... throwing Abortion Laws back to the states?  Do you think the state you live in now would vote to keep abortion legal?  Do you have any basis (polls) for your belief?  

Do you think the country would live with making Gay Marriage / Civil Unions a State matter and a guarantee that these would be recognized everywhere (in some way).  Would it be more palatible if the Feds extended marriage benefits to Civil Unions at the same time?

I suspect we will be faced with these choices over the next several years.

Harry

the states making their own decisions on abortion.  I'm sure Minnesota would continue to promote abortion at all costs even though the majority of outstate MN would not approve.  MN politics are controlled by metro population.

I believe in MN, civil unions carry the same benefits as married couples.  I'm not completely sure about hospital visitation and probate law, but all govt. services including the 1000's employed by the Univ of MN system have health care benefit extended to domestic partners.

I will never accept same sex marriage.  Seriously, If gay marriage were somehow approved by the Fed, how long would you expect before the first 3-some wanted to get married?

... thanks for you thoughts.  The Federal Register (particularly the tax code) conveys thousands of benefits only to people that are legally married.  Would you be comfortable with a rule that said these laws (where they existed) extend to domestic partnerships?  Doing this would hardly be a windfall to gays since many of them only  relate to people responsible for children.  However, they would help gay people that are supporting or raising children.  

I personnally could live with plural marriages.  I'm not so sure sometimes that the country did the right thing when it went after the Mormans.  

Once it rose out of the state courts into the federal courts
and into the supreme court, it is no longer a state matter.

There's thirty years of judicial rulings on this!  What would
have to happen is that laws would have to be passed (at the
state or federal level) that would try to codify or limit
certain aspects of the ruling like parental notification,
partial birth abortion, etc.

Each, of course, would be subject to challenge in the courts.
Of course they can carefully craft the law to avoid and/or
win in the courts.

But there ain't no reversing Roe v. Wade because it ain't just
Roe v. Wade but instead thirty years of rulings that only began
with Roe v. Wade.

In the order you raise them.

1.  As I've said elsewhere on this Board, the States are where the issue belongs.  My state (the Commonwealth of Virginia) would likely bar abortion, and has done much to limit it, even though the Federal courts have intervened to stand in the way of reasonable restrictions like parental notification for minors (required for aspirin in school) and the monstrosity known as partial-birth abortion.

2.  No.  Unfortunately, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution would allow Federal courts to attempt to import it.  Marriage is a human institution that pre-dates our government, and human civilization itself.  It is the basic building block of human society.  Again, Virginia bars legal recognition of and benefits to same-sex couples, and rightly so.

3.  From your mouth to God's ears.

I hope 1 does not happen.  It makes little sense and would result in a legal disaster.  However, I think there is a good chance it might be attempted over the next four years.

We will, of course, continue to disagree on 2.  

I think there is no reason that the federal government could not legally extend federal protections (especially in the tax code)  to civil unions without stepping on the rights of the states to recognize marriage in whatever way they want.  There is little financial effect and this lagniappe would go a long way toward bringing down the heat of the discussion.

I'm sure you don't mean what you said about marriage predating human civilization.  Any historical anthropologist can tell you that all forms of family structures have existed in human societies.  In any case, marriage is a civil institutional idea and has no real meaning outside a social order.

When did your state allow interracial marriage?

Already the rest of the country sneers about New England liberals and the Left Coast, how is it going to be when we have abortion states and non-abortion states?  The disparity of who pays the taxes and who receives them has been noticed.  Might the non-abortion states be motivated to aggravate this due to perceived moral superiority?  (Might faith-based initiatives be just the apparatus for doing this?) I know anti-abortionists have long seen the parallel with slavery here and have warned of a civil war, that doesn't mean they should do precisely the things to bring it about.

The framers of the Constitution were given States as the political reality of what they had to work with.  That doesn't mean that we have to worship states rights as great notion, or re-establish them as quickly as possible.  

That being said, I will agree that parental notification is reasonable.  We disagree about medically necessary "partial-birth" abortion.  And no, I don't think medical procedures should be outlawed because they are "gruesome," or "ugly" or even "ichy."      

"Marriage is a human institution that predates ... human civilization itself."  You are just dead wrong here James.  The Sumerians did not have to invent the marriage certificate to build a civilization.  Quite likely, the opposite happened: prostitution predated civilization and marriage was the afterthought.  We've turned it upside-down, I think, to impose an ideology.  If so, it will be a disaster.    

However, I believe that a man with thirty TER reviews to his name espousing traditional marriage is really of two minds about it.  I just wish you'd let your second mind think and speak about it as eloquently as your first, but authority worship precludes this.  Your internal repression, a hallmark of conservatives, doesn't bode well for conservative rule.  

/Zin


-- Modified on 11/22/2004 9:03:36 AM

demonstrates its nihilism, warning of the dire consequences if it doesn't get its way.  That's not tolerance; that's narcissism.

As for "sneer[ing]," by most measures, most of the "sneers" of late come from the sanctimonious Left, the likes of Michael Moore and those who label the President --- elected with a majority of the voters' support, something a Democrat hasn't done since 1976 and 1964 --- as "Dumbya" (though perhaps Zinaval isn't guilty of this; I haven't troubled myself to review his prior posts).

