Let The Games Begin: Kansas Supreme Court Rules Transsexuals May Not Marry
Steve Bartman
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Fred J. McCall
:http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2002/20020315/85030.htm
Note that this is pretty much in keeping with decades of US Supreme
Court decisions, which have essentially held that the purpose of
marriage is the creation and protection of children by a 'traditional
couple', and that, therefore, States are not required to give credence
to laws in other States which allow 'non-traditional marriage'.
The battle has already been fought on the bulk of this. This is just
a corner case.
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
Steve Bartman
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Note that this is pretty much in keeping with decades of US Supreme
>Court decisions, which have essentially held that the purpose of
>marriage is the creation and protection of children by a 'traditional
>couple', and that, therefore, States are not required to give credence
>to laws in other States which allow 'non-traditional marriage'.
I read the entire decision and don't recall any USSC precedents being
cited. Lots of state courts, a probate court, and one US Appeals Court
decision denied cert.
The Kansas court punted the issue back to the legislature on a
position that "man" and "woman" are commonly-understood definitions
based on the ability to make ova, bear children, and chromosome
descriptions. (No mention of which locker-room they walk into.)
The court held that a human is forever unalterably identified with the
gender applied to them at birth (note--NOT self-applied.) In the case
at hand the female had gone to the trouble to have a new birth
certificate issued for herself, changing the sex from male to female,
to have her college transcript changed, names changed, etc. in
addition to a full course of surgery and hormone therapy. Didn't
matter to the court. She'd never had ovaries so she could never be
female, and thus, never marry a man she loved. Since homosexual
marriage is also illegal, tough noogies.
>The battle has already been fought on the bulk of this. This is just
>a corner case.
I think it's not been fought at all, and will probably end up in DC
this time on 14th A. grounds.
Of course that path might be accelerated if transsexuals began to
marry (my header is somewhat incorrect.) You'd have a situation where
Kansas, under this decision, would be forced to issue a marriage
license to two "women", each with breasts and vaginas, and a national
talk-show tour already in the bag. Perhaps then we might begin to
recognize that X and Y chromosomes have little to do with gender ID.
Howard Berkowitz
<sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:34:11 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Note that this is pretty much in keeping with decades of US Supreme
> >Court decisions, which have essentially held that the purpose of
> >marriage is the creation and protection of children by a 'traditional
> >couple', and that, therefore, States are not required to give credence
> >to laws in other States which allow 'non-traditional marriage'.
>
> I read the entire decision and don't recall any USSC precedents being
> cited. Lots of state courts, a probate court, and one US Appeals Court
> decision denied cert.
>
> The Kansas court punted the issue back to the legislature on a
> position that "man" and "woman" are commonly-understood definitions
> based on the ability to make ova, bear children, and chromosome
> descriptions. (No mention of which locker-room they walk into.)
So radical surgery for ovarian or testicular cancer takes yoy out of the
running?
>
> The court held that a human is forever unalterably identified with the
> gender applied to them at birth (note--NOT self-applied.)
There are intersex states where the gender may not be medically selected
until some time after birth.
>In the case
> at hand the female had gone to the trouble to have a new birth
> certificate issued for herself, changing the sex from male to female,
> to have her college transcript changed, names changed, etc. in
> addition to a full course of surgery and hormone therapy. Didn't
> matter to the court. She'd never had ovaries so she could never be
> female, and thus, never marry a man she loved. Since homosexual
> marriage is also illegal, tough noogies.
>
> >The battle has already been fought on the bulk of this. This is just
> >a corner case.
>
> I think it's not been fought at all, and will probably end up in DC
> this time on 14th A. grounds.
>
> Of course that path might be accelerated if transsexuals began to
> marry (my header is somewhat incorrect.) You'd have a situation where
> Kansas, under this decision, would be forced to issue a marriage
> license to two "women", each with breasts and vaginas, and a national
> talk-show tour already in the bag. Perhaps then we might begin to
> recognize that X and Y chromosomes have little to do with gender ID.
>
> Steve
Ah, but it's simplistic just to think of X and Y chromosomes and the
simple combinations XX and XY. There are various abnormal combinations
such as XYY and XXY. There's androgen receptor insensitivity, with XY
chromosomes but a lack of the gene for 5-alpha reductase, which often
leads to a genetic male being apparently female, and often attractively
so, from birth.
loki
> Of course that path might be accelerated if transsexuals began to
> marry (my header is somewhat incorrect.) You'd have a situation where
> Kansas, under this decision, would be forced to issue a marriage
> license to two "women", each with breasts and vaginas, and a national
> talk-show tour already in the bag. Perhaps then we might begin to
> recognize that X and Y chromosomes have little to do with gender ID.
