Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Under Citizens United as precedent you can bribe "contribute to" any politician you want. So somehow I think that portion of it will be fine. I can't believe I'm siding with John McCain, but his campaign finance reforms were actually respectable and intelligent ideas until the US Supreme Court overturned them.

However, procedure is pretty big in law, if they actually did skip a step in the legislative process then that could be a problem if it is an essential one or one that cannot be waived etc etc.

It is possible they could stir up a technicality, but given that no one in NY state who really matters for the bill would be up for reelection soon, they could just pass it again.

Simply, no, I don't think it would go anywhere as a legal challenge but then again I'm unfamiliar with NY State's individual laws on legislative procedure. Possible though.

[Nadaka]

Citizens United not only ensured the right of corporations to donate without limit, but to do so anonymously.

Does this investigation into the campaign contributions in order to stamp out gay marriage run counter to that?

[Truean]

Of all the unanticipated questions that would come from that case .

I think it would, however I'm pretty sure the donors were not anonymous in this case. The BS argument is that the legislature was biased by the campaign contributions.

[Andir]

All the more reason to make marriage a non-issue with government bodies.  If there's no benefit to "marriage" this wouldn't be an issue.  All the benefits afforded the married could be applied for individually by anyone, for anyone.  If someone wanted to make their college roommate a "trusted confidant" they should be able to.  But be aware that they could have legal rights to pull your plug if you get into a serious accident.  Little "side laws" like that could invalidate marriage as a government issue altogether.

I don't see any reason why governments need to regulate/approve/cater to marriage.

[G-Flex]

All the more reason to make marriage a non-issue with government bodies.

No, it's not. The fact that people will lobby for certain legislation has nothing to do with whether or not something is the government's business to begin with.

If someone wanted to make their college roommate a "trusted confidant" they should be able to.  But be aware that they could have legal rights to pull your plug if you get into a serious accident.  Little "side laws" like that could invalidate marriage as a government issue altogether.

I don't see any reason why governments need to regulate/approve/cater to marriage.

I would agree in light of your type of suggestion, but whether you like it or not, marriage is still a very relevant cultural institution. Being someone's legal spouse is nearly as important to people socially as being someone's child or parent, and in that sense, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon just yet and say that there's no need for it to be a distinct institution.

[Andir]

All the more reason to make marriage a non-issue with government bodies.

No, it's not. The fact that people will lobby for certain legislation has nothing to do with whether or not something is the government's business to begin with.

If someone wanted to make their college roommate a "trusted confidant" they should be able to.  But be aware that they could have legal rights to pull your plug if you get into a serious accident.  Little "side laws" like that could invalidate marriage as a government issue altogether.

I don't see any reason why governments need to regulate/approve/cater to marriage.

I would agree in light of your type of suggestion, but whether you like it or not, marriage is still a very relevant cultural institution. Being someone's legal spouse is nearly as important to people socially as being someone's child or parent, and in that sense, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon just yet and say that there's no need for it to be a distinct institution.

I'd actually argue that it's a Constitutional violation.  It's establishes support for a specific religion's ceremony.  Why isn't Polygamy accepted as well?

[Willfor]

All the more reason to make marriage a non-issue with government bodies.

No, it's not. The fact that people will lobby for certain legislation has nothing to do with whether or not something is the government's business to begin with.

If someone wanted to make their college roommate a "trusted confidant" they should be able to.  But be aware that they could have legal rights to pull your plug if you get into a serious accident.  Little "side laws" like that could invalidate marriage as a government issue altogether.

I don't see any reason why governments need to regulate/approve/cater to marriage.

I would agree in light of your type of suggestion, but whether you like it or not, marriage is still a very relevant cultural institution. Being someone's legal spouse is nearly as important to people socially as being someone's child or parent, and in that sense, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon just yet and say that there's no need for it to be a distinct institution.

I'd actually argue that it's a Constitutional violation.  It's establishes support for a specific religion's ceremony.  Why isn't Polygamy accepted as well?

Marriage has not been religious in nature in the west for a long time now. It has long since been part of the state, and it is only continuing to become more of a function of the state than any particular religion. If you're buying into the propaganda campaign that says otherwise, then, well, you're living under the influence of delusions.

