I am. But some states also checked for TB, rubella, and sickle-cell. Mostly it was STDs.
Are you sure it was primarily for STD's though? I'm not so certain.I'll defer.
But it does get me wondering why the state/government would care if a married couple shared diseases with each other?
The spread of syphilis was once a very serious issue for public health. It's almost quaint by comparison now, hence a lot of states no longer do blood tests before giving out a marriage license.
|
That is what I have been trying to do in this thread. I'm sorry I have not been more successful.
I think a lot of your posts on this thread have unfortunately been misinterpreted. I think it is because you've hedged your personal views in favor of discussing the legal ramifications (not that I can blame you), which can lead to people reading all sorts of things into where you actually stand on the issue. Example:
If the government cannot distinguish between hetero relationships and homosexual relationships, it also cannot distinguish between hetero relationships and polygamous relationships and, arguable, hetero relationships and bestial relationships.
That can certainly sound like you think the whole thing is a bad idea (since others have used that argument), even though I know that wasn't your point. Hopefully anyone who has read this far in this thread would know better by now.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A popular theme on these threads has been, "granting civil protections to same-sex couples is a good idea, but we need to define what types of relationships we protect, and what types we should not, otherwise there is a slippery slope, etc". Fair enough, but the current state of affairs is that no one in government is doing that. That leads me to believe that people holding that view are not making themselves heard. Policy is being made by gay marriage supporters, who, by virtue of the difficult task they face, have to stay very focused on their issue, and gay marriage opponents, who want to stop the whole process in its tracks. As long as that is the case, the discussion you would like to see is not going to occur.
If you feel like I have described you, then do something about it and change the nature of the dialogue that is occurring right now.
I wouldn't say nobody has been doing that.
Small steps? Maybe. More successful than the 'Gay Marriage' groups? We'll see. Right now the court route has been a 1-1-30 fiasco. I think it's time to move the battle to the legislature. Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire (provided the protections are in place) seem to be a start. IOW, time to switch to Basketball, because the courts have made it the Cleveland Browns of issues.
A little story.
A mother tells her two sons to clean their respective rooms. One son has "special needs" (maybe has down syndrome for example), the other does not. After the son that does not have special needs gets done the mother looks at the job done and says, "I am proud of you, you did a good job." She then kisses him on the forehead. After the son with special needs gets done she looks at the job done and says, "I am so proud of you, you did a great job." She then gives her "special" son a cookie and kisses him on the forehead. The non-"special" son asks, "Why are you punishing me?"
Q: Was the non-"special" son punished?
I wouldn't say nobody has been doing that.Small steps? Maybe. More successful than the 'Gay Marriage' groups? We'll see. Right now the court route has been a 1-1-30 fiasco. I think it's time to move the battle to the legislature. Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire (provided the protections are in place) seem to be a start. IOW, time to switch to Basketball, because the courts have made it the Cleveland Browns of issues.
But it's already been in the legislature, and all over the place. How many "voter initiatives" banning gay marriage have to get through the legislature to make it to a constititional referendum? Quite a few of them.
I don't think the New York court was looking at it that way. Instead I think they were looking at from the perspective of why should the state give special benefits to different sexed couples, not why to deny special benefits to same sexed couples. In fact they said should the legislature choose to adopt same sexed marriages, those would not be against the constitution (state or national) either because the issue is not a constitutional one.
The constitutionality of opposite-sex relationships was raised in the case? That's a new one to me and certainly at odds with Loving v. Virginia's holding that marriage is a basic civil right.
People have sex and this sex does not always take place in a commited relationship. In the case of different sexed couples this can lead to a consequence that is impossible for a same sexed couple, a child. In order to entice mixed sexed couples to then create a stable environment for a child special benefits are given to them in the form of marriage benefits. Same sexed couples don't need the same type of benefits to entice them to create a stable environment because they can't "accidentally" create a child.
This would be a convincing argument if and only if the court also held that interfile couples were also denied marriage benefits and vasectomies and hysterectomies automatically dissolved marriages. But it didn't, did it? So we're right back to zero rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The constitutionality of opposite-sex relationships was raised in the case? That's a new one to me and certainly at odds with Loving v. Virginia's holding that marriage is a basic civil right.
Its constitutionality was raised only in stating that it wasn't a constitutional issue. And Loving did not say there couldn't be any restrictions on the basic right to marry.
This would be a convincing argument if and only if the court also held that interfile couples were also denied marriage benefits and vasectomies and hysterectomies automatically dissolved marriages. But it didn't, did it? So we're right back to zero rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
I already pointed out how the court addressed your concern here.
Of course not all mixed sexed couples have children, but the steps needed to prove that they don't intend to have children or incapable of having children would require an unreasonable intrusion into their privacy.
What you are suggesting is that people would have to go through a medical exam before they could be married. That is clearly a violation of personal privacy.
Its constitutionality was raised only in stating that it wasn't a constitutional issue. And Loving did not say there couldn't be any restrictions on the basic right to marry.
