|
|
|
|
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:37:45 PM | 2hi,
I think you're right about Utah. I think you're mistaken about what constitutes a legal marriage in California.
However, the motivation for Utah was understandable, even if the method was wrong. Protecting young girls from forced marriages was a good idea, don't you think? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 1:36:10 AM |
I think you're mistaken about what constitutes a legal marriage in California.
Ace, I don't know why you'd say that. The poster has already explained why I'm "So Wrong" about this same point--and who can doubt his legal expertise? He even knows the difference between the words "may" and "is," and he was adamant about its significance.
If I understand his earlier post, the fact section 400 uses the word "may," while the word "is" appears in section 422 (c), creates a legal ambiguity. And therefore, my parents, and millions of other couples who thought they were married in civil ceremonies, never really were!
Can you imagine? This has been going on in California all these decades, and all those thousands of judges, professors, and so on have never noticed! Neither has even one of the tens or hundreds of thousands of lawyers who've dealt with married clients in California. And yet a poster, right here on POF, instantly saw why hundreds of thousands of civil marriages performed in California during its 159 years may not be valid! How many more b*st**ds would that stick us with, if they're not?
Here are the California Family Code sections this poster was declaiming about, and my comments on them:
Section 400 says that marriage "may be solemnized by any of the following," if 18 or older. And then subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) 1 through 4, and (e) list the authorized solemnizers by category. Notice that 400 (b) includes a "commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages."
400. Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of
the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any
religious denomination.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or
retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired
commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this
state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United
States:
(1) A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme
Court.
(2) A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district
court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which
are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
(3) A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
(4) A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
(e) A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a
Member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while
that person holds office.
Section 401 (a) designates the county clerk of each county as a commissioner of civil marriages. And subsection (b) authorizes these county clerks to appoint deputy commissioners of civil marriages. It then authorizes these deputies to solemnize marriages under the county clerk's direction.
401. (a) For each county, the county clerk is designated as a
commissioner of civil marriages.
(b) The commissioner of civil marriages may appoint deputy
commissioners of civil marriages who may solemnize marriages under
the direction of the commissioner of civil marriages and shall
perform other duties directed by the commissioner.
So, let's see . . . 401 (a) designates each county clerk as a commissioner of civil marriages; and under 400 (b), a commissioner of civil marriages who's 18 or older, whether retired or not, may solemnize a marriage. It follows, necessarily, that a county clerk who's 18 or older, whether retired or not, may solemnize a marriage. Also, under 401 (b), any deputy commissioners of civil marriages the county clerk appoints may solemnize marriages under his direction.
Section 422 requires the person solemnizing a marriage to state several pieces of information in a form on the marriage license. Subsections (a) through (d) specify them. Subsection (c) requires the solemnizer to state either his official position, or the denomination of which he is a priest, minister, rabbi, or some other authorized person.
422. The person solemnizing a marriage shall, sign and print or
type upon the marriage license a statement, in the form prescribed by
the State Department of Public Health, showing all of the following:
(a) The fact, date (month, day, year), and place (city and county)
of solemnization.
(b) The printed names, signatures, and mailing addresses of at
least one, and no more than two, witnesses to the ceremony.
(c) The official position of the person solemnizing the marriage,
or of the denomination of which that person is a priest, minister,
rabbi, or other authorized person of any religious denomination.
(d) The person solemnizing the marriage shall also type or print
his or her name and mailing address.
As used in 422 (c), "or" separates the people who solemnize marriages into two groups: the priests, ministers, rabbis, or other authorized persons mentioned in 400 (a); and all the other persons mentioned in 400 (b) through (e). means that whoever solemnizes a marriage must either state his official position on the marriage license, or, if that person is a priest, minister, rabbi, or other authorized person of any religious denomination, state the denomination.
How the word "is," as used in a mundane statute listing what bits of information the person who solemnizes a marriage must include in the statement form on the marriage license, makes civil marriages doubtful, I wouldn't even care to guess. But you have the poster to explain it. And considering how certain he is that California law doesn't clearly authorize civil marriages, I'm sure he'd be glad to share his reasoning.