Actually, such married couples already exist. They are couples that were
male and female upon marriage but the male partner had a sex-change
operation during the marriage. There are several such marriages still
intact. I wonder
what that court would say about those. <grin>
Oh, and then there is the local lady who lived most of her life as a man due
to having been born with a "penis and testicles" (as it says in that court
decision) but who upon starting hormone therapy as the first stage of a
sex-change discovered that she'd had a vagina and uterus and apparently
ovaries, but that the vagina had been sewn up at birth. Yep, a real
hermaphrodite. Now, what could Kansas say about that?
Loki
loki
> There are intersex states where the gender may not be medically selected
> until some time after birth.
> Ah, but it's simplistic just to think of X and Y chromosomes and the
> simple combinations XX and XY. There are various abnormal combinations
> such as XYY and XXY. There's androgen receptor insensitivity, with XY
> chromosomes but a lack of the gene for 5-alpha reductase, which often
> leads to a genetic male being apparently female, and often attractively
> so, from birth.
Heh. This is why, when I get to the bit about the field for "sex" needing
values other than just male and female the discussion always gets
interesting.
Male, Female, Other and Unknown are the minimum required.
Loki
Mike Enderby
news:pja89u0ou0tbodee8...@4ax.com...
> >
> >:http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2002/20020315/85030.htm
> >
> >Note that this is pretty much in keeping with decades of US Supreme
> >Court decisions, which have essentially held that the purpose of
> >marriage is the creation and protection of children by a 'traditional
> >couple',
>
> infertile people, or the elderly?
And should you get questioned before marriage, say "do you intend to have
kids?"?
If you don't produce any children (within a time span), should the marriage
be automatically invalidated?
Surely the problem is that the rules around marriage are based upon
religious principles. If marriage were simply defined as a union between
people then issues like these would go away.
Now lets say we had a religion where marriage had to involve more than two
people. Wouldn't the law where you are limited to one male and one female be
state interference with that religion and thus unconstitutional?
--
Mike Enderby
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:34:11 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
:>
:>:http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2002/20020315/85030.htm
:>
:>Note that this is pretty much in keeping with decades of US Supreme
:>Court decisions, which have essentially held that the purpose of
:>marriage is the creation and protection of children by a 'traditional
:>couple',
:
:On that logic, should they not also be against marriage between
:infertile people, or the elderly?
Well, technically, yes, but then you'd have to require fertility tests
prior to marriage (which is somewhat outside the bounds of federal
power) and dissolve marriages as soon as the wife hits menopause
(there might be something to be said for that one ;-)), which I
suspect the Court would hold doesn't make a lot of sense (since you
can spend a lot of time after that raising your kids).
I believe that in at least some states, infertility may be a valid
reason to annul a marriage (but I'm hardly a lawyer, so I'm talking
without checking).
--
"If you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
-- Chuck Colson
Fred J. McCall
:Oh, and then there is the local lady who lived most of her life as a man due
:to having been born with a "penis and testicles" (as it says in that court
:decision) but who upon starting hormone therapy as the first stage of a
:sex-change discovered that she'd had a vagina and uterus and apparently
:ovaries, but that the vagina had been sewn up at birth. Yep, a real
:hermaphrodite. Now, what could Kansas say about that?
Well, what sort of a response would you expect from a state where you
can be charged with statutory rape just because she's barefoot?
Fred J. McCall
:Male, Female, Other and Unknown are the minimum required.
I think "Not Lately" and "As Often As Possible" are two other needed
choices....
Fred J. McCall
:Now lets say we had a religion where marriage had to involve more than two
:people. Wouldn't the law where you are limited to one male and one female be
:state interference with that religion and thus unconstitutional?
No. Study the history of the State of Utah.
--
"The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one’s
neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious
intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the
people next door are headed for hell."
-- Aleister Crowley
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>Male, Female, Other and Unknown are the minimum required.
Both!!
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:Now lets say we had a religion where marriage had to involve more than two
>:people. Wouldn't the law where you are limited to one male and one female be
>:state interference with that religion and thus unconstitutional?
>
>No. Study the history of the State of Utah.
You're assuming the courts reached the correct conclusion.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>Since I haven't had surgery, Carol and I could legally get
>married. It would be nice to do it on the front steps of
>the North Carolina legislature.
I assume you are a pre-op transsexual.
I would say don't get married now. Wait until afterwards and get
married on the front steps of the Texas legislature. They've got one
of those court decisions that you are the gender of your birth.
Oops--that means post-op you're still male and can still marry a
female.
Loren Pechtel
<mi...@menderby.co.uk> wrote:
>And should you get questioned before marriage, say "do you intend to have
>kids?"?
>
>If you don't produce any children (within a time span), should the marriage
>be automatically invalidated?
Well, the Immigration and Naturalization Service wasn't too happy
with our marriage because we didn't have any kids, she's older than me
and didn't take my last name (in China they don't change names and I
see no reason for a name change.) It took them nearly two years
before an interviewer decided we are still together, it must be a real
marriage.