But it did require those restrictions have a rational basis.
What you are suggesting is that people would have to go through a medical exam before they could be married. That is clearly a violation of personal privacy.
What else squares with the insistence that marriage exists for the purpose of childrearing and can be denied a person if they have no such intention? If those steps cannot be taken on privacy grounds, they can't be taken on privacy grounds and are thus moot for all. For all you know, gay couples might want to adopt (lesbian couples could even both visit a sperm bank) and thus are more worthy of the benefits of civil marriage than an infertile straight couple that doesn't by the standard enunciated here. Study after study has shown that we're no less capable parents than straights.
The brute fact is that we don't consider procreation relevant at all in our marriage law when it comes to heterosexuals, so why should it be relevant for homosexuals?
But it did require those restrictions have a rational basis.
Not exactly. They said there had to exist possible rational bases for it. If the only possible basis for it is irrational, then it was a violation.
What else squares with the insistence that marriage exists for the purpose of childrearing and can be denied a person if they have no such intention? If those steps cannot be taken on privacy grounds, they can't be taken on privacy grounds and are thus moot for all. For all you know, gay couples might want to adopt (lesbian couples could even both visit a sperm bank) and thus are more worthy of the benefits of civil marriage than an infertile straight couple that doesn't by the standard enunciated here. Study after study has shown that we're no less capable parents than straights.
We are going around in circles. Nobody is claiming that same-sex couples can't have children, either through artificial means with women or adoption for either men or women. But the court recognized that even in this day and age, that is still not the standard way children are born. And in both of those methods, they can't be entered "on accident", where as two people of the opposite sex can enter parenthood "on accident". Heck a mixed sex couple could get married and have no intention of having children, and then a few years down the road they get pregnant. This is impossible to happen in a same sex union.
And again, this isn't the only reason that may be rational by the court's view. There could be other reasons and again the court said these rational reasons don't have to be even provable.
The brute fact is that we don't consider procreation relevant at all in our marriage law when it comes to heterosexuals, so why should it be relevant for homosexuals?
Why the reason in our current society may no longer be the primary reason why people get married on average, I don't think it can be claimed that it is not relevant to the state's interest in giving marriage benefits (thus making marriage more desirable than it would without benefits).
Look at how the welfare system used to be. Married couples were not rewarded under the system, if fact single mothers were rewarded, so marriage in welfare recipents was damage. And I think there is enough evidence that children raised in that system were by and larged harmed by it.
But it did require those restrictions have a rational basis.Not exactly. They said there had to exist possible rational bases for it. If the only possible basis for it is irrational, then it was a violation.
That's what I'm saying. If no rational basis is offered, or the one offered is not in fact rational, nuke the restriction from orbit and salt the earth it grew in.
We are going around in circles. Nobody is claiming that same-sex couples can't have children, either through artificial means with women or adoption for either men or women. But the court recognized that even in this day and age, that is still not the standard way children are born. And in both of those methods, they can't be entered "on accident", where as two people of the opposite sex can enter parenthood "on accident". Heck a mixed sex couple could get married and have no intention of having children, and then a few years down the road they get pregnant. This is impossible to happen in a same sex union.
This is not a rational case. If this is the reason for marriage, contraception should be barred to married couples. So also marriage for women past menopause would be illegal. Failing the test of reason, nuke from orbit.
If you want to stop going around in circles, the first step would be to cease ignoring points already made.
And again, this isn't the only reason that may be rational by the court's view. There could be other reasons and again the court said these rational reasons don't have to be even provable.
"Trust me, I have my reasons." is not a convincing argument for anything. In fact, it's beneath contempt to use such an argument in the cause of preventing anybody from doing anything whatsoever. The only thing it tells us is that the speaker should be ignored.
Why the reason in our current society may no longer be the primary reason why people get married on average, I don't think it can be claimed that it is not relevant to the state's interest in giving marriage benefits (thus making marriage more desirable than it would without benefits).
If the state has a relevant interest in associating marriage with childrearing, it needs to start doing so. Its behavior reveals that it has no such interest (in fact, in permitting marriage to people past childbearing age, the sterile, and the like, it is demonstrating the opposite: that there is no connection between marriage and childrearing) and thus the claim is simply a pretense, obviously used to justify the imposition of alien religious mores through the offices of said state upon those who wish nothing of them.
Re: The Right to Marriage Debate
I haven't done any research on the subject, but just out of curiosity, what if a heterosexual couple marries, then one of the partners undergoes a sex-change operation making them a homosexual couple? Is the legal status of the marriage affected? And the reverse, what if one of the partners in a homosexual couple has a sex-change making them a heterosexual couple. Can they now marry wihtout issue?
From what I've read, it, like marriage, is considered a state issue. In some states a person after undergoing gender reassignment surgery can have their birth certificate changed with the new gender. In other states they based it on the person's original gender and DNA make up (i.e. if you are XY, you are male irregardless of the condition of your gentials). Certainly if same-sex marriage is recognized, then the issue becomes basically null.
|
No worries, I managed to dredge up some of the more polarizing elements of the debate, and it really shouldn't be a surprise that that's what people are focused on. Sorry if I was being a bastard in my response, I was trying to be polite, but was a little frustrated when I responded.
