I'm still not understanding. A Power of Attorney is a form of contract. I can make and break one freely with no penalties at all. It just takes a notary (optional) for it to be valid.
So I could make and break 1000 PoAs in a day, and there'd be no cost. No barrier to doing it. The only inconvenience is if I chose to get them all notarized, and that's not a high barrier.
There is deliberate government interference in forming hurdles to form and dissolve a marriage contract. Eliminating those hurdles without consideration of the results would be folly.
Yeah, wouldn't it make sense to see where the GPS signal dies, and when it comes back, and persume they took transport from one position to the other? No inertia guessing needed. The Yellow to the Red line is the only way to connect those dots without looping or doubling back. So why do you need to have the accelerometer to confirm?
. In 2008 there was a real risk that banks would fall like dominoes.
Yeah, like the UK who told Iceland to bail out the Bank of England or be personally responsible for the Apocalypse. Iceland didn't pay. Nothing happened.
Nope. Bailing out the bank pays out the investors and directors. Letting the bank fail pays out the account holders. The richest of the two groups is the investors, so we bail out with welfare for the rich. Fuck the poor.
Yes, you've tracked the "subprime" explosion. But subprime was unrelated to the crisis. "Subprime" was rich white male banker code for "Nigger". Blame it all on the Black man. Don't look at the rich old white males handing out the "bad loans" and bundling them into trade-able instruments and committing fraud by lying about the risk of the bundled loans.
At the time the "crisis" was named, the default rates for subprime were well below historical norms. It's just that, as statistics say, the first card to fall was from the high-risk group. Blaming the high-risk group for being high-risk is insane. But when you let the people who actually caused the mess name it, "subprime crisis" was the name given.
Yes, I played the race card. I'm a rich white male. I just also happen to have been raised in the American South with open eyes, so I see the racism that's pervasive in the US, to the detriment of the US.
Based on Slashdot comments, the Texas mother that targeted a minor with a known mental issue, committed fraud to gain her confidence, then pushed her to suicide, anyone who would commit suicide is unfit to live, and the murdering mother did the world a service.
There are no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract. If I call up and cancel my mortgage contract, there are set penalties, written into the contract, same with phone service, for those under contract. But the State doesn't punish you for entering into a contract lightly. For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.
That would result in the system we have now, with state sanctioned marriages, and controls on them.
A step-parent relationship is legally the same as an adoption here. The only reason to perform a step-parent adoption is to block birth-parent visitation. So step parent adoptions are rare. But, marriage to the parent of a child is the equivalent. One is the legal guardian of the children in the relationship, regardless of blood. So, if the birth parent in the married couple dies, the child's care is uninterrupted. The surviving parent is sole guardian, and legally the parent, unless the other birth parent had some formal custody, or wishes to pursue it.
But living together without marriage? The child of a sole-custody arangement is an orphan the same as if both parents died, and the non-married non-birth parent is treated as if a neighbor walked up after a car crash that killed both parents, and offers to look after the new orphans.
I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage
So if a town dumps their toilet water into the stream, and downstream someone drinks it from the tap, that's not toilet to tap. Got it. Toilet to Tap has nothing to do with toilets or taps.
Think about it for a minute - what actual, tangible, benefit do gays achieve by being able to call their relationships a marriage?
Do you want a list of the thousands of rights that come with marriage? The rights of survivorship are ignored by almost all, at least until their spouse dies suddenly, and they have to take over the life. When my dad died, I could have sued his partner for her house. They weren't "married", but had lived together for 10+ years, and lived as man and wife. As he made tangible improvements to the property, and as I'm his son, I have a right to whatever holding he had in that property. Since he wasn't married, I could claim against that as his heir. If they had been married, then I'd have had no claim. It would have passed to his wife without claim or ability for incident.
That's one of the thousands of rights that married people take for granted. In most cases, even a written living will is trumped by the "marriage" card. Though, that's changing. But a non-married partner will be ignored by all. And that's not changing.
of course most have little interest in real human rights - just ask around here about people's views on abortion for example.
