Well It's Democracy

[j2k4]

Wait, wait-

Hobbes-

Granting that I probably put too much lipstick on the pig, do you mean simply that whatever individual states decide to term such unions, that their legal status be transferable?

If your proffer presupposes my old State's Rights case, then I certainly agree with your position, which I take to mean if a couple is granted a "Marriage" in Massachusetts (with all due legal standing), that they would enjoy similar status in Texas (though in Texas it be termed a Civil Union)?

I would think there would continue to be places considered unfriendly to gays; possibly even entire states, insofar as they might choose to withhold sanction.

In any case, I would prefer to see State's Rights revisited, if for no other reason than to re-open public debate on certain issues which have been trampled by judicial overstep.

BTW-you seem to have forgotten my tendency towards obfuscation; I find it useful, when exists the possibility I might be misunderstood, I can forestall same by elimination of the likelihood of any understanding whatsoever.

A distinction so fine as to be wasted, probably.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx@6 August 2004 - 20:38
Surely such a civil union would have to be universally recognised too, after all it is simply a form of legal contract.

PRECISELY!!!

Thank you, lynx; a 200 proof distillation, that.

[vidcc]

Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA

[spinningfreemanny]

Well, there are "two Americas" B)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 03:47
Wait, wait-

Hobbes-

Granting that I probably put too much lipstick on the pig,

That Sir is a picture in words. A disturbing picture and one which causes me great concern as to where you dredged it from, but a picture none the less.

Oh and I believe the right thinking sort have pretty much reached a consensus on this matter. It's just the usual smoke and mirrors now. I quite like that bit, there are some excellent conjurers here. I look forward to your cunning stunts.

[Snee]

Originally posted by hobbes@6 August 2004 - 06:20
What exactly can you do in Canada or Western Europe which is prohibited here?

I want specific examples.

I suppose you have the rights to do a lot more than us.

For instance, if there's a traffic accident, and you can prove it was the other bloke's fault, then you can proceed to sue him for all he's got, if your lawyer can persuade the jury to feel sorry enough for you.

*you can't sue someone for very much around here at all

And if you happen to be sitting in a car with someone, and that someone leaves the car to rob someone or something, then you have the right to go to prison for a very long time, if the prosecutor can convince the jury you knew he was going to do it.

*Even if the prosecutor could prove it to the jury, which has to be done using a whole lot more than just clever rethorics and dodgy witnesses, you wouldn't be in prison for half as long here.

Oh and if you get convicted for murder, then you have the right to get executed in certain states. (better hope you did it, 'cos there's no taking back an execution)

*We don't do executions here, last dude that did get offed, a very long time ago, was proven innocent, which kinda' killed the concept, if nothing else had.

In other places you might have the right to get shot while crossing someone's lawn. And that someone might have the right to get away with shooting you, if his lawyer can convince the jury he had reason to think you meant him harm.

*You have to have a very good reason to have a gun at all, and shooting someone....you have to prove he was like a foot away from you and about to kill you, pretty much.

And so forth.



To be honest, the american legal system scares the hell out of me.

The scariest thing as of late is the damn patriot law though, which, once you get down to it, gives american federal law officers the right to abduct me from here, should I commit what they consider a crime, say by sending information or pictures, illegal in the US, in an e-mail routed over an american server, even if the recipient is in my own country, and the content of said e-mail isn't illegal here.

EDits: clarity, form.

[J'Pol]

hobbes

In Western Euope (and several other parts) we have the ECHR, I have spoken of it on several occasions.

This gives us certain rights, some of which are absolute and others which are not.

As 2 examples :

The right to life is absolute and it cannot be taken away, by anyone including the State.

The right to privacy is part of the convention. It can be breached (otherwise you could not investigate crime). However on each occasion it is breached this must be justified. The investigating agency must show that it was necessary, proportionate to the crime and that it did not violate other people's right to privacy as well. If it does then that nust also be justified.

This must be done every time a breach is to take place, not just once per investigation.

What these two things mean is that 1, How can we have a death penalty, as that would take away the right to life and 2, it's a damn site harder to investigate things like file sharng, since people have a right to their privacy.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA

No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 00:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 7 August 2004 - 00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-lynx@6 August 2004 - 20:38
Surely such a civil union would have to be universally recognised too, after all it is simply a form of legal contract.

PRECISELY&#33;&#33;&#33;

Thank you, lynx; a 200 proof distillation, that. [/b][/quote]
Exactly Lynx, perhaps this is the confusion.

As it ACTUALLY functions now, a civil union is only recognized by the State that grants it. It is not recognised by the Federal government and therefore no federal benefits are available, which are quite a few.

The Surely is the sticking point, because it Sure Isn&#39;t, at the moment.

I don&#39;t think any of us would be here talking about this if a civil union provided equal benefits and was as equally portable as a marriage.

I&#39;m not here as a gay advocate, but I do believe in ensuring that each individual is given his or her civil rights.

The word "marriage" is not the issue, civil unions and marriages can happily co-exist if they are made equal in the legal sense.

That, however, is not the reality of the civil union today.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.

Jpol,

Isn&#39;t this a bit over the top&#33; Get a grip man&#33;

Whoop, actually I mis-read those last 2 words. A bit of a transposition error on my part. Secretly though, I was kinda looking forward to seeing those as well.