>Now lets say we had a religion where marriage had to involve more than two
>people. Wouldn't the law where you are limited to one male and one female be
>state interference with that religion and thus unconstitutional?
I already think the marriage laws are unconstitutional. What
about the Mormons? The Muslims? Neither require multiple wives but
they do permit them.
loki
> Well, what sort of a response would you expect from a state where you
> can be charged with statutory rape just because she's barefoot?
Wait a sec here. You mean that if I have sex in Kansas (which I've
certainly
done) that I have to wear shoes????
Gods, this could be big problems for some folks I know and love...
Loki - attended huge pagan fest in Kansas a few years back
Fred J. McCall
: I already think the marriage laws are unconstitutional. What
:about the Mormons? The Muslims? Neither require multiple wives but
:they do permit them.
Mormons have not been 'permitted' multiple wives since Utah became a
state. I do wish people would know what the hell they're talking
about at least SOME of the time. Muslims in the US are also not
permitted multiple wives.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:22:19 GMT, Fred J. McCall
I merely think that it's more likely that they did than that you
would. I also recognize that, whether I agree with it or not, this
*IS* how things get determined in the United States.
We could just argue about it forever and let whoever is willing to
shoot first win the argument, Loren. That works for me. How about
you?
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
:
:> Well, what sort of a response would you expect from a state where you
:> can be charged with statutory rape just because she's barefoot?
:
:Wait a sec here. You mean that if I have sex in Kansas (which I've
:certainly done) that I have to wear shoes????
Yes. The stiletto heels would be an appropriate choice.... ;-)
loki
> Now lets say we had a religion where marriage had to involve more than two
> people. Wouldn't the law where you are limited to one male and one female
be
> state interference with that religion and thus unconstitutional?
This question may come up sooner rather than later. Islam allows a man
to have several spouses as do other mainstream religions such as Judaism and
Mormonism though neither of the latter practice it much these days.
There is also a growing secular movement to allow multiple spouses of
either sex.
Loki
loki
> Since I haven't had surgery, Carol and I could legally get
> married. It would be nice to do it on the front steps of
> the North Carolina legislature.
If you ever do that, may I please be invited?
Loki
loki
> state. I do wish people would know what the hell they're talking
> about at least SOME of the time. Muslims in the US are also not
> permitted multiple wives.
At this point in time you are correct but lot's of folks are getting around
that by either not marrying but living communally or else engaging in
serial marriages but continuing to live with the divorced spouse while
also living with the new spouse.
All this does not bother me much as long as the women are of age and
consenting and the family can support all children it produces without
outside help.
I get very angry though when the wives are teenagers forced into it
by family and/or the family has 30 kids which it cannot support and
they all go on welfare.
Loki
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
:>
:> Mormons have not been 'permitted' multiple wives since Utah became a
:> state. I do wish people would know what the hell they're talking
:> about at least SOME of the time. Muslims in the US are also not
:> permitted multiple wives.
:
:At this point in time you are correct but lot's of folks are getting around
:that by either not marrying but living communally or else engaging in
:serial marriages but continuing to live with the divorced spouse while
:also living with the new spouse.
True, but according to the Mormon church, such people are no longer
Mormons. It's sort of like being excommunicated as a Catholic.
:All this does not bother me much as long as the women are of age and
:consenting and the family can support all children it produces without
:outside help.
Personally, I don't care if they're cohabiting with livestock, as long
as the animals are happy and well cared for.
:I get very angry though when the wives are teenagers forced into it
:by family and/or the family has 30 kids which it cannot support and
:they all go on welfare.
This paints a nice picture. I'd be interested in any documented case
where it actually happened and what the Mormon church had to say about
it.
Fred J. McCall
:"Mike Enderby" <mi...@menderby.co.uk> wrote
:
:> Now lets say we had a religion where marriage had to involve more than two
:> people. Wouldn't the law where you are limited to one male and one female
:be
:> state interference with that religion and thus unconstitutional?
:
:This question may come up sooner rather than later. Islam allows a man
:to have several spouses
Islam only allows 4, and the man must be capable of taking care of all
of them in order to have more than one.
:as do other mainstream religions such as Judaism and
I can't speak to modern Judaism. I'd be surprised if this was still
allowed, although I'm not sure what could be done (religiously) to a
Jew who decided to have multiple wives. Of course, Judaism is a
religion with very few hard rules about how you must live your life.
[You'd think having to deal with one Princess would be enough. Jewish
men must be real gluttons for punishment! ::grin::]
:Mormonism though neither of the latter practice it much these days.
Multiple marriage is prohibited by the Mormon church. Modern
practitioners of multiple marriage are automatically excommunicate and
no longer considered Mormons.
:There is also a growing secular movement to allow multiple spouses of
:either sex.
