Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

False.. my point was that the US did a review on common laws and people rights, rather if it were a 100% review or not, it doesn't matter. I stated that if people cared about SSM as much as they did other topics such as "Taxation without representation", then it would have been addressed. The simple fact that it wasn't addressed (which is just an assumption) or changed was because people didn't care and accepted the common law as a unity between a man and a woman.

Because of this, you can not argue the current law ONLY exists because it was a common law that carried over through years and years of tradition. Doing the time when the U.S constitution was written, common laws and people's rights were addressed, if the law of marriage stayed the same, it was because the US wanted it to stay the same. If there were no rebellion and constitution, you could argue tradition, but that isn't the case, so you were wrong.



There was zero confusion expressed during the conversation between me and catwho. The confusion didn't occur till other posters got involved. I addressed that confusion to clearly state that I would represent a guilty person, but not to get a "not guilty" verdict. That goes back to the original statement of me making that differentiation between the sentence above and defending a guilty person for a "not guilty" verdict. My moral dilemma rested with the latter not the former.

In the possibility of finding out during the trial that your client is guilty, I stated that "you win some and you lose some" in reference of predetermining someone's guilt correctly. I also stated that as a public defender, that I agreed to the aforementioned responsibilities and that you should do your job willfully to the best of your abilities. This means supporting a guilty person. BT stated that the sentence was irrelevant and unrelated.

No, it's because they had no desire to change it. Which isn't the same thing.

There was no active choice, just passive agreement with the common law derived status quo.

Edited, Aug 20th 2010 12:21pm by Jophiel

Yes, seriously.... The fact that people refuse to admit to something so small and irrelevant speaks volumes.



If marriage is a right, then why wasn't SSM addressed in the Bill of Rights? The point still remains that marriage wasn't altered because the people accepted the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. The constitution wasn't written to solely address the taxation without representation. The constitution was the result of the revolution, it was written to set the foundation of the relationship between the government and the citizens, defining their rights as citizens.



You weren't just using a generally accepted term instead of spelling it out. I made the argument that the discrimination was equal because any man regardless of sexuality had the same restrictions as the next man. You countered (with a good attempt I may add) that it wasn't equal because a homosexual person would not be able to marry at all because if s/he married someone of the opposite sex, it would be a sham marriage. You argued that there would be no love involved and it would simply be for the benefits, making it a sham marriage. If you had actually meant "living as husband and wife", you wouldn't have made the argument that it is illegal for a homosexual person to marry, because you know that a homosexual person can marry someone of the opposite sex and live as husband and wife. You were focusing on the point that there was no love involved.



The marriage benefits are incentives for people to get married. I would argue that there are many married people who love each other who mainly got married for the benefits. As long as you meet the criterion of "living as husband and wife" it doesn't matter what your motives are. Sham marriages usually have planned divorces or separate lives, which doesn't fall under the "living as husband and wife".



As anyone can say about anyone else on this forum

I've skipped large swaths of this thread (and am a better person for it) but the original argument here was why government is involved in marriage and the reasoning that the US government is involved in marriage largely because it derived from a parent system in which the government was involved in marriage.

The whole thing about Constitutional rights is a different debate entirely and actually has less to do with the initial writing of the document than it does review of the Constitution after the fact.

This is why people aren't bothering.

I never knew - twenty states allow for marriage between first cousins.

Free sex (it's obvious).

Edit - free sex WHENEVER you want it!



Edited, Aug 20th 2010 8:03pm by Elinda

You know, for someone who writes **** you've got a pretty limited conception of sex. There's far more than just one kink which avoids this problem.

No, but the santorum more than makes up for it.

Personally, when I'm on my period I feel boated and achy and not exactly sexy or in the mood most of the time.

See? No concept of romance. You're killing your husband you know.

Not in the mood? What is he, gay?

Knock yourself out just so long as you're not blocking the TV.