The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew

But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
job. Rod

On May 15, 4:14 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew

But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
job. Rod

As put forward in Brown versus the Kansas Board of Education:

"Separate but equal is inherently unequal"

The court system is there to help keep things orderly and interpret
what is and is not legal. The voters approved a law that the courts
judged went against the state's constitution. Either it was plainly
against the constitution or the defense lawyers didn't do a very good
job. The outcome would have been the same had the voters attempted to
pass a law forbidding a public education to children of rich people.
If it's unconstitutional, it's going to get struck down.

That said, the voters are attempting to put a measure on the ballot to
make it constitutional in California.

I doubt it'll pass, but there is a chance it will.

-Nathan

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:


But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam
job on the planet up my keister.

Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:2f1Xj.3741$LL.757@trnddc04...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:


But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam job
on the planet up my keister.

That would be organized religion and the right-wing religiofacists..

Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.

That's what I'm stressin'.

Dave in Houston

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew

But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
job. Rod




Rod -

Since I allege that I am some form of Constitutional "Originalist"
and do not like people fiddling with a so-called "Living Constitution":

I think you're wrong here as a matter of law. The Equal Protection
clause of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty plain:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the ***equal protection of the laws***. (Emphasis mine.)

It doesn't matter how offensive, immoral, other otherwise yucky people may
view homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the definition of the word
"marriage". This is exactly about whether the law will treat everyone
equally. I would also view any legislative attempt to do an end-around
(pardon the pun) this finding by the court as blatantly un-Constitutional.

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

If it makes you feel any better, by the exact same kind of reasoning,
cultural conservatives and people of religious conviction ought to
be free to openly condemn homosexuality as immoral without living
in fear of being brought up on hate speech charges. Like I said
(well, really the 14th Amendment), *equal* protection...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:2f1Xj.3741$LL.757@trnddc04...
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:


But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam job
on the planet up my keister.

That would be organized religion and the right-wing religiofacists..

There are *way* bigger scams pal:

1) The government is here to help
2) From each according to his ability to each according to their need
3) There is no important teleology to the physical universe
4) Universal healthcare will be cheaper
5) Do it for the children
6) Do it for the common good
7) If it saves just one life
8) Madonna is a musician
9) Noam Chomsky is a deep thinker
10) Rap is music


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Rod & Betty Jo" writes:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew

But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

What intolerance? It's the "bible thumpers" who attempt to apply
their beliefs to everyone else.


Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause.

Typically republican claptrap when they disagree with a court decision.

The supreme court found that the law was in contradiction to the
constitution. The constitution wins. Purely a matter of law.

I think any real American should rejoice in the decision. The state
is refraining from involvment in the affairs of the people, shouldn't
that be the way it is? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a
gay. But don't take your biblical fundamentalism and personal beliefs
and attempt to apply them to the rest of the populace.

scott

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

How about that? We agree on something :-).

But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.

BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

How about that? We agree on something :-).

But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes

How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to
do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO
I think.

they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.

I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:

Age Of Minor Jail Time

17 1 year
16 2 years
15 4 years
14 8 years
13 16 years

Or non linear:

Age Of Minor Jail Time

17 1 year
16 5 years
15 15 years
14 30 years
13 75 years


Something along these lines, with room in the first couple of
years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has
sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until
next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in
any sense).



BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."


Naw. You lefties tell the biggest whoppers I ever heard.
Ducks and runs

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

How about that? We agree on something :-).

But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.

BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."

Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have partnerships,
corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables) are covered by a
bill of sale.
kreegah,
jo4hn

jo4hn wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

How about that? We agree on something :-).

But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever.
Yes
they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an
age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state
have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.

BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the
cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."

Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have partnerships,
corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables) are covered by a
bill of sale.
kreegah,
jo4hn

John -

For the first time in my life, I finally understand "hot" peppers ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"jo4hn" wrote:


Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have
partnerships, corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables)
are covered by a bill of sale.

Did you forget cluster****s?

Lew

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew

But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.


Ah, but don't you know that's not bigotry -- just ask Robatoy. You see
it's OK to attack people who hold religious beliefs (unless they are
islamic, then it's racist).

Just for the record, I don't believe that having laws enacted to enforce
religious viewpoints is a good idea. It a) turns people off to religion
and/or b) it makes people comfortable with a civic righteousness that may
actually do more harm than good by making people think they are doing right
by the Lord.