Hell, people can't keep simple marriages between two people together,
judging by the failure rate. How are they going to add more people
and make it work any better? Not to mention the peculiar property
laws and such that would be required by such an arrangement.
loki
> "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> :I get very angry though when the wives are teenagers forced into it
> :by family and/or the family has 30 kids which it cannot support and
> :they all go on welfare.
>
> This paints a nice picture. I'd be interested in any documented case
> where it actually happened and what the Mormon church had to say about
> it.
There are apparently a lot of these cases out in the boonies of Utah.
Officially the Mormon church has "excommunicated" (or whatever their term
is) these folks, but no one ever does anything about it. Well, mostly
never.
There was a major trial last year of one case. He went to jail. The
articles are old, but I did find the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1339000/1339341.stm
http://law.about.com/library/weekly/aa120100a.htm
The second one mentions that he was charged with child rape for having sex
with his then 13 yr old wife.
There's lot's more out there but from more dubious sources. The really
solid news articles are close to a year old and I couldn't find them - at
least not in the amount of time I'm willing to devote to this.
It is worth mentioning that it is estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000
people are living in this manner in Utah today.
Loki
loki
> of them in order to have more than one.
Four is multiple, or was last time I checked. I do heartily approve of
the provision that they must be able to take care of all of them (and I
believe their children) and yes, I knew that already.
> I can't speak to modern Judaism. I'd be surprised if this was still
> allowed, although I'm not sure what could be done (religiously) to a
> Jew who decided to have multiple wives. Of course, Judaism is a
> religion with very few hard rules about how you must live your life.
I didn't realize this till Jack posted something to this effect one day.
Jack, care to weigh in on this one?
> Multiple marriage is prohibited by the Mormon church. Modern
> practitioners of multiple marriage are automatically excommunicate and
> no longer considered Mormons.
Please see my other post with regard to the case of Tom Green vs Utah
from last year. It's going on and has been all along. Yes, they
excommunicate them, but they do it anyway and still consider themselves to
be Mormon.
The new stories I saw estimated from 30,000 to 50,000 living in this
manner in Utah today.
> Hell, people can't keep simple marriages between two people together,
> judging by the failure rate. How are they going to add more people
> and make it work any better? Not to mention the peculiar property
> laws and such that would be required by such an arrangement.
Pagans frequently live this way though all are consenting. The secular
movement is called Polyamory and has a web page:
There is also a magazine called Loving More.
They don't deal solely with polygamy, but also with open marriage
and just multiple partners all getting along...
You really need to get out more. <grin>
Loki
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
:
:> "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:
:> :I get very angry though when the wives are teenagers forced into it
:> :by family and/or the family has 30 kids which it cannot support and
:> :they all go on welfare.
:>
:> This paints a nice picture. I'd be interested in any documented case
:> where it actually happened and what the Mormon church had to say about
:> it.
:
:There are apparently a lot of these cases out in the boonies of Utah.
:Officially the Mormon church has "excommunicated" (or whatever their term
:is) these folks, but no one ever does anything about it. Well, mostly
:never.
:
:There was a major trial last year of one case. He went to jail. The
:articles are old, but I did find the following:
:
:
:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1339000/1339341.stm
:
: http://law.about.com/library/weekly/aa120100a.htm
:
:The second one mentions that he was charged with child rape for having sex
:with his then 13 yr old wife.
But I didn't see anything about them "all going on welfare".
:It is worth mentioning that it is estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000
:people are living in this manner in Utah today.
Both the articles you gave links to gave those numbers, but it was
"around the west", not just Utah, and I'd bet those numbers don't
include just people purporting to be Mormons. Think David Koresh or
any old hippy commune for examples of this.
loki
> "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
> :
> :> "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> :
> :> :I get very angry though when the wives are teenagers forced into it
> :> :by family and/or the family has 30 kids which it cannot support and
> :> :they all go on welfare.
> :>
> :> This paints a nice picture. I'd be interested in any documented case
> :> where it actually happened and what the Mormon church had to say about
> :> it.
> :
> :There are apparently a lot of these cases out in the boonies of Utah.
> :Officially the Mormon church has "excommunicated" (or whatever their term
> :is) these folks, but no one ever does anything about it. Well, mostly
> :never.
> :
> :There was a major trial last year of one case. He went to jail. The
> :articles are old, but I did find the following:
> :
> :
>
:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1339000/1339341.stm
> :
> : http://law.about.com/library/weekly/aa120100a.htm
> :
> :The second one mentions that he was charged with child rape for having
sex
> :with his then 13 yr old wife.
>
> But I didn't see anything about them "all going on welfare".
No, the articles that had that in them aren't online now. They were all
on welfare though. That was documented at the time. I just can't find it
now.
> :It is worth mentioning that it is estimated that between 30,000 and
50,000
> :people are living in this manner in Utah today.
>
> Both the articles you gave links to gave those numbers, but it was
> "around the west", not just Utah, and I'd bet those numbers don't
> include just people purporting to be Mormons. Think David Koresh or
> any old hippy commune for examples of this.