Since someone doesn't agree with your fascist declaration of when life begins, you assert that their value of life is different. Nah, you are just a fascist aggressor who hates people.
I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago when the defenses of marriage were being erected, the arguments then were that marriage was an idea whose time has ended. The people came together to support marriage. More than one movement has talked about ending marriage, and all that did that failed. Quickly and miserably. So they moved on to working within the system.
I'm not keeping anything, or doing anything, or complicating anything. I'm stating that the rules are hard-coded into laws. Laws on property, inheritance, privacy, and everything else.
With your "marry anyone and divorce them anytime you want" rule, just marry everyone you do an illegal deal with. You can't be compelled to testify against your spouse. Divorce them after the deal, and the illegal acts are still under priveledged communication rules.
Abandon all that, and telling your wife that you hate the boss at work, can be used against you when they find that the boss was run over at work. So you either have to change millions of laws, or break the idea of "marriage" completely.
Which do you find preferable? Why?
Most people find it easy that they can have a single contract with no modifications or negotiations allowed (though separate property contacts, commonly called pre-nups, are allowed, though in practice, rare). The millions of laws written around marriage work together to define it in a contractual, legal, financial, and societal context. It may not be perfect, but it's better than abolishing a legal recognition of any relationships.
The law could very simply state (all laws regarding marriage are null and void. from this day forward the laws are as follows....
Yeah, and so the one law passed to do that is in what jurisdiction? Federal? They don't define "marriage" now, but put rules on it based on what the 50 states decide. So at a minimum, you'd have to have 51 states (DC is a "state" for most purposes), plus the feds, and get that 52 law bundle passed at the exact same instant for that to work. Plus, the "laws" in many places aren't laws, but regulations and administrative rules. Your "simple" law would have to change the IRS code, and hundreds or thousands of other federal regulations with weight of law. And the countless local rules on marriage. State law in Texas allows a minor to drink, under the supervision of an adult. So a 21 year old married to a 19 year old, can buy drinks for, and hand drinks to the "under-age" drinker. But that's not the same everywhere. Thousands of little things like that would make a massive change to the legal burden of formerly married people, once you abolish marriage, in the way you state.
You obviously don't even understand that, let alone have an opinion how it would work after. How does your one simple law fix under-age drinking law in Texas (a state matter) and the IRS code (not coded into law), at the same time?
"One simple law" change for multiple independent jurisdictions. With no understanding of law, or reality.
We've got the 2nd largest european economy after germany (we overtook france recently) and one of the highest employment rates in europe, so I'd be interested to hear what your definition of "strong" is.
Must be the Conservative Conspiracy media that's covered in the international news. I hear about how hard the UK has it because their presence in the EU causes all the poor eastern European people to flock to the UK to steal all the UK jobs, working for peanuts and taking all the money out of the country when they are done.
England must be super-strong. They were claiming that Scotland would collapse economically if they weren't in the EU, just 9 months ago when the Scottish freedom was considered. So Scotland is hanging by a thread, on the edge of collapse. Or at least, so says England.
But hey, you don't see any real differences between reservoirs and rivers - and you spout complete nonsense about Dallas pumping water out of the Trinity and into city reservoirs
So, what feeds Lewisville Lake? Does Dallas pull drinking water from Lewisville Lake? Where does the waste from Gainsvile go?
You don't stick to facts, and don't answer direct questions. So I assume more distraction and smoke and mirrors, and no answers or discussion.
Yes, once you change the millions of laws that assume the current definition of marriage, then it's trivial to change the laws around marriage itself. Arguing about changing marriage first is putting the cart before the horse.
Not quite so trivially, and the current legal implications are quite large. The process around it couldn't handle it. Maybe if the whole thing was changed, but as-is, it would be quite a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still not understanding. A Power of Attorney is a form of contract. I can make and break one freely with no penalties at all. It just takes a notary (optional) for it to be valid.