He'd probably also explain the strong assertion he made to me earlier, that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Of course the Supreme Court long ago held that it does, but what do they know? And anyway, how would a constitutional ban on any state government law "respecting an establishment of religion" affect California's power to make a law requiring religious officials to be involved in all marriages? I think it's obvious it would make any such law unconstitutional, but I'm sure my learned colleague could explain why I'm "So Wrong" here, too. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 3:03:40 AM |
In the case of Marriage, the US government infringed upon the rights of the citizens of Utah many, many years ago, and forced a religious doctrine of one man and one woman.
I suppose you're a polygamist of some stripe, so I'm not surprised to see you assert this. Where is this documented Supreme Court history you mention? In any case, once again your statement is false. There is no right to polygamy in the U.S. Constitution, nor has the Court ever recognized it as a right that predates our Constitution. Whatever you may imagine, there's no such legal right to be "infringed." And if it's not a legally enforceable right, well, that's just too bad.
When the territories in the West applied for statehood, Congress imposed certain conditions. For a number of them, including Utah, one condition was that the state constitution must include language making polygamy illegal forever. Judge Bork has discussed this legal issue (but then again, you probably know more about it than a "bimbo" like him.) It was the territories who wanted to join the Union. If their legislatures found the conditions for statehood intolerable, they were under no obligation to accept them. But they did, and it's way too late to cry about it.
It's odd to hear talk about the separation of church and state from someone who very recently was insisting that the Establishment Clause applied only to Congress. The Court has long since applied that Clause (like almost every other provision in the Bill of Rights) to the states. Obviously you don't know anything about the "doctrine of incorporation" and how it works. You felt free to lecture me, in an openly insulting way, about the law--obviously (at least in your mind) you have all the answers. Surprising, then, that you're completely ignorant of something so basic. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 6:30:14 AM | As used in 422 (c), "or" separates the people who solemnize marriages into two groups: the priests, ministers, rabbis, or other authorized persons mentioned in 400 (a);
That is the part I missed; however, instead accusing you of correcting it for some evil and nefarious purposes, I will accept the point made. I hope you don't mind if I choose to address another person on the establishment clause issues. I really don't need to make an emotional issue about it. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 6:52:50 AM |
However, the motivation for Utah was understandable, even if the method was wrong. Protecting young girls from forced marriages was a good idea, don't you think?
It is one thing to protect young girls from a forced marriage, and quite another to undermine a religious doctrine which provides for a polygamous relationship. The prevention of a doctrinal marriage was a violation of separation of church and state. Simple and to the point. That is to say, since "Separation of Church and State" is not a factual constitutional mandate, in the case of marriage and for the sake of "family values" the United States Supreme court ruled in Brown vs. Texas, that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman. In effect, the court prevented a religious observance.
For the sake of polygamy, and for those gays who wish to marry as well, I just don't see anything wrong, but what is the value of such marriages in the first place? Everybody knows how painful divorces are. Why anyone wants to subject themselves to such a primitive religious and legalist ritual is beyond me. I know that many women dream of the day they will get married, and that is a deep drama for them, but that is tied to upbringing and religion. The only reason I see for legalizing any such ritual is to protect the children and their upbringing (since women now have equal rights), but laws of parental responsibility can be written without any marriage involved. The way our society is these days, they probably should be. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 8:50:27 AM | | Before anyone gets uptight, I would have to correct the previous post. It was Reynolds vs US. The court specifically recognized the marriages as a "religious action" and decided that allowing such religious practices might clear the way for "human sacrifice," which IMHO, a marriage is in many cases. In light of the comparison, the court was spot on. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 9:10:50 AM | very interesting reading ...
but ...
HOW does the above relate to "Letterman vs. Palin" ????
again with the hijacked forum threads ...
 | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 10:53:41 AM | Maybe Letterman was talking about the issue. Let's see, letterman is in New York, Palin is in Alaska. We ended up talking about them and morality in california, so what is the biggest moral issue facing Californians?
Ok, so it's a stretch, but I didn't take it off topic, I merely objected to the off topic statement that marriage was not origianlly a religious institution of holy matrimony.
So lets take all of us Californians back the original topic of New Yorkers and Alaskans. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 11:51:05 AM | Letterman v. Palin
I think the Barracuda would work the body for a few rounds. Get David on the ropes. Work the face a little bit and knock David down for an eight count.
David would be forced to pull out his secret weapon...the gotcha question. As she stands there compulsively blinking realizing she can't remember a single Supreme Court case, Dave would have to run away knowing that every Republican in the country was about to come after him. "That evil man asked her a tough question," they would chant. "That's a low blow. He cheated. Who can possibly answer a question like that? Supreme Court? C'mom!"
Funny thing is, the Katie Couric "gotcha question" was her big chance to score points with the (R) base by talking about her stance on Rowe v. Wade. She was brought in to rally the base by flying the family values banner. She missed a golden oppotunity. Intead, she blew it big time with moderates. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 5:03:04 PM | The same Katie whom Imus called a rodent?
Ok I'll use your words, "that's a low blow, he cheated"
 | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 5:29:42 PM |
Ace, I don't know why you'd say that. The poster has already explained why I'm "So Wrong" about this same point--and who can doubt his legal expertise? He even knows the difference between the words "may" and "is," and he was adamant about its significance.
I know I argue with you a lot. But I have to admit that you do get it right from time to time!  | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 5:32:36 PM | It is one thing to protect young girls from a forced marriage, and quite another to undermine a religious doctrine which provides for a polygamous relationship. The prevention of a doctrinal marriage was a violation of separation of church and state.
I agree with you on this, and I think it is ironic as hell that it was a bunch of Mormons who helped finance the campaign to define marriage as a contract between "a man and a woman" in the California constitution. If I were Palin, I'd be rolling on the floor laughing at all us benighted sots. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 5:59:27 PM |
I agree with you on this
The case that was referred to is Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). I've read the Court's discussion of this issue (at 161-167) , which includes an analysis of the Jefferson letter that speaks of a wall separating church and state. I'm persuaded by the Court's reasoning. The Court used similar reasoning in Lukumi Babalu, a much more recent case that involved Santaria and the Free Exercise Clause. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/23/2009 6:42:46 PM |
The same Katie whom Imus called a rodent?
Imus who? Is he important? I'll bet he can have a short conversation about at least one Supreme Court decision.
He makes a good observation. Katie does kind of look like a resident of Whoville. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 5:14:19 AM | Most people would not joke about any person's kids in a sexual reference under the age of 18 because it smacks of pedophilia. One thing most people who are in the spotlight know, is that they themselves, their kids and family, and anything else is going to be fair game. No it is not fair, but it is the truth. I feel bad for Palin's 14 yr-old having to contend with the malicious jokes her older sister must go through, especially since Palin's stance was not very warm (out of wedlock children).
I do not see the comparison with making fun of President Obama's children who have not done anything to be opened for attack that some people here keep mentioning. His children are not sexually active, and have done nothing for society to deem wrong. Palin's kids, are teenagers who know the difference between right and wrong, or at least when to wear a condom and use birth control together. At least, they should, that is why there is sex education. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 8:54:32 AM | Oh... so because the 18 year old made a mistake, the 14 year old is free game...
I don't think they should go after Obama's girls... but to me, Palin's 14 year old is no different.... tell me what she has done that is any different then the Obama's girls to be open for attack?
And because the older girl had a baby.... what? Should every child in our country that have made this mistake, be attacked by adults who don't like their parents?
The Palins's are advocates against young unwed girls making the mistake of getting pregnant. They are not speaking out as judge and condemning these girls. They are speaking out helping to get the word out to maybe help some young girl to not make that bad choice.
If your a parent of a teenager, you know you do the best you can to raise your child, but they will make mistakes, and you don't have control over that. You can only love them and help them get through their mistakes...
It isn't the Palin's that are hypocrites and judgmental... it is those that can't understand that everyone makes mistakes, and treats someone different because they did something they shouldn't have.... and because you don't like them you treat them different. All kids should be protected... wether you like them or not? wether you think they have made a mistake or not? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 11:05:01 AM | If memory serves me, when it comes to enforcing standards of moral rectitude and propriety, the conservative tradition has always been to shame the parents by humiliating and/or punishing the children.
