Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rules Against RIAA in DMCA Subpoena Case
JohnTheFisherman writes "My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is great news." We've been following this case for a while.
[...] rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers..
Trolling is a art,
According to this CNN story posted a few minutes back, a U.S. appeals court says that the RIAA's methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law. "The 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit". Note that Verizon suffered setbacks earlier in it's case against the RIAA as reported here
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
First, this is good news but not great. The RIAA can't get subpoenas under these circumstances, but the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional, so the door is not completely shut.
Second, before you ask, this only covers one federal circuit (& the smallest one at that), not the entire nation, but in intellectual property matters what the DC Circuit says usually goes.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
Does anybody know if the ISPs could now be liable if they release thei customers' data without their consent?
Fleur de Sel
Wow, the RIAA ISN'T invincible after all!
What happens to the people who have already been snagged and settled with the RIAA? Are they off the hook?
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Let the frenzied orgy of music downloads begin!
for people who have already settled as a result of prior subpoenas?
You have to hand it to the framers of the constitution.
It seems no matter how badly the executive branch and the legislative branch gum up the works with silly laws and larger than life egos the Judicial system keeps them in check.
Here's the full text of the ruling.
Interestingly, this is the exact same appeals court that overturned the decision against Microsoft. It's good to know that there are cool, compassionate people in charge of the courts who don't listen to which way the prevailing "geek winds" are blowing on e issue or another but instead disspassionately apply the law. It appears that in their mind, the RIAA is as mistaken as Microsoft was innocent.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
What does GWB have to do with it? The DMCA was signed by you man Clinton.
Now if only the ISPs would countersue them... can they?
the RIAA can still subpoena your personal info. they just are prohibited from doing so without first formally filing a lawsuit against every john/jane doe they wish to sue.
The top of the OSI model.
The question will be who will buy more congressmen, the RIAA + MPA, or telecommunications providers.
Well, this is extremely good news. While I think that the file-sharing that occurs on networks such as Kazaa are largely copyright violations, I'm happy to see that the bar has been significantly raised for the RIAA to go after alleged violators.
This ruling will help re-establish anonymity on the internet, as users can worry much less about being identified by a vengeful 3rd party-- be it a record label cracking down on copytright violators, a corporation trying to stifle criticism or a politician trying to un-nerve his opposition. This is a beautiful ruling, and if it stands, its effect will reverberate fare part the file sharing arena.
Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
So Verizon didn't come through with shining colors, but at least the Rediculous Industry Assoc. of America to a hit too. At the very least it means a judge would have to issue a subpoena before any ISP would have to turn over records. And, from what little information is provided in the article, I would have to guess they're going to have a hard time since they tend to make arguements in court that border upon the silly.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
"It unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation." -RIAA Yep, thats it all right, we're PUSHING them to sue.... They dont really want to after all.. CoirNoir
This ruling pertains only to the Verizon case, although it has implications for other current cases. It doesn't apply to cases already settled, especially since they were settled out of court.
Where I work, running P2P in our network is a cause for summary dismissal - it doesn't matter if you're a professor or a student. Zero tolerance.
Judges that know they're not there to make or expand law are the best.
RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders
Excellent! Now I can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing my obsession with Clay Aiken will remain a secret.
Oops.
This is a huge win for networks and ISP's. According to the findings of the lawsuit Companies like Verizon are not responsible for what data travels over their network. This should also effect cases where ISP's were being sued for hosting certain types of websites. While it doesn't overturn the DMCA it is a giant step toward protecting free speach.
I would like to salute the ashes of american flags, and all the fallen leaves filling up shopping bags.
I was getting tired of driving back home to "see the family" to use their high speed in their name instead of mine. What? Their old.. Less time to serve in prison..
I submitted this, but not soon enough.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
It's always been silly, and it's just now dawning on the judges?
This is great news. Incentive, really. Yes, the lawsuit was against Verizon, but I see no reason why other companies (and individuals) shouldn't stand up and challenge a lot of what has been going on. It's not necessarily that our judicial system has been in agreement with the RIAA, it's just that people have had no precedence working for them in a courtside challenge. The question now is, which do we take on: the RIAA, or the DMCA itself?
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
The point is, these subpoenas are issued with little specificty and the targets of them don't find out about them until their ISP informs them. If you are being accused of a crime, you should have the right to discover what the accusations are and to defend yourself. Apart from the rather trollish fact that you compare the copying of music with serious sexual interference with kids, a child molester would be formally charged with a crime before being commanded to appear in court. So he gets a chance to defend himself. The RIAA subpoenas didn't allow that luxury to the targets of them...
...the real problem is Congress. I think the RIAA will just go back to their Congressional, Sonny Bono-style minions on Capitol Hill to get this "fixed", and we will have another silly DMCA II law that covers this situation.
Now if we can keep the entertainment industry(s) from now trying to rewrite the laws and make it legal to supoena without judicial oversight well be set. Yes it would mean they'd move to more overtly sinister means but if so they'd be screwing themselves.
Let us rejoice in this one small/big victory for regular people. You know as big as these lawsuits were supposed to be there's been little if any in the news about them. I think it's more of a campaign of disinformation than anything and some people are weak enough to buy it but most aren't ignorant to what's going on.
Ponder this...how long until we get pulled over by the police for speeding or something else along those lines and they search our vehicles for mps's burned on cdr's? I can just see being in the "bighouse" with a bunch of murderers and rapists and then they ask me what I did. Oh I just burned some Britney Spears song to a cd. What's that Bubba? Do I have to drop 'em and grab my ankles?
Our future police state sounds so much fun!
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
The RIAA will lobby for a new law that allows them to get these records. (As the court wisely notes Congress did not contemplate P2P in 1998) If there was a time to mobilize an effective campaign against such a law, now is the time to do it.
Then DMCA nonsense can be brought to light and this case quoted everytime this stuff comes up.
On the other hand, I run a mailing list for travel agents and although collusion among travel agents is illegal (against the Sherman Antitrust Act) I have the list protected via the DMCA. If a vendor gets his hands on a private email from the mailing list, then it's a violation of DMCA just by possessing it.
Maybe we need to start thinking about ways of using the DMCA to protect ourselves. It's not just for big corporations.
Our courts have been making some good decisions lately. The President is no longer allowed to hold US Citizens on US soil indefinately and without charges, the MA Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage, and now the RIAA is put in its place. Strike down the Patriot Act and the good old USA is almost back on track. Gotta love that glimmer of hope.
We have the Internet now, which is owned by AOL, which exists in Virginia. Which is under the D.C. Circuit Court. Which means that whatever they decide applies to an overwhelming majority of the Internet's core infrastructure.
You must have been thinking of the real world... which is weird, because this is Slashdot.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Two different hearings, with different results. Verizon lost last time, and RIAA lost this time. Now, if it goes to the Supreme Court, we'll find out the real winner, otherwise it's Verizon.
Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
Ok so verizon is arguing that it isn't responsible for what data the users of their service send? that they should only be responsible for data on their servers?
this makes perfect sense to me if i'm reading this right. data is data how is verizon suppose to know what the data is other then the fact that it run on port X and port X is known to be the default port for kazaa.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
if i was correct before why would this seem silly to the judge? loophole? how is it a loophole? does the USPS scan every mail going through it's buildings for copies of music? it seems to me that kazaa was just speeding up the process.
Ok other then the fact that most ISP block port 80 and 21 (among other ports) why doesn't these P2P services just use a well known port to transfer files? then in order to shutdown P2P they would have to shutdown the WWW. if i download a song off a computer of port 80 how would verizon/any ISP know it was a copyrighted song?
After it was accepted by Republican controlled House and Senate.
The moron has been our moron-in-chief now for 4 years. It's about time you start taking responsibility for his bad, bad decisions. You can't blame it all on the previous administration.
I do, however, feel some sort of sympathy with all of you Clinton haters. I never realized before that you really could hate a president so much. Both as a person (religious bigot, weak, stupid) and as the institution (horrific, extremely dangerous foreign policy). After four years of GWB administration I'm beginning to understand the paranoia and hate with which certain people reacted to Clinton administration.
The court did not decide on the constitutionality of obtaining the subpeanas, they simply agreed with Verizons argument that the RIAA did not have the right to obtain them in this particular case. While this does serve as excellent case law for future arguments, it does NOT stop the RIAA from continueing to subpeana other ISPs for information.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
let me know.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
Here it is. The appeals court noted that the drafters of the DMCA didn't forseee P2P technology... otherwise, the outcome may have been different.
> get tea
No Tea: dropped.
That someone with some balls ruled for the common man's privacy. Of course no the RIAA will probably team up with SCO to make everything they do Leagle and important. Wait a sec.. maybe thats the real backer of the SCO lawsuit.. the RIAA. Just a blip in the mind
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
Who said I was defending the Republicans? The democrats/republicans are just different puppets pulled by the same strings.
He came in January 2001... it is now December 2003, explain your math, PLEASE.
In his ruling, the trial judge...warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
This means that the RIAA and others will just lobby Congress, and a law that they can use will be passed.
We're still screwed, privacy-wise, because this development will be temporary.
It smacks upon the ineptness of SCO's management to realize that litigation as a primary means of justifying revenue is a dark room with no way out. Now even Walmart and others have figured out profitable methods of music distribution. It's sad that a retailer embraced it before an agency representing CREATIVE ARTISTS (sorry for yelling). Yes, the Record Labels have been working on their own version, but IMHO they've spent so much time trying to lock it down they got left behind.
I'm surprised there aren't anti-trust lawsuits against the record lables for supressing innovation and forcing flawed products upon us (at artifically inflated prices). Hmmmm...DVD 19$, CD soundtrack $16.....
John
"Don't tell me this is the most distubing post you've seen on
Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."
"Offer the opportunity to settle"...Kinda like offering an olive branch made of pointy steel leaves and covered with anthrax. Now that's a classic worth framing!
GTRacer
127.0.0.1
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional
No, but it did say (in effect) that the DMCA protects the ISPs, because the ISPs aren't hosting the files.
Imagine that! The DMCA, lobbied for by the RIAA is coming around to bite them in the ass!
Gotta love the irony!
From the freep.com article:
"Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation ``makes little sense from a policy standpoint,'' and warned that it ``would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet.'' "
So the judges also told Verizon that part of their arguement was laughable as well.
X steps forward, Y steps back, you fill in the two variables, what do you think?
I think this ruling is like 3 steps forward, 1 step back.
it would deeply disturb me to think that there was someone out there who enjoyed his "singing."
There is nothing RIAA can do about, they are screwed!
Naturally, if this ruling stands, I see no other possible result than to either force the RIAA to do just that--file lawsuits before recieving personal info--, or to stop shaking down end users through threats of multi-million dollar lawsuits.
This isn't an issue of being gay or not, it's an issue of giving everyone equal rights.
Why does it bother YOU if gay people can get married? It's not like they're trying to pass a law that says "straight people can no longer get married; only gays can." Rather, they are trying to give the same rights (mostly financial issues for couples) to gays that straight people currently have.
For the record, I'm straight. I do, however, have several gay friends and will support all types of equal rights legislation. Don't be a closed minded homophobic freak; get to know a gay person. Most of them are nice people.
Elections that will decide whether we'll choose the neocon nightmare for yet another four years or if we'll finally wake up.
I work in Germany and one article in a local major newspaper got it right. It roughly translated as: "On 9/11 America plunged into a psychosis of a nation state". I can only hope we're finally coming back to sanity.
w00t.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It's interesting that Verizon won more or less on a single point. ISPs who discover that people are storing pirated content on their (the ISP's) servers can avoid getting in trouble by "respond[ing] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing." That part of the law hasn't changed.
However, Verizon successfully argued that the responsibility to "remove or disable access to the material" does not apply to ISPs that do not store the data, but instead act as mere conduits through which the pirated files travel. And that's exactly what's going on in the case of P2P file sharing - the illegal file is stored on the pirate's computer, not the ISP's servers.
Verizon argued that under the DMCA, in order for a subpoena to be valid, it has to contain information about infringing material "to be removed or access to which is to be disabled". Verizon argued that it can't remove the material or disable access to it. And since that requirement for issuing a subpoena cannot be met, the subpoena process does not apply to Verizon. The court agreed.
The RIAA unsucessfully argued that Verizon could remove access to the infringing material by simply cutting off access to the pirate, but the judge disagreed that that's what the DMCA was talking about when it uses the phrase "diable access".
From the ruling...
No matter what information the copyright owner may provide, the ISP can neither "remove" nor "disable access to" the infringing material because that material is not stored on the ISP's servers. Verizon can not remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers.
The ruling concludes with some sympathy by the judges for what the RIAA is trying to do, but a refusal to extend the DMCA to technology like P2P that didn't even exist when the DMCA was written. The court said that if the RIAA wants to subpoena ISPs for information about P2P file traders, it will need to get that additional authority from Congress. A good demonstration of judicial restraint, IMHO.
Typical liberal. When you run out of facts (did you ever have any??) you resort to name-calling.
Unfortunately, you'll notice that all of the good, proper rulings have come out of lower courts. The Supreme Court, however, continues to rule foolishly on many issues.
Fuckers.
When asked what the company thought of freedom on the internet a Verizon spokseperson responded:
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
the sacrament of marriage (which by definition can only exist between a man and a woman)
[flame on]
The sacrament of marriage, okay, fine I suppose I can accept that. However, the dispute isn't over sacramental unions, it's over civil unions.
What really gets me about this issue is the right-wing's constant harping about "defense of marriage" (even going so far as to pass a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act." You want to preserve marriage? Outlaw divorce. And start by arresting all the members of congress who've had affairs or divorces.
[/flame off]
IANAL, but it looks like the RIAA's venue change to DC in the SBC Case is about to bite them in the ass hard.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
Microsoft insn't innocent. They have been convicted of abusing their monopoly, and that still stands. The appeals court decided the remedy was not proper (and I think also threw out some claims), but microsoft has been convicted of breaking the law and is not innocent.
That was the TRIAL judge, not the appeals judge.
"I do, however, feel some sort of sympathy with all of you Clinton haters. I never realized before that you really could hate a president so much. Both as a person (religious bigot, weak, stupid) and as the institution (horrific, extremely dangerous foreign policy). After four years of GWB administration I'm beginning to understand the paranoia and hate with which certain people reacted to Clinton administration."
Damn. I'm printing that out and framing it. Describes me to a T.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Everyone does have equal rights right now. Everyone has the right to marry, provided that their partner is of a different gender, isn't already married, isn't directed related, is of the proper age, etc.
The arguments behind allowing people attracted to their own gender to marry each other don't fly. 'The right to marry whoever you choose'? Should they be allowed to marry their brothers/sisters then? What if I choose to marry more then one women, can I do that? But I love them both, don't deny me my civil rights!
"which by definition can only exist between a man and a woman"
And where did you get that definition? You obviously just assume that's what it is. Marriage is a religious, non-religious, and legal convention. Its definition lies in its common usage, just like laguage, since there is no true timeless absolute reference. If the majority of people say that gay marriage is okay, then the legal and religious sides should adjust, just like they did with divorce. Should things change if only the minority wants it? That's a tough question.
First, the opinion can be found here: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinion s/200312/03-7015a.pdf
The basic holding here is that the subpoena provisions of the DMCA only apply to an ISP who is actually storing the allegedly infringing material on its (the ISP's) servers.
They base this holding on a finding that, in the case of file-sharing between users, the ISP is simply acting as a conduit for the transfer of information, and has no control over the transfer or the information sent. Since the subpoena provision has a notice provision in it that requires that the content-provider give the ISP enough information to be able to prevent access to the offending material. Since preventing access is impossible without terminating the offender's internet access, a remedy the court dismissed as inappropriate, the court found satisfaction of the notice provision to be impossible.
The court also ruled that the text of the statute and the legislative history (i.e., comments made and written by Congress as they debated the DMCA before passing it) indicated no awareness of P2P file sharing.
The court ends by stating that it is "not unsympathetic" to the RIAA's "plight", but it leaves the burden on Congress to change the law, if they think it really needs changing. Rough translation: Start winding up the lobbyists, they have work to do.
Is this going to put some staffer out of a $15/week "job"?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
DMCA. PATRIOT ACT. CAN-SPAM. Infinite copyright extension.
Congress doesn't get it. The President doesn't get it. If businesses get it, it won't matter because their interests aren't aligned with ours. If the voters get it, it may not matter if the votes aren't counted right (paperless voting machines).
The only hope is if the judges get it. For the next few elections, I think judicial appointments will be the key factor in who I vote for.
Stories like this give me a little hope.
There's a little bit more to it than just "equal rights". I agree there should be legal civil unions for gays, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You may define it differently, but that doesn't change the truth. We can, and should, pass laws protecting gays who are in a civil union so that their rights as far as taxes, inheritence,insurance, etc can be protected. But don't even try to change what a marriage is.
Yes, shooting people would definitely solve all of our problems. Since guns are so prevalent in our society any way, the US must be the safest country in the world - oh wait, it's not.
Grow up and get a brain.
And supporting gay marriage is important because it's about EQUALITY. Am I only allowed to support racial minority rights if I am a racial minority?
It's close-minded bigots like you that gives right-leaning individuals a bad name.
It seems to me that the gist of the judges' takes are "look, the fact that we don't like this filesharing thing any more than you do doesn't mean that you can twist and turn the present laws for your own purposes. Lobby for better laws, and then we'll talk and we'll probably agree with you."
This language is the most worrisome to me:
The implication is that the present internet architecture is damaging to the music industry, and the music industry's woes have nothing whatsoever to do with fundamental failures to serve the market.
I'm not jumping for joy at this ruling. If anything, it's a short-term gain embedded in language that is entirely slanted towards the industry.
-chuck
Don't get me wrong, the MPAA is just as zealous over IP as the RIAA, but I saw one of those ads before the trailers when I went to see Matrix III.
You know, the advertisements where they get a camera guy that is in an equipment storage shed talking about how pirating hurts the little guy.
Well, damn, I just felt so horrible after the ad was done that I promised myself I wouldn't pirate Matrix III. Then I saw how horrible it was over the next 2 hours and realized something huge:
The movies that I *don't* want to pirate always end up being pure crap. And the movies that I *do* pirate end up being the ones I later buy on DVD when they come out.
Disney's Pirates ... is a great example of this. "The Ring", "Frailty", "Final Destination 1 & 2", and "Signs" are others.
In fact, looking through my DVD library I'm realizing that there are several movies that I just flat out would have never have bought on DVD had I not seen them online. And I certainly wouldn't have seen them in the overpriced and crowded theatres.
So how many people are like me? And what happens to their profits when we *QUIT* catching these hidden gems online?
Should they be allowed to marry their brothers/sisters then?
If you're both adults and not hurting anyone else, why not?
Dang, and here I was thinking I could write up letters to ISPs asking for the names addresses of their customers so I could send them spam. sigh..
I predict many counter-suits against the RIAA.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
No -- that was the original trial judge, not the appeals panel. That original runing has been overturned. (I read it the wrong way at first as well.)
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
The RIAA has run rampant long enough violating all kinds of rights. Time for them to get a taste of their own music.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
What is scary is that, despite one argument 'borders upon the silly.', the case has to go to an appeal court. If it is silly, shouldn't it stopped at first judgement ?
Now watch subscribers who paid up to the RIAA sue the ISPs who handed out their private records.
The Lawyers win again.
My question here is in relation to the infamous 'Comcast DMCA Letters' that I've heard about, where subscribers are notified that they have been found to be hosting copyrighted files, or otherwise breaking the DMCA, through a p2p program (BitTorrent, Emule, etc). The ISP essentially warns the user, "We know who you are, we know what you're doing, now stop it or we'll cut your access before we're held liable."
but with statements like:
No matter what information the copyright owner may provide, the ISP can neither "remove" nor "disable access to" the infringing material because that material is not stored on the ISP's servers. Verizon can not remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers
Doesn't that seem to take the burden from the ISP for making sure that the offending material is removed from the subscriber's system?
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
The Dutch courts have ruled that the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a worldwide analogue of the RIAA), can not sue Kazaa for the transgressions of its users (e.g.). This means Kazaa will be available for legal filesharing, and the recording industry must go after individuals who engage in illegal filesharing.
The Dutch make up about 20% of the world's filesharing individuals, according to the article.
No, seriously. This guy's been paying attention.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
... if you think what they are doing is wrong.
"Civil unions" or whatever.
"Marriage" as viewed by the COURTS is more like a CONTRACT between two people.
"Marriage" as viewed by various churches (but not all of them) is something that [GOD, The GODS, GODDESS] has said is HOLY when performed according to the rules in their holy book.
Big difference there.
If you want to preserve marriage, you start by restricting bad marriages and making other marriages unbreakable and CRIMINALIZING acts that would break a marriage.
Adultry is a CRIME.
Staying out all night with the guys is a CRIME.
Flirting with someone else is a CRIME.
There are no lack of role models for kids of both genders. Gay men and lesbian women don't live in vacuum with only people of one gender. There are aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, teachers, friends, etc. That is the worst arguement I've ever heard. Your arguement also implies that a single father or mother also can't raise children.
If gay marriage bothers you, there is an easy solution: Don't marry someone of the same gender! Other than that, it should have no effect on you. If gay adoption makes you sick there is another easy solution: Don't let a gay couple adopt your kids! Once again you can live your life without it having any effect on you.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
RIAA companies CDs: " What a crappy present!"
The problem with MPAA's approach is that they're showing the trailer to the people that paid to see the movie.
I've heard people say things like "In times like this we have to..." and thats BS. If the rules are only there when its easy, then they don't count for diddily. It is just as important important that Padila get a fair trial as it is that Joe Blow the convenience store robber get one.