I'm not saying it's just Mormons. There are a lot of pagans who indulge in
polygamy and go on welfare to support kids they can't support otherwise.
It's wrong in any and all circumstances, as far as I'm concerned.
Loki
charles krin
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I believe that in at least some states, infertility may be a valid
>reason to annul a marriage (but I'm hardly a lawyer, so I'm talking
>without checking).
I believe that both the Catholics and the Orthodox Churches allow
infertility as grounds for an annulment...
ck
doc krin
motto for the nuke generation: "you are what you heat!"
J.T. McDaniel
"loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a72nco$ca9$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > Islam only allows 4, and the man must be capable of taking care of all
> > of them in order to have more than one.
>
> Four is multiple, or was last time I checked. I do heartily approve of
> the provision that they must be able to take care of all of them (and I
> believe their children) and yes, I knew that already.
>
> > I can't speak to modern Judaism. I'd be surprised if this was still
> > allowed, although I'm not sure what could be done (religiously) to a
> > Jew who decided to have multiple wives. Of course, Judaism is a
> > religion with very few hard rules about how you must live your life.
>
> I didn't realize this till Jack posted something to this effect one day.
> Jack, care to weigh in on this one?
>
Ashkenazim (mainly Germany, eastern/central
Europe, and France) are/were under a takanah
(religious degree) imposed by Rabbeinu Gershom
in the year 1000 CE that limits us to one wife at
at time. The takanah was for 1,000 years, and
there was some question as to whether anyone today
was qualified to extend it, but custom exerts a force
nearly equal to actual law, so it seems unlikely that
anyone is going to be trying to go for the extra wife.
Sephardic and Oriental Jews (Spain/Portugal/north
Africa/India/Arabian Peninsula) never imposed a
restriction on the number of wives allowed -- there
is no limit imposed by the Torah, other than the
admonition that a king shouldn't have too many -- so
if they happen to live in a place where multiple wives
are permitted they sometimes have more than one.
Israel follows the Ashkenazic rule and allows only a
single wife. For Jews moving there from the Arab
countries who already had more than one, the family
was allowed to remain intact, but he couldn't add
any more wives, and if one died or was divorced
she couldn't be replaced.
There was a general presumption in Scripture that
multiple wives usually caused problems. There is
also the principle of "dina d'malchusa dina" (the
king's law is the law), which gives civil law the force
of religious law in areas where it is more restrictive
than religious law. (For instance, most states don't
allow marriages between first cousins, or uncles
and nieces, so we don't allow them either, even
though both are permitted by religious law. On the
other hand, the states do allow a woman to marry
her ex-husband's brother, but religious law forbids
it except under very special circumstances -- no
children from the original marriage and the first
husband died, and the first child will be considered
the dead brother's child, etc. -- so we don't allow
these marriages, either.)
Mind you, Jewish law also tells a husband the
minimum frequency for sex with his wife, and
obligates him to insure she actually enjoys it,
too. (Ranges from once every six months for a
sailor to daily for a lazy bum with no job.)
For those wondering just how religious ideals can
be applied to daily life, my old essay "How to Start
Your Own Religion" is still on line at:
http://kzrider.com/faith.shtml
--
Jack
http://withhonourinbattle.com
http://riverdaleebooks.com
http://navaladventure.com
Fred J. McCall
:For those wondering just how religious ideals can
:be applied to daily life, my old essay "How to Start
:Your Own Religion" is still on line at:
:http://kzrider.com/faith.shtml
Has anyone told Chris Vail about this? :-)
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5vc99u0u1qkbumgd1...@4ax.com...
Along with "Tonight's the Night!"
Gml...@scvnet.com
> "Mike Enderby" <mi...@menderby.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :Now lets say we had a religion where marriage had to involve more than
two
> :people. Wouldn't the law where you are limited to one male and one female
be
> :state interference with that religion and thus unconstitutional?
>
> No. Study the history of the State of Utah.
In this case, the mormon church prohibited polygamy (at least on paper) in
order to avoid ongoing problems with the feds. This took place in 1890,
while Utah was made a state in 1896.
Most mormons weren't in favor of polygamy, which was introduced to the faith
after Joseph Smith was caught in flagrante delicto. Since he was defining
the rules, he just wrote the rules around his offense!
Gml...@scvnet.com
This is a relatively common scam. Wife # 2 and so on are technically not
married and generally aren't employed, so they are eligible for all sorts of
benefits as single mothers with no visible means of support.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6ko99u8r0glmim1qb...@4ax.com...