Not that I agree with this tradition. I am very glad that people now see it for what it is--harming the innocent in the name of morality. Thank God the days of the "love child" are over, and good riddance!
So no, it is not entirely fair to call out Palin on the misconduct of her older daughter. However, it is understandable. It is not at all fair to call out Palin's younger daughter. Letterman's swipe at her was unconscionable.
But the older daughter's conduct was certainly more than a mistake, especially if you are a social/moral conservative. This appears especially true if you are a moral conservative who sees the breakdown of the conventional family as the death knell of the nation.
The thought that the post-WW II nuclear family might just be a bad example of social engineering--one that is inherently unsustainable--is not something that would even register in the minds of some conservatives who feel entitled to The American Dream(TM), version 1950. Before the freeways and the 'burbs, extended families were much more the norm.
There are enough adults in extended families to keep house and home together. But in general, two adults are not enough to operate a suburban single-family residence. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 11:29:46 AM | | Jack: Letterman didn't condemn the Palin girls to hell or anything. I don't see how people can assume what letterman's intent was. I don't think he had any deep anti-republican agenda or opinion on teenage pregnacy when he made the joke. It wasn't even a lengthy joke. Just one of his quick one liners out of the corner of his mouth after a statement about Palin being in town. This is so overblown, it's completely ridiculous. I think this is being used as some sort of republican bandwagon issue, when it doesn't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things. Palin overreacted and was a complete ass about it right from the beginning. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 12:04:47 PM | | I would have a problem with a comedian who made the exact comment about the Obama girls because neither of his girls are eighteen. There could be no mistaking whether or not you were confusing the minor with the adult. Their both minors. It would be very difficult to mistake one of them for being sexually active. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 1:57:17 PM | The Palin-Letterman thing is long past... It isn't even an issue... The issue that comes about from it is more of an issue... and it's double standards... and I'm not saying poor poor conservatives.... If this would have been about someone's child that was a liberal, I'd be saying the same thing.... Palin and letterman are so over this.... It's when people keep voicing an opinion that the 14 year old is free game for this stuff, wether it be because of her mom or her older sister... or her religion... it just is wrong.... argue all you want... Like I keep saying this isn't about Palin.... It's about double standards and some thinking it's ok to go after children....
Do I need to keep repeating myself.... And Skoochie.... You should be having a problem about this, as much as anyone's child. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 4:58:08 PM | Like I keep saying this isn't about Palin.... It's about double standards ...
Which double standard? The one that says we should give good, moral, upright, uptight, conservatives a pass when they mess up their kids (why heck, we should even elect them!), while at the same time condemning all things liberal as subversive by default? (Heck, if it comes out of the mouth of someone identified as liberal, we don't have to listen to it, we already know it's from the Devil himself!)
Or, is it the one that says we should show grace to those who advocate grace toward others, and a hard line to those who advocate a hard line toward others?
Just out of curiosity, where is the "double" in the latter standard? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/29/2009 5:13:28 PM | And Skoochie.... You should be having a problem about this, as much as anyone's child.
Only time I ever think abbout this subject is when I am in this fourm.
I merely see this as a research failure on Letterman's part. I don't believe he meant to make jokes about Willow. Whether or not Bristol is fair game is debatable seeing as how she wants to get into the public spotlight. Had she not gotten pregnant, she probably would have never been offered the job. She opened the door to take public scrutiny and scorn. I feel as bad for her as I do for Britney Spears when the tabloids invent stories about her.
I don't get offended by Letterman's words because I know he slipped up and confused the two girls. He has no evil fascination with Willow having sex with A. Rod. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/30/2009 12:40:33 AM | while at the same time condemning all things liberal as subversive by default
There are few things statists (a more accurate term than "liberals," I think) have wanted to bring under central governmental control as much as reproduction. Their philosophical ancestors, the progressives, favored eugenics. For people like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, the way to a better, happier society was to sterilize the feeble-minded and criminally-inclined. For her and other progressives, eugenics was openly racist. And it was a hot topic in the half-century before WWII. But then the Nazis had to go and give eugenics a bad name.