No problem mate. My fault for breaking my own rules of not posting in a political thread, and not reading the whole thread in detail before I posted.
That's what I'm saying. If no rational basis is offered, or the one offered is not in fact rational, nuke the restriction from orbit and salt the earth it grew in.But it did require those restrictions have a rational basis.Not exactly. They said there had to exist possible rational bases for it. If the only possible basis for it is irrational, then it was a violation.
I'll take a shot at this.
Pres man said that a possible rational bases was needed.
Not that there had to be a rational bases. Just the possibility of one.
Re: The Right to Marriage Debate
I haven't done any research on the subject, but just out of curiosity, what if a heterosexual couple marries, then one of the partners undergoes a sex-change operation making them a homosexual couple? Is the legal status of the marriage affected? And the reverse, what if one of the partners in a homosexual couple has a sex-change making them a heterosexual couple. Can they now marry wihtout issue?
Transgender is a whole 'nother animal.
Before it can be addressed properly, we need to figure out what gender the transgender person is.
But, as pres man said, if marriage was expanded to encompass same sex marriage it wouldn't really matter.
I'll take a shot at this.Pres man said that a possible rational bases was needed.
Not that there had to be a rational bases. Just the possibility of one.
If one can't be delivered, I see no reason to concede that one is possible. The burden is on the state to pony up.
If one can't be delivered, I see no reason to concede that one is possible. The burden is on the state to pony up.
I'll take a shot at this.Pres man said that a possible rational bases was needed.
Not that there had to be a rational bases. Just the possibility of one.
Evidently many state courts disagree with you.
Evidently many state courts disagree with you.
Yeah, they disagreed on Jim Crow too.
Evidently many state courts disagree with you.Yeah, they disagreed on Jim Crow too.
There's the underlying point. A lot of our laws (and other 'rules' in life) are based on 'this is the way it's always been done'. That's the real obstacle. An object at rest...and all that. Change is slow.
There's the underlying point. A lot of our laws (and other 'rules' in life) are based on 'this is the way it's always been done'. That's the real obstacle. An object at rest...and all that. Change is slow.
Plus our system gives exceedingly great power to obstructionist minorities. But these are no good reasons to persist, only explanations for why the change is too slow and the entire system needs a drastic overhaul.
There's the underlying point. A lot of our laws (and other 'rules' in life) are based on 'this is the way it's always been done'. That's the real obstacle. An object at rest...and all that. Change is slow.Plus our system gives exceedingly great power to obstructionist minorities. But these are no good reasons to persist, only explanations for why the change is too slow and the entire system needs a drastic overhaul.
But there's a whole lotta money to be made in dragging it out... *sigh*
But there's a whole lotta money to be made in dragging it out... *sigh*
Of course. God, Guns, and Gays are the main fundraisers for most of a political party and a good chunk of another one.
|
So, on my FLRadio Station, they are discussing that in my town, the local gov't is limiting Garage Sales to only 2-3 days a week. They are trying to cut down on the people having "perpetual garage sales" (garage sales everyday, all year round). Now if it on private property and no one complains, is it right to limit them?
|
|
So, on my FLRadio Station, they are discussing that in my town, the local gov't is limiting Garage Sales to only 2-3 days a week. They are trying to cut down on the people having "perpetual garage sales" (garage sales everyday, all year round). Now if it on private property and no one complains, is it right to limit them?
Actually I think they can limit them. If they are having perpetual yard sales, then they are conceivably operating a buisness, which the government has the legal right to regulate. For example, here in Utah, you have to get an auto dealers liscence if you sell more than three cars in one year. Your town could pass a law that says that to sell items for more than x number of days per week, you must apply for a buisness liscence.
If your town is anything like mine, the majority of people having on-going yard sales are also people who are on some form of government assistance. I say this because I know a lot of the people who do run perpetual yard sales. In those cases I think the government has a right to know if they are being cheated out of money that could better go to someone else.|
|
So, on my FLRadio Station, they are discussing that in my town, the local gov't is limiting Garage Sales to only 2-3 days a week. They are trying to cut down on the people having "perpetual garage sales" (garage sales everyday, all year round). Now if it on private property and no one complains, is it right to limit them?
If "no one complains", then that seems arbitrary. I would think if someone is trying to enact this ordinance, somebody must have complained.
Conceivably, it could be lumped under the justifications for zoning ordinances, in that what one person does with one's property could impact the quality of life and the property value of their neighbors (through increased traffic, noise, etc). Without knowing more specifics about your town, or why these garage sales are a concern, it's just idle speculation.
Perpetual garage/yard sales...
Ohhh, there's a Jeff Foxworthy "You might be a redneck" joke hidden in there somewhere. ;-)