As for "The disparity of who pays the taxes and who receives them," if you on the far Left, who like a regime of high taxes, don't like it, then I would strongly suggest that you join the bandwagon for lower taxes, and a smaller federal government.  The disparity will not be possible when the federal government is reduced to its appropriate size.  Then you can support all of the high local taxes that you want, and pursue your agenda of "socialism in one [state]," or more accurately, among those few you control.  Of course, why are you surprised that those in the tax consuming states avail themselves of the benefits of the tax producing states collected by the Federal government?  It is a predictable consequence of the leviathan that Liberals have created.  Moreover, it is precisely the kind of balance that Madison would have expected.  And as one who not only pays my share of taxes, but the shares of quite a few other families, I certainly have the authority to complain about them.

Zinaval says that "The framers of the Constitution were given States as the political reality of what they had to work with.  That doesn't mean that we have to worship states rights as great notion, or re-establish them as quickly as possible."  Of course, that is a typical far Left effort to re-write history.  The Framers quite clearly viewed the several States as a bulwark against Federal tyranny --- hence the Tenth Amendment and the Senate --- a counter-balance against Federal intrusions against individual rights that Zinaval and others bemoan elsewhere (when it's John Ashcroft doin' the intrudin').  The Framers were more concerned with majority tyranny, and the evils of democracy.

As to "medically necessary 'partial-birth' abortion," the fact is that most aren't "medically necessary," unless one counts as "medically necessary" the need of a mother to discard a nearly full-term infant for convenience's sake.  I count among my friends a OB-GYN, and he has performed precisely one such abortion in his career, one that was "medically necessary," i.e., to save the life of the mother.  And even though his action was perfectly defensible --- even to a pro-lifer like myself --- it tore him apart.  Belittling it as "ichy" (or was it "icky") hardly advances rational debate.  Anyone who believes that it isn't gruesome just isn't paying attention, and it would have to be a studied ignorance.

Zinaval also opines that I am "just dead wrong" in asserting that "Marriage is a human institution that predates ... human civilization itself" because "The Sumerians did not have to invent the marriage certificate to build a civilization."  What a magnificent non sequitor!  So marriage requires a marriage certificate?  What nonsense!  It doesn't require a "certificate" in most of the states.  Ever hear of "common-law marriage"?  And even if Zinaval's were a legitimate argument, it is telling that he had to reach back to an ancient, and dead, civilization to sustain his point.

As for Zinaval's belief that "that a man with thirty TER reviews to his name espousing traditional marriage is really of two minds about it," let's just agree that I won't try to read your mind, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy.  That I do support and defend (and practice, if imperfectly) "traditional marriage" simply means that I am neither so arrogant nor narcissistic as to demand that society change to reflect my practices.  It also means that a I have a respect for language and its common usage.  That I am "a man with thirty TER reviews" to my name merely means this: I am human.  I fail, and I try, and I fail again.  I'm imperfect.  So sue me.  Being human also means aspiring to that which is better, and even if my practices are imperfect, that hardly indicts my principles.

And then there's the typical psychobabble of the far Left: because I don't accept the nonsense of the far Left, I suffer from "internal repression, a hallmark of conservatives."  Amazingly enough, Zinaval is not the first political opponent to resort to this cheap and tawdry tactic.

Suffice it to say that Zinaval would be quite at home in the old Soviet Union, where they also treated political opposition to the regime as psychological pathology, and institutionalized regime opponents.  But then again, why should that surprise me?  As noted above, it is a hallmark of the far Left.

What is "a formula for civil war" is the accelerating penchant of the far Left to attack the institutions of civilization, and then attack those who defend them as sick, or stupid.  It is the insistence that society transform itself to reflect an individual's reality which is truly the hallmark of a profoundly sick mind.

Unfortunately, I believed if I had ignored the elephant 3 inches from my face any longer I might have looked stupid.  You mean, I'm the first one to say this to you?  I assure you, I wasn't the first to notice it.  

If you want the courtesy of my not "reading your mind," your psychobabble for trying to infer your intentions from your actions or writings, then don't read mine with words like "narcisssistic," "arrogant," or at least don't do and then say you're not.  Even if your "reading" is really a plagerism of other conservative's reading of the left.

Since the spectre of responsibility, logic and consistency about this doesn't rattle you, I presume it won't bother you when I say the conservatives themselves warned of "dire consequences" in not getting their way.  Each side has warned of this, James.  In fact, as I pointed out my previous post, it is the anti-abortion side who first made ocmparisons between slavery and abortion for civil war.  I'm just the late-comer who sees that they may be right after all.  In fact, you end your post by warning of "dire consequences" telling me what is **really, really** the formula for civil war.  

How, James?  The previous civil war was over slavery: which was  an institution of civilization, any way you want to look at it.  It was officially recognized as such in the constitution (perhaps comparable to one of those "errors" you've referred to, without a doubt).  It was attacked and abolished.  Can you point to a continual civil war since then because of this?    