There is more than one mormon church. The big one in SLC prohibits
polygamy, but some of the splinter mormon churches are silent on the issue,
and this is one reason for the splintering. The splinter churches are as
legitimate as the big one in the eyes of the law. Polygamy is concentrated
in Utah, the Arizona Strip country north of the Grand Canyon, and southern
Idaho. There are a few polygamist families in the West Desert region and
eastern Nevada. There may be some in other areas, but the bulk of the
polygamists are either within Utah or within a few miles of Utah.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Oh, and then there is the local lady who lived most of her life as a man due
>to having been born with a "penis and testicles" (as it says in that court
>decision) but who upon starting hormone therapy as the first stage of a
>sex-change discovered that she'd had a vagina and uterus and apparently
>ovaries, but that the vagina had been sewn up at birth. Yep, a real
>hermaphrodite. Now, what could Kansas say about that?
And would (s)he be eligible for the draft?
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Steve Bartman
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well, what sort of a response would you expect from a state where you
>can be charged with statutory rape just because she's barefoot?
>
Not to mention the teaching evolution fracas. I thought midwesterners
were supposed to have common sense.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Wait a sec here. You mean that if I have sex in Kansas (which I've
>certainly
>done) that I have to wear shoes????
I recall reading about this law in the '70s when I was more in danger
of a violation. Apparently if an adult was caught alone with an
underage female not wearing shoes it was prima facia evidence of a
statutory rape. Girls only of course.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>So radical surgery for ovarian or testicular cancer takes yoy out of the
>running?
They'd no doubt fall back on genes, a weak position in some rare cases
as you point out below.
I think the decision is weak on more basic grounds. Marriage is a
social contract, a public declaration of commitment. It may result in
children, but doesn't have to. (Mine didn't.)
The court defaulted to a position that since the Kansas legislature
didn't specifically define the terms "man" and "woman" in the marriage
statute common legal practice reaching back centuries requires them to
use common, everyday definitions, thus the ova, uterus, and X and Y.
But it seems to me that if this is the practice a simple
man-in-the-street poll on the definition of "woman" would not list
chromosomes in the top ten responses. Manner of dress, form of name,
locker room and bathroom selection, insurance rate schedule would all
come higher I'd think. The plaintiff had gone to extraordinary lengths
to become female (as she pointed out in her brief castration and
amputation are a pretty strenuous example of commitment.)
If the test is everyday definitions perhaps the justices should ask
themselves how often they inquire of a woman her chromosomal
arrangements before concluding her gender. Unless someone were privy
to this woman's medical records no one would ever know her genetic
structure, and in that case no possible social "harm" could ever ensue
from the state granting a marriage license. In the absence of harm the
state should stand aside. That's also an ancient legal truism.
Gml...@scvnet.com
> > :articles are old, but I did find the following:
> > :
> > :
> >
>
:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1339000/1339341.stm
> > :
> > : http://law.about.com/library/weekly/aa120100a.htm
> > :
> > :The second one mentions that he was charged with child rape for having
> sex
> > :with his then 13 yr old wife.
> >
> > But I didn't see anything about them "all going on welfare".
>
> No, the articles that had that in them aren't online now. They were all
> on welfare though. That was documented at the time. I just can't find it
> now.
Gee, Fred just blasted me on another thread because I didn't track down all
the info myself. I'd think that he would have Googled the following
himself:
http://www.mormonstoday.com/010831/N5TGreen01.shtml
http://www.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/special/courts/gree0515.htm
http://www.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/special/courts/greelist.htm
Joe Clement
<Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote in message
news:u9a8o93...@corp.supernews.com...
> In this case, the mormon church prohibited polygamy (at least on paper) in
> order to avoid ongoing problems with the feds. This took place in 1890,
> while Utah was made a state in 1896.
>
> Most mormons weren't in favor of polygamy, which was introduced to the
faith
> after Joseph Smith was caught in flagrante delicto. Since he was defining
> the rules, he just wrote the rules around his offense!
It's good to be the king! (ruler, leader, whatever <g>)
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:736a9uc5ooi1446ck...@4ax.com...
No, but I'll bet his religious leaders know all about it about it! :)
Fred J. McCall
:
:"loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Thanks for the data, but you see, some folks I just believe when they
specifically assert something is a fact, so once Loki said she saw it
there was no reason for me to go look it up.
Others are somewhat less trustworthy in what they might purport exists
to support their positions....
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
loki
news:ds9a9us6vh5gttrib...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 00:03:33 -0600, "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh, and then there is the local lady who lived most of her life as a man
due
> >to having been born with a "penis and testicles" (as it says in that
court
> >decision) but who upon starting hormone therapy as the first stage of a
> >sex-change discovered that she'd had a vagina and uterus and apparently
> >ovaries, but that the vagina had been sewn up at birth. Yep, a real
> >hermaphrodite. Now, what could Kansas say about that?
>
> And would (s)he be eligible for the draft?
In this case, yes. But at the time no one knew of the status of the child
at birth.