Really, if we live in a nation where the ruler can say "he's bad, let's just shoot him, no need for a trial", how is that different from the way Saddam ran things?
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
George Clinton had nothing to do with the DMCA.
Move along... nothing to see here.
This space for rent.
For wireless transmissions thru the air
Artifical Intelligience is no match for natural stupidity.
For one thing, because the potential to abuse "marriage" becomes much higher. Two guys living together and one has a job with health insurance? Tada, they're "life partners" and now the slacker roomate gets cheap healthcare at the expense of the other employees at the firm where dude works.
All kinds of ways to abuse this...
Single parents do, actually, produce unbalanced and confused children.
Other than the social stigma, the main harm in marrying relatives is the health of offsprings. Since gay couples are not likely to procreate any time soon, it's not really a fair comparison.
IANAL
The ISP's aren't compelled to release that information without a court order.
That doesn't mean that they can't release that information if they are asked without a court order.
If anything, those people would have to sue their ISP's for failing to protect their confidentiality, if such was every suggested.
"does the USPS scan every mail going through it's buildings for copies of music?"
Don't know about your post office but mine has a poster up saying that anything containing media may be subject to opening and examination. Said poster contains graphics of a cd, vhs tape, floppy disk etc.
It's a Christian sacrament.
I'm an atheist and I'm married you bumbling moron. Marrige is about love and commitment. Denying it to consenting adults is bigotry.
Ahem how about EQUAL rights for all?
I'm tired of seeing more rights granted to minorities...
Want to be queer? Cool, but be damned sure that if you get married, that you now have the bane of the straight man's existance....
Divorce...
heshe will take everything you got.
Oh and if I have better qualifications that that black guy... I get the FARKING job.
america is not about equal rights, it's about more rights for the minorities...
Obviously, this is a huge win for everyone out there that pirates music, it will make it a lot more difficult for the RIAA to get your name and home address.
More importantly, this is a huge win for ISPs. It restores the security ISPs had been given previously in the 80s from the Communications Act--immunity from their customers. The Communications Act was pushed through Congress by the Bells to make sure they couldn't be sued if someone was using their phone service to do something illegal. Just like the USPS isn't responsible if you use the mail to commit a crime, the phone company shouldn't be responsible if you use the phone to commit a crime. This trial restored the protection ISPs had previously assumed.
ISPs shouldn't be responsible to do jack if you use your Internet connection to commit copyright infringement--without a warrant.
We need to legalize Duels.
Then, Marijuana.
Problem solved.
Settle down there fruit cake. A little backgound information for you. It was Bill Clinton that signed the DMCA into law. Yes I'm aware that it was passed by a Republic controlled House and Senate, but the buck stops with the president. Clinton had veto power, he could have stopped the bill from ever becoming law and he opted not to. Both Republicans and Democrats are respondible for the DCMA and for it's abuses. There are RIAA / MPAA / DCMA advocates on both sides of the isle (Frits Hollings springs to mind on the Democratic side). There are also those on both sides of the isle that oppose the abuses by the RIAA. Norm Coleman (Republican - MN) is having hearings in the Senate on the RIAA tatics.
The bottom line is that both sides are responsible for the DMCA. Peddle your bull shit somwhere else.
Correct? If Comcast decided that it was in their interest to help out the RIAA, could could turn over requested info on their user's names. The article seems to be saying only that an ISP can't be FORCED to reveal the information without a court order signed by a judge.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
yeah, like how a man and a woman who are just friends live together and say their married in an evil secret plot to steal health insurance.... THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN
wud
I completely agree. Marriage is a specific christian tradition that is bound by God and the love of a man and a woman for each other. That is what marriage is.
To be perfectly honest I don't mind homosexuality in the least. I do mind same-sex marriage
Let's call it what it is, a civicl union, mostly to afford them the same financial benefits as regularly married people.
Invent some new term, but don't do something that most people believe to be against the Bible. That is not the way to achieve goals.
Jeremy
how about we abolish marriage all together? Animals were never meant to have life long partnerships mandated by law.
If you want to live your life with someone, so be it, there's no one stopping you... If you want to have 1000 girlfriends, woo for you.
It would end multi-marriages (either from religion or deception). It would end divorce. It would end indiscretion as we see it today.
No one cares about the vows anyway, what's the difference?
"Duuuude, I am sooooo much more stoned than you!"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Mairrage of Convenience, anyone?
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
strongly feel that marriage is a sacrament. It's a Christian sacrament. So you feel that the laws of the country should follow christianity? That makes no sense. There are plenty of people that live here that are in no way christian.
You can base your beliefs on what you feel is right, but why should the rest of the country be forced to agree with you? You believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but not everyone agrees with you. Why should they not be allowed to live as they see fit? Is that somehow hurting you?
I will never understand why people feel an overpowering need to force their religous beliefs on other people. You live by what you feel is right, and I'll live by what I feel is right. The state will make sure that we're not allowed to live in a way that we can hurt each other. Until you can prove that what you believe is right then your religion is no better than mine.
Marrige by your definition, and that of your church, is between a man and a woman. For the larger society it is a legal standing that governs what happens to property, how those individuals are not treated as seperate people under some circumstances, and when authority is automatically delegated when for whatever reason, one of them is unavailable.
There is the sacrement of your church, and the legal framework WHICH PREDATES YOUR CHURCH. (I assume you don't worship any Babylonian Gods of course) Learn to be a big boy and seperate the two. When you start telling people who don't go to your church how to live their lives. I start telling you to shut the fuck up. Because as far as society is concerned they don't really care who the individuals are so long as the protocols are followed and the process works smoothly.
As much as your second comment drifts, it illustrates your specious reasoning. The choice isn't between two moms or two dads and a mom and a dad. It's between nothing but years of horrible abuse, or two daddies and two mommies. Is it ideal? No. Is it better than the alternative? Vastly.
And if you care so damn much, why aren't you adopting 15 kids? Just because you don't want to make it your problem, perhaps rightly so, is no reason to deny others that opportunity to give back.
This is all coming from a straigh guy, who doesn't like seeing guys kiss in public anymore than he likes seeing theism in public schools. But again, not really THEIR problem.
I must say that I agree totally with you on all the points you've made.
Michael C. Hollinger
I don't get your point. How is this any more "abusive" than what can happen now? A guy and a girl living together, one has a job with health insurance. They get married and the slacker other gets cheap healthcare. How is that any better than the situation you described?
If you're against gay marrage, then don't marry a gay person. Other than that, why should it bother you?
You want to preserve marriage? Outlaw divorce. And start by arresting all the members of congress who've had affairs or divorces.
Finally, someone on the left who gets it!
I consider myself pretty conservative on most things, but couldn't give a rat's ass if gay guys and gals get a civil union with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. As a Catholic, I'm against it. But as an American, I firmly believe the government has no place legislating with regards to religion. And *all* of the arguments against gay marriage are religious!
And like you imply, ready made divorces do more harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever will.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Two things:
1) Ashcroft's been pushing out judicial authority in sentencing guidelines, and that has turned even the more moderate of judges (who tend to be, *duh* well educated and well read) against the Bush Administration.
2) Bush tried to pack the courts with neo-conservatives. How would you like it if any decision you make on unconstitutional grounds was overturned because the person in the higher (or equal) court really doesn't give a flying fleck about the constitution?
The courts, for good or ill, tend to be the most educated of the 3 branches of government. This does not mean that they're on the bleeding edge, tech wise, but they DO tend to be quick studies. And since justice moves *slow* by the time it reaches an appeals court, the technical issues DO catch up.
-- Funksaw
The idea that marriage at the civil level should be considered sacramental is ludicrious. You have every right to feel that way about your own marriage but this issue has to do with things like benefits. Why should a gay man or a lesbian woman be denied benefits for their partner when their straight coworkers are not?
And please, no use of religious texts to prove your point because they are in my mind a waste of time because they breed violence and hatred. Oh and if you disagree, why don't you look around.
Are you implying that if the 'slacker' is a woman it suddenly becomes acceptable?!
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Our courts have been making some good decisions lately. The President is no longer allowed to hold US Citizens on US soil indefinately and without charges, the MA Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage, and now the RIAA is put in its place. Strike down the Patriot Act and the good old USA is almost back on track. Gotta love that glimmer of hope.
Props to the Dems for blocking the new right-wing judicial nominees who would rubberstamp all that crap.
wretched hives of scum and villany!
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Because the Slacker would get 50% of the hypothetical industrious individuals assets upon disolution of the union.
1) Gay Marrige
2) ??? But it's there, God told us!
3) Profit !!!
However, the dispute isn't over sacramental unions, it's over civil unions.
Actually, in Massachusetts it was over marriage (sacramental unions). You're thinking of Vermont (which passed a law allowing civil unions). The difference is that many *other* laws will make exceptions for a 'married' couple, but not a 'civil unioned' couple. Thus the gays/lesbians are fighting for 'marriage'.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
"Everyone has the right to marry, provided that their partner is of a different gender..."
That's like saying everyone has freedom of speech as long as they are Republicans. In today's society, marriage has financial, legal, and social benefits attached to it. These benefits are not contingent on producing offspring (though that can have different benefits). Marriage is a legal recognition that two people have chosen to commit to each other in financial, social, and legal ways and have common interests in these areas (such as owning a home, sharing credit and debt, legal guardianship of children, etc.).
There is no argument that can explain why this should only apply to couple made up of a man and a woman. The only thing this provides you with is, in some cases, the potential for offspring. However, not all marriages produce children or will ever, such as the infertile, women past menopause, or those who just don't want to have children. Also, gay couples can have children, though perhaps not a genetic offspring of both (adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.). And that isn't to say that they will never be able to. The potential exists to artificially combine genes of a gay couple to produce an offspring. (Lesbians could only have girls, however.)
If gay couples are to be denied marriage because they cannot directly produce offspring (now), then why aren't all other marriages that can't, or won't? It doesn't hold water. The point is, some people are being denied benefits that others are being given. That is not equal rights at all.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I am not gay and don't have any gay friends (that I know about), though I have had a few gay acquaintences. I'm just cursed with a love of reason and logic, and there's no reason or logic behind denying gays the right to marry.
Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers.
Suing fiber optic manufacturers misses the point.
What does fiber optic cable transmit? Light. And who is responsible for light?
"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light (Genesis 1:3)."
-kgj
-kgj
No. The difference between us is that I live by what God knows is right, you live by what you feel is right.
All kinds of ways to abuse this...
I'm not sure if this is 100% a good thing. We can all agree that downloaing music and sharing it is slightly unethical. Some may still choose to do it.
Now instead of beig able to settle for 5000 out of court, you can bet the RIAA will be upping the amount they sue for to pay for court costs.
Veramocor
Women aren't slackers! They're paid only 73% of what a man makes, how could you NOT expect them to be "motivationally challenged!?"
You're biased against women you racist!
(*Before responsing, one should always make sure they've engaged their hyperbole detector)
I think it's sad that American politics has become so polarized. What is next? Civil war?
whoa there tonto.
staying out all night with the guys is a crime?
so you are saying that if theres a big fight and a guy and his buddies leave their wives behind for the night, drive into the city, go to the fight, and crash at a hotel nearby rather than drive home drunk, they committed a crime?
yes, it is a bad thing to spend all your time away from your spouse, especially if that time is spent doing things like drinking, carousing, etc, but you need a reality check here. you cannot make a blanket law like that, you would make criminals of a great deal of good husbands/wives. for that matter, why must it be a sexist law in the first place, is it ok for someone to be out all night with the girls in your ultra-right wing world? assuming of course there is no flirting.
you cannot criminalize thoughts and such, you cannot legislate how people will live thier lives, that is criminal.
i for one think marraige has become a joke, something that people need 3 tries to get right, without much regard for kids/family/property disrupted along the way. forever has become more like "till death do us part...or after 3-5 years when i can no longer tolerate they way he drives/leaves the seat up/etc...i do" heh
now, should marraiges be unbreakable? no i dont think so, should they require fair cause for termination yes. abuse, neglect, REAL criminal actions, adultery, etc should all be just cause to end a marraige.
as for adultry being a crime, well...it may be a crime against marraige, but i hardly think putting people in jail for it will solve any problems, aside from the problems of enforcing such a law...and of course, to you arrest both parties, or only the married ones? ie if its a married woman and the single pool boy, did he commit a crime boinking her? what if its someone who doesnt know the other is married? good luck with that law. =P
get back to reality and remember that america is supposed to be the land of the (mostly) free.
gg with the ac post too, really shows your support of such a position.
Fuck you, asshole. Marrigae has been aroud much longer, and supported by many more cultures than just you fuck-up "Christians". You people come around and treat age-old ideas like they're brand-new, and that they exclusively belong to you. Idiocy. Fucking idiocy. You all think you're at the goddamned center of the universe. Guess what? Gallelio proved that idea wasn't true A LONG FUCKING TIME AGO. And he died because of it, at the hands of idiots like you.
You want a church and state that aren't seperate? Go to a fundamental muslim county, and have your public stonings. ***WE*** DO NOT WANT YOU HERE. You redneck Texan cocksucker.
Your mama's in hell sucking cocks, and you're next.
Yeah, like Bible-pushing is going to achieve goals.
Are you also suggesting that marriages by non-Christian citizens are not legal? Or marriages performed by a Justice of the Peace?
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So, prior to this judgement, which ISPs already just rolled over on their users and gave up identities to the RIAA?
And which ISPs have been fighting in Court and at least making an effort to protect their users?
When the government recognizes your "marriage", you have certain rights that others do not. The easiest one to explain is "next of kin". If your wife/husband is in an accident, the doctors will let you in to see her/him and you can sign any paperwork needed by the hospital.
The same if you die without leaving a will.
I would LOVE to hear what argument they were referring to as "silly"
anyone know?
Why does everyone have to keep excusing themselves from being gay while defending human rights? It defeats the purpose.
I hate this argument. It builds on past mistakes to justify a misguided future.
....and on and on
Sorry, any argument based on the "God said so" line is flawed - pure and simple. There are too many "Gods" to assume yours is right for everyone. This way of thinking provides us with terrorists.
Marriage, by definition, can only be between a man and a woman.
So call it a civil union and leave the fags alone. I am not gay, but since I use logic to justify my points instead of some rantings in a book of fairy tales, I have to support gay marriage. Is it not possible for to fags to commit to each other permanently? Shouldn't they be able to see their partner if they are in the hospital?
ymmv
The intent of the DMCA's notifcation mechanism, is that the ISP either has to take responsibility for the packets they are transmitting to the rest of the world, or pass the buck to whoever is responsible. In light of that, this ruling appears to subvert the intent of the law.
The issue shouldn't be about who owns a piece of equipment; it should be about who is responsible for that equipment's behavior. DMCA was intended to identify who is responsible for copyright infringement in cases where there is a "common carrier" in the mix. Treating P2P differently than hosting, doesn't make any sense.
This is a victory only by a perverted technicality, using a loophole. It does not mean that the courts have taken pirates' side. If this ruling stands, then the people who passed DMCA are just going to ammend and "clarify" the law.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Any comment yet from the Sinatra estate?
That sounds like an argument FOR gay marriage.
Already certain companies give benefits to life partners and are in theory vulnerable to the scenario above. Allowing gays to marry would remove that "loophole" and would put gays and straights on equal footing. (that is, marriages of convenience could occur but there is a clear legal process instead of this hazy "life partner" designation)
You live by what your mythology tells you, why don't you sit down and really READ the bible. The Tanak, Bible and Quran are responible for all the violence we see in the world, sit down and have a serious read of these texts. This is not a God I would want to worship. God is vengeful, juvenile and at times quite arbitrary. Oh wait, I forgot, people don't like to think for themeselves.
Mandated employer provided health insurance is the problem here. And they like it because it keeps employees tied to their employers. If health insurance were sold on a truly open market all kinds of problems, yours being the least of which, would be solved.
Yeah, because we all know Christians never misinterpret the teachings of God, (Inquisition, burning "witches", Crusades, Slavery).
You might trust in God, but I sure as hell don't trust in your ability to get it right. As well I shouldn't.
Congratulations: you're clueless.
That happens now. It's called a "marriage of convenience". Maybe we should mandate that people can only get married if they "love" each other, hmmm? Maybe you'd like to build the "love" detector to enforce this? Get the fuck out with this "life partners" bullshit. Either everyone has a right to marry, or nobody does OR marriage is for love / godliness / what-the-fuck-ever only and NOBODY gets any special secular benefits like lower insurance, healthcare, etc.
I know you haven't said anything about it so I'm not laying into you personally on this next point, but this goes hand in hand: the idea that we should amend the constitution to ban gay marriages.
What the fuck? We should amend the CONSTITUTION to DISCRIMINATE against people? How convenient! While we're at it, I'd like to amend it so that anybody with an IQ of less than 130 can't vote. I'd also like to see an amendment that anybody who has a religious affiliation can't be part of the government or have any say in it. I'm sure the backers of this amendment idea are all going to jump right up and support me, right? What's that? It wouldn't be fair to discriminate against people based on their choices or on the way they were born? Oops.
Congratulations to all the people who support this ridiulous amendment notion: you're all idiots.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Tada, they're "life partners" and now the slacker roomate gets cheap healthcare at the expense of the other employees at the firm where dude works.
Because simply saying you're gay is no big deal, right?
Voila, I'm "gay" so I can help my friend out with cheap/free benefits. I don't have to worry about how my family will react to it, or my friends, or co-workers.
If I work in child care or education, I don't have to worry about parents who are "concerned" about their children being in my care, or what kind of "message" I'm spreading to them.
I don't have to worry about guys who are so insecure about their sexuality that they take it out on the "fag", or who freak out in the gym locker room.
If I go to church, I don't have to worry about the majority of my social circle ostracizing me (politely, of course). I don't have to worry about the Bible-thumping loony accusing me of being an abomination and saying he's going to pray for my soul.
Because simply saying you're gay is no big deal, right?
Jay (=
It isn't the fault of the gay community that straight people attached a huge pile of legal and civil rules to the institution of marriage. It is too late to go back now and rewrite them.
If you want something that stands for the union of a man and a woman, why don't YOU invent and use that new term, and keep it only for religious purposes.
So, um, people didn't get married before Christianity existed?
Thank God the founder of Protestantism (Henry VIII) was such a role model: of the seven people he married, all were women.
No. The difference between us is that I live by what God knows is right, you live by what you feel is right.
I'm sorry you have been so misled your whole life. You live by a set of rules that were made up to control your actions and thoughts. Do you really think that a "god" that created humanity would want to create a race of hateful people to act as his followers?
I still don't understand why someone who follows "God" feels the need to force such beliefs on everyone else. Does it make you feel like you are doing good? How do you know that what you believe is exactly right and exactly the way that things should be? Perhaps you should continue to live as your god wishes and let everyone else live as they feel is fit.
We want to defend our country, so it is a crime to sell national secrets to other countries.
If you want to defend marriage, then you make the things that are detrimental to marriage, crimes.
This is about The Defense of Marriage. This is not about The Defense of My Night Out With the Guys.
Violence predates the Judeo-Christion idea of God just as Marrige does. Marrige is a social solution to a social problem just laws against murder are.
Christ's cheerleaders should read more broadly I think.
No it doesn't. If people outside of a group speak in support of it, it points to a broader underpinning of what people believe is equitable and just. Free isn't a popularity contest. And Justice shouldn't be.
damnit, six wives - I double-counted an Anne.
"Christian" tradition? Do you live in a cave?
People of Jewish faith get married (hello, *Jesus Christ*'s parents were married). People of Islamic faith get married. ATHEISTS get married.
Noone's saying gays should be allowed to get married in a Catholic church -- that's for Catholics to decide (for example). What they're saying is that the LEGAL STATE of marriage should extend to gay couple as well as straight ones.
I've yet to see a logical objection to that premise. All attempts should consider *in particular* that an atheist, straight couple is perfectly entitled to get married in all 50 states.
Or, put another way, ALL RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE INVALID for this discussion. This is (or should be) a legal discussion, not a moral or religious one.
When you can show how an atheist heterosexual marriage should be allowed but gay marriage should not, you'll have my attention. Reproductive capability is clearly irrelevant, as it's not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
So, you'd rather PAY MORE for the Slacker dude to simply go the ER for healthcare. Where charges can be thousands of dollars a day?
You know what he'll do don't you. As you said, he's a "slacker" so he doesn't have any assets or income. He'll just welch on the debt. You don't think the Hospital CEO takes it out of his paycheck do you? Well, what he does, is charge the people who can pay more - so everyone gets hit with higher bills.
Way to go - you really stopped those lousy slackers in their tracks.
Next Lesson: How to teach flies a real lesson when they land on your foot. Now you've got a use for that 0.357 magnum!
Sheesh.
Cheers,
Greg
That causes some of the responsibility to fall onto him. Don't let any president off the hook, until this law is gone. As GWB himself might say: you're either with us, or against us.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Actually, they're not at the moment in most places.
But the suggestion is that they're not marriages - between two gays, it's not God-sanctioned union between a man and a woman, which has pretty much been the definition of it.
It's only a state (i.e. civic) sanctioned union. Civic union sounds like a pretty good description of it to me.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
So, why should any roomate get free healthcare at the companies expense? There is no reason why single people should not be able to deisgnate other people to receive those benefits, or cash instead.
What makes a spouse or kids any less freeloaders on the company than the roomate?
most likely yes. Imagine how quickly the country would divide if GWB steals another election from the popular vote. Imagine a scandal involving DIEBOLD's electronic voting machines. Imagine another act of terrorism and then even our rights being taken away. I think this would be more than enough to start a civil war or at least mass civil unrest and terrorist acts commited by the american people.
An anonymous coward wrote: A child needs a man and a woman to grow up in a healthy way. Two women or two men can't provide the necessary role models.
