StrangeSox

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 12:43 PM) We should have scrapped the idea of civil marriage a long time ago. The gay marriage debate simply serves as an impetus to bring the issue to the forefront. Weird that marriage equality brings this argument to the forefront for so many when they didn't seem to care much about it before.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) LOL, religion is a belief in something, correct? It's a lot narrower than that. I believe that steak tastes good, but I don't practice the religion of Steakism because of that. I believe that the sun will rise again tomorrow (or really that the earth will continue rotating consistently), but that doesn't mean I pray to a sun god. edit: with a definition that broad, we wouldn't have a thing called "Philosophy" because it'd all just be religion.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 11:59 AM) A 14 year old can file a legal petition to be emancipated and have his/her case heard by a judge, so individual cases are allowed to be considered rather than making a blanket prohibition that has no flexibility. I could be wrong but I don't think a 14 year old can emancipate themselves around age of consent laws. The possible exception would be states that allow marriage that young with parental consent but we're talking pretty extreme edge cases here.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 11:09 AM) My point is that the "close family members" prohibition is a lazy way to get at the real problem, which is adult/child influences that may or may not be familial. My personal opinion is that marriage should be eliminated. Allow consenting adults to "consumate" whatever relationships they want through legal paperwork. I don't see why would should scrape the idea of civil marriage just because gay people can get married as well. Or is my marriage doomed now that my brother is engaged?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 10:53 AM) There are plenty of non-traditional households where children are interacting with lots of people who aren't parents or siblings. I support consistency. Either states have the rights to make restrictions or they don't. States have the powers (people have rights, not states) to make restrictions up to the point that they run afoul of peoples' constitutionally protected rights. States have the power to restrict drinking alcohol to people aged 21 or older. They do not have the power to restrict drinking alcohol to only Hispanic females because it runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause and the state has no arguable reason for doing it (I'd say "rational basis" again but I think the standard a clear race-based policy is strict scrunity; IANAL and only know the basic concepts of these standards of judicial review). There is nothing inconsistent with saying that a state does not have the power to restrict certain citizens' rights with no rational basis but that it does have the power to restrict rights in other cases that meet some sort of rationale standard.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) How is "I don't believe in deities and reject the notion of creative design because science" not a position about the origin/nature/existence of humanity? I think you're being a bit too restrictive here. The first part is a statement on religious belief, not religious belief itself exactly. The second it just basic evolutionary science that has been made by atheist and religious scientists alike.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 11:51 AM) They don't refuse to see it. It's simply not true. well Dawkins and the New Atheist movement do tend to approach their atheism with a sort of zealotry that's just a mirror image of the religious fundamentalism they typically broke away from. edit: but #notallatheists are represented by the Dawkins class.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:42 AM) Can't non-siblings/parents, who might be close friends of the family, also easily groom children for abuse? I'm just saying that once you remove one restriction on marriage, it's very hard legally to justify the rest of them. States either have the right to make restrictions or they don't. Any reason you can find to be against incestual marriage occurs (although possibly less frequently) in other types of marriages. Just so you're aware, this argument is identical to some arguments made against Loving.

It all comes down to whether or not the government can articulate an appropriate legal argument (rational basis/intermediate scrutiny/heightened scrutiny etc.) for the ban. Nothing in Windsor or any of these recent rulings that rely on it lead directly to the idea that no restriction on marriage whatsoever is constitutional. What we've seen over and over in the SSM cases is that the government or the various outside groups arguing the case can't even meet rational basis requirements. It comes down to religious tradition again and again and flimsy arguments about "the children" or procreation that don't stand up to even the weakest examination. eta: I would google some of the legal arguments around incest/polygamy but I'm back at work so