Loki
Gml...@scvnet.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Oh, and then there is the local lady who lived most of her life as a
man
> due
> > >to having been born with a "penis and testicles" (as it says in that
> court
> > >decision) but who upon starting hormone therapy as the first stage of a
> > >sex-change discovered that she'd had a vagina and uterus and apparently
> > >ovaries, but that the vagina had been sewn up at birth. Yep, a real
> > >hermaphrodite. Now, what could Kansas say about that?
Probably something along the lines of "Geeze, LeRoy, woodja take a lookat
that!"
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>> And would (s)he be eligible for the draft?
>
>In this case, yes. But at the time no one knew of the status of the child
>at birth.
True in this case, but I was extending the thought re the Kansas case.
If the transsexual is inalterable male according to the sovereign
state of Kansas it seems to follow that she'd have to be drafted if
any were reinstituted. I'm getting an interesting picture of that
basic training barracks.
J.T. McDaniel
"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
news:8rua9uc5rkqe18pe8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:11:28 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com> wrote:
> >
> >:On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:34:11 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> >:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >:
> >:>Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
> >:>
> >:>:http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2002/20020315/85030.htm
> >:>
> >:>Note that this is pretty much in keeping with decades of US Supreme
> >:>Court decisions, which have essentially held that the purpose of
> >:>marriage is the creation and protection of children by a 'traditional
> >:>couple',
> >:
> >:On that logic, should they not also be against marriage between
> >:infertile people, or the elderly?
> >
> >Well, technically, yes, but then you'd have to require fertility tests
> >prior to marriage (which is somewhat outside the bounds of federal
> >power)
>
> Not too far out of bounds; don't some, or all, states require blood
> tests before marriage, which I believe are only to do with potential
> children? Legally, couldn't fertility tests fall under the same laws?
>
The blood tests are for syphillis. Florida, among
other states, dropped them some time ago as not
being cost effective. Over a 30-something year
period they found exactly 3 cases, at a cost of
several million dollars per case.
Fred J. McCall
:Not too far out of bounds; don't some, or all, states require blood
:tests before marriage, which I believe are only to do with potential
:children? Legally, couldn't fertility tests fall under the same laws?
The blood tests are for VD. I don't know how many states still do
them. I didn't have one when I got married.
:My own personal belief is that as Marriage is mainly a private, or
:religious institution, the best answer is to get the government out of
:it altogether. No more marriage licenses for anyone. If two people
:wish to get married, they can have the service of their choice, and
:various religions could set their own rules for themselves only, but
:no official sanction. Put an end to all tax effects of marriage, and
:all specific legal effects. A very radical concept, I admit, and one
:I'm sure has holes in it, but I like it.
Lots of issues about property and children would need to be resolved
for anything like this. My position on this is sort of like George's
on evangelists, I'm afraid. I used to be in favour of gay marriage,
until a bunch of militant gays decided that my position didn't go far
enough and tried to bully me into adopting more of their positions (on
adoption, for example).
Being stubborn, I went the other way, instead. Actually, I'm more
likely to agree to polygamous/polyandrous marriage than to gay
marriage at this point. I took enough abuse over it that this is no
longer an issue I'm willing to be reasonable on, I'm afraid.
Barlow2
question does not meet the state of Kansas definition, and that it's the job of
the state legislature to change the law, not the court.
Isn't that entirely reasonable in sum?
Lensman
Hey, Mr. Taliban, tally me munitions.
Here they come, and they gonna go boom
Chris Vail
"Barlow2" <bar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020318094737...@mb-cq.aol.com...
> Guys, I skimmed the court decision, and all it says is that the "female"
in
> question does not meet the state of Kansas definition, and that it's the
job of
> the state legislature to change the law, not the court.
>
> Isn't that entirely reasonable in sum?
>
> Lensman
You're asking for "reasonable" on USENET?
Chris
BlackBeard
<lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>> Well, what sort of a response would you expect from a state where you
>> can be charged with statutory rape just because she's barefoot?
>
>Wait a sec here. You mean that if I have sex in Kansas (which I've
>certainly
>done) that I have to wear shoes????
From their recent decision I'm assuming cross-trainers are banned...
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
" To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty; To find the best in others;
To leave the world a better place, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition;
To know even one life has breathed easier because you lived.
This is to have succeeded".
Eric Pinnell
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Note that this is pretty much in keeping with decades of US Supreme
>Court decisions, which have essentially held that the purpose of
>marriage is the creation and protection of children by a 'traditional
>couple', and that, therefore, States are not required to give credence
>to laws in other States which allow 'non-traditional marriage'.
>
>The battle has already been fought on the bulk of this. This is just
>a corner case.
It's also interesting to note that SCOTUS has held that it's OK to
ban polygamy, despite this beign a cornerstone of Islam and Mormonism.
Eric Pinnell
(Author, "The Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")
For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"
Eric Pinnell
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Islam only allows 4, and the man must be capable of taking care of all
>of them in order to have more than one.
He msut also get the permission of each of his wive(s) as he adds
another wife.