So you're saying that children raised by single parents (ie. no mother or no father) are unhealthy? There's obviously a role model missing here (by your standards).
And what about families with abusive parents? Do you really want the children to use them as role models?
If a child is in a loving family with 2 parents dedicated to each other, I fail to see how that is any less healthy than all the "traditional" alternatives.
Since the information about people sharing files was illegaly obtained, does that mean the people who have paid a settlement or are in the process of dealing with the RIAA can tell them to go F themselves?
excelent post; as an add on to your notes on adultry was it justified? Now before I get my throat jumped down about there being no justification for it- I'm going to say 'yes' there is. Alination of affection (IE; one party holding lovemaking ransom) as some sort of barganing chip, in my opinion is 'just' cause for adultry- of course the bigger question is; what is wrong with your relationship/psyce that one party has arrived at the conclusion that to get what they want then will deny themselves and there partner of something they both (presumabally) enjoy. Note: There is a big difference between alination of affection and just not being the mood, normally measured in monthes.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
Some prefer to keep fairy tales and/or schizophrenia out of their philosopical lives...
No way? I've never seen that. Under what pretense do they justify it?
What about all those folks sending in fake documents to Verizon to collect personal details for the purpose identity theft? This judgement ruins their business model. They have children too!
This in itself brings many problems. Similar to that which has been noted in children of divorced couples. Studies have been done on this and I'd link to them if I could, but not everything gets put on-line.
Children benfit from the singular central role models of two parents of opposite sex. Take away either and replace them with a multitude of 'replacement' role models and the children simply get confused.
Too many role models is just as much a problem as none at all.
There is no reason to give the wife life insurance. She is no less a freeloader on the company than the roomate.
Right-minded companies allow single people to get cash in leiu of family coverage, anyway. There is no reason that single people should subsidize their married coworkers...
It looks to me like the appeals court might just have ruled that Verizon is a common carrier.I'm not at all sure this is a good thing. This is why.
I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, under U.S. law common carriers (like the phone company) are legally obligated to provide service to all comers at a reasonable price, and for any legal purpose. They cannot pick and choose their customers. In return, they are shielded from liability for what others do using their service. For example, the phone company isn't liable for fraudulent telemarketing calls because it is a common carrier.
I can think of one possible pitfall right now if ISPs are deemed common carriers. ISPs set their own rules for proper use of their networks -- these are called Authorized Use Policies (AUP) or Terms of Service (TOS). Violations of an ISP's AUP/TOS can and often do result in the violator being disconnected. The most common violators are spammers.
Thanks (NOT!) to the CAN-Spam Act foisted on us by our foolish and venal Congress and President, spam is legal in the United States as of January 1. :( I am no lawyer, but I do not think a common carrier can legally forbid use of its services for *any* legal purpose. So, if ISPs become common carriers, can they continue to ban use of their networks for spamming?
Even worse, if ISPs are deemed common carriers, can they block email that was sent in compliance with U.S. law?
Catherine
Easy, just seperate the 'sacremental unions' (i.e. Marriage) from the civil unions.
Change the process of applying for a 'Marriage license' to applying for a 'Civil Union' license.
If you want to get 'married' do it in a church. And the fags can still get their financial, insurance, etc. benefits. They will still be comdemmed to hell according to the laws of most major religions....
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Excuse me but that's a complete load. My father died when I was young and I was raised by my mother. I am healthy, happily married and gainfully employed. You, (who I presume was raised by a mother and father) are a close-minded homophobe. Interesting.
I think this could be done. If you can't conquer the enemy, join them.
A standarised fee added to your standard broadband fees, just like road tax in fuel prices. And legal access to all RIAA/MPAA copyrighted material. They are obligated to create a 100% valid, working copy of anything they release (may be allowed a week-two delay since shop appearance) in MP3/DIVX/whatever, and publish it on their official P2P server for everyone to download. And everyone who pays for network access, pays (proportionally to bandwidth) a little extra. Fees are collected through ISPs. And ISPs may provide "cheaper lines", P2P-free, for anyone not interested in P2P. The traffic on that networks monitored, or just P2P-specific services blocked on routers, so if you set up a dedicated webserver, you don't pay RIAA for its traffic.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Actually last time I checked all major religions have marriage. but I haven't checked in awhile....
"Sometimes the most intelligent statement is the one that is left unsaid"
I think the point is to legally establish the word "marriage" as a religious and civil union between a man and a women and a "civil union" would be the strictly non-religious method for everybody who doesn't want to be in a religious union, gay or straight.
Excuse me?
Bush can still incarcerate and torture citizen from other countries at will. Do you think it's not a human rights violation if it only affects others and not you?
I, for one, will not visit the US again. Ever.
It's called a democracy, my friend, so we need to hold the people accountable for the actions of their government. Yes it was Bush who signed those laws into power, but you US citizen didn't do anything against that and they didn't throw im out when he seized power illegally without being voted.
given the opportunity, people will steal.
Don't allow anyone under 18 to live somewhere unless there are exactly two adults of differing gender in the same house.
That would fix all of our social ills, right? I'm sure it would wipe out all mental disorder within a generation.
Oh, I'm not exactly a lefty - I'm a very conservative protestant - and I've gotten it for a long time.
(I was thinking - "Wow, a 'righty' who gets it!" *grin*)
It just seems there are a few - well, perhaps more than a few - nutcases who simply want to substitute the "Christian Right" for the Taliban. What kills me, is how they gnash their teeth about the Taliban, but work as hard as possible to introduce the same system here - just with different base values for oppression.
Sheesh.
Kudo's to you sir!
Greg
Because we all know only Christians get married.
Buddhists, Shintoists, Jews, Muslims, Zoastrians, Agnostics, Atheists, modern Druids, Wiccans, et al. never actually marry and / or produce offspring.
Well, seeing as how you're advocating blind religous zealotry you probably do view their silly compacts of fidelity as something other than marriage.
This is off topic derailment of the thread is all about American concepts of marriage, and the last I checked their was a rule specifying something about a seperation of church and state to prevent just such illogical ideas from polluting the lives of its citizenry.
Like it or not, whether your narrow religously bound blindness allows for it or not, marriage as an institution, as a contract with legal ramifications, privileges and responsibilities exists outside of, and irrespective of, religion.
Therefore, any argument against any form of marriage based solely on religious beliefs can, and probably should, be immediately ruled out as a viable one.
Care to try again? Twit?
-H
"If there's anything more important than my ego, I want it caught and shot now." -- Z. Beeblebrox
Grog fer the Star Chamber hath ruled in favor of yea lootin' the booty.
Uh, so citizen of other countries are not entitled to a fair trial? Is that what you are trying to say here?
Simply shooting people is not a complete violation of "everything that this nation stands for" as long as they are not US citizen?!
Sounds vaguely familiar (I'm German). The US truly are the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. A shining beacon of liberty and freedom!
"What good does it do to us if a friggin' terrorist who has admitted being a part of the 9/11 is tried in a civilian court?"
Because the consitution says that American citizens are entitled to due process of law. I know that cramps your style of "proof" and junk like that, but fair minded people are pedantic that way.
Not all arguments against same sexed marriage are religous based. Here's three that aren't:
- The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
- Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
- Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
I have not made up my mind on the subject of same sexed marriage. To me, it isn't an imporant issue .
See this
So what ?
Statistically fatherless kids are much more likely to end up in all sorts of trouble.
I mean it is a common sense.
How is that different than any other day on /.?
"Liberal"doesn't quite cut it try Communist.
Everyone has the right to marry, provided that their partner is of a different gender
Everyone has the right to freedom, provided that they are not niggers.....wha?
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
I would like to throw in a tiny factual statement, though: marriage existed before Christians did. There are many married people in the US (and *gasp* the world) who support the idea of marriage and are not Christians. Marriage may be "sacred" to Christians. Beef is sacred to Hindus. Should we pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting McDonalds? "Eating beef? That's just sick."
Wow you're totally right! White middle-class males have it SO TOUGH nowadays!
WAH!
If whales learn how to use weapons we're all screwed!
Wow, how clever. "Post the first" You even stole your grammar from Gerorge Orwell. You clever thing you.
Don't forget strike down the DMCA, the RIAA is nothing compared with the DMCA itself which must be destroyed.
Actually the argument is quite simple. Our 'rights' are based on our humanity, not our choices. If you believe being gay is rooted in a person's humanity then you would likely favor gay marriage. If you believe that being gay is a choice someone makes then there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
This is why it is illogical to say only those who choose to be Republicans have free speech, and since I believe that homosexuality is a choice why gay marriage is wrong.
No.. Anarchist, Libertarians, etc, have guns as well. Im not liberal or conservative. But I assure you, I have a gun, and will happily gun down conservatives or liberals should they try and enforce their crap upon me personally.
I disagree with you on three points:
The idea of marriage is used in Christianity, but it is used in many religions and cultures. Most of the concepts in Christian marriage come from Christianity's parent religion: Judaism. It, like so many other "Cristian Values" are not in any way unique to Christianity. They tend to be general societal norms.
And I would also argue with your "Marriage, by definition, can only be between a man and a woman" statement. This is your definition.
And finally, I can see that you simply do not understand how children are raised across this country. There are so many children that are being raised by single parents. I would agree that an ideal environment for children would have multiple caregivers, but I disagree strongly that this environment must be only one man and one woman.
If you look at the societies with the healthiest families they most often have extended families. Most often this is associated with the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child". I would argue that two women or two men who love each other raising a child together are going to be far better role models than most (but not all) single parent situations.
I think you are simply too blinded by the way you were raised/indoctrinated to be able to see what really makes a family work. But I respect your right to disagree with me.
In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.'
The court also said the following:
The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry, noting that "stakes are large." But the judges said it was not the role of courts to rewrite the 1998 copyright law, "no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries."
In other words, this was a technical ruling.
The difference with Slashdot between other media outlets is that Slashdot doesn't dare mention the damage to the music industry. It's all a "culture movement," or something.
I used to disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but when I think about this situation, I really do have to wonder. There are people illegally trading music files. The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster). What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again? What do I lose from them doing that? Nobody has ever offered an actual, cohesive argument. It seems like no matter what they do, Slashdotters are against them preventing piracy of their works.
I notice people here seem to be against software piracy. Movie piracy is about 50/50. Music piracy is maybe 90/10. Why? Convenience? I don't get it. It's wrong no matter the files being traded. You didn't pay to get the music. Nobody seems to care that some human beings paid for a studio and recorded the music for a record label that distributed it for them. Instead, it's, "Down with RIAA!"
I just don't get the revolution, I guess.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Nor is there an argument that says it should apply to couples. If gay marriage is OK, why not polygamy? After all, it's only some religions that say marriage has to be between two people.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I'm not a Muslim, or a Mormon outcast. I do have some Muslim friends.
Alrighty, they can have the same legal status as a married staright couple, but they still can't call it a marriage, just because.
Jeremy
Personally, I don't give a damn that two people of same sex want to live together and spend a life together and normally I wouldn't care if they got married.
But the reason I'm against it is because of the next big issue that will surface as a result of all this: child adoption.
I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that even if the parents are loving parents, that both being of the same sex would not have an affect on the child.
I can remember back to many moments of my childhood looking to my father and my mother and seeing how they contributed to the family unit and the way it impacted my life.
In adoption normally, they prefer to give a child to a home of a couple vs a single parent. Why is this? Is it because two heads are better than one? No, it's because of the affects of the maternal and paternal role have on our lives. Now if this rational of a loving couple is better than one loving single parent regarding adoption is true where do same sex couples sit in this hierarchy? Is it opposite sex couples, then same sex, then single parent? If same sex are viewed at the same level as opposite sex couples, then the original assumption regarding adoption is flawed and it's just that two heads are better than one.
Just gonna do a little devil's advocating, even though we're getting further and further off topic.
The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
What about hetero couples who choose not to have children? Should they not be allowed to marry?
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Gay sex and marriage are immoral, as are divorce and infidelity. It's no surprise that a place which has one type of immorality has another. So there may be general society problems causing both, it may not be gay marriage itself destroying values.
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Customs and traditions change as society changes. Why should this one be different than any others?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Future Police State? Look around, the future is now!
Well, what people thought were marriages occured before christianity, but in truth they were heathen unions.
Jeremy
And I prefer blondes. Does that mean my marriage is now annulled because of my choice?
Damn dude, use the (P)review button more often... sheesh.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
a copy of the Court Opinion on PACER (in PDF)
RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services.
Please understand, this is not a judgement of people choices, just an observation about the proper way of doing things (IMHO)
The DMCA passed the Senate with a 97-0 vote. Even if their replacements are anti-RIAA (not very likely), that leaves things at 95-2.
What I'm saying is that you would see a huge jump in the number of "marriage(s) of convenience".
No I don't support them, and if they can be proven, they should be dissolved.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of people cohabitating platonically are opposite sex arrangements, vs. same sex.
oh lighten up, mods.. that was funny.
Either everyone has a right to marry, or nobody does OR marriage is for love / godliness / what-the-fuck-ever only and NOBODY gets any special secular benefits like lower insurance, healthcare, etc.
Here's a little something to think about... why should SOCIETY grant special benefits to anyone but the employee himself, regardless of any attachments (boyfriend/girlfriend, relationship by blood or marriage, etc.) involved? Seriously? I have a nice job with nice benefits. Why should I be able to "force" my company to extend those benefits to a non-employee?
Think about that for a second? Why is it a good idea to force my employer to cover a spouse/live-in/gay partner? Why is it a good idea to force my employer to cover my children, whether I have one or fifty? To wit, WHY DOES SOCIETY HAVE AN INTEREST IN GRANTING SECULAR BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP?
The answer is self-evident, in my opinion, and grows out of our "unenlightened" view of 50 or so years ago... adults are supposed to get married and they are supposed to get married to people of the opposite sex and once married - and not before - they are supposed to have children.
Now, children are an expensive proposition. If a parent stays home, that's one less revenue stream for the family. If the parent works, the children must be sent to day care or the equivalent... which (surprise) costs money! Either way, having children is a horrible economic proposition for the couple. If we assume that all people are greedy bastards, everyone will do the math and decide not to have children.
This, of course, causes a problem for "society" at large because there is no "next generation" of citizens on the way. Society therefore creates a certain set of "Secular Benefits" to mitigate the expense of children.
Thus, from a purely "civil" point of view (leaving religion aside), marriage is, essentially, a social contract between the state and a couple wherein the couple agrees to "bring up the next generation of citizens" and in return, the state agrees to extend certain benefits to the couple to offset the expense incurred therein. The couple is to (a) produce the children and (b) provide a good/stable environment in which those children may be raised (on the theory that children raised in a more or less stable and good environment have the best odds of becoming "good and productive citizens).
Thus, rightly and truly, the "secular benefits" of marriage properly should, from a societal point of view, be DENIED to those who are unable and/or unwilling to fulfill their part of the social contract. I doubt anyone will dispute that a homosexual couple is unable to reproduce on their own - it's a simple point of biological fact. Similarly, couples who marry for the convenience of the secular benefits, but have the expectation of never having children SHOULD BE DENIED THE SECULAR BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE.
In other words, marriage by all rights ought to be "between a man and a woman" (due to the physical necessity of such an arrangement to produce offspring) and the benefits ought to be extended on a provisional basis only, with the requirement that X number of offspring be produced within Y years - or the secular benefits of marriage are terminated.
Furthermore, because children born outside of marriage are presumed to be born outside of the "optimal environment for raising citizens" - because they are not born in a "stable environment" that is presumed to be created by incenting the parents to stay together due to the seculare benefits provided by marriage - those who "endanger" children by fathering or mothering children outside of marriage should be barred from future marriage... because they deliberately put the future generation AT RISK due to their lack of self-control (again, from a societal standpoint). For similar reasons, divorce should not be granted once a child is born; and one could argue that unless the married couple is infertile or one of them "Strays" (thus en
And, by extension, couples who cannot reproduce and those who do not wish to reproduce should not be entitled to the protections of marriage or the legal benefits.
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
And these ease of getting married and divorced in this country doesn't hurt the 'specialness' more? I know of more than a few people that didn't put a whole lot of thought into getting married, and didn't think it was all that special. By contrast, I don't see how letting gay people get married destroys the marriage covenant. Are divorce rates going to be any higher among gays? Are gays automatically predisposed to infidelity? Since some heterosexual people like to swing and have open marriages, should they not be allowed to marry either?
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
This is somewhat true, in the case of a marriage in a church. I don't think any (or very few) gay people are saying that their church should recognise their marriage. I sincerely hope mine doesn't. However, a whole raft of legal benefits have been tacked onto the concept of marriage or 'union' with another. It is simply not right to allow one group to marry and deny that fact to another.
To put your argument another way, Christians should be allowed to marry because they have a tradition or custom of getting married, but Pagans should not, because they follow a different concept of marriage.
-------------------------------------------------
I will never understand why people feel an overpowering need to force their religous beliefs on other people.
Where I come from this kind of behaviour is called multi-level-marketing.
The founder of Protestantism was Martin Luther. He married once.
Henry VIII was a staunch Roman Catholic. He strongly disapproved of Protestantism and Martin Luther. He married, and after being unable to produce a male heir, broke with the Catholic church after the Pope refused him a divoce. He founded the Church of England, and the the concept of separation of church and state was accidentally born. I do not believe he ever married another woman. His daughter "Bloody Mary" gained the throne after his death.
Your point might have been insightful, if not for the fact that it is completely inaccurate. But Slashdot moderators don't care. They ranked you up anyway. Yay for disinformation.
Actually, according to Christian mythology, Jesus was a bastard (given that Mary and God weren't married at the time).
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Most of them are nice people? Are you saying that gay people are more likely to be nice than straight people? Are you saying that most people are nice? I disagree with both.
Come on Helpless Will. I was being mostly sarcastic in saying that marriages are a Christian institution. I honestly don't really give a care. As long as the two are of legal age, mutually consenting, and of sound mind, sure let them marry! Brother, sister, whatever. Marriage at the highest level is a legal status and I don't feel that any couple commited to staying a couple for the rest of their lives should be denied said legal status.
:)
I do think all the standard concepts of Marraige should apply. Till death do you part, you can't easily disolve the union and you are entitled to the exact same benefits of any normal married couple (because you would in fact BE a normal married couple). It is the most simple approach given how complex the laws pertaining to marriage are. Anything else will just muddy the waters. Marriage is just an umbrella term anyway, most religions, and even most people view marriage slightly differently.
So.. in closing CALM DOWN
Jeremy
You have GOT to be kidding me!!! Whether or not you support homosexual marriage is irrelevent. The fact is that the MA Supreme Court subourned the legislative process. The fact that the court (thinks they) can do this should be setting off red flags for every U.S. citizen! Courts have overturned referendums passed by the populace, over ruled laws passed by the Legislative branch for and generally stepped waaay outside the defined role of the Judicial branch in our government. This is a Bad Thing (TM) for our personal individual freedoms, just in case no one is paying attention.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
...according to Yoda
When we separated church and state, marriage should have stayed with the church. You have a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever marriage and that's it. No legalities, no tax breaks, no cheap health insurance. Back when the church ran the state they made rules about marriage that could be enforced. People liked this and carried the rules into the state (the church can't enforce anything anymore). Marriage should be for religious folks to make their commitment before God and their brothers. Not some one sided legal contract that would be laughed out of court if made between anyone except husband and wife.
Don't even start me on the subject of health insurance. Bunch of paper pushing thieves!
Padilla was designated a military combatant which means he might just as well be the enemy. This guy is a former gang member and was arrested while entering the country on his way back from Pakistan. In times of war the President is allowed to detain citizens as "military combatants" for the duration of the conflict.
This policy is not new and goes back to the founding of our country. FDR did it during WWII, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and i believe even George Washington used this power. There is a difference between an ordinary criminal, such as "Joe Blow the convenience store robber," and someone that tries to overthrow the government. The former are tried as civilians in civil court while the latter are tried as military combatants in military court.
This decision strips the president of powers that he was given since the founding of our nation and weakens his ability to protect this country as Commander in Chief. It will be an extremely sad day if this country is attacked again as a result of this court decision.
It's not like the government is going around the country and rounding up people as military combatants. So far there have been only two people arrested as military combatants, Padilla and John Walker, the guy they caught fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Should Walker, a man that was fighting against our troops, be released as well? Or should he be held as a prisoner of war, which is what he is? We have declared war on terrorists and these people should be held as prisoners of war, regardless of their citizenship.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Were the founding fathers right when they permitted slavery and denied women the vote? "Should church and state be separated?" is a valid question, and should be weighed according to the merits of the arguments for and against, not dismissed out of hand because of hero worship.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Point 1) Uh, what about adoption? And should couples who can't conceive (whether by choice or by health) have this legal status revoked? After all, they're not popping out sprogs.
Point 2) Um, what reason, other than religious, might there be for calling marriage "special"?
Point 3) Traditions and customs change over time. Traditionally, women (blacks, native americans) couldn't vote. Things change.
-monique
Dude, I cannot BELIEVE how off-topic you dragged this conversation. PAGES and pages about gay marriage. +5 Troll for you.
-5 Idiot for anyone who moderated a single post in this thread as other than offtopic.
there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
Wow... did you even read what you just wrote? How is allowing one group of people to do something that another group of people already do giving them 'special rights'?
I think IHBT....
- fader
Is this a joke? These are the worst "arguments" (if you can call them that against gay marriage I've heard yet.
- The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
First of all, same-sexed couples CAN adopt kids and raise a family. Many mixed-sex couples CANNOT have kids due to sterility or do NOT WANT kids. Moreover, many same-sexed couples already HAVE kids from previous relationships. Are you sanctioning gay marriage where one couple already has a child? Are you against hetero marriages where one or both couples are sterile or too old to raise children?