OTOH, having certain laws that enforce moral codes does make for a more
prosperous and peaceful society. Things like "do not steal", "do not
commit murder" are pretty good ideas regardless of one's religious beliefs.
The idea that adultery may be a bad idea goes beyond just religious
injunctions, it prevents various STD's and maintains the integrity of the
family -- all beneficial to society. Same thing goes for the idea of not
bearing false witness -- preserving peoples' reputations also benefits
society. Same for the idea of coveting, that leads to the idea that "what
is yours should be mine", leading to either a) theft, or b) the idea that
people can elect others to the government to take from some people and give
to them. Respect for parents and authority? Again, that provides for a
peaceful society and good relations among people in that society.

The real problem here is the continuing incrementalism, the more
traditional societal norms are destroyed, the more problems we are going to
see in society.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry Blanchard wrote:

But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.

Whatever? Just leave the sheep out of this - it's difficult to know if
they consent or can be brainwashed. I don't think it's consent when
they say baaaaa-d.

SUMMER DATING + FRIENDSHIP WITH ME..!

Hii.... I'm Hanshika Sathey, from Mumbai..

Make Me your Best Friend

Simple join to my Best Friends List..

http://www.batchmates.com/MGMhome.as...&reflink=21904



Pls Do confirm your account after Regitration.

Thanking you.

Hanshika Sathey,
(Mumbai)

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:2f1Xj.3741$LL.757@trnddc04...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:


But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam job
on the planet up my keister.

Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.

Lew


That's an interesting crock of **** if ever I saw one. You started this
thread Lew, complete with your off-hand jab. None of the very folks you
seem so concerned about had poked their heads out of the fox hole before you
fired your first round, and yet you are whining about them pushing stuff in
your face? Pot... Kettle... Maybe you should just keep your stuff to
yourself. Clearly you're just spoiling for the very fight you profess to
despise.

--

-Mike-

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:6x%Wj.22454$lj.18582@trnddc01...
The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had a
2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew



He he he... So that is how California is going to implement population
control.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex
marriage here in California.

Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had
a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.

Lew
But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA
legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This
is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the
people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even
worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very
comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of
federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court
in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition
might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day
job. Rod




Rod -

Since I allege that I am some form of Constitutional "Originalist"
and do not like people fiddling with a so-called "Living Constitution":

I think you're wrong here as a matter of law. The Equal Protection
clause of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty plain:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the ***equal protection of the laws***. (Emphasis mine.)

It doesn't matter how offensive, immoral, other otherwise yucky people may
view homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the definition of the word
"marriage". This is exactly about whether the law will treat everyone
equally. I would also view any legislative attempt to do an end-around
(pardon the pun) this finding by the court as blatantly un-Constitutional.

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

If it makes you feel any better, by the exact same kind of reasoning,
cultural conservatives and people of religious conviction ought to
be free to openly condemn homosexuality as immoral without living
in fear of being brought up on hate speech charges. Like I said
(well, really the 14th Amendment), *equal* protection...


One coda to the above:

OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:



One coda to the above:

OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.


I agree, but if your some outfit like the Boy Scouts then be ready to suffer
the consequences. There has been an assault against them for years.

--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586

On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:01:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
Something like that.

Well, I don't think anyone supports legal sex with a 10 year old - there's
no gray area there. But it hasn't been that long ago that 14 was
considered the age of consent in several states, and may still be in some
- at 71 I don't keep up with that sort of thing :-).

And what if the male having sex with the 14 year old is himself 14?
Surely that's less of an offense than if he was 40. Maybe your list needs
to be a table :-).

On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.

As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.

And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:01:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
Something like that.

Well, I don't think anyone supports legal sex with a 10 year old - there's
no gray area there. But it hasn't been that long ago that 14 was
considered the age of consent in several states, and may still be in some
- at 71 I don't keep up with that sort of thing :-).

Yeah, but that was when people died at 40 and you needed all the kids
you could have to keep the farm alive. One of the great blessings
of Capitalism, specialization, and industry is that we can live longer
with fewer children, enjoy the children we do have by seeing them
well into their middle age before we die, and not have to resort
to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young. Then again,
there are people I know that I pray *never* have such contact at any
age on the off chance they reproduce, thereby polluting the gene pool.


And what if the male having sex with the 14 year old is himself 14?
Surely that's less of an offense than if he was 40. Maybe your list needs
to be a table :-).


I shudder to contemplate any of the above...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.

As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.

Agreed. If you take a dime of public money, you have to live by
public rules. That means government contractors, schools,
airlines, and so forth.


And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.