Mountain biking, hiking, Rocky Mountain National Park

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) Not to mention he completely ignores the fact that violent crime is down over the past 3 decades, even AFTER I showed him proof. When it comes to climate change, evidence good, when it comes to actual crime statistics, evidence bad. This is pretty common on local news stations as well. If you just watched those broadcasts, it'd seem like we've got the worst crime rates ever across the entire nation.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:24 AM) You can find lots of hetero- and homo-sexual marriages where there are tons of questions about how much consent is really there. That argument wouldn't hold up in court when trying to defend polygamy or incest. I am not familiar with any actual legal challenges or legal arguments against incest and polygamy bans. I was just throwing some stuff at the wall. But the main point is that just because one form of discrimination or restriction doesn't meet rational basis (or intermediate scrutiny, depending on which ruling you're looking at) doesn't mean every other restriction must also fall.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:12 AM) It is done in the cases of inheritances all of the time. Sure, but what comes to mind is the messy, broken "separate but equal" "we'll just give them Civil Unions and it'll be exactly the same" attempts that have been tried for SSM. We saw over and over again that it wasn't really separate but equal because the rest of the systems relied on civil marriage and how it was defined. Allowing same-sex marriage in Illinois on June 1st didn't require any sort of additional restructuring of government and private policies and definitions. At worst, maybe some forms had to be rewritten to be non gender-specific. After the Wisconsin law was struck down, clerks could immediately begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples without having to worry about any other potential issues. The same couldn't be said for expanding marriage behind two people. Which, again, isn't an argument one way or the other about whether polygamy should be illegal. Just pointing out the clear distinction.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:02 AM) Just wanted to get you on the record as allowing marriages between siblings and parents/children. Many states allow first cousin marriages. Albert Einstein indulged. But one issue is that the immediate-family incestual relationships are often f***ed up power/control situations, especially if you're talking about cross-generational. That's my issue with polygamy as well. It brings into question how much consent really is there. Either way, my point was to highlight the legal standards that actually have to be met for a law. SSM bans fail these legal tests repeatedly. "Ew, it's icky" isn't actually a rational basis that justifies some discriminatory practice.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:02 AM) So we shouldn't change law because it'll require some work? Wasn't there quite a bit of law that needed to be changed to allow same sex marriage? No, not really. Just change "one man and one woman" to "two consenting adults" and everything else remains exactly the same. I don't care one way or the other about a polygamy ban, but I think proponents of one have a much stronger legal argument than anti-SSM people do. But the reality is that the two don't really share that much in common other than both being about marriage.

Possibly. Can you present a rational basis* for keeping them? So far, SSM opponents haven't been able to articulate any rational basis argument, which is one reason they have been losing in court pretty routinely. *though IIRC several of the recent SSM rulings have risen it above a rational basis standard

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jun 8, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) Any recommendations for a good, decently priced tent that will hold up well in thunderstorm conditions? 2- or 3-person tent. Preferable no more than $200-250. I'm not sure I'll find what I'm looking for at that price, but might as well ask some of you experienced folks. I'll be camping at Bonnaroo Music Festival from Thursday-Monday, and the chance of thunderstorms is fairly high. Like 50% on Sat/Sun. The tent that I have is great in good weather, but not so much in rain. Any suggestions are welcome. Get some good tarps.

There's nothing irrational about deciding that a certain civil status can only be conferred on two people. Much of existing law and private policies surrounding legal marriage would have to be reworked to allow for more-than-two-people legal marriages. SS survivors benefits, power of attorney, health insurance policies for you and your spouse, visitation rights and rights to information at hospitals, etc. I don't personally care, and just because something meets a rational basis doesn't mean it's good or correct policy. But there's an obvious difference between a civil arrangement of two people that excludes certain consenting adults and a civil arrangement that's open to any two consenting people but is limited to two.

There's no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from two-person marriages. There is a rational basis for having marriage be a two person arrangement from a civil perspective.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 31, 2014 -> 01:42 PM) Off to Utah tomorrow for a week at Zion and Bryce Canyon Randomly added Capital Reef, grand staircase escalante and cedar breaks the trip as well. The entire state of Utah is beautiful. The great salt lake smells, though.

Windsor really opened the floodgates. I wonder if it will ever even make it to the supreme court at this point if all of the lower courts are issuing similar rulings.

that was a hell of a throw

Off to Utah tomorrow for a week at Zion and Bryce Canyon

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 31, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) literally lol'd

I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton is aware that she can be beaten in a hard-fought presidential primary.