But around 1960, along came the Pill, and the promise of an effective new way to control reproduction. A sympathetic majority of the Supreme Court kept pace, in the mid-60's, by making up a constitutional "right" to free access to contraceptives. This paved the way for the Court, a few years later, to concoct a similar constitutional "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade. This decision was completely arbitrary--there's no legal reasoning whatsoever in it. The Court's limited it somewhat in other decisions, but most statists view it as a crown jewel of personal liberty.
The quasi-religious fervor statists have for abortion "rights" is a big reason so many of them--Letterman's just one example--show such violent personal animosity toward Sarah Palin and her family. She's a potential female presidential candidate who personally decided against abortion. And so did her daughter. So, it's not enough just to sneer at them as hopelessly lame hicks--Sarah Palin's a threat that must be dealt with. (Statists/liberals tried to destroy Clarence Thomas with the same kind of vicious attacks, because he was uppity enough to hold conservative views completely unlike those of their beloved first black Justice, Thurgood Marshall.)
These people find Gov. Palin and her family all the more contemptible because they have the audacity to be openly religious (same reason for the nasty attacks on Miss California.) Worse yet, Ms. Palin is openly patriotic. She doesn't fancy herself as a cosmopolitan, too worldly and sophisticated to do something as provincial as love her own country. (Funny that Jackie Kennedy never thought of it that way!) She doesn't even have the decency to be ashamed and apologetic about America, like Sean Penn, Natalie Mayne, Jeanine Garofalo, Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore--or President Obama. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/30/2009 1:43:18 AM | Matchlight,
<div class='quote'>statism
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
Who is supposed to plan for economic policy? Classical economics says to "leave it alone." The laisse faire approach led us into our current recession. Keyensian economics says to be pro-active. This president didn't lead us to this problem. Henry Paulson allowed Lehman Bros. to go down which led to the dominoe effect causing the T.A.R.P. Obama stepped into that pile of...well you know.
Thank the Bush Adminstration for the nationalisation of the banks. Henry Paulson insisted (forced) the top nine CEOs of the nations largest banks to take 15 billion dollars a piece. That nationalized the banks back in December of '08.
Statism is as much of a second term Bush as it is a first term Obama, | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/30/2009 10:54:01 AM |
Statism is as much of a second term Bush as it is a first term Obama
You won't get an argument from me on that. I was no fan of President Bush's domestic policies, and he was certainly no conservative. He contributed a lot to this mess. But you're kidding yourself if you think Mr. Obama hasn't hyped the emergency as a pretext for increasing central control--and not just of the economy. The men who designed this country went to great lengths to prevent too much concentration of power, which their studies of history convinced them was a threat to personal freedom. I agree with them.
Some of us appreciate America's greatness enough not to want to see a glib politician try to remake us into a reasonable facsimile of Mussolini's Italy. (Or by naive and reckless appeasement of hostile foreign regimes, to invite extremely dangerous confrontations with them when they finally go too far.)
I can't agree that "the laissez faire approach led us into our current recession." This country's economic policies haven't been even remotely like laissez faire since the 1920's, or even before. Why do you think the progressives wanted the income tax, which they finally succeeded in adding to the Constitution, except to make it easier for the federal government to redistribute wealth?
Whether Keynes's ideas helped or hindered, at least as the New Deal planners applied them, is very much an open question. I don't pretend to have the expertise to answer it, and in any case this isn't the time or place.
When I refer to "liberals" as statists, I don't mean that in a purely economic sense. Their political tendency is to favor national control of most things in our lives--banking, car making, use of energy, health care and abortion, and so on.
To return to the point, the idea of a constitutional "right" to abortion is laughable to anyone who knows Roe and the cases that led up to it. A majority of the Court made it up out of thin air. But the sheer passage of time has made this "right" Holy Writ for the millions of Americans who think abortion's an unqualified blessing. And to many of them, Sarah Palin, as a prominent female political figure who rejects abortion on religious grounds, is a heretic.
I think she upsets them by being a living rebuttal of their fondest beliefs. So they like to see her and her kids pay for her heresy (and their hypocrisy!) by being mocked in public by sophisticated urban "liberals" like Mr. Letterman. Sort of a modern inversion of the Salem Puritans putting the town hussy in the stocks for the townspeople to jeer at. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
