Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 19:30
VIEWED: 17791
PAGE 15 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Find me that federal definition. Go, boy ! Fetch !
There is the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton.
But the Court in the Virginia case used the word "marriage". Anytime a court uses a term that is not specifically defined in the law then you must delve into the realm of common law for a definition. Marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.
Here is the common law definition...short version...marriage is a contract between a free man and free woman to live their lives in the union that which exists between husband and wives. They must be free, meaning neither slaves, nor already married. They must be able to contract, meaning no minors (without parental permission), no mental infirmaty, sober (except in Vegas), etc. No force or fraud. No immediate family or first cousins (except in West Virginia). There are some other cool things like consumation and vows and such and of course the legal effects, but you get the point.
H
Where does one find this definiton of the common law marriage? I tried wikipedia but it doesn't mention "man & woman".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights. That's not what this is about.
Gay folks already have an equal right to marry.
A gay man is as free to marry a woman as a straight man. Likewise a straight man is barred from entering into a same-sex marriage.
There is no discrimination here, hence no need for additional legislative or judicial protection. The rule is neutral in construction and applies to all persons, not just gay folks.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Here is the common law definition...(...) They must be free, meaning neither slaves, nor already married. They must be able to contract, meaning no minors (without parental permission), no mental infirmaty, sober (except in Vegas), etc.
Is that true, Lawyer-Man?
If it is, I might be able to help a friend out. Although proving to the court that he was stoned all day on his wedding day might be hard to prove today.
I'm sure if she had a good lawyer like you, not only would he miserably lose the case, but he'd probably spend time in the pokey for possession to boot!
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights. That's not what this is about.
Gay folks already have an equal right to marry.
A gay man is as free to marry a woman as a straight man. Likewise a straight man is barred from entering into a same-sex marriage.
There is no discrimination here, hence no need for additional legislative or judicial protection. The rule is neutral in construction and applies to all persons, not just gay folks.
H
Is that like saying white people and black people were equally discriminated from marrying each other? Not really the point, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Where does one find this definiton of the common law marriage? I tried wikipedia but it doesn't mention "man & woman".
I'd suggest a legal treatise on the subject (the subject being Contracts).
Another good source is the Supreme Court. If you find a case, especially an old case...maybe something on polygamy...then a lot of times they will reference the old common law.
When I was researching the Pardon power I found an old Supreme Court case that led me to one Lord Coke writing about the nature of Pardons (for example, they must be delivered and accepted before they are valid...they are not valid when signed) back in the 16th Century or so.
Finding out what things really mean often means either digging through old books or finding sources who have done that digging already. I can tell you that the definition of marriage starts in the Bible, proceeds into the British Common Law, and moves right on into the American courts except where defined by legislation, which most states have done, or in Louisiana (which follows the Napoleonic Code rather then English Common Law).
The truth is, if you want a definition of Marriage then you need to look to the Defense of Marriage Act, the US Supreme Court, the your state's Supreme Court, and your state's laws.
In Ohio marriage is defined by 3101.01(A) of the Ohio revised code:
3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
(A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Is that like saying white people and black people were equally discriminated from marrying each other?
No. Its not like that at all. The black/white issue was one of erasing the distinction between black and white. There is no such distinction here. It is a common mistake to see the gay rights movement as somehow related to Civil rights, legally however, there is no connection.
In this case ALL sides are equally barred from same-sex marriage.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Is that like saying white people and black people were equally discriminated from marrying each other?
No. Its not like that at all. The black/white issue was one of erasing the distinction between black and white. There is no such distinction here. It is a common mistake to see the gay rights movement as somehow related to Civil rights, legally however, there is no connection.
In this case ALL sides are equally barred from same-sex marriage.
H
But isn't this missing the conflict: that heterosexuality and homosexuality are viewed as being distinct - in nature and value. It's not a discrimination of wording but a discrimination of.. spirit, if you will. Homosexual relationships, by being barred from marriage, are being distinguished from heterosexual ones.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But isn't this missing the conflict: that heterosexuality and homosexuality are viewed as being distinct - in nature and value. It's not a discrimination of wording but a discrimination of.. spirit, if you will. Homosexual relationships, by being barred from marriage, are being distinguished from heterosexual ones.
Thats the counter argument.
Many people don't feel that way, thats the political question, one answered in nearly every state as being no distinction.
The legal question is that there is no distinction, marriage is between a man and woman.
I oppose gay marriage on many grounds...legal, moral, political, ethical, survival (of the species).
I support Civil Unions because, as a lawyer, I say there's no reason to bar folks from creating a new form of contract that has many, if not all the same legal effects as a marriage, while reserving the ethical and moral considerations to the realm of "agreeing to disagree". I also see many potential non-gay uses for civil unions.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero:
How would you feel if Civil Unions had MORE government sponsored and/or recognized benefits than "traditional" Church marriages? Would you feel discriminated against then?
Let's say we give same-sex Civil Unions the exclusive rights on adoption, and all church marriages are exempt - since, as 'Rap says, they're only real marriages if children result, so no adoption is necessary. Now would you say there was something "unequal" and discriminatory about such unions?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sure his owners can't even get him to stop peeing on the rug.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Good luck with teachin him that, since several years of harsh realities have failed to.
Looks like Hero grabbed the baton. If AURaptor's desperate and ultimatly arbitrary christian rhetoric wasn't bad enough, Hero is now regurgitating the law without accepting that the laws are what need to change for fairness and light to re-enter the galaxy.
Not one of these sadistic wannabe human rights oppressors understand that if they are forcing an incomplete set of human rights on human beings, it's wrong and bad.
It's not about something being lawful...slavery was lawful...inter racial marriage was unlawful...Women voting was unlawful...not letting the king screw your wife first on your wedding night was unlawful...
History is repleat with shitty unfair laws, and human rights violations.
I think I've already said this but in the future...they'll make inspirational movies like Remember the Titans about the gay/human rights struggle, and control freaky christians will play the bigoted bad guys like the KKK used to in movies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME