Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Thursday, May 15. 2008

Do I have to be homosexual or lesbian?

Re the California court decision, do I have to be homosexual to marry a guy, or lesbian to marry another girl? Or can I do that if I am straight, for insurance benefits or for inheritance tax purposes, or just for the heck of it? Lots of people get married on crazy impulse. And can I marry my brother? If not, why not? If you are gay, why not be able to marry a family member? And then it would only be fair (equal protection) to let straights have the same right.

So here's a cool idea for single guys: If your Mom dies, marry your Dad and dodge all inheritance taxes. Vice versa for single gals.

Polygamy is next. Mark my words. It will be for the Moslems, not for the Mormons.

It's sick out there, and getting sicker...

Posted by The Barrister in Politics at 21:01 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

BTW...did the goose and the dog ever tie the knot?
#1 Habu on 2008-05-15 21:47 (Reply)
What's good for the goose, is good for the barker.
#2 bob on 2008-05-15 21:54 (Reply)
Well it's bedtime for this heterosexual .....come on honey...
OK Honey Habu .....

http://www.stargaleri.com/grafikler/albumler/victoria_silvstedt_252/victoria_silvstedt_3109_7407.jpg
#3 Habu on 2008-05-15 22:21 (Reply)
Habu, you taking up Theo's work now! There won't be anything to see at lastofthefew.com, Nice pic
#3.1 grant1863 on 2008-05-15 23:31 (Reply)
@Habu
You're in love with an air brush. The model probably looks like Barbara Streisand before and after photo shoot.
#3.2 njartist49 on 2008-05-16 11:26 (Reply)
You know, before the camera it was all "air brush" or it's effective equivalent. Not sure what my point is, but what is yours?
#3.2.1 KRW on 2008-05-16 19:11 (Reply)
Just wait until the "Mail order Bride" laws that currently insure
foreign national women a citizenship, a "settlement", orders of protection, a house, etc., regardless of their initial claims of matrimony-run directly into a new scam of "imported homosexual spouse" , starting (where else) in Mass. and Cal-ee-forn-eee-ah.

Wonder how many well adjusted homosexuals, or "homosexuals"(GLBTM/B), will desperately fall for THAT one, then cry for even MORE special attention when no one shows enough dismay?

I'd hold my breath, but I smoke too much.
#4 CaptDMO on 2008-05-15 23:41 (Reply)
Barrister: I was thinking along the very same lines when I saw the news this afternoon.
#5 feeblemind on 2008-05-15 23:50 (Reply)
Sick minds think alike.
#5.1 BD on 2008-05-16 05:49 (Reply)
Don't forget about all the IT"S. The I don't know which way I'm swinging crowd. They need sexual rearrangement and realignment surgery. They have feelings to.
#6 jappy on 2008-05-16 07:31 (Reply)
sometime after Waterloo, the Prussian leader Blucher made a serious attempt to marry his horse.
#7 buddy larsen on 2008-05-16 08:34 (Reply)
Here's my issue;
What difference does the gender make in a contract between two consenting adults?

Marriage is a social and legal contract. It creates shared property and assigns certain rights.

What does gender have to do with that?

---
(I'm not trying to pick a fight, even though I'm sure that's about to happen. I'm just asking y'all to think about it in a different light.)
#8 _Jon (Link) on 2008-05-16 10:25 (Reply)
''...a social and legal contract. It creates shared property and assigns certain rights.''

Yep, that's what a contract can do. but marriage is a sacrament (a word with a definition as old as human language), meaning that it has a larger meaning to many folks.

Of course the wicked tax system forces the blurring of the issue of contract vs marriage.

change the tax system -- remove the accretion of rococo ornamentation, remake it flat and fair, and rescue the founder's establishment intent, salvage our ability to distinguish between matters of religion and laws of state.
#9 buddy larsen on 2008-05-16 11:00 (Reply)
"... meaning that it has a larger meaning to many folks."
I agree with that. (I also agree with the Gov being too involved, especially considering they use the tax system as a method of social behavioral control.)

I think a good solution is for the Government to use a word other than "marriage" - reserve that for it's social and religious place - and consistently use a different term that is gender-irrelevant, yet still conveys rights and responsibilities.

As for nj's points (below) - I've seen both CA and NJ invalidate laws passed by the people. CA does it with indirect court rulings like this and NJ does it by proclaiming that (paraphrasing); "The people have turned the process of law-making exclusively to the elected officials." I think both directions are crap. It is a shared solution, not exclusive.

meh :shrug: power corrupts.

(btw, IANAL)
#9.1 _Jon (Link) on 2008-05-16 11:31 (Reply)
exactly, jon -- it's the Word -- you hit it. the word ''marry'' (in all its iterations throughout time and space) has always meant a man and a woman.
#9.1.1 buddy larsen on 2008-05-16 11:43 (Reply)
From CNS: The ruling invalidated California's Proposition 22, a state ballot initiative that passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000, and which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

All you lawyers who infest hang around these blogs: I thought that such propositions became part of the state's constitution, from whence the state courts, including the State Supreme Court, derived their authority. Further more, I thought any pre-existing state law becomes invalid when in conflict with a new, successful proposition. Therefor, I think that any concept of "protected status"(?) for gays was rendered invalid by the successful proposition.

Is my thinking incorrect? That state courts can override even the state constitution? I know in NJ the black robed oligarchs can snip and edit to get what they want.
#10 njartist49 on 2008-05-16 11:18 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.