Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Herb Schaltegger lid)
writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

That's not the correct characterization under U.S. law.

Free Clue: I was *asked* " What's yours ? ", above.

And you gave a legally-incorrect answer.

So ? Pay very close attention: *I was neither ASKED or ANSWERING on
that basis*.

That is *your straw man*. Please don't expect me to play with it.

Further, as I am NOT a USian, US law has no sway over me, thank
you very much.

Remember that if you ever cross the border or make a trans-border internet
purchase. You might be unpleasantly surprised how these things can work
out.

Non sequitur. I surely will not have any US law connection with any
" marriages "...

Further Free Clue: There are other nationalities on Usenet than
just USian...

No ****; this particular debate branched off from discussions regarding the
actions certain U.S. states may take to legalize gay marriage. My comments
have both kept this in mind and been qualified as necessary. Your failure
to recognize underscores your continued failure to read closely.

Its so nice when you make all the rules, isn't it ?

Look up " control freak "...

Rights are
essentially ANYTHING not prohibited or infringed by powers specifically
granted to the federal government or to the States. Specific rights are
ALSO granted in the Bill of Rights but that is NOT an exclusive list.

So, if the states regulate marriage, then they DO have a right to set...
*qualifications*...

Yes, qualifications NOT BASED ON SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS: e.g., race,
national origin, and (for things like drivers' licenses) gender! Finally
you're starting to "get it." (Of course, this is all under U.S. law and
since we have a written Constitution, it all stops there).

Not really. Humans sit as judges, not robots...

Some freedoms and rights necessarily imply others - for example, many
argue (very persuasively) that the freedom of speech and of assembly
imply a freedom to travel; drivers' license laws in the U.S. fall
somewhat short of "rights" but they are certainly more important that
mere "allowances" or dispensations from state governments.

Non sequitur.

I see that you're very fond of that phrase. However, "it *does* follow"
in areas where automobiles are the basis of transportation for work,
recreation, to gather politically and so forth. Under U.S. law (there's
that qualification you continue to miss), the freedom to travel is indeed
a quarantee implied by certain other

" Full of sound and fury, signifying... nothing. "

No one *needs* a driver's licence, in order to travel

There's a recognition in this country of certain practical matters - lack of
developed public transportation infrastructure for much of the population,
great geographic distances to travel for work, education and political
expression (e.g., polling, voting, assembly) . . . As a result, statutes
creating and enabling drivers' licenses are generally "must issue" in
natu the state "must issue" the license once the threshold tests are
met. There is little (VERY little) discretion involved on the part of the
issuing agency. It is not a CONSTITUTIONALLY-guaranteed rigth in and of
itself, but as the freedom to travel derives from the First Amendment
freedoms of speech and assembly in the U.S., states must (of necessity)
treat their issuance of drivers' licenses liberally since driving is the
preferred (in the U.S.) method expressing one's rights.

Ibid. Add " furious handwaving "...

See " buses, trains, airlines, hitchhiking... ".

See above. Oh, and that'll be US$500 for the condensed version of U.S.
Constitutional Law I in this thread. Feel free to remit to the charity of
your choice.

Pass. For one thinig, you failed to disclose fees prior to acting.

That renders your demand for payment null and void...

That lesson was free...

laughs

Andre

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

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
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?

The line above, marked by " "....

Duh !

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.

Ah, so your fetish for letting only " qualified " people speak
shows itself...

.... Yet, it *self contradicts itself*, by claiming that, while
speech *requires passing arbitrary qualficiatins*, actions *don't*.

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.

Look up " Ugly American "...

And, feel free to *post proof* where said thread was declared *solely*
about US laws...

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.

So much for " government of the *epople* ", then....

How... Soviet of you...

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

How... UNabled of you... to be UNABLE to show your claim...

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).

Why ? *I* didn't snip it out. I don't do repairs for other's vandalisms...

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.

" A difference which makes no difference, IS no difference. " James
Blish.

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.

Ibid Blish.

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.

But, I can't, eh ?

Again, how... Soviet of you...

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.

That was the content of my OP.

And, re-read " The Ugly American ", again, for your repeated fetish
of trying to Net-Cop this matter to *only* US laws and policies...

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.

Really, get help for your control issues...

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).

Then, your claim was... *baseless*. Figures...

" 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.

You're a real bear for ASSuming things, Net Cop...

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?

Because they don't qualify. Period.

I'm for equal rights *and* equal responsibilities. No one rides
for free...

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.

You have yet to PROVE your claim about " prejudice ".

I have found that such pejoritive terms tend to be slung carelessly, by
those whose arguments would fall without such tactics...

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

Much more so than you, obviously.

Can't prove it by this post...

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.

You demand qualifications for *simple speech*, yet utterly *reject*
any for actions...

Done.

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.

IOW, you get the right to... namecall...

Got it, Net Cop...

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.

My, you're also very emotive. Watsamatter, CAN'T make your claims
look good, any other way ?

laughs

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

yawn All *empty ad homs. How... Feminist of you.

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.

Ah, more ad homs. How... nice. How... convincing. How... classy. Not.

BTW, note that I impugned nothing of your person, or professions.
Because I stuck to the argument. Someone had to...

HTH.

And, I'm done with you. I have sleep to get, prior to a trip to Philly
on the morrow. Life to lead, and all.

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

In article , says...
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
I _KNEW_ you were the sort of man who would read the Marquis De Sade's
"120 days of Sodom"!
Nope, I've never gotten around to reading any of his work, and probably
won't either...

I haven't either. But At Home With the Marquis de Sade: A Life, the
biography by Francine du Plessix Gray, taught me more about French
history than my entire 21 years in American schools.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

Andre Lieven wrote:

(Snipped more bull feces)

And, I'm done with you. I have sleep to get, prior to a trip to Philly
on the morrow. Life to lead, and all.


Fine, when in doubt, get the last word in and run away. How morally and
intellectually bankrupt of you.


--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Andre Lieven wrote:

(Snipped more intellectually dishonest bull ****)

*Yawn*

Grow up, please.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Scott Hedrick wrote:

(Snipped stuff)

*Sigh*

I'm sorry; I just don't extrapolate gay marriage into marrying one's pets.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Herb Schaltegger lid) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

(Snipped more bull feces)

And, I'm done with you. I have sleep to get, prior to a trip to Philly
on the morrow. Life to lead, and all.

Fine, when in doubt, get the last word in and run away. How morally and
intellectually bankrupt of you.

This IS rich ! Now, you demand that *I live my life* to your
" qualifications "....

Into the Bozo Bin with CT and Guth you go...

Seek professional mental health care for your *control delusions*...

_Plonk_.

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

Andre Lieven wrote:

(Snipped more pathetic, defensive, whining and intellectually bankrupt crap)

You DO have a pathological need to get the last word in, don't you? I
though you were going to Philadelphia? Well, go then. Oh, and while there
and in transit, remember that you're not concerned with U.S. law. That'll
make a good excuse to the border guards . . . lol.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


Tsk, tsk. Dust implies that it's not being used, whatever "it" is.


That feather duster feels great!

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

And, I'm done with you. I have sleep to get, prior to a trip to Philly
on the morrow. Life to lead, and all.




Fine, when in doubt, get the last word in and run away. How morally and
intellectually bankrupt of you.


Yeah... not only does this ruin my chances to a sequel to my digested
version of the thread, but I've suddenly got this overpowering craving
for bagels with pickle relish and Philadelphia Cream Cheese on them... I
hope I'm not pregnant!
Hoping that you two can work things out- for the sake of the children. :-)

Pat