Why? Assume that such an institution is wholly private and is not
acting with fraud, force, or threat. How is the government (all of us)
morally entitled to tell them what to do even if they do discriminate
on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc.? I'm not saying that them
doing so is *morally* OK, I'm saying it ought not to be *illegal* -
i.e., Any of the government's business.

See, this is where folks on the progressive left get into the same
bathtub full of very hot water as the conservative religious right. In
both cases, you'd like to see government act to enforce an kind of
"morality" that goes well beyond ensuring that citizens do not
infringe upon each others' liberty (which is a proper role for
government). You want government to get into the "what's good and
what's bad" business and that is just deadly. Why? Because there is
not complete agreement among citizens as to what (moral) good or bad
beyond the preservation of freedom. Tell me what the difference is
between a leftie telling Big Evil Company Inc. that they cannot
discriminate on the basis of race, and a Right Wing Church trying to
enforce their moral code against homosexuality via law? There isn't
any. Both are implicitly forceful acts wherein one group, with a given
moral code, wishes to use the power of government to make others who
do not share that moral code do as they demand.

An excellent example of this can be seen at the moment wherein
government is jamming anti-smoking legislation down the throats of
small, privately owned bars and restaurants. You don't like smoke?
Don't eat or work there. Really simple. Better still, open up a place
of your own and forbid smoking voluntarily. Don't get the government
to be your bully and make everyone else do what you want.

This is why I keep yammering on about why a "Living Constitution" is
such a profoundly evil legal construct. Being free means putting up
with people you don't like, ideas you don't like, and morality you
find noxious. But unless another party's actions actually cause
another citizen harm - and this *always* involves some form of fraud,
force, or threat - it is simply none of your business. The smoking
thing leaps to mind here again. No one forces anyone to go to or work
in a smoking environment. There is simply *no* justification for
government action here. People will argue that because government pays
for part of the healthcare of its elder citizens, it *is* a legitimate
concern of government. But this too is utterly bogus. The government
has no business being *in* the healthcare business in the first place,
certainly not the Federal government anyway.

Do I think racism, as another example, is a horrible moral
malfunction? Absolutely. But I think forcing private sector
institutions to be race neutral at the point of the government gun
causes far more damage than the most vile Klacker ever could. When law
is used as a proxy for "morality", then all you get is the dominant
morality of the moment dictating law. Law ceases to be a neutral point
that binds our freedoms together, and becomes a competition for whose
flavor of the month/year/administration we will be *forced* to follow.
Law is not an instrument for goodness. It is an instrument for
liberty. When you try to use it for the former you will always lose
the latter.




-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.

Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.

Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.

Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.

Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.

Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
in 24 hours after I'm dead.

Mr. D. needs to not confuse the legal concepts of "age of consent",
"age of license", and "age of majority".



Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Tom Watson wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.
Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.

Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.

Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.

Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
in 24 hours after I'm dead.

Mr. D. needs to not confuse the legal concepts of "age of consent",
"age of license", and "age of majority".



Noted.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tom Watson took a can of maroon spray paint on May 16, 2008 05:22 pm and
wrote the following:

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.

Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.

Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.

Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...rime-bill.html

Not anymore, note the phrase "The new law puts Canada's age of consent in
line with those in Britain, Australia and most of the United States"

Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
in 24 hours after I'm dead.

Unrealistic, I think.

--
Lits Slut #9
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.

On May 16, 5:22*pm, Tom Watson wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:51 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

to teenage reproduction. *14 is just plain too young.

Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.

Which may be why some states have the age of consent set at thirteen.

Canuckistanis seem to think 14 is fine.

No longer. 16 now.

Having a sixteen year old daughter, I believe the age should be 24, as
in 24 hours after I'm dead.

I have a 14-year old. She tells us that she doesn't like boys... and
we believe her.
She spends all her babysitting money on Hollister and American Eagle
to look good for herself! Those make-up sessions are for her own
pleasure.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Right.

I already raised 2 girls. I'd like to think successfully. The oldest
just got married at age 27, just last year. That's more like it. 21
would have been fine by me too.
So much of it depends on the individual. Some are old and wise enough
at 18. My sister was. Some are never old and wise enough.

"Swingman" wrote

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young.

Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to
"reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.

And in this day of industrial pollutants and xenoestrogens, the actual age
of reproduction is getting younger and younger.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.

Why? Assume that such an institution is wholly private and is not
acting with fraud, force, or threat. How is the government (all of us)
morally entitled to tell them what to do even if they do discriminate
on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc.? I'm not saying that them
doing so is *morally* OK, I'm saying it ought not to be *illegal* -
i.e., Any of the government's business.

