Proposition 8 Has Officially Passed

[Kulindahr]

^ So the notion of morally or legally inappropriate or conflicting associations doesn't come up in your scheme of things?

If consenting adults choose to associate, that is morally appropriate.
The conflicting associations question is interesting, though.

Would, for example, a father be permitted to register a union with his adult and consenting daughter?

If they wanted to put up with the public ridicule, derision, and abuse, why not? Their lives don't belong to us, or to the government, but to themselves.

Would you be able to register multiple unions at the same time? What happens, if the property rights in one union conflict with another or if different participants in the union, or unions, claim child custody? Simply awarding custody to the biological parents isn't always possible or appropriate.

Domestic unions, from captive husbands of Amazons to the companions of the Sacred Band of Thebes, have tended to be exclusive, at least to the point of barring 'membership' in more than one union. Since that whole collection of unions is what we're seeking to emulate, then exclusivity is a reasonable legal requirement.
There is an interesting 'marriage' form I read of once, though, that could permit it. Called "chain marriage", it doesn't follow the associative law as do other forms of group marriage. Consider a group marriage between A, B, C, and D; in one mode, any two members picked out would be married to each other; thus AmB, AmC, AmD, BmC, BmD, and CmD. In a chain marriage, however, only those specifically linked by marriage are married, so while AmB and BmC and CmD may be true, AmC and AmD may not be true (and so on). For that matter, person E can be involved, such that AmB and BmC, but also BmE....

I doubt that's ever been used, but it occurred to me as a way to be semi-exclusive. One would have to declare ahead of time his intent to engage in chain marriage, though.
I'm not terribly convinced it would work, either, unless you had a group of people who were really close, but only felt 'romantically' attracted to some members of the group but not all. It would certainly require the rule that makes any multiple marriage work, if all live in proximity: anyone already involved may veto the addition of new "links".

Lack of international recognition is hardly a step forward for freedom. More a recipe for uncertainty and large legal invoices.

It took a long time for freedom of speech and of the press to be recognized internationally, but it got there. If other nations aren't ready to move forward on freedom, that doesn't mean others should hold back.

 

[Spensed]

^ Your inchoate speculations are based on the theory that freedom of association needs to be unfettered and absolute. It doesn't, it isn't and it won't be.

In the meantime, in the real world, constitutionally protected rights and freedoms will continue to be amended and redefined, hopefully at some point to include same sex marriage.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's nothing "inchoate" about this, nor are they "speculations": this is reality, principles derived from the self-evident fact of self-ownership.

And as usual, you turn away from logic and principle to personal preference.

In the American Revolution, you'd have been a Tory, telling everyone that talk of revolution was "inchoate speculation:, and that we should live in "the real world" and just get along with the king.

 

[Spensed]

^ "Inchoate" because, even on your own case, you have no resolution to "conflicting associations", medically inappropriate incestuous relationships, multiple unions or integration with the recognition of marriage internationally. And those are only some of the obvious problems and impracticalities with your absolutist thinking.

"Speculations" because what you say are your own conjectures. Even your "self-evident fact of self-ownership" is your own subjective assertion. Sure it's possible and even laudable to posit that certain principles are self-evident, but that doesn't make them so. Many societies and individuals wouldn't agree that that is the case.

And our society has specified that certain rights and freedoms are to be protected, not in the unconstrained way you suggest, but within defined terms that can be clarified and amended.

Your reference to the American Revolution is meretricious for at least a few obvious reasons.

Your unfettered version of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms isn't a step forward. It's a movement backwards to undefined concepts where centuries of jurisprudence is pushed aside so that that each caveman can decide for himself what rights are inherent and how conflicting inherent rights are to be resolved.

There is no viable body of potential revolutionaries to support your opinions. You're mumbling in the margins, while, in the real world, the rights and liberties you speak of are amended and redefined.

George III ruled by inherent right. You assert the primacy of inherent rights. If anyone is still fighting "on the side of the ghost and the King", that would more clearly be you. LOL.

 

[Kulindahr]

Now you're resorting to making up lies about my positions, and dealing in multiple falsehoods. It almost always comes to that with you.

The only one I'll bother to correct is your assertion that "our society has specified that certain rights and freedoms are to be protected". That's false -- just read the Constitution, and you'll find that ALL rights are to be protected; they just decided to list a few critical ones.

 

[Spensed]

^ Whether rights are listed, or reserved to the people, doesn't change the point that rights aren't somehow absolute and automatically inherent simply because you, or anyone else, feel(s) they should be.