So I could make and break 1000 PoAs in a day, and there'd be no cost. No barrier to doing it. The only inconvenience is if I chose to get them all notarized, and that's not a high barrier.
There is deliberate government interference in forming hurdles to form and dissolve a marriage contract. Eliminating those hurdles without consideration of the results would be folly.
Yeah, wouldn't it make sense to see where the GPS signal dies, and when it comes back, and persume they took transport from one position to the other? No inertia guessing needed. The Yellow to the Red line is the only way to connect those dots without looping or doubling back. So why do you need to have the accelerometer to confirm?
. In 2008 there was a real risk that banks would fall like dominoes.
Yeah, like the UK who told Iceland to bail out the Bank of England or be personally responsible for the Apocalypse. Iceland didn't pay. Nothing happened.
Nope. Bailing out the bank pays out the investors and directors. Letting the bank fail pays out the account holders. The richest of the two groups is the investors, so we bail out with welfare for the rich. Fuck the poor.
Yes, you've tracked the "subprime" explosion. But subprime was unrelated to the crisis. "Subprime" was rich white male banker code for "Nigger". Blame it all on the Black man. Don't look at the rich old white males handing out the "bad loans" and bundling them into trade-able instruments and committing fraud by lying about the risk of the bundled loans.
At the time the "crisis" was named, the default rates for subprime were well below historical norms. It's just that, as statistics say, the first card to fall was from the high-risk group. Blaming the high-risk group for being high-risk is insane. But when you let the people who actually caused the mess name it, "subprime crisis" was the name given.
Yes, I played the race card. I'm a rich white male. I just also happen to have been raised in the American South with open eyes, so I see the racism that's pervasive in the US, to the detriment of the US.
What are the shareholder votes?
Isn't that the Republican motto? The official party of the self-loathing closeted gay.
Based on Slashdot comments, the Texas mother that targeted a minor with a known mental issue, committed fraud to gain her confidence, then pushed her to suicide, anyone who would commit suicide is unfit to live, and the murdering mother did the world a service.
There are no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract. If I call up and cancel my mortgage contract, there are set penalties, written into the contract, same with phone service, for those under contract. But the State doesn't punish you for entering into a contract lightly. For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.
That would result in the system we have now, with state sanctioned marriages, and controls on them.
Do you not know the definition of privileged communications? Or the few areas where it's applied?
Can you give an example of a negative outcome?
A step-parent relationship is legally the same as an adoption here. The only reason to perform a step-parent adoption is to block birth-parent visitation. So step parent adoptions are rare. But, marriage to the parent of a child is the equivalent. One is the legal guardian of the children in the relationship, regardless of blood. So, if the birth parent in the married couple dies, the child's care is uninterrupted. The surviving parent is sole guardian, and legally the parent, unless the other birth parent had some formal custody, or wishes to pursue it.
But living together without marriage? The child of a sole-custody arangement is an orphan the same as if both parents died, and the non-married non-birth parent is treated as if a neighbor walked up after a car crash that killed both parents, and offers to look after the new orphans.
I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage
You should not rush to judgement.
So if a town dumps their toilet water into the stream, and downstream someone drinks it from the tap, that's not toilet to tap. Got it. Toilet to Tap has nothing to do with toilets or taps.
Think about it for a minute - what actual, tangible, benefit do gays achieve by being able to call their relationships a marriage?
Do you want a list of the thousands of rights that come with marriage? The rights of survivorship are ignored by almost all, at least until their spouse dies suddenly, and they have to take over the life. When my dad died, I could have sued his partner for her house. They weren't "married", but had lived together for 10+ years, and lived as man and wife. As he made tangible improvements to the property, and as I'm his son, I have a right to whatever holding he had in that property. Since he wasn't married, I could claim against that as his heir. If they had been married, then I'd have had no claim. It would have passed to his wife without claim or ability for incident.
That's one of the thousands of rights that married people take for granted. In most cases, even a written living will is trumped by the "marriage" card. Though, that's changing. But a non-married partner will be ignored by all. And that's not changing.
of course most have little interest in real human rights - just ask around here about people's views on abortion for example.