So the private health care system has the right to refuse treatment to
anyone it dislikes or whom it feels will not be a profit opportunity? I
don't think you'll find a lot of support for that viewpoint.

On May 15, 5:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

...



Since I allege that I am some form of Constitutional "Originalist"
and do not like people fiddling with a so-called "Living Constitution":

I think you're wrong here as a matter of law. The Equal Protection
clause of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty plain:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the ***equal protection of the laws***. (Emphasis mine.)

While we are on the subject of the 14th Amendment,
note the separate use of the words 'person' and 'citizen.'
I daresay that an interpretation based on textualism, original
intent, and even Scalia's 'originalism' would be hard pressed
to ignore that.


It doesn't matter how offensive, immoral, other otherwise yucky people may
view homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the definition of the word
"marriage". This is exactly about whether the law will treat everyone
equally. I would also view any legislative attempt to do an end-around
(pardon the pun) this finding by the court as blatantly un-Constitutional.


It is interesting to note that in the aptly named Lovings v Virgina,
the state argued that Virginia's law prohibiting interracial
marriages
did not violate the 14 Amendment because it was just as illegal
for Negroes to marry Caucasians as it was for Caucasians to
marry Negroes. That was 1966.

Now consider the question before the Ninth Circuit, "Is is just as
illegal for a man to marry a man as it is for a woman to marry a
man?" Even the test Virginia's proffered in _Lovings_ fails.

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

Agreed, but those are so many points of involvement of the
state in marriage, that the state can justify setting some sort
of standard for what is a marriage, just as it does for what
is a contract. And therein lies the opportunity for legislators
to impose their preferences, and why we need an independent
judiciary (though Scalia might not agree) to weed them back
out.

If this gets to the USSC, it will be interesting to see what
pedantic gymnastics Scalia will employ in his opinion.
Perhaps he will decide that the original meaning of 'person'
excluded homosexuals...

If it makes you feel any better, by the exact same kind of reasoning,
cultural conservatives and people of religious conviction ought to
be free to openly condemn homosexuality as immoral without living
in fear of being brought up on hate speech charges. Like I said
(well, really the 14th Amendment), *equal* protection...

Indeed.

--

FF

.....
On May 16, 5:00 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

... The Constitution
also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.

As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.

Agreed. If you take a dime of public money, you have to live by
public rules. That means government contractors, schools,
airlines, and so forth.

Oh, and don't forget interstate commerce. Does the air you
breathe cross state lines?

Perhaps more to the point, does the sate have laws governing
insurance, employment, etc etc? If so, must the state not enforce
them consistently with the 24th Amendment? But what does that
mean?

Last I checked, the 14th Amendment stopped at private property
property not open to the public (there is a term of art I am
forgetting
here.). If you want to keep white peopleo ut of your home, fine. A
shopping mall, no. A private club, yes.

Dunno if that is the best place to draw the line, but where ever it
is drawn it is bound to be fuzzy.


An excellent example of this can be seen at the moment wherein
government is jamming anti-smoking legislation down the throats of
small, privately owned bars and restaurants ...

Last I heard, Scalia thought it was fine for the Feds to make it
illegal to grow or smoke locally grown pot, in private. I wonder
if would think it is OK for local governments to prohibit smoking
tobacco in public?

--

FF

On May 15, 4:42 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.

No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam
job on the planet up my keister.

Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.

Lew

Agreed. I was onoce a Baptist, my wife is an SB, and I'm tempted to go
to church tomorrow (not seriously, though) to see what the sonorous
one has to say about the California ruling. He's been preaching
neoconservatism and hatred of Obama and Clinton all along, according
to my wife.

One does wonder why so many Christians are so full of hate when they
are supposedly strong practitioners of a religion of love.

On May 15, 7:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.

In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.

How about that? We agree on something :-).

But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes

How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to
do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO
I think.

they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.

I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:

Age Of Minor Jail Time

17 1 year
16 2 years
15 4 years
14 8 years
13 16 years

Or non linear:

Age Of Minor Jail Time

17 1 year
16 5 years
15 15 years
14 30 years
13 75 years

Something along these lines, with room in the first couple of
years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has
sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until
next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in
any sense).


You might ought to take a better look at some of today's 13 year olds,
and the way they act. But my biggest dislike goes for the guys who
molest toddlers, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of
those. I don't know whether that's more getting caught, or the fact
that the percentage is increasing, but that news is always hard to
take.

On May 16, 7:51 am, Hanshika Sathey wrote:
SUMMER DATING + FRIENDSHIP WITH ME..!