All rights need to be defined and are limited by a number of things, e.g. their definitions, conflicting and practical implementations, changes, if applicable, and, obviously, judicial interpretation.

Without such definition and limitation, you would have the chaos and uncertainty shown in your own responses.

I may be mistaken and disagree with you. But it’s tellingly over defensive of you to perceive my errors and disagreements as lies and multiple falsehoods.

If your misconceived assertions could withstand critical scrutiny, you’d hardly need to be so peevish and unsubstantive in trying to argue them. LOL.

 

[andysayshi]

Apologies if it's already been posted - but it's worth a second look anyway!

Proposition 8 - The Musical!

 

[Kulindahr]

Apologies if it's already been posted - but it's worth a second look anyway!

Proposition 8 - The Musical!

LOL

I just started a thread with this -- didn't know you'd put it here!

 

[JayHawk]

Hey I didnt know that today was calling in gay day. I dunno if my employer would like that. It may construe telling even if they didnt ask.

Some Houstonians 'calling in gay'
Boycott is over California's gay marriage reversal

 

[HenryReardon]

The only one I'll bother to correct is your assertion that "our society has specified that certain rights and freedoms are to be protected". That's false -- just read the Constitution, and you'll find that ALL rights are to be protected; they just decided to list a few critical ones.

A great many people on the left/liberal side of the aisle think that the Constitution is a document wherein the Government tells the people what they can and cannot do.

In point of fact, the opposite is true - the Constitution is a document wherein the People tells the Government what it absolutely cannot do.

 

[Kulindahr]

A great many people on the left/liberal side of the aisle think that the Constitution is a document wherein the Government tells the people what they can and cannot do.

In point of fact, the opposite is true - the Constitution is a document wherein the People tells the Government what it absolutely cannot do.

More properly, the Constitution is a document in which the people tell the government just exactly what it may do, and all else is forbidden it.

We've sure trampled that principle into the dust!

 

[HenryReardon]

More properly, the Constitution is a document in which the people tell the government just exactly what it may do, and all else is forbidden it.

We've sure trampled that principle into the dust!

I don't know about trampled, but we've certainly stretched it to the breaking point. Where, for example, does the Constitution say that the government can REQUIRE citizens to purchase anything. I'm thinking of health insurance, as at least one state is currently doing, and one or more national politicians is talking about.

 

[Spensed]

....the Constitution is a document wherein the People tells the Government what it absolutely cannot do.

And also what it has the power to do.

 

[opinterph]

... Where, for example, does the Constitution say that the government can REQUIRE citizens to purchase anything. I'm thinking of health insurance, ...

What about auto insurance?

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't know about trampled, but we've certainly stretched it to the breaking point. Where, for example, does the Constitution say that the government can REQUIRE citizens to purchase anything. I'm thinking of health insurance, as at least one state is currently doing, and one or more national politicians is talking about.

The departments represented by over half the cabinet positions aren't authorized in the Constitution -- Try to find the Department of Energy, or Education -- to name some recent additions -- in the enumerated powers.
That's why I say "trampled": we've inverted the commerce clause to make it authorize most anything under the sun, instead of using it for its original purpose of limiting what the federal government can do... and then we just invent other things without looking for constitutional authorization!

 

[Kulindahr]

What about auto insurance?

A legitimate case can be made that since the government owns the roads, they can set conditions for their use.

 

[HenryReardon]

What about auto insurance?

Not the same thing, not even close. In order to legally operate an automobile on public highways you must provide proof of insurance. If you chose not to drive a car on public roads, no insurance is required.

 

[HenryReardon]

And also what it has the power to do.

Which is, after all, very little.

 

[construct]

What about auto insurance?

I don't think there would be any federal problem with states requiring auto liability insurance or health insurance. The U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid states from making such a requirement; so I'm guessing it would be permitted under the 10th Amendment. There might be certain specific areas where federal law would preempt state laws; I'm thinking for example of government benefits controlled by ERISA.

 

[opinterph]

A legitimate case can be made that since the government owns the roads, they can set conditions for their use.

The federal government owns roads serving national forests, parks and dams. State governments own most of the highways between cities and towns and the Interstate highways. Cities and counties own the local roads. [Link]

… Where, for example, does the Constitution say that the government can REQUIRE citizens to purchase … insurance, as at least one state is currently doing, and one or more national politicians is talking about.

What governmental authority requires/regulates auto insurance?

… If you chose not to … , no insurance is required.

I suspect that your complaint is less about the “one state is currently doing” than the prospect of a national mandate.