Since someone doesn't agree with your fascist declaration of when life begins, you assert that their value of life is different. Nah, you are just a fascist aggressor who hates people.
I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago when the defenses of marriage were being erected, the arguments then were that marriage was an idea whose time has ended. The people came together to support marriage. More than one movement has talked about ending marriage, and all that did that failed. Quickly and miserably. So they moved on to working within the system.
There is no parsing of the OP that indicates he's talking about suicide.
With your "marry anyone and divorce them anytime you want" rule, just marry everyone you do an illegal deal with. You can't be compelled to testify against your spouse. Divorce them after the deal, and the illegal acts are still under priveledged communication rules.
Abandon all that, and telling your wife that you hate the boss at work, can be used against you when they find that the boss was run over at work. So you either have to change millions of laws, or break the idea of "marriage" completely.
Which do you find preferable? Why?
Most people find it easy that they can have a single contract with no modifications or negotiations allowed (though separate property contacts, commonly called pre-nups, are allowed, though in practice, rare). The millions of laws written around marriage work together to define it in a contractual, legal, financial, and societal context. It may not be perfect, but it's better than abolishing a legal recognition of any relationships.
The law could very simply state (all laws regarding marriage are null and void. from this day forward the laws are as follows....
Yeah, and so the one law passed to do that is in what jurisdiction? Federal? They don't define "marriage" now, but put rules on it based on what the 50 states decide. So at a minimum, you'd have to have 51 states (DC is a "state" for most purposes), plus the feds, and get that 52 law bundle passed at the exact same instant for that to work. Plus, the "laws" in many places aren't laws, but regulations and administrative rules. Your "simple" law would have to change the IRS code, and hundreds or thousands of other federal regulations with weight of law. And the countless local rules on marriage. State law in Texas allows a minor to drink, under the supervision of an adult. So a 21 year old married to a 19 year old, can buy drinks for, and hand drinks to the "under-age" drinker. But that's not the same everywhere. Thousands of little things like that would make a massive change to the legal burden of formerly married people, once you abolish marriage, in the way you state.
You obviously don't even understand that, let alone have an opinion how it would work after. How does your one simple law fix under-age drinking law in Texas (a state matter) and the IRS code (not coded into law), at the same time?
"One simple law" change for multiple independent jurisdictions. With no understanding of law, or reality.
Why? That's the logical conclusion of rule elimination. Just because you live in a fantasy land doesn't mean the practical people are all wrong.
That's not what they said at the last independence vote, less than a year ago.
Defense from whom? Is Liberia going to invade Scotland?
We've got the 2nd largest european economy after germany (we overtook france recently) and one of the highest employment rates in europe, so I'd be interested to hear what your definition of "strong" is.
Must be the Conservative Conspiracy media that's covered in the international news. I hear about how hard the UK has it because their presence in the EU causes all the poor eastern European people to flock to the UK to steal all the UK jobs, working for peanuts and taking all the money out of the country when they are done.
England must be super-strong. They were claiming that Scotland would collapse economically if they weren't in the EU, just 9 months ago when the Scottish freedom was considered. So Scotland is hanging by a thread, on the edge of collapse. Or at least, so says England.
Who is killing the transgenders?
But hey, you don't see any real differences between reservoirs and rivers - and you spout complete nonsense about Dallas pumping water out of the Trinity and into city reservoirs
So, what feeds Lewisville Lake? Does Dallas pull drinking water from Lewisville Lake? Where does the waste from Gainsvile go?
You don't stick to facts, and don't answer direct questions. So I assume more distraction and smoke and mirrors, and no answers or discussion.
Rules like "No Blacks"?
Yes, once you change the millions of laws that assume the current definition of marriage, then it's trivial to change the laws around marriage itself. Arguing about changing marriage first is putting the cart before the horse.
Not quite so trivially, and the current legal implications are quite large. The process around it couldn't handle it. Maybe if the whole thing was changed, but as-is, it would be quite a problem.