized part doesn't allow the full faith and credit
to be withheld--it's simply about what is needed to document the acts,
records, and proceedings.

Congress can set the "effect" of giving such faith and credit to
nothing. It's an abuse of Congress's power, but IMO not one forbidden
by the constitution.

[Joyce Melton]

I know what it says, Matt. :)

So the DOMA could be regarded as one such law.

However, due process and some other concepts in the Constitution and
Amendments could be seen to trump Congresses ability to restrict the
meaning of marriage under this regulation of full faith and credit
clause.

Congress is supposed to make laws to allow the states to settle
disputes between them is how that is usually read.

Congress has done other such things, like mandating 55 mph speed
limits nationally and 21 year old drinking ages. Those were done with
arm twisting laws that probably should have fallen afoul of the
various state's rights clauses in the Constitution.

It's really up to the Supreme Court to decide, that's why we have one
and did not allow the legislature to retroactively decide what they
meant themselves as the UK does (or perhaps did, I'm not sure with
recent changes in Parliament who has the final say in the UK now on
what a law actually means and what happens when two laws contradict
each other). Then again, the UK does not have a single founding
document, perhaps the American system would not work for such an
organic (rather than designed) government.

[Jerry Hollombe]

Post by Joyce Melton
Congress has done other such things, like mandating 55 mph speed
limits nationally and 21 year old drinking ages. Those were done with
arm twisting laws that probably should have fallen afoul of the
various state's rights clauses in the Constitution.

The 55 mph limit was done with a threat of witholding federal highway
funds. A few states chose to ignore it or found creative ways around
it.

[David Cox]

Post by Jerry Hollombe

Post by Joyce Melton
Congress has done other such things, like mandating 55 mph speed
limits nationally and 21 year old drinking ages. Those were done with
arm twisting laws that probably should have fallen afoul of the
various state's rights clauses in the Constitution.

The 55 mph limit was done with a threat of witholding federal highway
funds. A few states chose to ignore it or found creative ways around
it.

I lived in Arizona at the time, and they came up with with an interesting
way around it. They seemed to feel that the "proper" speed limit was 75, so
in the rare cases where they felt the need to ticket someone, they came up
with some sort of "environmental impact" speeding ticket for speeds between
55-75, with a cost of $10 and no points against your license. The feds
mandated some level of enforcement, but Arizona did the minimum amount that
let them keep their highway funding.

Dave

[Jerry Hollombe]

Post by David Cox

Post by Jerry Hollombe

Post by Joyce Melton
Congress has done other such things, like mandating 55 mph
speed limits nationally and 21 year old drinking ages. Those
were done with arm twisting laws that probably should have
fallen afoul of the various state's rights clauses in the
Constitution.

The 55 mph limit was done with a threat of witholding federal
highway funds. A few states chose to ignore it or found creative
ways around it.

I lived in Arizona at the time, and they came up with with an
interesting way around it. They seemed to feel that the "proper"
speed limit was 75, so in the rare cases where they felt the need
to ticket someone, they came up with some sort of "environmental
impact" speeding ticket for speeds between 55-75, with a cost of
$10 and no points against your license. The feds mandated some
level of enforcement, but Arizona did the minimum amount that let
them keep their highway funding.

Montana fined "speeders" $5.00 for "wasting gasoline."

I think it was Colorado that told the Feds to go jump in a lake and
compensated for the loss of funding by not sending in their fuel taxes
or something, but I wouldn't swear to it.

[Engr Bohn]

Good afternoon,

Hail, Jerry Hollombe! We who are about to post salute you.

Post by Jerry Hollombe
Montana fined "speeders" $5.00 for "wasting gasoline."

[...]

"This was the subject of a comedian's joke a few years back, before
Montana briefly went 'autobahn'. Got pulled over, found out the fine
was $5.00. Handed the police officer a bill, 'Here's a twenty. I'm
going to speed across your whole state.'"

Take care,
cb

[Ed Murphy]

Post by Engr Bohn
Good afternoon,
Hail, Jerry Hollombe! We who are about to post salute you.

Post by Jerry Hollombe
Montana fined "speeders" $5.00 for "wasting gasoline."

[...]
"This was the subject of a comedian's joke a few years back, before
Montana briefly went 'autobahn'. Got pulled over, found out the fine
was $5.00. Handed the police officer a bill, 'Here's a twenty. I'm
going to speed across your whole state.'"

I seem to remember that they (or perhaps another state) also sold
books of ten $5 coupons; when you got pulled over, you just handed
the policeman a coupon and went on your way.

[Lee S. Billings]

Post by Engr Bohn
Good afternoon,
Hail, Jerry Hollombe! We who are about to post salute you.

Post by Jerry Hollombe
Montana fined "speeders" $5.00 for "wasting gasoline."

[...]
"This was the subject of a comedian's joke a few years back, before
Montana briefly went 'autobahn'. Got pulled over, found out the fine
was $5.00. Handed the police officer a bill, 'Here's a twenty. I'm
going to speed across your whole state.'"

Traffic enforcement units on the Oklahoma Reservation carry credit-card
terminals. If you get pulled over for speeding, they can take your fine then
and there.

Celine

[Joyce Melton]

Actually, even without the DOMA, each state was free to decide that
marriages performed in other states were not valid. Even tho it looks
as if the Constitution says that states must honor other states
contracts including marriage, in practice this hasn't been the case.
Courts have ruled in various ways but I don't know if it ever made it
to the SC for a definitive ruling. If it had, I would think we would
have heard about it during this recent debate.