This argument is completely without merit.
- Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
I'm not sure what "special" means, but you offer no statistics as far as divorce and infidelity. According to the Center for Disease Control, about 43 percent of straight marriages end in divorce. (further discusson here. Regardless of whether this percentage is higher or lower in gay couples, what relevence does this have? Do you want to ban all marriage because they have a high chance for failure? "Specialness" is not an argument.
- Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Big whup. Slavery was also tradition and custom for the early part of our country's history, and not many people still argue for it. In case you hadn't noticed, traditions and customs tend to change over time.
As far as your "definition"-- defined by whom? The whole debate is about what the word "marriage" can encompass, so using your conclusion ("it's not for gay people") as the premise for your argument is ridiculous. I will argue back, "Marriage is defined as a union between two people who love each other, regardless of their gender". Hence, you are wrong.
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the subpoena process and left that question open. The court also said that there is a giant loophole that remains open. So, until the constitutionality question gets addressed, we're all still in a state of limbo.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Ok, so then we should force all those children who gay couples adopt to live with their single mothers who don't want them, in poverty in foreign countries, or in foster homes.
I will not argue that having gay parents might make the child a little weird, but it's a better situation than what the child was coming from.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Here is the DC Appeals court opinion (in PDF): RIAA v. Verizon Internet.
LOL.
The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
Of course that means that infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, right?
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Define 'specialness' without bringing in religious arguments, please... Besides, this argument can be made against everything, e.g.: Horse-driven carriages are special. Places that allowed motor cars have seen increased traffic accidents. Motor cars take away the specialness of using horses.
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Defined by whom? And what's wrong with redefining things?
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
You're a fucking nerd living in his parents bedroom with a fucking RED RIDER BB GUN that you had to sneak by your parents because they thought you'd shoot your eye out.
You PUSSY.
I'm not sure about present law, but until recently, in Canada, a marriage was not legal, unless it was consumated, the specific wording of the law requiring that "semen be deposited in the vagina", i.e. even mere intercourse was not sufficient to consumate the marriage.
Now it is equally interesting that Canada is in the throws of legalizing marriages among homosexuals, for many of the reasons you outine (i.e. there is no legal basis not to, and sufficient basis to require permitting it), so this consumation law is a bit quaint.
However, I am not aware that it has been struck down, or rescinded.
You could've hired me.
What is the point of calling anyone who disagrees with your position a "closed minded homophobic freak"? The poster was characterizing their moral values, not fear, so the "phobia" part is absurd -- a childish "you don't agree with me 'cause you must be chicken, nya nya nya". And of course the "closed minded ... freak" part is even more ridiculous. How open minded are YOU being to people with alternate viewpoints?
That being said, the underlying reason gay marriage is such a controversial topic is that marriage is of a dual nature, both a religious vow and a legal status, and this topic underscores the dischotomy between the two aspects. We don't argue about gay drivers licences because that is completely a civil matter, or gay baptisms because that is entirely for the church to decide, but a real look at marriage must address both parts. And that can potentially deny someone a legal standing, or make a mockery of one of the oldest religious ceremonies, someone is going to get upset however you handle the issue. Understand why those with different views are upset, rather than dismissing them as "freaks".
Your argument is also incomplete. You have friends who are gay, so you want to extend the concept of marriage in order to include them. But redefining marriage as a union between any two people is just as arbitrary as defining it between a man and a woman. What if someone wants a marriage between a man, his father, two women, a child, and a dead goat? Should the law recognize this union as well, or are you content merely to exchange one arbitrary definition for one you are more comfortable with?
Keep in mind, the ruling did not prevent the RIAA from sueing your arse for making files available for download. It just got a lot more expensive (for the RIAA). They need to file an actual suit as opposed to the simple blackmail scheme they had going until now.
From several different dictionaries marriage:
The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
So, a commonly known and accepted definition is that a same-sex marriage doesn't even have the same legal power as a regular marriage. And here I am arguing for the same legal status for a same sex (common law marriage) and you are bustin my chops? Why fight when we want practically the same thing?
Jeremy
Being christian is a choice too. Is freedom of religion not a right?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you believe that being gay is a choice someone makes then there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
What is so special about the right to marry? It seems that almost everyone has it, except gays...
Also, about homosexuality being a choice:
Asuming you are a straight guy... Did you choose to not be turned on by men, or did it just happen that way? For me, I just get turned on by women, I didn't choose women, my "divining rod" did, I think the idea of choosing what would turn you on is rather hillarious.
Also, why would anyone choose to be gay in our society? Do you know anyone who feels like they are not hated by enough people, or feels they have too many rights?
Lastly, I have a question for you, and please respond, I have asked it of several people and I have never gotten an answer that makes sence, I hope you can explain the views of your side to me (I really would like to understand your thoughts)
How does it hurt you if gay people are aloud to marry? And if you are not personally harmed by them marrying, why work so hard to prevent them from doing so?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Mary *was* married when she had Jesus. So actually no.. you are wrong. A child is not a bastard if it has *A* father at the time of birth.
From Matthew, Chapter 1: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So in closing, nice try!
Jeremy
"Should church and state be separated" is not a valid question, since it a basis of our Constitution and form of government. It's like asking "Should freedom of speech be allowed?" or "Should freedom of religion be allowed?" These questions have already been resolved. Perhaps we can debate the extent to which church and state can be separated, but if you sincerely don't understand why church and state should be separated at all, break out the history books. If you don't have time for that, catch a flight to Tehran. My ad hominem argument was a shortcut to illustrate the fact that a group of men who were studying relevant policy their whole lives and are acknowledged to have produced something thoughtful. What have you been studying your whole life?
I buy my music.
+1, funny.
> If you're against gay marrage, then don't marry a gay person.
That's my new sig
The benefits are not contingent on children, but are based on the assumption that the couple can produce children. For this reason, if gay "marriages" are allowed, I'd like to see it in the form of new legislation authorizing "domestic partnerships." Usurping the currently existing body of legislation built upon the assumed definition of marriage (two people joining to start a family) is not a safe legal practice IMHO. The last time it was done on this scale, corporations became legally recognized as "persons," and we know all the inanity that has caused.
Laws are made to address specific situations. One should think very carefully before assigning en masse an existing set of laws to a situation which is mostly similar but not exactly the same. These things have a way of coming back to bite you in ways you hadn't thought of. I can see the appeal of usurping an existing definition (it leaves no room for double standards), but I would urge caution before proceeding. Legislation through redefinition is a dangerous business.
I was adopted. I am very glad for that fact and sickened that it is so difficult to adopt kids nowadays. It's a greuling process. You are grilled and tested and your whole history is laid flat. And it's expensive -- every time the government raises the tax credit for adoption, adoption costs mysteriously rise as well. Right now, it takes about $25,000 to adopt a kid, all told. People mortgage their homes to get kids. That takes a lot of love -- to potentially destroy your financial security for the sake of welcoming an unguarded child into your life. More love than some natural parents have.
If a gay couple earnestly wants to adopt a child, then there should be no laws against them doing so. There are enough checks and balances in place (including surprise visits from social workers who can come at any time...they used to visit my moms at night to be sure I was in bed) that the possibility of abuse is nearly nil, less than with a natural kid anyway. And as for the issue of role models...there are still aunts, grandmothers, female friends, and tons of other options for children of a male gay couple. Not that it matters...white parents adopt asian children all the time, and these kids don't want for ASIAN role models. Nor is there any evidence (and plenty to the contrary) that children of a gay couple are more likely to be day themselves.
Come on, guys. Kids need good homes. Gay couples can't have their own. It's win-win...and the end result is that adoption looks like a more attractive choice for unplanned pregnancies...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Except that there were no "crimes" involved here...
What the fuck are you smoking? The purpose of the judicial branch is to fucking check the other two branches of government. When the legislature oversteps its bounds, its the fucking purpose of the judiciary to step in and make things right.
The system of checks and balances is what keeps this nation from being destroyed by idiots like you. By not giving any one branch total power, we help protect the health of the republic. You are a fucking tool.
A lot, indeed most of the rights and financial perks assocated with marriage are really about producing children. They are just typically referred to as marriage related because they evolved in a society that believed children should only result from marriage.
With the major reason (from a legislative POV) for children being a next generation large enough to keep society running, artificial reproduction is irrelevant, and will stay irrelevant until the technology reaches a level where cloned kids (or whatever) start making up a significant part of the workforce that has to pay for such benefits as social security for their elders.
Then there's privacy issues. The society can tell that a gay couple can't naturally reproduce without having to run tests on them, but to determine (for legal purposes) that a heterosexual couple is infertile would require forcing them to disclose the results of medical tests, or even to take those tests. The more non-reproductive couples benefitting from the supposed advantages of marriage, the more pressure it puts on the society to instead violate privacy, as part of a new strategy of only extending those benefits to genuine reproducers.
Of course, this could lead to a system where a gay couple raising a child counted as reproducers and got benefits, while one that wasn't didn't. In the same way, the system could be changed so that potential reproduction would't count for any advantages, just actual reproduction. This would be a form of more equal rights, and might even be a good idea, but it means far, far more than just changing the marriage laws.
Genetic parentage would be irrelevant, just who was paying to get the offspring into the world and raise it to the point where it contributes to society. There are some ethical advantages to that principle, but it creates strange changes in a lot of laws, not just marriage.
Picture a first time home buyer. Under such a system, they can only get Federal income tax credit if they wait until they already have a child (or at least one of them is bearing one), before they buy the house. The IRS could have a rule that you have to get pregnant or adopt in the same year if you want to get a first time home buyer's deduction that year. Now society is penalizing planning ahead to prepare a nuturing environment, for many reproducers.
Or what about the legal status of a couple (or single parent, for that matter) whose sole minor offspring commits a major crime and so appears unlikely to ever become a contributer to society. He goes to prison at 15, and they lose their housing write off unless they get another offspring. (and we have better than usual cause to think just maybe they shouldn't be the ones raising kids) Parents whose sole child has just died at age 7 may find they can't afford their existing lifestyle unless they adopt or become foster parents within the year (and the foster home system, already deeply flawed, gains more financial pressure to pick bad foster parents who are just in it for the money).
Personally, I'll support marriage for just about anybody who claims to want it, with maybe a few exemptions for things such as incestuous unions, with incest defined by relationships close enough for there to be genetic consequences. (Heck, let's take the arguement to an extreme. If a group of wife swappers wants to set up a system to make sure all their collective kids get college, let's say go for it. If all the wives of that guy in Utah gave adult consent, fine, let's call that a marriage too).
Now, how do you make the changes in society to allow it without imposing some serious burdens on the more conventional majority of reproducers, and thus shooting ourselves in our collective feet when we get old enough to collect Social Security, or a young healthy population to fight a war, or whatever comes up that we need a few million not too disfunctional young people?
Who is John Cabal?
for your hatred of "fags" so you will.
enjoy the eternity. being raped by the devil
...and since I believe that homosexuality is a choice...
Whether you believe it's a choice or not is irrelevant. The truth is, it obviously either a) is a choice, or b) is not a choice. It comes down to fact, not belief or opinion. And since you're obviously not gay, you're not really qualified to state which of the above possible facts is true.
Not to mention that's a foolish notion. Why would someone choose to be gay? Lack of equal rights, daily persecution, alienation, even getting murdered for it, and all for what? Nothing. We don't get anything out of being gay. It's a rather large emotional burden with no payoff.
ALL RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE INVALID This is untrue. Laviticus 18 specifically states that "a man shall not lie with another man, as he lies with a woman". (This can be taken for both genders)
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
...response...
...response...
Customs and traditions change as society changes. Why should this one be different than any others?
An even better arguement is: If it's a tradition or custom, why does it guarantee special protections under the law? Why do married couples pay less taxes than unmarried couples? Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies? Why can married couples qualify for lower interest rates on house loans.
If it's tradition, let's leave the corporations and government out of it, and make it the sole realm of the churches.
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Gay sex and marriage are immoral, as are divorce and infidelity. It's no surprise that a place which has one type of immorality has another. So there may be general society problems causing both, it may not be gay marriage itself destroying values.
Gay sex is immoral? How is it any more immoral than straight couples doing it in the butt? Huh? If marriage creates morality out of immorality (ok sex where there was immoral pre-marital sex), then why deny this to gays?
Look, the arguement is "marriage is blah, special, a sacrement, this, that, the other thing". Fine. Whatever. Call that marriage, and call equal protection for couples under the law "civil union".
The arguement stands like thus:
Conservative Preacher: "Gay marriage would ruin the specialness of marriage"
Gays: "Fine, whatever, don't call it marriage. In the mean time, we have a loving, monomogous relationship, and your laws are costing us a lot of money that we wouldn't have to otherwise pay if we were like you".
Conservative Preacher: "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman."
Gays: "Dude. Don't call it marriage if it makes you feel better. Whatever. But, whatever the civil, protected by US law equivilancy is, we'd like to have that".
Conservative Preacher: "Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage."
Gays: "How does the ability of two people to have children relate to their home loan interest rate? To their need to pay more taxes? To their need for more expensive health insurance (no children should mean less expensive health insurance)?"
Whatever. Every arguement I've heard against gay marriage goes back to the definition of marriage, which is defined in an anti-gay religious sense. However, somehow this has been extended to the law, and it's just stupid. There are 2 parts to a union-between-two-people. One is the part that the church, god, and your parents will recognize. The other is the one that the IRS, blue cross/blue shield, and Century21 will recognize. All that most gay people want is the 2nd part, and they're even willing to not call it marriage, opting for calling it what it really is, a "civil" (or having to do with the law) "union" (partnership of two people).
~Will
sig?
If torture bothers you, there is an easy solution: Don't torture anyone! Other than that, it should have no effect on you. If torture makes you sick there is another easy solution: Don't let your kids get tortured! Once again you can live your life without it having any effect on you.
What they're saying is that the LEGAL STATE of marriage should extend to gay couple as well as straight ones. I've yet to see a logical objection to that premise.
I've yet to see a logical explanation as to why the government cares at all about who is married to whom. IMO, the whole problem would just go away if we got rid of marriage licenses, different taxation for married couples, different rules for asset ownership by married couples and all the rest of that claptrap.
Who people choose to live with, sleep with, share their incomes with, etc., is no one's business but theirs.
I happen to think this notion of redefining the term 'marriage' to include homosexual relationships is also rather silly, but the whole thing would be much less of an issue if the government were just taken out of it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In other words, marriage by all rights ought to be between a man and a woman
No. Your argument falls apart here, there is no reason to exclude gays since they too can be parents. *All* parents should be entitled to the extra resources for raising children you've alluded to.
But I do not think that the driving force behind gay marriage is about resources / benefits. What it is about is rights. Homosexuals do not want to be treated as 2nd class citizens, they want the same, not more, rights as everyone else, including the right to marry.
Courts have overturned referendums passed by the populace, over ruled laws passed by the Legislative branch for and generally stepped waaay outside the defined role of the Judicial branch in our government.
Uh, actually, that is quite specifically the role of the judicial branch of the government. Ever hear of checks and balances? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Never mind that most common wedding customs actually date from the pagan ceremonies, not Christian ones.
--etrnl--
Namely, their approach is you are guilty until proven innocent. This really sucks for those poor saps who are fingered by the RIAA as a theif to be proven innocent, only that person (or family) does not have the means to present themselves in court to proove their innocence. Therefore, they aren't left with much of a choice of action except to pay what they can (usually a hefty amount of their livlihood) and hope the RIAA will leave them alone.
Certainly there are people abusing the systems, but witch hunts have never been the solution. The RIAA also has not attempted to work with the P2P networks (to my knowledge) to resolve this is a civilized way. "Civil" to the RIAA is always followed by "Court". Just as I oppose Microsoft's business practices, I oppose the RIAA's and TicketMaster's and other monopolistic businesses that abuse their power.
Just because a monopoly exists doesn't mean I'm opposed to it straight away. Take the US Postal Service for instance. It goes without saying most people who send snail mail letters (not packages) use the USPS. In that way, the USPS is an effective monopoly. (do we not all go buy a bunch of 1 cent stamps when they bump up the cost of postage?) But aside from bumping up the postage three times in rapid succession in years past, they've been quite good about not *thoroughly* abusing their customers (some may argue when trying to send a package, but I'm talking about letters here).
In the end: does the RIAA have a right to sue copyright infringment? Yes. Do they even have a right to subpoena ISPs for the infringing user's contact information: Maybe (yes, under the Damn Merciless Corruption Act). Is their approach to this technology and even finding out the real infringers severly flawed? Hell yes. (a 12 year old, a Mac owner, and an old couple w/o a computer come to mind.)
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
What's remarkable is that the "religious" right, who have long used the AIDS epidemic to support their case, are now putting themselves on record against monogamy for gay couples. The mind just boggles.
... a "laser" is used to steal the original bits, and what is a "laser"? Why, it's light! I think the RIAA has a pretty good case here and it wouldn't be too shocking for them to announce an attack against the forces of light.
... but the nature of binary data ("good vs. evil") requires that the "laser" to momentarily turns itself off, then back on again ... in other words, data piracy requires a coordinated conspiracy between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
It's worse that that. This so-called "laser" is also used to burn stolen data onto CD-R discs
-kgj
-kgj
I wish I had mod points -- you are right on. It is NOT the job of the judiciary to MAKE law -- it's the job to interpret the law and make sure it falls within the frame work of the constitution.
Outside of the MA court system, the 9th circuit is a prime example of this jucicial activism abuse. It's stacked liberal 2:1. That means any 3-judge panel is most likely going to end up 2:1 liberal. Talk about stacking the courts. They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
I'd also like to point out that it is NOT the job of the legislature to decide WHO gets to become a judge -- but to decide of they can/are qualified to do the job once nominated by the executive branch.
These are two outragous examples of two branches operating outside the separation of powers.
-jhon
So what does that mean? How do you get a ruling that says this garbage is unconstitutional? I read the following in the ruling but didn't understand it: "Because we agree with Verizon's interpretation of the statute, we reverse the orders of the district court enforcing the subpoenas and do not reach either of Verizon's constitutional arguments."
There was a funny Australian movie called The Man Who Sued God [imdb.com]. It's quite funny and worth watching... you guys already basically nailed the plot.
....
Once again, life imitates art
-kgj
-kgj
As this is the level of justice that almost entirely bought and sold this is not surprising at all.
No Comment.
It's not a troll or flamebait - it's just not a sound argument.
Sounds like a real purty argument you got there at the start, but I'd like to take one gleefully "evil" moment here before I wreck it........ okay.... now I'm going to destroy your entire proposition with one quote:
If we assume that all people are greedy bastards, everyone will do the math and decide not to have children.
Oops. I'm going to ASSUME that anybody with an IQ less than me is an incompetent dolt. Therefore, anybody with an IQ under the minimum of my "official" tested range should be constitutionally BANNED from making decisions in the government. Since these imbeciles are obviously less-capable than me of making a sound decision given equal resources and information, it would benefit society not to let them vote or have any input into politics or law. Not to brag.. but that means that less than .8% of the population is allowed to vote under my plan.
You can't argue the child angle because the propogation of the species is a natural, inborn drive that the majority of people experience at some point in their lives. It has nothing to do with greed at all, and there's no way in Hell you'll ever prove it does. This includes people who are fit to be parents, people who are totally unfit to even care for pet rocks, and people who are so monumentally stupid that you might occasionally wonder why they don't forget to breathe. In fact, your argument fails on an even more significant point. If non-adopting gay couples are afforded secular benefits of marriage but don't propogate, then they'll suck SIGNIFICANTLY LESS resources than those folks who DO have children. Given that the world is currently overpopulated in some places, I would argue that under your mistaken assumptions we ought to ban heterosexual marriages so as to discriminate further propogation, then focus on more evenly dispersing the world populace. That, if executed properly, would be IMMENSELY beneficial to society.
As for the "right to marry" - there is no "right to marry". The point is that you can't arbitrarily ban specific groups of people from doing something with a good reason. Take the stupid "slipperly slope" that idiots like my 'representative' (he sure as hell doesn't represent me, the dumbass) come up with regarding this debate: "well then shouldn't it be okay to screw children or relatives". No, absolutely not. Reason? There are sound scientific reasons for disallowing these acts. Children are NOT capable of making informed decisions on their own regarding issues as important as sex and thus are easy to prey upon. People who DO prey upon them must, therefore, be punished. Incest is even more scientifically sound: genetic mutations cause serious problems. Therefore, brother/sister/father/mother/etc. should not be allowed for the sake of genetic consistency and medical sense. Granted.. this latter point only applies to intercourse, but I prefer not to think about what goes on in remote trailers in the backwoods of Virginia if I can help it.
The problem with this whole "debate" is that there is no logical or scientific reason for discriminating against homosexual people. You tried to play the "social consequence" card like so many before you, but, like so many before you, you have no evidence and you never will because until you try it, you can't get any.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Does anyone know of organizations out there monitoring P2P bandwidth usage? Basically, I would like to see if these court rulings have any effect on P2P users. I've been hearing there has been a dip in users since the whole RIAA/MPAA proceedings began. Any chance of seeing an upsurge in file trading on the popular networks like Kazaa or eDonkey?
It's WRONG for the legislative branch to do this -- on BOTH sides of the line. It's a violation of the separation of powers. I'm just surprised that the dems have taken it this far -- it's one thing to resort to this type of tactic now and then, it's another to use it as a means to STACK THE COURT. It's not THEIR job to do that. That power resides with the executive branch. If they don't like it, ammend the constitution. Don't be surprised that if this continues we see a case brought to the supreme court.
-jhon
I'm all for gay marriage. No, wait, I'm not. Why do gays want to get married in churches so bad? These are the same churches that tells them their lifestyle will cause them to burn in hell for eternity. And still they want to get married.
