Andre Lieven wrote:

Lets be real clear about this: You claim that, in order for me to have
an *opinion*, I must pass all those *qualifications*...

No, I claim that in order for your opinions about what constitutes
"family", "parent", "mother", and "father" to be worth much, you ought
to be a parent.

LOL ! Thats exactly what I said.

Where? When?

For that matter, lets test your consistancy...

This is sci.space.history. You an astronaut ? If not, what gives you
the " right " to speak on matters where, according to *your
" standard ", your opinions aren't " worth much "...

Are you? What's your degree in? My undergrad degree is aerospace
engineering and I've designed ECLSS equipment currently on-orbit (and
supporting a crew, BTW). That's space.history enough for most.

I claim that if you're going to insists on arguing about what are
legal matters about what U.S. states should or should not do vis a vis
granting or denying marriage licenses to committed couples (gay or
straight or undecided), you ought to stick to the tools necessary for
logical, consistent legal argument concerning U.S. Constitutional law:

Free Clue, Redeux: Usenet encompasses *more than the US of A*.

Reread the above, friend. You want to debate that policies of U.S. state or
federal government, then do so. Otherwise just shut the hell up.

know and
understand terms like "suspect classification", "equal protection",
"rational basis test", "heightened scrutiny" and how such terms are
applied
and used by courts. You don't. Until you realize that legal arguments
require an understanding of legal terms and how the bodies making the
decisions (e.g., courts) work to apply those terms, further discussion is
not of much use.

So, no non-lawyers can have opinions about the law...

Sure, but stick to the terms and terminology if you want to be taken
seriously when someone points out the why it's okay to have disparate
treatment in some contexts while in others, such disparate treatment is not
acceptable.

How... Soviet of you...

How . . . ignorant of you . . . to not be able to comprehend the
difference.

But, you also claim that, in order for the whole state of marriage to
be re-defined, there are NO qualifications....

I have never made such a claim. You're mischaracterizing what I've
posted.

LOL ! Translation: " Yes, I said that, and how dare you point that
out ! "

I call bull**** on that. Prove it: where have I said "there are NO
qualifications" You're talking out of your ass here (again).

What I *HAVE* claimed is that sexual-orientation is becoming a suspect
classification in the U.S. and that disparate treatement vis a vis
issuance or denial of marriage licenses based on that suspect
classification may (or
may not) pass Constitutional muster. I am sorry you don't seem to grasp
what that means.

" If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can
always call him names ! " Oscar Wilde.

If you can't discuss the matter rationally, pull out a literary quote that
is irrelevent. I didn't call you names. I pointed out that you aren't
grasping the terms of the discussion.

I sense not a little hypocrisy/inconsistancy* there...

Failure of comprehension on your part equals neither hypocracy nor
inconsistency on mine.

Ibid Wilde.

Ibid your own inappropriate use of a quote rather than discussing the
policies you wish to defend.

BTW, I have been a step-parent,

Similar but not the same. For how long? Did the biological parent share
custody or not? Did the child(ren) live with you or with the other
parent?
How about other parenting responsibilities like medical decision making
authority, healthcare and educational decision making authority? Until
you describe why you feel qualified to define for the world what
consitutes a "family" and who should or should not be permitted to marry,
expect to be challenged.

I utterly reject your " means test " in order to be able to *hold a view*.

You can hold a view. I can reject it on the basis that until you don't know
what the hell you're talking about.

I need not be you, in order to have an opinion... And, I cna even have
an *informed opinion*, without mirroring your life.

Then discuss your opinions in rational terms, explaining again why the
disparate treatment of marriage licenses based on a suspect classification
scheme under U.S. Constitutional law is and ought to be acceptable. Try to
do it without calling names.

The idea that one must pass all those hoops, if you've done so, in
order to hold views, is narcissistic, to say the leats.

Then discuss your views in rational terms, explaining again why the
disparate treatment of marriage licenses based on a suspect classification
scheme under U.S. Constitutional law is and ought to be acceptable. Try to
do it without calling names.

