Hell, I NEVER gave a fuck what they were doing until our current system starting footing the bill (all of which has been laid out and proven).
The system has been footing the bill for all sorts of shit since before any of us were born. In almost any matter of sociopolitical import, one must point how utterly fucked the U.S. gov't is. You even admit as much.
What we want is for the government to fuck out of our day to day business so issues like this aren't issues in any way but social acceptance.
Even in the face of practicality, I say, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." I do not see the logistics as obstacles, but as shit we can untangle to prove our society has the capability to unfuck itself. On a more direct note, I have no reason to actively push this kind of thing, but I've also got no reason to actively deny it.
Edited By Malcolm on 1364507856
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
In the interest of being less hyperbolic (if I am capable of that), I will try analogy instead. But this is essentially a repeat of my last post in different terms.
The primary purpose of good healthy government is to protect the liberty of the citizenry from threats both foreign and domestic. But our government has gone pretty cancerous, and it's purpose is to grow government as much as possible by destroying those liberties. The idea that we should curtail the liberties out of necessity because of the cancer sounds to me like cutting the heart out of the patient because we are afraid the cancer might spread. It defeats the whole purpose of trying to save the patient in the first place.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Jeremy Irons weighs in. He asks an interesting legal question and it looks like he's getting slammed for it.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
That's a valid only if there's currently a trend of father's marrying their daughters to avoid inheritance tax. I haven't heard of that being a widespread problem, myself. But ultimately the problem there would be parents marrying children for tax reasons. The genders don't matter in the slightest.
If it's not a thing, then it's just another stupid comment from someone desperately grasping for reasons to keep the gay man down.
Edited By TPRJones on 1365097157
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TPRJones wrote:That's a valid only if there's currently a trend of father's marrying their daughters to avoid inheritance tax.
His further point is that the anti-incest laws only apply in cases where procreation is in play. It's a vaguely interesting hypothetical "what if..."
I don't think he really cares one way or the other, and the only hint of his psychosis is
"It seems to me that now they're fighting for the name,” he said. “I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that."
Debase != change. And the fight against debasement of marriage went out the window long ago. That's like protesting the results of a pro sports championship game from 50 years ago.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Huh. So if a man gets snipped or if his daughter gets her tubes tied, then they can legally marry? Or if she's on birth control? Or if they promise to always use a condom, then they can legally marry? Or if the daughter is too young to have gone through puberty yet?
That seems unlikely. Or if it's true, those incest laws need some work.
Regardless, it's a pretty crappy reason to support DOMA.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Hmm, the U.S. anti-incest laws seems to include the following relations...
In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include:
Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew
First cousins (in some states)
I don't know of any case where a father has tried to marry his son (or mother tried to wed her daughter), so maybe the rule hasn't been tested yet. Rhode Island has no penalties and New Jersey declares them null and void when everyone's over 18.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones wrote:Huh. So if a man gets snipped or if his daughter gets her tubes tied, then they can legally marry? Or if she's on birth control? Or if they promise to always use a condom, then they can legally marry? Or if the daughter is too young to have gone through puberty yet?
That seems unlikely. Or if it's true, those incest laws need some work.
Regardless, it's a pretty crappy reason to support DOMA.
I don't think the law reads, ".... because the resulting babies could be fucking fucked up." I think it just says, "YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO..."
The law doesn't give a shit, just do as you are told. Even if you are not told, ignorance is no excuse.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Just as the states have constitutional authority to make state policy about marriage, so too Congress should have constitutional authority to pass a federal statute defining a term for federal programs created by federal law ... This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.
What we have here is a constitutional scholar that hasn't read the constitution and doesn't understand how our democracy was meant to work.
This is a loss for federalism, which is good because strong federalism has been horrific for democratic self-government. It should indeed be up to the states to define marriage, because that's how our constitution works.
Although at the same time, equal protection under the law for all citizens would require that those laws eventually all treat all citizens equally instead of screwing over those born differently from the majority, but it will and should be a state-by-state fight and NOT a sweeping mandate from the federal government. SCOTUS got it just right here, for once.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
How the fuck does one equate federalism with self-government? They're virtually opposing.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Bah. You'll have to pry the anti-bud funding from the DEA's cold dead hands.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Bah. You'll have to pry the anti-bud funding from the DEA's cold dead hands.
Yeah, my thought exactly. Hopefully the people getting rich from the WAR ON DRUGS are rich enough and wont fight and/or try to shift focus to keep the free money coming.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