Gay people wanting to get married seems to me like black people wanting to burn crosses.
I mean in a church, if they want to have a civil ceremony that's fine with me. Frankly I'd marry my roommate if it means I could get on his health care plan.
OTOH, many laws are written with this marriage concept in mind. Like, what happens to your stuff when you die. It's certainly possible for any two people to bond closely enough ("life partner," what a gay term) to receive those benefits from the state.
I guess it comes down to the state's view of marriage, which bestows certain legal benefits on people who decide to get married, vs. the church's view of marriage, which bestows the benefit of a warm fuzzy feeling.
Can there ever be three-way marriages? Why draw the line at two people? The nose is poking under the tent.
What records do isps actually keep such as comcast and roadrunner. How can the RIAA prove you actually took anything?
Sorry its anon coward but knowing what is kept and what is not should be made available to the subscriber?
You are correct in #2; we're not sure about #1. #3 is definitely false, unless---like I said---you witnessed him, or someone who knows passed the knowledge to you.
Yeah, right.
No. Your argument falls apart here, there is no reason to exclude gays since they too can be parents. *All* parents should be entitled to the extra resources for raising children you've alluded to.
They can be parents, but only because of heterosexual unions or artificial means of reproduction. The ability of heterosexuals to actually procreate is the foundation of marriage in all the cultures I know about, without that, there would be no reason for marriage. Marriage never was about "love" - if it was, things like poligamy and incest would be perfectly fine, so long as one could prove that the individuals involved "love" each other.
Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity.
Places such as... ? Gay marriages were in Hawaii for maybe a year before being outlawed, which is not enough time to judge effect on divorce. No other state in the US at any time has allowed same-sex marriages. And anywhere outside the US is rather irrelevant, as there are an infinite number of cultural differences that otherwise affect marriage anyhow. Cite some evidence of your baseless claim, please.
Fuck Bill Clinton and his middle-of the road Moderate Republican tendencies.
What we need is a real progressive. Think of how many jobs will be created in the US if we switch to the metric system!!!
The difference is that the union of a man and woman contributes to the survival of the human race!
Some people care about children who aren't there own.
This is the BEST Christmas EVER!!!
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Because you are never going to be able to unwind hundreds of years of legal precedent. Conservatives will fight giving "additional" rights to gays and lesbians, and the result is that civil unions will lack the legal power of marriages indefinitely.
Same-sex marriage with the same meaning as heterosexual marriage is the only way to achieve parity.
I'm not trying to be combative, but try comparing your argument to segregation. Did seperate but equal work there?
When quickly browsing through the replies to this story, this was pretty much the last thing on the list I expected to see.
Which part of this being about the *legal* concept of marriage, not the religious concept, did you miss?
Leviticus (at least try to spell it right) is part of the Bible. Various federal and state laws relating to marriage do not, and CANNOT, be built upon religious premises.
So, if you want to stop your particular religion from PERFORMING gay marriages, and the Bible (specifically Leviticus) is part of your religion (Leviticus would apply to Judaism as well as Christianity, right?), feel free to bring it up there. Otherwise, leave the Bible and *again* all religious objections out of it.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Wrong.
Lots of couples don't have children (married or not). And lots of gays want to adopt, which certainly does more for the race than having kids and leaving them. Not to mention the fact that lesbians become artificially inseminated.
Thanks for playing, though...
Sauron gets killed by a girl for fucks sake. bullshit women's right's ppl
I didn't mean his "biological parents", since as you correctly pointed out, he didn't have a human father.
Another poster commented on the semantics of "bastard", something I dont' really want to get into.
I meant parents in the sense of the *married couple* that raised the central figure of the Christian faith, which by definition predates Christianity. If marriage existed as a religious custom before Christianity, then it cannot be accurately defined as a "Christian" tradition, instead as one common to MANY religions. And, as has been said, it can be discussed as a legal 'contract' (I'm not sure what the law calls it) without any religious implications when appropriate.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
I don't know where you're living or what company you get health insurance from, but when I got married my insurance went from $6 a week to $25 a week. This is with blue cross, not some fly by night. The reason for this was that now that I got married, I might have kids, and the health costs for my *family* would go up. Gay couples cannot have kids, so at most the health insurance should double.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Bastard
Read the first definition. Since Joseph was married to Mary, and Joseph was not the father, that means Jesus was born out of wedlock.
So in closing, nice try!
The difference is that torture affects the welfare of other people. There can be no arguement that getting tortured is good for someone.
With gay marriage or gay adoption there is no one getting hurt! the couple getting married isn't hurting anyone but themselves, they're not forcing others to do anything. With adoption you can not argue that the child isn't better off with the gay couple than he/she would be if he had been left alone. If it hurts the child at all to be raised by a gay couple, it is 100's of times less than the affect living in poverty with an unfit mother who doesn't want him/her.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage, and now the RIAA is put in its place. Strike down the Patriot Act and the good old USA is almost back on track. Gotta love that glimmer of hope.
Ruling for gay marriage is progress? Being able to marry anything you want is a glimmer of hope? I assume now that marriage (at least in MA) doesn't have to apply to JUST a man and a woman that you intend to marry your hamster next spring? That's what it's going to mean, that you can marry anything you want. Marriage won't be any special, sacred institution anymore between a man and a woman. I've always felt that only the good ol' US of A can let gay and lesbians (a minority mind you) force the creation of new laws in this country regardless of the standards and morals of the majority.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Some people care about children who aren't there own.
Do you think they are better off in an orphanage?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
So you'd rather the child live in poverty in some foriegn country with a parent who doesn't want it? Or to a poor mother who got knocked up by mistake and doesn't have the means to raise a child? Or to a family that is unfit to care for the child? In an abusive home? In foster care? In an orphanage?
If you cared for the child you'd understand that being adopted by loving and caring gay parents puts the child in a much better situation than it was in before and you wouldn't care who the parents are. If you say that gays shouldn't adopt you simply DO NOT care about the children.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Did anyone else read this part and hear Dennis Leary's voice saying it?
"Music in the digital age is being stifled. We want music in compressed format. We want our collection to be available at the click of a mouse. We want to be able to get new music off the internet. We want to have matchbook-sized MP3 players so we can toss those huge clunky CD players that only hold an hour music. We want the ability to search for new music and expand our tastes. We want to pay on a per-song basis instead of being forced to buy an album containing music we may not want."
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
"artificial means of reproduction"
So in vitro babies are not entitled to resources as other children because they are 'artificial'? If you are scrounging for an argument to exclude gays from marriage it is not to be found in the marriage resources angle.
The natural/unnatural(artificial) angle is also disingenuous as homosexuality is found in nature, and little, if anything, that people do (from modern medicine to living in houses [not caves]) is 'natural'.
Your point is very important, due to 'equal protection' under law.
I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
Downhill Battle is calling for the record companies to return the money they've gotten from the suits so far. How would you feel if you just coughed up $5,000 to the RIAA and now you find out they weren't even supposed to get your name?
Since being christian is a 'choice' how would you feel about my law banning christianity in America? All christian churches are to be closed down, the religion loses all its tax benefits, and anyone practicing christianity is sent to a special camp in Alaska to be 'retrained' in another religion. Since christianity is a 'choice' (not genetic, as there is no 'christian gene') you would see no constitutional problem, since constitutional rights such as free exercise of religion and equal protection don't apply to choices?
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Dear File-Swapping Pricks,
As your quivering excuse for brain-matter can probably already make out, this court decision is a major set-back for our world domination plans. However, this is not going to stop us. We have other means to discover who you are and sue you into oblivion. We have already employed Miss Cleo and we are willing to unleash her fury whenever we want to! Yes, Yes! Oh god, yes! You cannot hide from Miss Cleo when she picks your name randomly from a phone book.
We are also aware that there is a great deal of high-speed file sharing going on at your "LAN Parties". We will begin to infiltrate your so-called "LAN Parties", so that you cannot hide from us even from there! So, please ignore the balding lawyer taking pictures of your computer screens.
FEAR US!
The RIAA grows stronger by the day. No longer do we just sue people about music, but we have teamed up with SCO to protect their copyrighted information as well. Today, we are officially launching lawsuits against all those that dare share Linux Distros through Bit-Torrent, at "LAN Parties" or over any other sharing method!
We will continue to sue you until you learn that you cannot live without buying every CD that comes out, even if its not music that you like! Yes! You will give us all your money or you will suffer our wrath!
Sincerely,
David Bowie
and the RIAA
Gay marriage is between two consenting adults, I see no reason, other than the bible(which cannot be used to justify laws in the US), that it shouldn't happen . On top of this I have never seen an arguement against gay marriage that didn't rely on the fallacy that we have always done it so we should keep on doing it.
A blog about stuff.
We need to amend the Constitution to make sure that holy matrimony is only legal the way God intended - between one white man and one white woman.
The logic of extending the traditionally held notion that marriage was between a man and a woman to homosexual couples could also be applied to marriage between anyone.
Why is the state monkeying around in marriage to begin with? Well, maybe we could argue the case in incest, that it produces a higher order of genetic diseases, and is thus a public health concern. However, a couple could either screen their pregnancies and end the defects - no public health concern, Planned Parenthood makes a mint, everyone's happy - or they could remain childless.
By the same logic there is no legitimate problem with bigamy or poligamy either.
The logic was that it undermined the institution of marriage, which was soley created for procreation. If you don't buy that, then sure, all the other things make sense.
Yes, many couples used advances in contraception to render themselves barren and have childless marriages, but that really is not the point of marriage, and those couples really have no need of the institution, same as homosexuals.
The Dutch make up about 20% of the world's filesharing individuals
Yeah, the Dutch are very serious music fans. Your random small bar is likely to have thousands of dollars of high-end sound system professionally tuned to the room, and bartenders who are a serious about DJ'ing as serving beer. They particularly like American musics, from current pop to the most obscure and most historical. Combine this with a visual capacity which extends from the Golden Age through the present (particularly in architecture and design, as well as painting) and you can begin to wonder how they so well balance their mentality across the senses. A hint: much of their language use is ironic - they aren't quite so colonized by opinion perhaps, and so go more with their senses rather than stay blinded by what they think they know. Or maybe it's something they're smoking?
Note to RIAA: You can't convict me based on these thoughts which cross my mind. I am just a common carrier, and the origins and endpoints of these thoughts are elsewhere. I do not store them in this flesh.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Dumb analogy - unless the other person WANTS to be tortured, in which case there is nothing wrong with it...
These actually aren't my arguments, I just (poorly) paraphrased them from other places. I don't remeber where I read the first one. I heard the second one on the local public radio station (This actually surprised me, since it's normally a pretty liberal station). I read the third on in NRO online.
My point was that it is not necessary to be a religious person to be against same sexed marriage.
When you get right down to it, applying reason to something as emotional as marriage really doesn't make much sense. That's why I'm torn on the issue. I can't come up with a good reason why it should be forbidden, but at the same time I don't this is an important enough issue to force a change on the vast number of people to whom this is a big deal.
One thing I am certain of: a Constitutional ammendment on this issue is a bad idea.
I don't get this whole "I'm this", "I'm that" affair.
Why do people have this constant urge to classify themselfes and others?
Sometimes I side with the liberals, sometime with the conservatives. Parts of christianity are good, so are some islamic ideas, atheists have their points too, etc, etc. It's me who makes the choices.
I won't let myself be limited in my choices just because I or others would like to classify me.
So, all the catholics, conservatives, liberals, whatevers out there: How many of your choices are free will, and how many are due to random classifications?
Except that it is the job of the judiciary to intervene if legislation oversteps the power granted to the legislature. The MA court did not specifically legalize gay marriage. What it did was reject, on Constitutional grounds, a law banning gay marriage. It's a fine point, but an important one. It's part of the system of checks and balances. There are more checks and balances--the US Supreme Court can still override them on appeal.
The difference is that the union of a man and woman contributes to the survival of the human race!
How, exactly? A marriage of a man and woman is no guarantee that offspring will be produced, nor is marriage a required part of reproduction (as several girls in my high school can attest.)
If that's the only difference, they (logically) are you also against marriage of post-menopausal women, or of men or women who are infertile? After all, they can't contribute to the propagation of the species either.
drag the sacrament of marriage (which by definition can only exist between a man and a woman) in mud
Which definition? And who said anything about the "sacrament of marriage"? I just want it to be legal for two people to legally join their assets, taxes, and interests together. Your church can put whatever restrictions they want on their rituals (of which marriage is probably the most significant for most people).
As for why this is important to me, I'm a human. My S.O. happens to be of the opposite gender, but why do you feel that this issue should be so much less important to straight people? I don't limit my list of friends and family (I'll acknowledge) to just straight people, and as a result, laws that restrict the rights of gays hurt me because they hurt people I care about.
Why don't you actually read that book in the pew in front of you on Sunday?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:3)
Regards,
Ross
That society tolerates homosexuality is fair. But for homosexuals to demand that society modify its traditional definitions of marriage simply because society is more tolerant of their lifestyle is not reasonable. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, not between a man and something who thinks he is a woman.
That they don't get marriage benefits is unfortunate, but that's the way it goes. I wish I didn't have asthma, but I do--which means I have to pay more to be healthy than someone who doesn't have asthma. I didn't choose to be asthmatic, but that's the way it goes.
Life isn't always fair and the courts can't and shouldn't try to "fix" the hands we were all dealt. Just as being asthamtic increases my cost of living, perhaps being gay also has its cost. Tough.
If you believe that being gay is a choice someone makes then there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
This is so moronic and it is repeated so widely by the hate-mongering freaks who are trying to shove their hatred down everybody's throat.
Nobody is asking for special rights.
The anti-American, Freedom hating scumbags are trying to take rights away from a segment of the population because they are ruled by hatred of people who are not like them.
That is the issue. Gays don't want a god damn thing except what everyone else gets. How again is that "special"
This is why it is illogical to say only those who choose to be Republicans have free speech, and since I believe that homosexuality is a choice why gay marriage is wrong.
Well your belief is wrong.
Sorry, but if you're too ignorant to know that you shouldn't open your mouth. It makes you look like an idiot.
Whether you think it is "wrong" or not is really your own problem. You are a bad American and a despiser of the principles this country was founded on as you demonstrated absolutely by your statements. Please move somewhere like Iran where attitudes like yours are in law rather than trying to ruin this country. If you want the benefits of this country, then everybody else gets them too. If you are too much of a coward to live in a free country, then leave.
Hey, it's America, and disagreeing with me means 1) you hate me 2) you are an idiot 3) you are repulsive 4) you must be a terrorist
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
It could happen if we didn't live in a world of previous misconceptions. Some day there will be a generation where racism and sexual preference will not be a taboo instilled at a young age.
Sometimes I think the only way to get rid of racism is to have war with an invading army of aliens.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
"It's a rather large emotional burden with no payoff." On the contrary, it is an emotional high. It provides a relationship with little to no strings attached. People always look for more and more ways to pervert sex. The dirtier it is the more excitement there is. Why is porn so dangerous? Because the previous act is not good enough now. That is why people move from "soft" porn to "hard" porn to bondage. It is the perversion of sex that provides the excitement for them.
Gays do have the same rights, A gay man can mary a woman any time he'd like!
- The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family.
I agree that is the main traditional purpose of marriage. It is not the current reality, though. According to the U.S Census Bureau 1997 Population Profile, there are more U.S. marriages without children than ones with children: 28.8% (childless) vs. 25.0% (with children) of all households. If we generously assume that half of that 28.8% are couples whose children are now out of the house, then you still get 14.4% of all of the U.S. marriages are childless. Given that the report stated that there were 99.6 million households in 1996, that means that there were at least 14 million couples in the U.S. enjoying the legal status of marriage without producing the desired and protected social benefit(eg kids).
Now look at that pg 29 chart again. Notice that it shows non-family households totaled 5.1% in 1996. That works out to about 5 million non-married multi-person households. Lets assume that sexual preference statistics hold and that roughly 10% of those households are same-sex relationships. That means there were about 1 million gay/lesbian couples living together in the U.S. in 1996. Lets further assume that ALL of them would get married if they could (a bad assumption but bear with me). That means that the total number of childless marriages would, at most, go from 14 million to 15 million. That's a change of 7%. This is neither a threat to the American Way Of Life (TM, Pat. Pend, Your mileage may vary) or a huge change. Even if homosexuality weirds you out (it does me even though I've got a few gay friends), this is obviously an outdated reason to restrict marrage to bisexual couples. There are enough married couples already who, by choice or circumstance, are not having kids. Adding a few more to that list isn't going to do any harm and may in fact do some social good.
- Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.,
This isn't a secular argument, its a thinly disquised religious argument. I'll eat my copy of the King James Bible if you can show me REAL statistics that back this up. Even if true, divorce has risen to near the 50% mark without the morally-corrupting influence of same-sex marriages. And infidelity increases, why? Are all the straight married dudes trying to re-affirm their masculinity with a little after-hours "work" becsuse they saw the gay couple next door kissing goodbye in the morning? Please throw this argument back into the oven, it hasn't cooked yet.
- Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
A textbook example of circular reasoning: "marriages can't be same-sex, because marriages aren't same-sex". As far as it being "at best a tradition or custom", in our society it carries considerably more legal weight and privilege than simple tradition and custom. There are real, tangible benefits to marrage: clear lines of inheritance, property co-ownership, inclusion in medical benefits, etc. Of course the social aspect is just as important too. Being married you get the benefit of the social acknowledgement of your commitment to your partner. I argue that marriage not only isn't a quaint little custom, it is the foundation of society at large and thus IS a right. Just because the sexual preferences of the two people weirds us out doesn't mean we should deny them the right and the privilege of joining together in civil union.
A very long response to a short post.
Happy Holidays,
I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
In 500-1000 years, will people look back on the 20th century and see it as another dark age? It really wasn't that great of a century. The J.F.K. assassination (and probable coverup). Martin Luther King, Jr. The entire civil rights movement. The cold war. Aids. Ethnic cleansings. The constant ongoing wars. Now gay and lesbian rights are entering the front pages. Despite all our technical advancements, we are still living in the dark.
Let sweet Justice flow like a river!
Let sweet Freedom shine like the sun!
The bottom line is that both sides are responsible for the DMCA. Peddle your bull shit somwhere else.
Replace DMCA with just about any law or action or whatever. It's pretty annoying when you see so much hatred coming from 'one side' to the 'other side' (where one side can be either side). The fact is, most Liberals or Conservatives, think pretty much the same way on most issues. Get used to it. Also, I hate the terminology used for this anyhow, Left or Right, Republican or Democrat? who the hell cares? and who always votes or thinks one way or another (besides radicals, which IMO are generally the real enemy)? The fact is, we're all individuals and we all think differently. Get used to it, and stop this blantant hate of whatever side you don't consider yourself on.
When did Slashdot become so partisan?
Since the first day it was online - always has been and always will be.
Lemme see, in order to get married, I must purchase a marriage license. In order to get divorced, it's necessary to go before a civil court. So, marriage IS a civil union which doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with religion unless you choose to be wed by a minister. When states and localities starting "licensing" marriage, the institution lost all religious connotations. Personally I prefer to keep government and the church out of my bedroom.
It was either in Norway or Sweeden. I heard in on NPR a week or two ago.
Marriage is a specific christian tradition
As as Christian I must disagree. Do not mistake a preacher's thumping of the Bible as the Word of God. Do not replace the instruction of the Holy Spirit with the babble of clergymen. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, even preachers, pastors and priests.
God made marriage holy and sacred, but he made it for all people, regardless of their faith. Marriage is for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, athiests, agnostics and everyone else. It is a very part of human nature, for every human society has had institutions of marriage.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
So, um, people existed before Christianity?
- Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Slow down there, where does that statistic come from?
I live in a giant bucket.
I feel the term marriage has more connetations than just a union between any couple...traditionally and religiously. So, give everyone the same rights...but, keep the word marriage meaning the same.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Under the laws the RIAA has been pushing through, Michael Jackson can demand the name and address of your 12-year-old son on hia say-so, without having to go through a judge.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Make fun of it all you want, but white people are smarter and more attractive than anyone else.
We don't think you should allow ugly dumb people to breed.
I am the "torture" AC.
With gay marriage or gay adoption there is no one getting hurt!
It is the opinion of some that gay adoption hurts the child. Others would say not. When you break an argument down to a simple difference of opinion such as this, logical arguments are no longer effective.
I agree with you.
Its also worth mentioning that being married is given a certain special status in the US; our health insurance is basically tied to our jobs, and being married to someone with health insurance is a real benefit.
Lawmakers (the president, everyone else) constantly announce tax relief for "families". Marriage has almost become like an exclusive fraternity.
I'm straight and married, and I like these benefits. So why shouldn't everyone else have them? Maybe lawmakers who say "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman" shouldn't have turned it into "marriage denotes your privileged status in our sociotey"
Let's talk even deeper than that. Oh, so you believe in the "sanctity of marriage?" Well that's nice. It's also f***ing horsesh**. If one believes in the sanctity of marriage, what have they been doing for the last THIRTY YEARS of LEGAL NO-FAULT DIVORCE?! Yes, people who've wed and have their nice "Christian Values" have the ability to just F*** the entire institution of marriage and split up for the HELL OF IT. No adultery, no death, no abuse, they just FELT LIKE IT. This is an objection to gay sex, not marriage. If it was about marriage, there's a WHOLE lot of things that need fixing before we even get to the homos.
They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
And statisticts! Woo!
Your big, stinking lie was to omit the fact that 3/4 is the rate of overturning for all circuits, not just the 9th. So your 3/4th statistic is meaningless, and your implication that they make bad decisions due to liberal stacking is baseless.