We've had abortion legal for almost 30 years.  A war takes shooting.  Tell me, James, since its legal, who's going to do the shooting, and why?  And who's going to form the dissident government behind the shooting?  Unless you're playing the prophet here and trying to use secular language to say God will punish us; I believe this is exactly what you're saying while trying to hide it.    

I don't insist that society transform itself, James.  If abortion were legal, you could pretend that you live in a State where it isn't legal.  You don't have to get one, you dont' have to pay for one.  Period.  Same with gay marriage, you don't have to marry gay.  Now, in a State where it's illegal, try to pretend, when appropriate, that it's legal.  You can't.  You can't pretend that it is.  So, which situation is freer?  Which situation is closer to that "tyranny of the majority" that you refer to?  

If you want it done right, look at the Amish.  They have thrived marvelously in our society despite their objection to technology.  They haven't insisted or agitated that the rest of society follow their lead.  They haven't made disguised warnings that God will send our nation to hell.  They haven't tried to sabotage the nation to rescue it from divine punishment.  This is a good idea James.  Why do you need the State of Virginia?  Just advertise for like-minded people and start your own thriving, anti-abortion community. That has got to be easier to do than what the Amish have done.  

/Zin
 

If you think that States rights and low taxes are compatible notions, you will be sadly disappointed with the results.  Wait until fifty ineffectual governments and jurisdictions try to take over government responsibilities.  

Nevertheless, what I say and your purported "rebuttal" were not contradictory.  As I said, the founders were handed the states as a geo-political reality, knew they couldn't abolish them, (and wouldn't have wanted to regardless) and then used them as a bulwark against Federal tyranny, as you said.  Clever men those framers, and I compliment them for it.  However, they were mere human beings.  The fact that they are now dead, makes them no more than they ever were.  Take their opinions as part of the debate, but don't take it as the final word to be revered.  I follow Thomas Payne's opinion in the "Rights of Man," the living should not be slaves to opinions of the dead.  Irony notwithstanding, that's good advice about the works of the founders of this country and the framers of the constitution.  Especially don't do things just because we've always done them that way.  Including things given the reverence of "institutions of civilization."

You talk about their fear of democracy and majority tyranny, but what you fail to say is that their notion of tyranny was synonymous with "King."  Yes, they feared democracy, but they feared a King more because they actually experienced that.

/Zin  

No, I don't buy the fact that you f*cked thirty providers (and wrote reviews about it) due to error.  That's not an error in my mind.  I don't sound like it now, but I have a religious background.  I have been celebate for years at a time for more than half my adolescence/adult life.  (No, I wasn't in prison.)  I found lapsing into what you call "errors" difficult to do even deliberately.  

An error is not "Oops, I had sex with a beautiful woman!"  An error is you forgot the rubber and got AIDS.  An error in my mind is if you forget, misperceive, miscalculate.  You've done none of that.    

You've created two fictitious characters.  One of them is James8 who supports traditional practices, and the other is James6 who always commits "errors," and spends a lot of time in what James8 considers foul territory.  The only way James8 tolerates James6 is that both agree on the principle of the thing, so they are not narcissistic.  

But, you're repressing the truth, that in fact, neither one really exists.  They are both sockpuppets of the same guy who is  deliberately has lots of good sex, while he gains prestige and status for his upright views, along with satisfaction of righteously forcing them on other people. You count for your credibility on a society of people pre-trained by their various churches to buy exactly the bullshit you've said about it.  They are internally repressed as you, afraid of being "narcissistic" by wrapping their minds around both.  I don't buy your explanation.  BTW, it's quite arrogant and narcissistic of you to say you get laid more on your worst days, the days you f*ck up worse.  I guess on your best days your a demigod?  

Internally repressed is not a psychobabble term.  The reference is classical: it comes from Plato's Republic.  It doesn't bode well to me that people who are so crippled, so warped by guilt resort to these games and can't stop them.  I don't want society run by the logic of the psychologically crippled, like you.  

No, James, it's not narcissistic for me to demand that my perception of myself encompass my sexuality and not explain it away as an error.  Narcissism?  I pay heavily in this society for doing this.  

/Zin

No, common law marriage doesn't require a marriage certificate, per se, until the divorce, you mean.  In other words, the certificate is deferred until somebody cares or it becomes important.  

But, of course, you read my metaphor literally just to get a straw man.  In referring to a marriage certificate, I meant to notice a marriage, to document it, to recognize it, and yes, to enforce it.  Because it has no meaning outside the society.  Because it didn't exist beforehand.  Marriage didn't build civilization, civilization took reproduction and made marriage out of it.      

Obviously, human being had to reproduce and rear their offspring, and **this** predates civilization.  Undercutting this would be serious for the continuation of a nation-state.  But it's not being under-cut through gay marriage.    

No, I don't think your objection to gay marriage is based on "respect for the common language."  I don't buy that for a hummingbird second.  I don't think referring to a gay union as a marriage confuses anybody, if anything, it gives a clear picture of what's entailed and what's to be expected.  

/Zin