Hypocritical, if you *fail* to apply them anywhere else...

I have been through a divorce,

Join the club. No children of the marriage though, huh? Apparently not.

Damn straight. I was... lucky.

one so
messy that a part of it made Canadian legal precedent,

If you're not fighting over custody, care and responsibility for your
children it's just fighting over a damn wagon wheel table* and no one
will
give much of a **** after a few years. It's just money and stuff.

No problem. If that means so little to you, when it's *other people's*,
then... *send me some of yours, if you *wish to avoid further hypocrisy*,
that is...

Other obligations with my stuff and money - MY children (who DO matter far
more than the stuff and money used to support them).

" Show me the money ! " " Jerry McGuire ".

(*See "When Harry Met Sally" and Bruno Kirby's scenes with Carrie Fisher)

Dumb movie. Chyk flick. I repeat myself...

Continuing to equate your stuff ("wagon wheel table") with a child is absurd
and immature; the fact that you offer continued insults in the face of your
own absurdity is a telling commentary. Perhaps you should spend less time
feeling smug about the precedential value of your divorce litigation (over
something as banal as tangible items and money) and more time seeking to
understand why the relationship itself failed.

one that my
studies showed would be the result of the case, so do get off of
your condescending high horse,

Show relevent personal experience (e.g., the basis of some wisdom) rather
than spout holier-than-thou rhetoric about "family" and "parent."

Why ? *You haven't*..

BTW, " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

Yes, I have: my personal experience is that every gay couple I've ever met
has wished for the option of a legal marriage. That is BOTH "experience"
and "anecdote." Now, explain again why you oppose my friends' wishes to
marry?

long enough to grasp that other
people don't have to have *lived your life*, in order to have legitimate
views on such a topic...

"Views", yes. "Legitimate" maybe or maybe not. If you can phrase your
arguments in accepted legal terminology, free from moralising and
conclusory statements, then such views may be legitimate (if, in my
opinion, wrong). So far you haven't been able to do so.

Thanks for showimg that *you view yourself as a deity-figure*, by
way of declaring what The Rules Shall Be...

Not a deity figure but someone who is holding your feet to the fire to
explain your prejudice. YOU choose to be insulted; that's YOUR choice.

So much for " equal treatment ", and all. Perhaps *you're unfamiliar
with such provisions of the US Constitution... ?

Much more so than you, obviously.

Since none of that will happen anytime soon, there doesn't seem to be
much point in continuing to argue about it.

Since it doesn't seem that you will arrive at an *internally consistant*
point of view, indeed.

My views are internally consistent.

LOL ! Ah, no. But, thanks for playing... g

Show the inconsistency you claim. Otherwise you're just playing trollish
games.

Your failure to understand those views
may be a failure on my part to express them clearly enough (but see
above)
or it may be a failure on your part to ready thoroughly. Either way, we
clearly disagree.

Sure. But, you don't believe that I have " a right to "...

You have a right to disagree. I have a right to claim your views are
ignorant, prejudiced and utterly without basis, especially as you refuse to
actually explain the basis of your opposition.

Uh huh.

Or one that allows other to have different
views, and still be treated as... people.

I don't know; I think this is a very serious subject and I've treated it
as such; I'm not the guy talking about marrying dogs (to whom you've
already responded in this thread).

Nice MS-statement of what I wrote. Dishonest much ? Or, are you a
lawyer ? But, I repeat myself...

A lawyer, an engineer, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, a parent, a
step-parent, a husband . . . a notary public, too. I also play guitar,
drink beer and watch movies. I'm many things, not the least of which I'm
the guy who got fed up with your stereotypical uber-"family values",
homophobic ignorance and decided to point out that you don't know what
you're spouting about.

You did respond to "marry your dog" post. Must I pull a google cite out to
the exact post? Or, are you a . . . what? A liar? Or merely
misremembering? A former step-parent opposed to gay marriage on ill-defined
and indefensible grounds? But I repeat myself

HTH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

I doubt that very much.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.