Here's a
site that is clearly not a fan of the 9th Circuit court. According to their data, the 9th Circuit has had 18 of 24 cases overturned, or 75%. The rest of the circuits had a total of 41 of 56 cases overturned, or 73.2%. That's an average. Some circuits have an overturn rate of 100%.
Have a nice day.
The enemies of Democracy are
Torture has a victim. Potentially, gay adoption has a victim.
You've got to be kidding. Why is there a Bill of Rights? Surely so that legislatures are held in check by law. This is what we see the courts doing here -- reminding legislatures of their limits.
Just because they can claim the support of the minority of Americans that voted for them does not give legislators any power to over-rule the Constitution.
I, for one, am glad that the Courts are there to protect us from the corporate shills on Capital Hill.
Good points! If I could give an award for best followup post yours would be it.
In regards to the eating of the King James Bible. I heard that argument on NPR a week or so ago. It was regarding the affect of same sexed marriage in either Norway or Sweeden. The gist of the story was that the country in question had legalised same sexed marriage some time ago had found that to be detrimental to the concept of marriage. I found the story remarkable because the station usually had a fairly liberal slant to it.
Lawyers are supposed to learn something about ethics during their time in law school. If the RIAA's lawyers entered arguments are so patently groundless that a judge calls them "silly," I would like to see those jackasses fined for wasting the court's time and my tax dollars. How about a charge of creating a public nuisance?
I grew up with only ONE mother. LOTS of children do. Or ONE father. They grow up just fine. Christianity only needs one teacher.
No, his clarification enhances the strength of what he is saying. If he gave all this support for gay marriage and was gay, then he has a certain bias and incentive to have that viewpoint. However, if he clarifies he is not gay and doesn't even have gay friends, one can conclude that the poster probably is looking at the situation more objectively.
That makes no sense. First, there is nothing wrong with poligamy. The only time it *isn't* OK is when children are forced to be married to poligamists. But that is wrong whether it is one child bride or many. IOW - what's "wrong" with poligamy in America actually has next to nothing to do with poligamy, per se. It has to do with child abuse/molestation.
And incest has to do with genetics. It has nothing to do with marriage.
By your reasoning, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction,either. If it did, then married people would HAVE to have kids - having them or at least being pregnant would be a prereq.
Lots of married people don't have kids. Marriage (as far as the state is concerned) is a legal contract more than anything. And a rather archaic one, at that...
Sweeden or Norway. See more detailed response in response to other poster.
I'm at a point now where I download most newly released movies that I want to see as SVCDs, watch them once or twice, then delete them. The ones that I like and want to own I buy the DVD when it comes out. I almost never go to the theater anymore because movies are almost $10 now for a ticket. A family of 5 to see a movie and get drinks/snacks runs up $75+. That's just ridiculous, especially with most of the movies they're making now are just junk.
I disagree that a court saying that all persons have equal legal rights (in this case same-sex couples) is subourning anything. The role of judicial is to act as a check and balance.
What is bad in this case is that there will be legislative backlash and pre-emptive strikes against similar pro-gay decisions or legislation in other states. Don't listen to people who are so afraid of equal rights for same-sex couples who claim the courts are going to far. All courts are saying is that same-sex couples should be able to have benefits, estates, legal rights... Hell, you should support this, the marriage tax will mean more in tax revenue.
Did I misunderstand you? Are you suggesting that marriage, which has always been the union between a man and a woman, should now be open to gay individuals and if we want something that only means man and woman that we should create a new term for THAT?
I hate to break it to you, we DO have a term for that. It's "marriage." The concept of two people of the same sex getting "married" is the new concept... let THAT receive a new term and if need be perhaps even extend it the same legal rights as marriage.
But to suggest that gays can now wiggle into the term "marriage" and that traditional man/wife unions have to look for our own term is rediculous. It already exists and it is "marriage."
"The fact is that the MA Supreme Court subourned the legislative process." - "Courts have overturned referendums passed by the populace, over ruled laws passed by the Legislative branch for and generally stepped waaay outside the defined role of the Judicial branch in our government."
Eh? There are certain laws that supercede other laws, such as constitutional superceding federal, federal superceding state, state laws superceding county and city ordinances. When a court strikes down a law, it's usually because the law itself is illegal in light of laws that supercede.
Without specific examples, your argument holds this much water: *drip..... drip..... drip.....*
"So you feel that the laws of the country should follow christianity"
Sure! After all the US Constitution is based on Christian beliefs. The forefathers saw that the Bible had the laws right so they copied them. Are you telling me that the laws that have been in place for the past 4,000-5,000 years are now obsolete or wrong?
It amazes me how many people forget the past and where our laws originated from.
Why does everyone have to keep excusing themselves from being gay while defending human rights? It defeats the purpose.
People who stand to benefit from something usually have their own benefits as the only motive. If someone is not gay and stands up for the rights of gays, their motive can not be written off as self-beneficial.
As a married person, I will tell you that I pay more (not less) tax for being married. It's called the marriage penalty. For example, up until this year's tax changes, the standard deduction for a married couple was less than twice the amount for an individual. The tax rate schedules are still not equal. The penalty really only appears when the two spouses earn about the same income. A married person with a spouse that does not earn income pays less tax than an individual making the same amount. However, the rate schedules are less than double individuals, so the dual-income married couple will pay more in combined taxes than the sum of the tax of two individuals making the same income as each spouse. In 1999, I calculated that it cost me and my wife over $5000 more per year to be married (versus what we would pay if we had filed as two single persons but shared rent and everything else like our co-habitating friends). I'm all for gays sharing in the marriage penalty. =)
to remove the word 'marriage' from the legal realm altogether. The word marriage has implications in almost every religion on the planet and those implications vary greatly from religion to religion and person to person. Let marriage be what it is to the people taking part in it without dictating what it is to them.
That means were free to create this 'thing' between 2 people whether they are straight, gay, religious, athiest, whatever. Our 'social binding' can have all of the economic benefits of today's marriage without the baggage. It will be well-defined and unabiguous and thus ends the debate.
But what do I know? I'm just an opinionated slash-bot.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
It defeats one of the purposes. OTOH, it allows one to claim that they aren't being self-serving, and so meets a separate one.
Whichever way you choose, those who don't like the argument will find it reasonable to discount it because of the choice, and those who don't won't feel the need to.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
We don't force our beliefs on any one. EX. If I knew how to make a million dollars in one hour guaranteed, are you telling me that you wouldn't want me to share that guarantee with you? How much more worth it is eternal life, which man is always seeking anyways? The problem is not we are forcing our beliefs, but you are forcing yours by requiring churchs to marry same-sex couples, by forcing christian hospitals to perform abortions, by forcing christian organizations to hire those who would destroy them. And we still have the time to force our beliefs on you?
It must be Divine intervention.
George Clinton IS the man.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I agree that there's nothing wrong with a child growing up in a "gay" household. Just like their is nothing wrong with an asian or black kid in a white household. They may devleop issues, but those are miniscule next to what they would have encountered had they not been adopted.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
To say that Jesus Christs parents were married is ... strange.
... dubious. One of the ways to be considered married was for a man and a woman to go on a trip together. So in THAT sense, they were, indeed, considered married. But that hardly maps at all well onto the current understanding of the term.
At that time the formalities of marriage were
The reason for this is actually fairly simple. When there aren't any significant property issues, the state and church tend to ignore the formalities. In the early US, e.g., proof of marriage would be something as simple as a page in the family bible that said you were married. And if you had moved, nobody would know when it had been filled out, or who had signed it. And few would care. But this didn't work as well when property got involved. And then the government decided that people were easier to rule if you kept track of them, so a rule was propagated that all people had to record their marriages with the county clerk. And it progressed from there.
But the modern concept of marriage owes a lot more to the state wanting to track everyone than it does to any religious rule.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The DMCA is not in and of itself a bad idea...we should promote the rights of companies to publish in a digital medium, otherwise there's no reason for them to explore it.
It's the abuse of the seemingly harmless provisions of the DMCA intended to prevent hackers from spreading exploits that is a problem. It has yet to be used to prosecute a real hacker, but instead has bit the hand of security analysts like Skylarov.
A law that hurts the helpers without affecting the hackers is useless. But that's but a small part of the entire DMCA...the section removing liability for attacks from ISPs is REALLY useful law. I'll bet Clinton signed it because he realized how important this would be to the burgeoning internet.
No law is ever perfect the first time 'round.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
On behalf of the whole Discordian Church of Kalliste (DiCK), progratulations !
I would probably be expected to disagree with you, since that is something we Discordians use to do, but I don't feel like it now. Moreover, I like insight, and thus like your post, although Our Official Position will remain the same: that we don't really think We can formulate a decipherable opinion on the Matter at hand.
Thank you for your inattention.
I don't get the spinning of his comments as not meaning "he didn't say he invented the internet" when his line was literally "I took the initiative in creating the Internet".
... it sure looks to me like he's saying he was the one doing the creating, but his "intent" may have been to say that his policies abetted others in creating the internet; that they were the creators- he merely assisted. [Nevermind that this is by and large untrue- the internet as we knew it as of 1996 was by and large the "fault" (heh) of:
The hangup is in the word "creating"
Microsoft with the release of Windows 95 which enabled home users buying computers to easily access the internet
Mosaic with their implementation of web browsers that had been the standard (until IE overtook Netscape)
The invention of the WWW and implementation of web sites that actually stored useful data; see how archie/gopher/veronica/etc. never really caught on as searching tools
Whoever was responsible for the rapidly declining price of Memory which enabled consumers to afford machines capable of web browsers. In addition to the rapid decline of memory prices in the mid 90s, the growth of processing speed was also a factor as well and speed increases in modem connections.
]
If that's what he meant, he should've said so and made this clear once the barbs came his way about his "invention" stuff. That way we could simply say "he misspoke" instead.
I respect snopes.com but this is 1 entry where they get it wrong.
NPR isn't Liberal, it presents most views impartially.
All the other radio shows are fairly conservative, and the television is generally slightly conservative slanting.
I'd like to see the government as far out of religion as possible.
I'd like to see religion as far out of government as possible.
Now, all we have to do is deal with those "turdfuck rightwing ideological zealots who feel they have to force everyone into a particular belief system".
I think that a big chunk of the problem is that even the government tries to do it as a religion. I've been to a few "civil ceremonies" that still have the vows and rings and "you may kiss the bride".
It should be "Sign here and here and here, and you sign here and here and here. Both of you initial the pre-nup inclusion/exclusion statement. Now look at the camera and smile. *click* Here's your marriage license and here's your's."
Wait? Who are you forcing change upon.
Is everyone going to go out and marry their same sex friend just because it's permissiable now? Even if they didn't want to be in a same sex relationship?
I don't see how this effects anyone other than the people being married.
You know that's bullshit. In general I would say you're correct, but that's not the tone people are using here today. They're excusing themselves because they think that being gay is wrong and are uncomfortable with the fact that someone on slashdot might think they're gay.
There are those of us that would say Athiesm is a religion. After all, religion defined by Webster is: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Atheism is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith that there is no God. Are you willing to admit that there is a God in order to ban all religion? It amazes me how people equate God == religion && Atheism != religion I'm not religious, I'm God's child.
The insurance rates are lower because married guys live longer and get sick less often than single guys.
For married women, there is no difference.
If a single guy and a married guy have the same insurance policy, the insurance company will make more money off the married guy.
Man, I thought you were black.
Fritz Hollings has announced he is retiring.
Wahoo!
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Hmm. You bring up an interesting point -- the arguments against polygamy seem as arbitrary as not allowing gay marriage in purely legal terms.
Though obviously ALL parties to a "3+" marriage need to consent. A man shouldn't be able to be married to two different women without them knowing about and approving of each other, for example (that amounts to fraud, if nothing else).
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Places that don't allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity, too. It's a global trend. Additionally, 1 or 2 data points are not enough to draw any sort of conclusion from.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
"Leviticus (at least try to spell it right) is part of the Bible. Various federal and state laws relating to marriage do not, and CANNOT, be built upon religious premises." That's funny. I thought our fore-fathers used the Bible when writing our laws. That's right they did use the Bible. Go back to US history 101
Marriage may or may not be a social good, per se, but raising children is (at least insofar as society would die off without anyone doing it).
This is one argument for govt & social breaks for marriage -- that we give marriage a break because it is the avenue of continuing society through childbearing.
It would make more sense to only give the breaks to couples with children. Then we could forget about the hetero/homo stuff, and even forget about the marriage part really (except, we need somehow to differentiate stable from transitory unions, as the former are more the social good we want to help).
Thanks! Google is my friend. I wouldn't have found that info very fast without it.
The NPR story sounds fishy to me. Its more likely an "elephant repellant" logic error (can't remember the 'real' name of the logical fallacy): "I bought an Elephant Repellant and it works!", "How do you know its not a scam?", "See any elephants around here?"
Basically they may have a false correlation between two facts: 1) gay marriage legalized 2) marriages went to hell. The reasons for #2 are most likely completely unrelated to #1. I think my KJV Bible is safe and will remain BBQ sauce free.
Cheers,
I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
yeah, no shit!
it used to be "gays are evil people who have sex in parks at night"
and now it's "we refuse to allow gays to live in normal monogamous relationships with children"
Remarkably, i heard one conservative on talk radio saying he doesn't care what sexual orientation, that kids are better off under the custody of *any* parents than in orphanages.
a conservative thinking rationally about gay marriage? yey!
umm, NO. If a law is found to violate pre-existing laws, it can be overturned by the judiciary. Our judiciary is the only branch of our government that has worked as well as expected by our founding fathers. Meanwhile the legislative branch is controlled by corporate interests and mostly ignores what is good for the public (or even what the public wants, though the two are different). And the executive branch...geez.
The Mass court ruled on the constitutionality wrt the Mass constitution. The US Supreme Court has no standing. Only an amendment to the Mass constitution will be able to overturn the decision ... and it'll be years too late, probably. And they shouldn't overturn (maybe they shouldn't let breeders "marry" -- legally; restrict all state issues to "civil unions" and leave "marriages" to the religious where they belong).
Dude, what a fucking whiner. If conservatives are going to ignore our bill of rights and existing law when ruling on legislation, then its a fucking good thing there are fewer of them in the circuit courts. Our judicial branch has worked exactly as the constitution wanted it to. There was NOTHING wrong with these examples. Judges are supposed to overturn laws if they violate more basic laws (like the bill of rights).
If our founding fathers were alive today you'd call them bleeding heart liberals and try to prevent such revolutionary ideas as the bill of rights.
So take your stupid whining and go to hell.
Yes, this is key. If you think about it for a minute, you will realize that there is no way to craft a progressive income tax system which does not create an incentive or penalty for marriage for one of these two couples:
One person makes $80,000 per year, the other stays home and earns no money.
Both people work and each make $40,000 per year.
So the government tries to do a best guess approximation of what will provide little net benefit or penalty to married couples on the whole. Obviously if you fall on the side where you are penalized, no one's forcing you to get married. You must believe that marriage has some other benefit which compensates you.
One other benefit of marriage: immigration. There is a gay man at the Cato Institute who has a boyfriend in Europe (England, I believe, though I don't remember for certain). INS is giving them a hard time. If they were a heterosexual couple, they could get married, and avoid this entirely. Being gay, they cannot, and have to go through all the red tape and paperwork of any other immigrant. Of course, an even better solution would be to allow free movement between countries, but that is neither here nor there.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Bzzt. You are using statements out of context to push your opinion. Hopefully is is only out of ignorance.
The key is "long-term monogamy". The very large majority of homosexuals (and a significant chunk of homosexuals) aren't long-term monogamous. Monogamous mean "single sexual partner during a period of time", not "single spouse".
If you cheat on your partner, engage in partner swapping, or move on to a new partner every few years, you are not monogamous by any definition (except maybe a liberal one).
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis
Firstly, to even suggest that separation of church and state is a bad idea, shows you can't be very intelligent. Thomas Jefferson considered separation of church and state to be his greatest achievment - and this wasn't even because of "other religions" - it was because of fighting AMONGST CHRISTIANS. That's right, if christians could fucking behave themselves it might work, but no, they're too biggoted to even get along with each other!
The rest of your arguments are equally retarded. Let's see:
As you say, religion is completely irrelevent, and gay marriage would only be done by the state. Gay marriage would only be giving equal rights to people who through genetic or developmental "errors" can not enter into a Straight marriage. Hell, some of these people are men whose penis was too far mutilated during cirumcision (a totally useless and harmful procedure), and so they turned the baby into a female and gave him some estrogen to grow boobs. BIG FUCKING SURPRISE when this "girl" grows up liking girls. As if they didn't have it bad enough already, assholes like you are trying to prevent them in their pursuit of happiness and equal rights and privileges under law.
Next, letting gay couple adopt is "just sick"? You are such an idiotic homophobe. Let's see, "a child needs a man and a woman to grow up in a healthy way". So we should take all the children with single parents and put them in orphanages instead? That way they can grow up healthy? You sick fuck. And back to gays, since it's been proven that homosexuality is a born trait, not a "choice" is many homophobes insist, an adopted or even procreated child involving homosexuals (obviously only one of the couple will be a genetic relative) will NOT be "turned gay". And there is no doubt whatsoever that children adopted by gay couples will turn out better than they would in orphanages, or even in many straight couples.
That being said, the court was by no means legislating. A law existed which granted the LEGAL STATUS of marriage solely to a pairing of a man and a woman. The court found that this violated equal protection provisions in the state constitution. The real idiots in this whole thing are the people who made marriage a legal institution in the first place (with implications for taxation, immigration, insurance, and so forth), it should have remained nothing more than a civil contract. If an institution exists which confers special advantages to certain people but not to others, then it is going to be found unconstitutional by the courts.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Yeah, you're right. I'm a doofus. My Schizophrenia and poor recolection got ahold of me (yet again).
I confused part of Socrates' (and well, many other scientists and forward thinkers who were killed or otherwise by the Catholic church) story with Galileo's (and spelt his name wrong).
Stupid fundies make the demons inside of me come alive.
Oh well, it was a fun allegory.
No I am the "torture" AC.
I like to use bad analogies because I can't wrap my mind around reality. I like to make broad assumptions about entire stereotypes of people without basing any of it on fact. I condemn groups of people because of two lines in the bible, instead of talking to the people myself and realizing how normal and well-adjusted they are. I also think that we should shoot anyone who does not look, act, and think exactly as I do. We eat cows don't we? So why should we not also kill and eat blacks, jews, and lesbians for being different?
"It is NOT the job of the judiciary to MAKE law -- it's the job to interpret the law and make sure it falls within the frame work of the constitution."
Then perhaps it would be interesting to read the closing statement of the court's judgement in the case which this story is about.
From The Register:
"It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries. The plight of copyrightholders must be addressed in the first instance by the Congress; only the Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology."
The DMCA apparently doesn't cover illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Too bad for the RIAA and all those copyright holders. But it's a shame that these lawsuits and supoenas are necessary in the first place. If illegal downloaders would stop stealing the property of others in the first place, the copyright holders would not need to go after the lawbreakers.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
No, troll, that is not its purpose. The purpose of the Judicial branch is to interpret the laws and uphold the constitution. It is NOT their job to decide if it likes those laws or not.
who authored the Mass. Constitution in 1780 surely intended it to apply to Gay Marriage, LOL.
Come on... Modding the parent down for expressing his agreement with the grandparent post? WTF is up with that?
Marriage may or may not be a social good, per se, but raising children is (at least insofar as society would die off without anyone doing it).
While this is true, it's not really clear that society needs to provide incentives or rewards. Children are so expensive, inconvenient, frustrating and time-consuming that I don't see how society could even hope to offer any sort of compensation for the service. On the other hand, children are also very rewarding, to a degree that vastly exceeds anything society could provide. I think I can say I know whereof I speak, as a father of four children who are the joy of my life -- and also as a man who just this morning had a vasectomy to make sure I don't get any more!
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Exactly! 99% of the time a court overturns a voter initiative, it's because it was blatantly unconstitutional. Just because it's popular doesn't make it legal under the constitution. Not that I'm saying it's always a good thing when initiatives get overturned in court. California Prop 103 (a consumer revolt against the car insurance companies) was tied up in court for years thanks to the powerful insurance lobby. It wasn't overturned, but by the time it emerged from court, it was essentially toothless.
Socrates wasn't killed by the Catholic church, either. In fact, Christianity didn't even exist at the time.
Wow... Uhm... You do realize you can choose to NOT file your taxes jointly? There's no law saying you have to file jointly.
But if two gay guys are 'married' they have no option one way or the other.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
The point I was responding to was:
"Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
I replied with the insurance data on why it costs less to insure a man/woman couple than it costs to insure a man and a woman who are not married.
So, you respond by pointing out that two policies cost more one policy with a spouse.
DUH! That was the point that the original poster made.
DUH! That was the point that I was illustrating with the insurance data.
Congratulations. You've managed to restate a point that was made by the original poster and that was supported by my post.
- Homer Simpson
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
"Or, put another way, ALL RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE INVALID for this discussion. This is (or should be) a legal discussion, not a moral or religious one."
It is true that any religious establishment or institution has no place directly dictating to the state any law or policy regarding marriage, or anything else for that matter. However, states have the right to define what marriage is, and the will of the people, including religious people, factor into this: they elect the ones who make the laws. If enough people in a given state for WHATEVER reason (religious or otherwise) don't like the idea of a state laws that includes homosexual marriage, then the state legislators are likely to keep marriage a heterosexual arrangement. Individual citizens may like or dislike the idea of homosexual marriage for any reason they like, including religious reasons. This is perfectly legal and proper. And religious people have the same right to lobby their legislators as anyone else.