Before someone contradicts what I'm saying: You can have a ceremony to become married at a church, but unless you file papers with the government, and have a license, you are not married in the eyes of the law. The church has been functionally castrated as the source of marriage for a good long while, now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, I know that at least at one time, in some regions of Alabama and Georgia, if you declare yourselves married and are of age, then you are legally considered married.

[Willfor]

Actually, I know that at least at one time, in some regions of Alabama and Georgia, if you declare yourselves married and are of age, then you are legally considered married.

See, generally, people don't look to Alabama and Georgia as the source of the current American mainstream laws. They look to these regions as holdfasts of backwards, and ancient laws. I'm fairly certain that what I said applies to 95% of the US of A. Which, in my opinion, is a good enough percentage to make a statement about.

The European trend toward state-sanctioned marriage predates the colonization of America, so it's not like this is a ~new thing~ by any stretch of the imagination.

[Nadaka]

Marriage has not been religious in nature in the west for a long time now. It has long since been part of the state, and it is only continuing to become more of a function of the state than any particular religion. If you're buying into the propaganda campaign that says otherwise, then, well, you're living under the influence of delusions.

Before someone contradicts what I'm saying: You can have a ceremony to become married at a church, but unless you file papers with the government, and have a license, you are not married in the eyes of the law. The church has been functionally castrated as the source of marriage for a good long while, now.

The California civil union law actually allows pseudo-polygamy. You can be in both a civil union and a marriage if you enter the civil union first.

Edit: if I recall correctly (its been a while since I read this so please contradict me if you have sources) the official polygamy banning laws in the US were put out as a way of pushing out the radical new violent and militant cult known as the Mormon church.

[Willfor]

Edit: if I recall correctly (its been a while since I read this so please contradict me if you have sources) the official polygamy banning laws in the US were put out as a way of pushing out the radical new violent and militant cult known as the Mormon church.

That is what I have heard on the matter as well.

The only reason there is no reply to the rest is because I am unsure if you're trying to build off of what I was saying, or arguing against it. I'm thinking it's the former, but I have been wrong about these things before.

[Nadaka]

Doh! In an attempt to avoid a quote pyramid. I edited out the guy you quoted that mentioned polygamy.

I actually don't think I was trying to do either. In fact, I am trying to figure out why I quoted you and not Andir anyway?

[Vector]

Found a tumblr called "Boobs don't work that way," which I can't link here due to ToS (naked breasts, albeit for an educational rather than titillating purpose).  If you're at home, though, it's a kind of interesting look at how female bodies are represented in media.

"Male Games for Male Gamers"

Couturiers

"Dogs and Smurfs"

I found all three of these essays/blog posts pretty fascinating, and recommend them highly.

[Truean]

Found a tumblr called "Boobs don't work that way," which I can't link here due to ToS (naked breasts, albeit for an educational rather than titillating purpose).  If you're at home, though, it's a kind of interesting look at how female bodies are represented in media.

"Male Games for Male Gamers"

Couturiers

"Dogs and Smurfs"

I found all three of these essays/blog posts pretty fascinating, and recommend them highly.

Kudos on the articles. I also remember an article saying the original Lara Croft Tomb Raider model's breast size was actually a programming glitch making them 1.5 times as large as intended. This basically makes it so there is an obvious draw for teenage/young male gamers.   So rather than be one of gaming's empowering female characters she instantly went from that to sex symbol. Super-athletic, fearless, skilled, smart and rich with big boobs..... [sigh].

That combined with the camera angle zoom in feature pretty much always going to her chest sealed her fate. Rather than join the ranks of Samus (whose gender was hidden until the end or if you knew the NES code), Lara Croft joined... other ranks.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Found a tumblr called "Boobs don't work that way," which I can't link here due to ToS (naked breasts, albeit for an educational rather than titillating purpose).  If you're at home, though, it's a kind of interesting look at how female bodies are represented in media.

"Male Games for Male Gamers"

Couturiers

"Dogs and Smurfs"

I found all three of these essays/blog posts pretty fascinating, and recommend them highly.

The whole "men-only" thing of gaming in general annoys the hell out of me, but it's pretty much the attitude of most of my older friends, who are basically like-minded gamers. I wish it wasn't, because it just makes gamers look like a load of misogynistic nerds who can't get within 50 yards of a woman on the internet (figuratively speaking) without howling TITS OR GTFO. I fucking hate that attitude. Also applies to my D&D group.