Hii.... I'm Hanshika Sathey, from Mumbai..

Make Me your Best Friend

Simple join to my Best Friends List..

http://www.batchmates.com/MGMhome.as...&reflink=21904

Pls Do confirm your account after Regitration.

Thanking you.

Hanshika Sathey,
(Mumbai)

Just remember to NOT leave those sheep's hind legs stuck in the fence
when you're done.

Charlie Self wrote:
Agreed. I was onoce a Baptist, my wife is an SB, and I'm tempted to go
to church tomorrow (not seriously, though) to see what the sonorous
one has to say about the California ruling. He's been preaching
neoconservatism and hatred of Obama and Clinton all along, according
to my wife.

One does wonder why so many Christians are so full of hate when they
are supposedly strong practitioners of a religion of love.

I'm curious if this "hate" your wonder about is not just moral conviction,
if someone takes a public ethical stand is it always hateful? My
comprehension of religious hate requires something ranging from a Rev.
Wright all the way to a Muslim extremist....interesting enough their message
is less about religion and more in search of a common enemy to unite and
inspire the flock........Incidentally if your wife's minister preaches
politics from the Sunday morning service he should be soundly chastised as
he will likely damage the very institution he champions. The rest of the
week is fair game, although for a healthy church the members should only
know his moral convictions and guess his political views. Rod

Charlie Self wrote:
On May 15, 7:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:03:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
As a root cause matter, the *real* problem here was ever letting the
government get involved in *any* kind of marriage. The only role
government should have in marriage is enforcement of contracts and
property rights - as it would in any other voluntary arrangement
between free citizens and to interdict in the interests of minor
children whose parents are not caring for them. That's it.
In short, so long as adults engage in voluntary, consensual behavior
that is not otherwise fraudulent, forceful, or threatening, they must
be treated as exactly equal before the law.
How about that? We agree on something :-).
But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes
How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to
do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO
I think.

they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those
groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age
below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have
the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average
that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as
a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners
below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think
you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years
in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex
with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years.
Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:

Age Of Minor Jail Time

17 1 year
16 2 years
15 4 years
14 8 years
13 16 years

Or non linear:

Age Of Minor Jail Time

17 1 year
16 5 years
15 15 years
14 30 years
13 75 years

Something along these lines, with room in the first couple of
years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has
sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until
next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in
any sense).


You might ought to take a better look at some of today's 13 year olds,
and the way they act. But my biggest dislike goes for the guys who

That's called the "she was asking for it defense". It's, um, wrong
to have sexual conduct with a 13 yo period.

molest toddlers, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of
those. I don't know whether that's more getting caught, or the fact
that the percentage is increasing, but that news is always hard to
take.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:30 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
Why? Assume that such an institution is wholly private and is not
acting with fraud, force, or threat. How is the government (all of us)
morally entitled to tell them what to do even if they do discriminate
on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc.? I'm not saying that them
doing so is *morally* OK, I'm saying it ought not to be *illegal* -
i.e., Any of the government's business.

So the private health care system has the right to refuse treatment to
anyone it dislikes or whom it feels will not be a profit opportunity? I
don't think you'll find a lot of support for that viewpoint.


Perhaps not, but anything else requires violating someone's freedom.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On May 17, 3:08 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
Agreed. I was onoce a Baptist, my wife is an SB, and I'm tempted to go
to church tomorrow (not seriously, though) to see what the sonorous
one has to say about the California ruling. He's been preaching
neoconservatism and hatred of Obama and Clinton all along, according
to my wife.

One does wonder why so many Christians are so full of hate when they
are supposedly strong practitioners of a religion of love.

I'm curious if this "hate" your wonder about is not just moral conviction,
if someone takes a public ethical stand is it always hateful? My
comprehension of religious hate requires something ranging from a Rev.
Wright all the way to a Muslim extremist....interesting enough their message
is less about religion and more in search of a common enemy to unite and
inspire the flock........Incidentally if your wife's minister preaches
politics from the Sunday morning service he should be soundly chastised as
he will likely damage the very institution he champions. The rest of the
week is fair game, although for a healthy church the members should only
know his moral convictions and guess his political views. Rod

I am not "wondering" about their hate. No normal person turns red in
the face and sprays spit when discussing such things.

Incidentally, that's a small country church where about 99% of the
parishioners think he is not harsh enough.

And you're right, for a healthy church, etc. Do you know much about
Southern Baptists? Unfortunately, far too many of them talk love and
preach and live hate.