If the US Supreme Court ever rules that disallowing homosexual marriage violates Equal Protection, then all this will change, unless the Constitution is amended.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
I mean, if someone thinks that they are more politically savvy than the Founding Fathers, what can you say to that?
I think most of us non-Americans have never quite understood the way many Americans (at least judging from slashdot) worship the Founding Fathers and your Constitution, esp. the First Amendment. From my POV the FF were mere mortals, and the Constitution is a mere document prepared by humans that are prone to err. Definitely I don't believe it has some Divine Intrinsic Value.
Perhaps someone would care to explain?
Well, as far as asset ownership goes, in my opinion the equal sharing of common property is sort of needed. Most likely it will be the female who sits home and breastfeeds the kids, and unless she has some guarantee of economic support she'll be in a very vulnerable situation. I know times are changing and women can work too, but truth is that more women than men breastfeed. And even if the male stays home, the same argument stands. It's just not right that one member of the couple takes on the burden of staying home, raising kids, taking care of the home, and sacrifices his/her personal career advancement, and then after 10 years, after a divorce, he/she is left with nothing plus no career. Half and half is the fairest thing ever - after all, when you say for better or worse in sickness and health, you're committing a much greater vow, and if you break that, the everybody gets half stuff is more than fair.
I think this may be the most deeply nested comment in the thread. It seemed like a good place to point out that the original article dealt with an RIAA court defeat. Interesting as some of the above comments may be, they are completely offtopic.
So that would make you American euro-trash. Time passes slowly when you're an idiot.
So black people shouldn't demand that society modify its traditional definitions of the roles of the races? I mean, why should a racist society be forced to accept black people? Why should people be forced to serve blacks in their restaurants and why should blacks get access to the social security dollars that white people put into the system? Your argument is totally non-sensical!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Sorry, I didn't mean to force marriage on anyone. What I meant is that marriage is currently defined as between a woman and a man. Changing that seems like a sin against language.
I'm as fed up with Americans butchering their own language as the next guy. But even I don't believe the government has any right to restrict how people define certain words.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I didn't mean to imply that the founding fathers were divine. I merely meant to imply that they probably had some political knowledge, savvy, insights, wisdom, experience, or whathaveyou that the average (or above average) Slashdot reader will only ever aspire to. Of course the FF were prone to error, but they were deeply thoughtful about what they did. To suggest that the separation of church and state was something they threw into the Constitution without thinking about it a great deal is to expose one's ignorance of history and lack of common sense. Read the Federalist Papers. There are reasons, no matter what FOX News implies.
Not sauron. Witch King of Angmar. Dumb fuck.
That's a solution for which there is no problem. Nobody, except the Europeans, is having problems convincing people to have enough children. If the tax breaks for marriage went away, I doubt the number of children produced would decline measurably.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Again, you ignore the real people who are deprived of money when you don't pay for their music.
What does the length of copyright law have to do with downloading current music? They've actually been pushing release dates forward because they keep getting downloaded online.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The US has a 50% divorce rate. Gays couldn't do much worse if they tried.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Eh? What's the use in giving people a "legal status" to have kids? Children have very little to do with marriage, because people will always have sex.
I would say that in fact marriage has everything to do with bonding social groups together. To that end, the primary puprose of marriage is to form a link between families. It's a plus (to the community) that those people may also have kids, but that's a "jam tomorrow" thing and not essential to the process. What *is* essential is to have a formal bond between uncle Betty and autie Albert, who become uncles/aunts-in-law, John and Lizzy, who then become cousins-in-law, etc. etc. They then have an excuse to borrow eachother's cows, share the odd harvest, and generally help eachother out rather than fight (because you fight strangers, you see). Who cares if the couple have kids?
PS: "Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom." - What the hell does that mean? What's you're point? What does "at best" mean here anyway? Boing!
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I'm an atheist and I'm married you bumbling moron.
No, you're not. Engaging in "marrige" is a felony, you blithering idiot.
--
Anonymous Posters for Christ
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
So, if they find out you're infertile, should your marriage be dissolved, or do you just lose your benefits?
It would also be interesting to note that such a judgement came from OUTSIDE the 9th circuit court -- from a less reviewed court. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia illustrating that if a decision is to fair, expect it not to come out of the 9th circuit.
And as long as the new law follows proper court procedure as dictated by the constitution, then we should have no problem.
This is, after all, what we've been asking for, yes? It's certainly what I want; a more articulate and just copyright law. Let the illegal filesharers pay the piper for the injustice they've done, but make sure the process is nice and legal.
fs
What we're talking about here is financial and legal definitions.
The legal definition of marriage includes the requirement that it be between a man and woman. They're asking that to be changed. That's kind of like if I practice some kind of weird black magic to cure people and getting upset because the state won't cerify me as a "doctor." They're not stopping me from doing what I do, but they're not going to bend the definition of "doctor" to include something that is outside what society and the law agrees constitutes a doctor. The same goes for marriage.
Financially I believe gays have even less standing. We all make decisions that affect us financially and we all have burdens that are not of our choosing that affect us financially. I was born with asthma, that's going to cost me more. They were, presumably, born gay and that's going to cost them more because they aren't going to get any tax benefits (if there are any!) from being married.
Well, I doubt that there are many Americans that actually worship either the Founding Fathers or the Constitution.
:) )... even when they themselves as individuals may not have done so for all people. Even though it did not apply to all people initially, it nonetheless created a framework within which eventually that, too, could be be corrected.
But, here's why most of us respect them both highly: As pointed out by many here, the Founding Fathers were not perfect. They were mostly from the upper class of the society of their time, many owned slaves, and I doubt that even the most enlightened of them had views regarding the status of women that we would consider acceptable today.
Yet they managed to craft a document that recognized the inherent rights of human beings (I've taken the liberty of updating 'Man'
More, understanding their own fallibity, they created it in such a manner so as to permit change, for they knew that they could only guess at what the future might hold for the nation and its people.
Also, they attempted to ensure that power would ultimately rest with the people, and put checks and balances in place to ensure that none of the three branches of the government that they were creating could ever become too powerful.
In short, they endeavored to create something better than themselves.
And *that*, my semi-trolling friend, is why we hold them in such high regard.
"Mere mortals", yes - yet the fact that they could, and did, err does not detract from the magnificence of their accomplishment.
The Constitution of the United States is an imperfect attempt by imperfect men to create the framework within which all human beings are guaranteed their rights, that each may live their lives with dignity and hope towards the purposes to which they set themselves.
At least, that's the way it's supposed to be... I don't think we've done so well as a nation over the past 50 years or so, but I think that that is because we have permitted unworthy people to gain positions of power.
I like what John Stewart said. To paraphrase: "I don't get this gay marriage law. Are they going to make you marry a gay person? Because my wife wouldn't like that. Otherwise, why the fuck does anybody care???"
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The only thing I can come up with is that they want to reward the potential production of more taxpayers.
Who cares who controlled the house and senate? No senators voted against it. [url]http://www.educause.edu/pub/wu/1998/19980519. html#0[/url]
we're not talking about any fundamental right here
>>>>>>>>
We are. People have the right to get equal treatment from their government. Why should gay marriages not get tax benifets just because they're gay?
The fundemental problem here is that the *religious* definition of marriage is being used to give people tax breaks. The religious people can define marriage to mean whatever the bloody-hell they want, but the government cannot simply use religious definitions to make laws. What if marriage was defined as only between Christians? Should the government use that definition unchanged when making the tax code?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
>take rights away from a segment of the population because they are ruled by hatred of people who are not like them
I think you mean they are trying not to give them, not taking them away. Don't pretend that this should be obvious to the rest of the world, when 90+% of the world disagrees with you. You may be right but you aren't going to convince anyone this way.
>Well your belief is wrong
Your arrogance astounds me. I'm sure your whole high school was impressed by your SAT scores, or your GPA or by your nomination for prom king, but here you are just another person with an opinion. Just like everyone else. Here you actually have to prove someone wrong if you want to change their mind.
>You are a bad American and a despiser of the principles this country was founded on...blah blah blah.
Your interpretation of those principles anyway. As a Democracy you and every other American has a voice in how the country is run. You also have to deal with it if the majority disagrees with you. Right now the majority of the nation is against gay marriage. So you can start insulting people and accomplish nothing or you can try to change people's minds if it is important to you.
For the recond I am for gay marriage. So don't come back with some crap about me hating America too, and how I am some cog in a wheel of a tyranical machine of opressiveness...yadda,yadda,yadda.
-Comedian
There is no such thing as a willing victim. You can step into the ring with Mike Tyson voluntarily, and you would be virtually guaranteed of suffering a serious if not fatal injury (unless you are a trained heavyweight, of course).
And there is no more potential victim in gay adoption than regular adoption. And the majority of child abuse in the US is done by family members (as in genetic relation).
Thanks for playing, though.
Oh yes. Who can forget the laws about having other gods, making carved images, taking the name of the lord in vain, remembering the Sabbath, honoring your parents, and coveting your neighbors stuff?
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Its funny that the presidents the right wing republicans love most have been complete idiots. First there was Raegan, now theres Bush. If they're not complete idiots, they're completely bigoted crooks, ala Nixon
Wrong. Nobody has suggested that churches would be forced to marry gay couples. They have the right to refuse to marry ANYONE for ANY reason. The state, OTOH, would have to recognize marriage by those with the power to perform marriage.
And please provide a list and details as to which Christian hospitals have been "forced" to perform abortions.
You are an ignoramus. There is nothing about deomcracy or individual rights in the Bible. OTOH, these principals are what define the Constitution.
And half of the commandments have n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with our laws. Just about any other set of moral principals from just about any other belief system has as good or better batting average.
Try reading a book sometime - one not written by some fundamentalist wacko who makes up this sort of nonsense...
An RIAA executive said this new "John Doe" process would be more intrusive for individuals, not less, since the organization would no longer be able to contact potential lawsuit targets and settle before filing an official suit.
Any suit can be settled "out of court," so to speak, prior to the judge banging his gavel.
Sooo... thats why the Constitution called for a Seperation of Church and State as one of it major original tenets? Don't claim to know why the drafters of the Bill of Right or the Constitution were thinking explicitly or attempt to determine what influence they used.
"Do you suppose that's why God lives in the Heavens? Because he lives in fear of His creations?" - Steve Buscemi
The President is no longer allowed to hold US Citizens on US soil indefinately and without charges...
Hurray! Now maybe you can do something about all those non-US citizens you're holding on Cuban soil indefinitely and without charge? They're human too, you know.
The very large majority of homosexuals (and a significant chunk of homosexuals) aren't long-term monogamous.
I meant to say:
The very large majority of homosexuals (and a significant chunk of heterosexuals too) aren't long-term monogamous.
Serves me right for not proof-reading.
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis
Tax... breaks? I don't know what kind of crack you're smoking; married couples get *screwed*. Combined income means that even if both of you work, the government steals a higher ratio of your money (because you get shoved into a higher tax bracket). Some of you may say this is "A good thing". It's not. Say the woman is making 50K, and the man works part time for 20K, the combined income shoves them into the next bracket, and somehow they end up making barely any more money.
This severely inhibits any kind of, you know, will to work for him.
And so you want to put up all 50% of divorce problems to sexual issues? Granted, a big sample will fall under that, but take a look at the research behind those numbers before throwing them around.
I wouldn't be surprised that *if* homosexual marrige becomes legal, that number would go up fast.
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis
Bravo! You hit the nail on the head. The best reason for two parents is that if one of them can no longer perform in the role (Death, Disability etc) the other can carry on and ensure continued nuturing and care for their offspring.
Bonding between two people is certainly not dependant upon some superstitious ceremony in a big stone building, it's dependant upon how those two people feel about each other.
"Worship not in buildings of stone and wood, for the Kingdom of God is all around you: Lift a stone and I'll be there, split a piece of wood and you will find me" (sorta goes like that, my Gospel of St Thomas is a little rusty).
or the motorcyclist version:
"Worship not in buildings of Stone and Wood for Sunday is for riding. Twist a throttle and you will find me, do a nose wheelie and I'll be there."
They're excusing themselves because they think that being gay is wrong and are uncomfortable with the fact that someone on slashdot might think they're gay.
I'm not gay. I support the right for gays to marry.
I'm not a woman. I support the right for women to vote.
I'm not black. I support the rights of blacks to sit anywhere on the bus they damn well please, and to drink from the same water fountains, and of course, the right to vote.
I guess that means I think being a woman is wrong and that I'm uncomfortable with the fact that someone on slashdot might think I'm a woman. I guess that means I think being a black is wrong and that I'm uncomfortable with the fact that someone on slashdot might think I'm a black. Either that, or it's you who's full of bullshit.
Defending rights means standing up for the rights of other people. When someone says "I demand right X for myself" then bigots can easily dismiss its as self-serving bullshit, as a minority trying seize power and violate the rights of the majority. When a white stands up for black's right to sit at the front of the bus then bigots run into a problem. Then the bigots can no longer claim they are supported by the "silent majority". They can no longer claim it's a self serving power-grab by a few troublemakers. They can no longer say it's just some minority is trying to oppress THEM and THEIR rights.
If someone claims gays just want to get married to collect the various financial marriage subsidies and "freeload", then fine, eliminate finanical marriage subsidies for anyone. If anything it is currently the straights who are "freeloading" on the taxes paid by gays to finance those subsidies.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I see no reason, other than the bible(which cannot be used to justify laws in the US)
Except that the Bible is used already for marriages which justifies the union of hte man and woman in the US.
Btw, lots of things can be between consenting adults but the courts need to realize that they need to uphold a certain level of standards within society. Without laws there is chaos.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Asset ownership, economic support, etc. can all be accomplished via a contract, which is arguably what Marriage is. Corporations don't seem to have a problem with asset ownership.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Strange, the marriage between me and my wife doesn't follow most of the "traditions" of marriage -- both work, no kids, etc. And there's not a speck of religion in our marriage, and hasn't been from our wedding ceremony to this day.
Yet, the law legally recognizes our marriage. Contrary to what many people feel, "marriage" is largely a legal matter in this country.
I don't think atheism is fairly called a religion. The problem is that the word atheism ends in '-ism' which is a suffix that implies "one who does something." If 98% of people are playing dodgeball does that mean the 2% who refuse to do so are nondodgeballists? Just because someone refuses to take part in something doesn't mean their non-action is in itself an action of partaking in something else. If you ask me to play dodgeball and I say no thanks, I have not gone on to start my own game, i've simply declined to join you in yours. Only for the religious majority (the majority being the ones who come up with the words we use) could calling atheism "a religion" be a convenient use of symantics. It's meant to be insulting, in effect saying religion is inescapable, even if you refuse to join us in religion, that very refusal is tantamount to starting your own religion. That's bullshit. Nonbelief is not a nother form of belief, even though both can be re-phrased as saying "i believe in god/no god." A true atheist simply doesn't believe in god and religion. Atheists don't go to atheist-church and they don't pray to a nonexistant god. Again, just because I don't join you doesn't mean i've gone and joined something else.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
I mean, the Phone companies don't get sued and subpeona'd for their users do they? And we all know that criminals use telephones just as much as regular people. Not that I'm comparing criminals to piraters, just that a company is not liable for it's users right?
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
You are a religious bigot and if I ever met you I would be morally obligated to kill you.
For one, there is really not much that supports your argument in that developing 'issues' has anything to do with the sexual preference of the "parents" (in quotes because i'm using it in the wider sense of... rolemodels that spend most of their time and energy with the children - ie not necessarily biological parents). Children in perfectly "normal" families develop issues as well.
And secondly, even if a child develops issues "because of the sexual choices of thier guardians", I bet in most cases it's not directly that, but instead the stigmatized social responses and pre-conceptions they have to deal with day by day.
Lastly, excuse my repetitive use of quotes. Also, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just believe that in and of itself there are no disadvantages to children raised by gay couples (as it seemed to me you implied). I blame those problems more on the extra hurdles that society puts in those people's paths to happyness - and less on their personal choices (which by the way is a great thing to implicitly teach your children).
Reinard
Speaking of morals, I think I would be morally obligated to kill you since you are such a bigot.
Small minds like yours do not deserve to survive and it is unethical for you to continue to steal resources from those of us who are not so narrow minded just to allow you to contine to exist to spread your ignorance.
not in the context of the state, marriage in the eyes of the state has nothing to do with the bible.
ever read the constitution? 1st amendment?
I dont see any problems allowing whatever relationship consenting adults want to have. Not restricting the interactions of concenting adults will certainly not lead to no laws. laws are, or should be, for protection from other in cases where they wish to do some harm, and the illegality of concensual relations between adults has no rational basis.
A blog about stuff.
Ther are more informative articles at FOX news and CNN. I think it's a good decision since it doesn't allow people to subponae personal information outside a lawsuit, which implies a judges approval, althou IANAL.
Vote for Pedro
RIAA seem to have even started going for BBS's and FTP's as support for their claims to make ISP's leave out info about P2P users. Fortunately, the court didn't swallow that bait as they had already shown that P2P programs didn't violate the DMCA. The court also noticed that the historic papers about FTPs and BBSs that were discussed was concerning hacking those sites and whether site owners should be liable for this. (I'm sure many of you recall this, it was discussed a bunch of years ago) In other words, some documents completely irrelevant to the case regarding if ISP's should be liable to P2P users transmitting (not storing) data via their routers.
It's far reaching stuff like these that makes it feel like RIAA really has no case and they're just clinging onto the little they've got, trying to twist the law to their advantage.
Quote:
C. Legislative History
In support of its claim that 512(h) can - and should - be read to reach P2P technology, the RIAA points to congressional testimony and news articles available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA. These sources document the threat to copyright owners posed by bulletin board services (BBSs) and file transfer protocol (FTP) sites, which the RIAA says were precursors to P2P programs. We need not, however, resort to investigating what the 105th Congress may have known because the text of 512(h) and the overall structure of 512 clearly establish, as we have seen, that 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting as a mere conduit for the transmission of information sent by others. Legislative history can serve to inform the court's reading of an otherwise ambiguous text; it cannot lead the court to contradict the legislation itself. See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-48 (1994) (''[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear'').
(...)
Furthermore, such testimony as was available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA concerned ''hackers'' who established unauthorized FTP or BBS sites on the servers of ISPs, see Balance of Responsibilities on the Internet and the Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2180 Before the House Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property, Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I don't really understand the first part of what you're trying to say. My point is that half of all marriages in the US end in failure. Divorce rates among gays can hardly be much worse that that.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Morals? Well if we follow the morals of the church you're right about adults not being able to marry adults of the same sex. OBVIOUSLY the moral thing to do is to marry children of the same sex. I mean the Catholics have been doing it for years.
Male/Female marriage is OK as long as the parties agree.
Gay marriage is OK as long as the parties agree.
Polygamy is OK as long as the parties agree.
Monogamy is OK as long as the parties agree.
Only when a any party is FORCED to do anything they want, is there a problem.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
i don't understand your beef.
* the courts looked at a law and a part of the MA constitution.
* the courts decided the two were at odds (to me it's pretty clear they're right about that)
* since constitutions supercede laws, the judges *pointed out* the fact that the law was unconstitutional
in fact, the courts didn't even directly strike down the law (which, as i understand it, is usually the case with an unconstitutional law); rather, they gave the legislature a (limited amount of) time to write a NEW law, which would hopefully be consistent with the constitution.
look, you or your neighbors can hate gay people all day long. or you can love them, and say that gay marriage is wrong for some other reason. but to some of us, it's clear that discrimination against homosexuals is (not only wrong but) unconstitutional. our constitutions normally give protection against unreasonable discrimination.
the only thing you and your neighbors can do about it is to change the constitutions. some states have already done this (including mine, Alaska). in the end, it seems clear to me that the supreme court will interpert the US constitution the same way other courts have interperted it, and state constitutions: to say that discrimination is unconstitutional. that's why your cronies are trying to pass a marriage amendment. i'm not terribly sure that you'll convince two thirds of both houses of congress and three quarters of the states that think so bigoted, though. good luck.
"Ok other *THAN* the fact that..."
it's not that the difference bothers me so much, it's just that the difference is so TRIVIAL it's surprising anyone makes the mistake
i download via kazaa light constantly
(kisses usb drive loaded with 60 Gigs of mp3s, kisses verizon modem)
but mostly non-pop stuff, so i never really thought i was in trouble
i knew the riaa was going after britney/ justin downloaders
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if looked at from a little further out. it seems to me that the ruling simply opened the door for an ammendment to the dcma that might be a lot more horrible than something written 5+ years ago.
in regards to verizon unable to police it's network, it's possible something could be put in motion forcing isp's to monitor their networks. i'll admit i don't know if it's possible technically to not only read (and probably store at least temporarily) but interperet the data to such an extent that not only meaning, but intent can be determined. the implications are a little staggering for freedom of speech advocates as it creates a net for politically incorrect voices eventually. keep an ear out for either, there darker days than these.
The DMCA didn't contemplate P2P architectures as the judges' ruling notes below. This means the RIAA needs to go back to Congress to implement laws that address P2P. The question then becomes will people get busy and organize to push back? Click The Vote is ready when you are ;)
... The Congress had no reason to foresee the application of [the DMCA] to P2P file-sharing, nor did they draft the DMCA broadly enough to reach the new technology when it came along..."
source "...P2P software was not even a glimmer in anyone's eye when the DMCA was enacted," Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote in the decision. "Furthermore, such testimony as was available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA concerned 'hackers' who established unauthorized FTP or BBS sites on the servers of ISPs.
In one breath you abuse the corporations for outsourcing your jobs, and in the next you condone piracy. It is your own faults that you are ending up out of the job. I'd even go as far as to say it's poetic justice.
The corporations of this world have every right to protect their investments in every way possible.