- Erin

[Noah Singman]

Post by Joyce Melton
Actually, even without the DOMA, each state was free to decide that
marriages performed in other states were not valid. Even tho it looks
as if the Constitution says that states must honor other states
contracts including marriage, in practice this hasn't been the case.
Courts have ruled in various ways but I don't know if it ever made it
to the SC for a definitive ruling. If it had, I would think we would
have heard about it during this recent debate.

"Not that it matters too much, but my understanding is that 'full faith and
credit' decisions have generally been reserved for states respecting each
other's judicial decisions, not marriage contracts. There is a possibility
that the Supremes might uphold DOMA. It might even make a good strategy,
since the alternative would fuel the push for a marriage amendment, and DOMA
can alway be revisited later."

Noah

[Joyce Melton]

See Matt's post above for one rationale the SC might use to uphold the
DOMA.

It's certainly not a foregone conclusion as to how it will be ruled,
it might not even be a 5-4 squeaker one way or another.

The SC might use due process as a rationale to over turn DOMA, or
state's rights, or a combination of things.

Or it might use several other parts of the Constitution, or previous
SC rulings, to either overturn or support DOMA.

I can see Scalia and Rehnquist voting to support it with Ginsburg and
Souter voting to overturn it. But of the others, even Thomas, Breyer
and Stevens can't be predicted that easily. O'Connor and Kennedy are
the traditional swing voters and might be seen to be leaning toward
support of the DOMA.

Who knows, it's almost like playing Odds and Evens with nine dice.

[Kris Overstreet]

Post by Joyce Melton
I can see Scalia and Rehnquist voting to support it with Ginsburg and
Souter voting to overturn it. But of the others, even Thomas, Breyer
and Stevens can't be predicted that easily.

Er, I'd see Rehnquist overturning before Thomas, not that either one
(or, indeed, any SCOTUS justice currently sitting) gives a damn for
what the Constitution actually says.

Redneck

[Kris Overstreet]

Post by David Cox
So my question is this: is leaving the decision up to the states a devious
way to sneak around the supposed will of the majority, or it is a legitimate
deferral to state's rights?

Neither. It's ducking the issue.

However, I would point out that our nation was founded on the
principle that there are some things nobody- not government, not
kings, not even any majority or supermajority of the people- should
have the power to control or prohibit.

This has been virtually forgotten today in the age of 'democracy.'

Redneck

[Theodore Jay Miller]

Post by David Cox
So my question is this: is leaving the decision up to the states a devious
way to sneak around the supposed will of the majority, or it is a legitimate
deferral to state's rights?

Well, it is considered legitimate for heterosexual marriages
and divorces. Assume the voters in state A chose stricter
criteria for heterosexual marriage or divorce than voters
in state B did. State A is still required to accept as
legitimate marriages and divorces performed in state B, even
if they didn't follow state A's rules. So I don't see why
it shouldn't be legitimate for homosexual marriages.

[Lee S. Billings]

upernews.com>...

Post by David Cox
So my question is this: is leaving the decision up to the states a devious
way to sneak around the supposed will of the majority, or it is a legitimate
deferral to state's rights?

Well, it is considered legitimate for heterosexual marriages
and divorces. Assume the voters in state A chose stricter
criteria for heterosexual marriage or divorce than voters
in state B did. State A is still required to accept as
legitimate marriages and divorces performed in state B, even
if they didn't follow state A's rules. So I don't see why
it shouldn't be legitimate for homosexual marriages.

Excellent point! cf. Nevada and "quickie divorces"...

Celine

[Joyce Melton]

This is why the DOMA is unlikely to survive a court challenge in even
one state legalizes gay marriages. There have been no other marriages
legal in one US jurisdiction that the feds refuse to recognize, not
even DC's we're married cause we say we're married and we've been
living together for so many years.

- Erin

[Kris Overstreet]

Post by Joyce Melton
This is why the DOMA is unlikely to survive a court challenge in even
one state legalizes gay marriages. There have been no other marriages
legal in one US jurisdiction that the feds refuse to recognize

Slaves were forbidden to marry in most slave states.

IIRC, laws against marriage between blacks and whites were still on
the books into the 1950s or later in many states.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn of other bans on certain marriages
here and there.

Redneck

[David C. Pugh]

Post by Kris Overstreet

Post by Joyce Melton
This is why the DOMA is unlikely to survive a court challenge in even
one state legalizes gay marriages. There have been no other marriages
legal in one US jurisdiction that the feds refuse to recognize

Slaves were forbidden to marry in most slave states.
IIRC, laws against marriage between blacks and whites were still on
the books into the 1950s or later in many states.

Yes, there was, IIRC, a true-story film about one such couple in
Virginia, with the appropriate name of Loving.

Post by Kris Overstreet
It wouldn't surprise me to learn of other bans on certain marriages
here and there.
Redneck

[Prophet]

Post by Theodore Jay Miller
Well, it is considered legitimate for heterosexual marriages
and divorces. Assume the voters in state A chose stricter
criteria for heterosexual marriage or divorce than voters
in state B did. State A is still required to accept as
legitimate marriages and divorces performed in state B, even
if they didn't follow state A's rules. So I don't see why
it shouldn't be legitimate for homosexual marriages.

As has been pointed out by several of us, marriage laws are
upheld in the various states by custom, not by law.
However, I've never heard of a *divorce* not being recognized
in a different state. I wonder if someone has ever tested
that?
I would expect that since a divorce requires a judge's
action/approval, it is more clearly covered by the Full
Faith and Credence clause.