By the way the current statistice show that 80% of a companies earnings go to the staff, so all this piracy should lead to about 40% of you loosing your jobs or getting pay cuts and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
Along with a few very well-put replies to your post, I'd like to add another thought.
In the case of the "arts", and in this specific case, music - I don't necessarily understand why we should "care that some human beings paid for a studio and recorded the music for a record label that distributed it for them"?
Perhaps the entire process is twisted? Look at it this way: Someone who chooses a profession of making music is a big risk-taker. Instead of doing what most of us do to earn money (accepting someone's agreement for payment in return for doing a specific type of labor for them), they opt to create music, betting/hoping that the public will enjoy it enough to pay them for it. They're not providing a tangible good, and not even anything one could reasonably describe as a "necessity" or "needed service". It's simply a form of entertainment.
People with the notion that "artists *deserve* to be paid for their work" are simply wrong! They don't *deserve* anything, other than the right to freedom to compose anything they like and freedom to record it. Their music stands (or falls) on its own merit. If it's really good, then yes - they stand a good chance of profiting from it. If they can do that consistently, they can make a living of it. But to say they're automatically owed monetary compensation is ridiculous.
If I sit around and paint a bunch of paintings, that doesn't mean I deserve to profit from their sale - no matter how much I spent on paint and supplies. Maybe nobody likes my artwork enough to pay for it, and they'd only hang it up if it was given to them for free?
That's how the arts should be. Make music because you enjoy doing it. If you really have talent, profit will likely follow (but there's nothing saying it must). It may cost you quite a bit and then you lose it all, too. Real musicians make music because they *need* to do it. Wanna-be's make music because they think they can "get rich" from it.
Wow! Someone read the books! Still teaching trolls to read in school these days? Amazing.
This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
Copyright infringement, by federal statute, is the violation of any one or more of a copyright owner's exclusive rights in a copyrighted work. 17 USC 106 lists most of them. It includes making copies (this is a very old right which helped originate the term copyright). Other rights in 17 USC 106 include the right of distribution, the right of public performance, the right of public display, and the right of adaptation (the right to make derivative works). 17 USC 602 also adds a right of import in certain circumstances.
You're all stupid. The Federal Government subsidizes marriage because OF CHILDREN.
Fags can't naturally produce kids. Case closed.
I love watching IT workers make something so fucking simple so complex. Comedy gold.
Can I get an amen?
There is no such thing as a willing victim.
We're talking about a child here. If some kid tells MJ that they are willing to be his lover, should he be allowed to keep the kid as a lover?
Obviously no, but by your logic since the kid was "willing" the answer would be yes.
Dumbass.
"That's what I was saying was rediculous."
Say whatever you want to, the statistics show that married guys live longer and get sick less than unmarried guys.
"If you claim that married couples are healthier and live longer... hmm let gays get married and they will most likely be more healthy and live longer. Seems the insurance companies would love that."
Ooooh, you've made another error there. I didn't say married COUPLES, I said married GUYS live longer than unmarried guys and get sick less often than unmarried guys.
I also said that the statistics for women don't change between married and unmarried.
Maybe married gays(note the "a") would live longer and be sick less than unmarried guys(note the "u"). But I'm not aware of any statistical studies about married gays yet.
"Or are you going to stand there and say that the benefit if living in a monogomous relationship is somehow limited to a male-female interaction."
I'm going to say that there haven't been any studies yet on long-term, monogamous male-male or female-female relationships.
"The point you were trying to refute was "married gay people pay an order of magnitude more than straight people while single people of either orientation pay similar amounts""
Ooooh, you've made another error. The point I was responding to, and this is a direct quote was:
"Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
In fact, I cannot find that statement you've quoted anywhere in this thread.
Ooooh, you've made a third error.
"You refuted it by saying "married people live longer and therefore SHOULD cost less""
Oooooh, a 4th error. I cannot find that quote which you claim I posted anywhere in this thread. Maybe you're thinking of a different person?
"So... by that reasoning... gay people who ARE married should cost less, right?"
Again, I am not aware of any statistical studies of those situations. You seem to have a problem understanding statistics and insurance.
"My best friend (a woman) is married (ceremony, but without legal recognition) and they have been together for almost 15 years and raised 3 kids. They pay 6x the amount of a straight couple in insurance though neither of them has made a single claim other than basic checkups since they had kids 15+ years ago. Sure it's anecdotal, but at least it's true."
Based upon the context of this discussion, I'm going to guess that you're talking about a female-female relationship there.
Now, let's see what I had previously posted about the insurance statistics on females.
"For married women, there is no difference."
I think your agenda interfering with your reading comprehension or something. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes you've used from.
Thanks for playing ;)
We're not gay, not that theres anything wrong with that!
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
No. Having been the person who said this, I can explain why. Although reasoning should stand on it's own, in some people's minds (especially those are zealots about their beliefs) an argument is less effective if you have a personal stake in it. My statement was to indicate that I have nothing personal to gain from this, it is purely reasoning.
Having been the person that said it, I can say you are full of crap. I already responded to this, so I won't be redundant by repeating my other response. But yes, I wanted to indicate I had nothing personal to gain from the argument.
In fact, it seems almost stupid to believe that people on an electronic message board spread across the world, who don't know each other, would care if somebody else here thought they were gay. I don't care if anybody here does.
Excuse me? Did you even read my parent post? Nowhere do any of the arguments depend on whether it is a choice are not. How is gay marriage a "special" right? All my arguments indicate is isn't a special right.
"This is why it is illogical to say only those who choose to be Republicans have free speech"
Huh? That's the exact opposite of your argument. If being gay is a choice (like being Republican), then the right to marry (right to free speech) should not depend on your choice. The analogy is direct, if you believe homosexuality is a choice. By your own argument, gay marriages should be legal.
Going to an art sale, and let's say an artist is there trying to sell his work. You say you love a particular painting, so you get your camera, snap just the coastline in bottom left of the picture that really is only part of the picture you like, pay him a fraction of the cost of the painting, thank him and walk away.
Now imagine what thoughts are going through his head? Might he care? maybe, maybe not. A REAL artist will, because he created the painting as a whole, and even though he technically got 'equivalent compensation' for the portion you took, you only took a portion of the whole. No loss to him, but he made some quick $ off of it. A shallow artist wouldn't care. A real artist would.
If an artist releases an album he intends to be heard as one piece, it's NOT your right to only want a piece of it without getting the whole. The way he intended it to be sold is the way you should buy it. Is there any direct consequence? sure, maybe not. But you -are- doing a disservice to the artist by not experiencing the whole that he intended you to experience. IF the artist decides to sell the songs individually on say iTunes, then go ahead, get'em all you want... but until then, the only way you SHOULD get the songs is the way intended by the artist. And usually you can tell if the songs are supposed to be heard together or if it doesn't really matter.
I dunno, now I'm just rambling.
You're the one who needs to change the natrure of the debate to make a point, moron. Obviously children cannot give consent for a lot of things. We were talking about the 99.9 percent of marriages that are legitimate (as in LEGAL) - that involve adults.
But morons always have to find ways to weasel out of dumb arguments...
so while it makes sense to be able to listen to one song rather than a whole album, it doesn't make sense to try to apply that idea to paintings.
or you could say that a painter had painted 10 paintings, but you only liked one and only bought that one. that's a closer analogy, but again, not perfect.
Well your belief is wrong
Your arrogance astounds me.
It's not arrogance. If you think that gay people choose to be gay, then provide some scrap of evidence.
I think you will be really astounded to find that there isn't any. You might be able to find a few scattered people here and there who say they chose that lifestyle, but for the vast majority it just isn't true. It never has been and there has never been any reason to believe it to be so.
Your interpretation of those principles anyway. As a Democracy you and every other American has a voice in how the country is run. You also have to deal with it if the majority disagrees with you. Right now the majority of the nation is against gay marriage.
Nope.
"We hold these truths to be *self evident*, that all men are created equal."
If it can't stand up to that, it is anti-American plain and simple.
It doesn't matter a bit what proportion of the population agrees or disagrees with me.
That is why this country is not a democracy.
It's called the tragedy of the commons.
This is why that shithead Bush is supporting a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages because it is blatantly against the constitution and there is no other way to shove his hatred down the throats of the decent freedom loving Americans who don't support hate based discrimination.
Gays do have the same rights, A gay man can mary a woman any time he'd like!
But do they have the right to marry the person they love? I do. I suspect you do too.
What is the benefit to anybody by restricting their "pursuit of happinness"?
There isn't any.
It is completely driven by irrational hatred, which is why we have a bill of rights and are not a democracy.
No offense, but it *is* the judiciary's role to make some law. As all courts follow the rules and rulings set down by previous courts all rulings made by courts are, in effect, law.
IIRC the MA court ruled about the scope of a law that is not terribly specific about what it entails. The MA court merely clarified what the existing law covers.
They also need to file blindly, which means the possibility of hittng someone embarassing, such as a music executive's child, or a Senator's.
None taken and you make an interesting observation. One with which I disagree.
Until recently, never in the history of american jurisprudence has "marriage" been defined as anything OTHER than between a man and a woman. It has been some courts which have decided to "expand" the definition beyond what was originally accepted to allow for social engineering from the bench.
This the very same mind-set which allowed a US District Court to declare the boy scouts a religious originization (on par with the Catholic Church, the Hare Krishna's, and Islam) because they require an affirmation of some deity -- ANY deity (say the "Earth Mother"). Then, once declared a religious orginization, the judge could "social engineer".
"Clarify" should not include re-writing definitions or apply arbitrary definitions or use the most openly BROAD interpretations to essentially "make" or "unmake" law. Part of the job of the federal appeals court (and state appeals courts) is to determain not just the LETTER of the law, but also the intent of the original FRAMERS of the law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the RIGHTS ad PRIVILEGES enjoyed by married couples to NON married couples -- but to call that marriage is wrong. It's also wrong for the court systems to try and FORCE it down the throats of americans when it is most unwanted. Let the legislators (the representatives of the PUBLIC) make law should the people want it -- not justices forcing laws on people who DONT want it.
I'm not a lawyer, and not terribly up to speed with marriage law. Personally, I think it is a reasonable question to ask if the intent of the framers was to restrict marriage to that of a male/female monogamy. Unfortunately I think you'll find that there are many many marriage laws, and the intent was different for each.
Personally, I think that extending the rights and privileges is the least that should be done. Calling it marriage probably the right thing to do. And in the end, I expect the judiciary to usher that change, because the legislators haven't been representatives of the public for a long time now.
Your comment "And in the end, I expect the judiciary to usher that change" is a frightening prospect. One where the people no longer have the ability to make law -- through their representatives. One where law is FORCED upon them by a non-elected "enlightened" and "benevolent" federal ruling class. It's not their job. And to have them *DO* that job is to undermine our form of government.I think it is ALWAYS a reasonable question to ask the intent of the framers. Again, in this, it is not unreasonable to believe that the framers, who pretty much all were christian, would (A) not consider marriage anything but between a man and woman and (B) would object to any other such union.
The next question we need to ask ourselves, does this violate the 14th amendment (the equal protection clause)? Many would say no -- as any gay man or woman who decided to marry (a woman or man, respectivly -- someone of the OPPOSITE sex) would enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other man married to a woman or woman married to a man.
Marriage is a CHOICE, not an obligation and not defined by birth or incident. The individual chooses not to marry (i.e. take a spouse of the oposite sex).
Me personally, I would argue that same sex relationships should be provided the same rights/privilages of marriage -- yet I would object to calling it marriage. "Social Union" works for me. "Domestic Partnership" also works. They could also extend to non-gay relationships -- say two women or men living together in their old age.
We say "she" when refering to females... we say "he" when refering to males. Why would it be such a leap to say "marriage" for heterosexual legal unions and "domestic partnerships" for same-sex/plutonic legal unions? As a country BUILT on compromises (re: 3/5's compromise), I think that's a pretty damn good compromise.
Yes. I am aware of that.
However, Socrates was killed because he was labled dangerous by the higher ups. Just as many people were killed becaue they were dangerous to the church.
I was merely illustrating a point.
To me, the problem is not so much that they're appropriating the names of people doing the file-swapping, but that they're subpoenaing names without actually establishing a case and they're asking for massive lists of names which include many people not associated with the file-swapping. As for me and my house, I will admit to having occasionally downloaded music. Part of it is that whole "free beer" thing. *wry grin* I'm of Scots heritage. I'm cheap. Part of it's also that I have a fairly eclectic taste in music. I tried for 6 months to find a commercial way to buy Nuit de Folie, a song by Debut de Soiree before finally just getting it off of Kazaa. It's less a moral stance for me and more of a practical thing.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
So, how is the judiciary not representatives of the public?
They're not elected directly, no. Then again, neither are our legislators technically.
The federal judiciary are appointed, not elected. If they stay within their defined roll as layed out in the constitution, this is a GOOD thing. When the principle of separation of powers begins to be violated, it becomes dangerous.
The legislators are elected directly by the people, both TECHNICALLY and ACTUALLY. I'm not sure how you can say that our legislators are not directly elected. Please explain.
Ok, I am not going to beat a dead horse here. Just two thing for you to think about.
;-) I don't think that is what you mean.
A) "We hold these truths....all men are created equal". is a quote from the Delaration of Independence, not the Constitution. While this a VERY important document, most people use the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other Amedments to decide whether something is "American" or not(including the courts).
The Declaration of Independence is just that, it is a document telling England to f00k off, and that we were going to govern ourselves. The Constitution was signed much later, 1776 vs. 1787 I think. Remember, the DofI you are quoting from didn't even include women or non-white people as "men", those Amendments were WAY later. So if you are using DofI LITERALLY, as your support for your arguement, gay men can get married but gay women can't.
B)Let's say for arguments sake that we can base what is legal and not legal on the Declaration of Independence, which is usually the assumption. Does that person have the right to do ANYTHING they want in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? Of course not, they can only do what does not adversely affect other Americans.
So your real arguement should not be, "You are stupid if you don't think people should be able to do whatever they want, because we are all equal." As many other people here are trying to assert the best arguement is "There is no adverse effect on other Americans, so there is no reason not to give them these rights". Then support with examples, data, or logic. People who are opposed believe that gay marriage will damage society so you have to prove otherwise if you are going to get support.
>If you think that gay people choose to be gay, then provide some scrap of evidence
Not really relevant to the marriage argument except to the person who started this thread, because it somewhat supports their point.
>It doesn't matter a bit what proportion of the population agrees or disagrees with me.
Ahhh, but it does. See, the DofI and the Constitution both state that the law can be changed by THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE(two thirds vote of House or Senate, can't remember which). So it is very important what the rest of the country thinks. The Will of the People can become what IS American, if your definition of what is American is what is in the Constitution!
-Comedian
You are a disgrace to humankind. Do the world a favor and commit suicide now.
Wrong. It is the job of the judiciary to make law -- America is a common law country. Duh.
right on. but prejudices change, and humanity evolves by the generation. this shit will eventually die, and the next generation will see the prejudice for just what it is.
Marriage won't be any special, sacred institution anymore between a man and a woman.
blah blah blah blah
Hello? Where have you been? No-fault divorce? Hollywood two week marriages? Arranged unions for political reasons? Henry IIIV and his eight wives? Marriage has never been a sacred institution, deal with it.
ok then... screw any historic debates where 'examples' had to be made... why even have the term "for example"? I mean, all they're doing is making an analogy as an example...
Yes analogies can never be perfect examples, because the only perfect example is the original situation itself. That doesn't negate the use of analogies to make a point... not at all!
Well, that settles it then. You said "Duh". You MUST be right!
We'll totally disregard the principle of the separation of powers. We'll ignore the constitution. We'll blow off Justice John Marshall regarding the judiciary's role in INTERPRETING the law. You said "Duh", for christsake! You MUST be right!
We'll ignore the last role the judiciary has played the first 200 years or so as one of strict constructionists in favor of the most recent swing to loose constructionists -- all because you said "Duh". Mighty powerful word, that "Duh".
While this a VERY important document, most people use the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other Amedments to decide whether something is "American" or not(including the courts).
;-) I don't think that is what you mean.
I haven't mentioned the courts (and you are, of course, right that that document has no bearing there), but The Declaration of Independence and specifically that quote is essentially the determining thing in what is "American". That is what set it in motion (as a rallying force rather than the political, economic and historical forces). Freedom and equality are the rallying cries almost everybody uses to push their agenda whether they are actually in favor of those things or if they are trying to take them away. So I think that it is relevant to what is "American".
Remember, the DofI you are quoting from didn't even include women or non-white people as "men", those Amendments were WAY later. So if you are using DofI LITERALLY, as your support for your arguement, gay men can get married but gay women can't.
True, but we have come to realise long before either of us were born that "men" should be replaced by "people" and that people means all of us regardless of race.
Granted many people still don't really believe that should apply, but again I say, should ignorant hatred be what we are ruled by, and can you really call that freedom and equality?
"There is no adverse effect on other Americans, so there is no reason not to give them these rights". Then support with examples, data, or logic. People who are opposed believe that gay marriage will damage society so you have to prove otherwise if you are going to get support.
Again, I am not the one claiming something. The people who claim that it will have an adverse effect are the ones who need to provide an argument, or even any hypothetical mechanism by which such a thing would even be possible.
Since there isn't one, they can't and haven't. They base their arguments solely on religious based hatred. So given that there is no possible way that allowing a gay person to visit the love of their life when they are dying in the hospital could harm society, that assertion makes no sense.
Ahhh, but it does. See, the DofI and the Constitution both state that the law can be changed by THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE(two thirds vote of House or Senate, can't remember which). So it is very important what the rest of the country thinks. The Will of the People can become what IS American, if your definition of what is American is what is in the Constitution!
I already made that point. If enough people have that much hatred in them, then an amendment can be passed. At this point, it hasn't been. If there is an amendment passed saying that some people are more equal than others than that will be the law.
There is not such an amendment at this point.
You did nothing to address my point though.
Such an amendment would fundamentally change what the concept of "America" means.
Would you want "America" to be redefined as a land of extremist hatred and intolerance based on one single passage in an old version of a book relevant to two religions? Especially given that the new version that the majority of the religious people in the country claim to follow soundly refutes that?
I wouldn't. I want to live in "The Land of the Free" like I've been promised since birth.
You want to talk conlaw? Sure - See Art. III, S. 2 - "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in Law or Equity." Equity courts began in Englad when royal and legislative law were insufficient to handle problems. The US is a Common Law country.
Remember, we're discussing the MA homosexuality cases. These could easily be analyzed under the Equal Rights amendments (Indeed, they have been this summer, when the USSC overturned TX's antisodomy law). So your argument is moot - the court would be interpreting the Constitution as expounded by the SC. Duh.
Never said they can't have them but don't make it look like the state is endorsing the behavior though. If the state endorses it then where do you draw the line? As I said, it just means that I can marry an animal now if I wanted to if they aren't going to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
It is clear in that it does not affect religious union or compel any church to marry any couple (same by the way as with heterosexual marriage).
It is also clear that the decision is specifically concerned with the civil aspects of marriage (which are the only aspects under the jurisdition of the state anyway).
As for forcing beliefs on others, it is my observation that the principal opponents of this decision are indeed certain churches who are lobbying hard for a constitutional ammendment. (Being as it is fairly clear that a majority of the residents of MA favor this change I doubt that that will be passing.)
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Read the decision, and the dissenting opinions, all of which are distinct in delineating what is and is not the court's defined role.
Interpreting Laws (and sometimes) refferenda are very much the role of the courts. In this particular instance it is the MA SJC court, which like the US Supreme Court gets to determine questions pertaining to the Commonwealth's constitution.
As for the question of who I should be paying attention to with respect to my individual freedoms I personally place far higher faith in the courts than I do our legislatures, which in my experience routinely pass bad (in the sense of unconstitutional, ambiguously worded .....) statutes.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
If you believe that being gay is a choice someone makes then there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
Marriage isn't a special right. Anyway, if I only dig fat chicks, should I be required to be married to a woman who's skinny? No.
And so if the only kind of woman that turns me on is the kind that has a penis and no breasts, why can't I marry her (him)?
I think the number one block in the gay/lesbian issue is the "choice" issue. I don't think it should matter whether someone chooses to be gay, or if they were born that way. If I want to be a musician, dammit, I should be able to a musician, whether or not my parents gave me any genetic predisposition towards it. I think it also sends a huge "Fuck You" to the bi community, whose member obviously *are* able to pluck fruit from both sides of the tree.
Forcing the "choice/no choice" issue around homosexuality implies that fundamentally homosexuality is wrong. "I didn't choose to be this way." means "I don't want to be this way" or "It's wrong that I'm this way, but I can't help it."
If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, then you shouldn't care whether it's a choice or not. You can say, "If you didn't choose it, become a monk, forswear sex for the rest of your life, or kill yourself." If you think it's a choice, you can tell them, "Change your ways, you fuck!"
If you believe that homosexuality isn't wrong, then you shouldn't care whether someone is the way they are because of choice or because of how they are wired.
In my opinion, I think homosexuality is just fine and dandy, although of course I have little to no first-hand experience to back up my claims. All my many, many gay friends that I have, however, seem to feel it works for them. I mean, it certainly works a whole lot better than sexual repression and misery. I don't care whether any of them are doing it because it's a choice or because they decided to be that way. I mean, none of them are choosing it for the glamour and ease of being a homosexual in the South. And I think it's probably hard to be gay anywhere, even in places with large, supportive gay communities. So either it's a difficult thing to live with, or a difficult choice to make.
Under certain conditions, sharks will attack and kill humans. It's in their nature; it's not a choice. But even though they're not "choosing" to kill and it's hard-wired in them, I don't think sharks should have equal access to public swimming areas. This is because I think the key element here is a shark killing people, and not whether it's choosing to or not.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.