>I can't speak to modern Judaism. I'd be surprised if this was still
>allowed, although I'm not sure what could be done (religiously) to a
>Jew who decided to have multiple wives. Of course, Judaism is a
>religion with very few hard rules about how you must live your life.
>
>[You'd think having to deal with one Princess would be enough. Jewish
>men must be real gluttons for punishment! ::grin::]
Strictly speaking, Judaism doesn't take a position on polygamy.
indeed, King Solomon had hundreds of wives.
>Hell, people can't keep simple marriages between two people together,
>judging by the failure rate. How are they going to add more people
>and make it work any better? Not to mention the peculiar property
>laws and such that would be required by such an arrangement.
So, it's their faith. Why should you or anybody else tell anyone
who can marry whom?
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>Loki is correct that there are a few hundred legally married
>same-sex marriages in the US, due to changes after marriage.
>The courts, so far, have left those alone, unless I've missed
>something (which is possible; I pretty much ignore the trans
>community any more).
Strictly speaking, someone who has a sex change operation is still
biologically the same sex, with cosmetic alteration. A man who has
his reproductive organs removed, is still biologically a male.
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>: I already think the marriage laws are unconstitutional. What
>:about the Mormons? The Muslims? Neither require multiple wives but
>:they do permit them.
>
>Mormons have not been 'permitted' multiple wives since Utah became a
>state. I do wish people would know what the hell they're talking
>about at least SOME of the time. Muslims in the US are also not
>permitted multiple wives.
The polygamist Mormons split from the main body when the
government intervened. The polygamist Mormons still exist. I'm aware
of one polygamist coworker and one whose parents are polygamist.
I know that the Muslims aren't permitted multiple wives in this
country--that's my point! The laws discriminate against them.
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:I get very angry though when the wives are teenagers forced into it
>:by family and/or the family has 30 kids which it cannot support and
>:they all go on welfare.
>
>This paints a nice picture. I'd be interested in any documented case
>where it actually happened and what the Mormon church had to say about
>it.
Oh, come on now--there's been stuff on TV about this. One guy's
having big legal troubles. It seems that one wife had a kid before 14
years 9 months. Age of consent in Utah is 14.
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Lots of issues about property and children would need to be resolved
>for anything like this. My position on this is sort of like George's
>on evangelists, I'm afraid. I used to be in favour of gay marriage,
>until a bunch of militant gays decided that my position didn't go far
>enough and tried to bully me into adopting more of their positions (on
>adoption, for example).
What's wrong with gay adoption?
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>Not too far out of bounds; don't some, or all, states require blood
>tests before marriage, which I believe are only to do with potential
>children? Legally, couldn't fertility tests fall under the same laws?
They were means of catching STD's.
>My own personal belief is that as Marriage is mainly a private, or
>religious institution, the best answer is to get the government out of
>it altogether. No more marriage licenses for anyone. If two people
>wish to get married, they can have the service of their choice, and
>various religions could set their own rules for themselves only, but
>no official sanction. Put an end to all tax effects of marriage, and
>all specific legal effects. A very radical concept, I admit, and one
>I'm sure has holes in it, but I like it.
Partially agreed. I regard marriage as a government intrusion
into a private matter.
However, there are some legal benefits that can't be obtained by
other means. Personally I regard the most extreme of these to be
green cards for a non-citizen spouse. If you should happen to fall in
love with a foreigner there's *NO* other way to allow them to stay
here.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>There are apparently a lot of these cases out in the boonies of Utah.
>Officially the Mormon church has "excommunicated" (or whatever their term
>is) these folks, but no one ever does anything about it. Well, mostly
>never.
Try Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah (really these are
the same town--the state line cuts through it.) *MOST* of the people
out there are polygamist.
Chris Vail
"Loren Pechtel" <pec...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:rkhc9uknkpeu903a3...@4ax.com...
My Muslim friend pointed out that the overwhelming
majority of Americans are also polygamists. We
just do it one at a time. His people do it all at the
same time, and for exactly the same reasons. To his
POV, his way is more efficient.
Chris
Steve Bartman
>Guys, I skimmed the court decision, and all it says is that the "female" in
>question does not meet the state of Kansas definition, and that it's the job of
>the state legislature to change the law, not the court.
It said that the legislature failed to define, yes, but then it did
its own defining in order to rule. It could have declined to rule and
kicked the case back, but it didn't. Instead it went to great lengths
to dredge up precedents--some decades old--to define a "common-man"
definition of female that to me stretches the bounds of logic in a
severe manner. It ignored all outward appearances and the wishes of
the individual who underwent castration and penile amputation in favor
of a child-bearing, ova-producing definition that has no social
utility. In short, a dumb decision.
I won't hold my breath waiting for the Kansas legislature to change
the law either. In controversial sexual matters it's far easier to do
nothing (only a few weirdos are involved, right?) than to risk a
fundamentalist backlash at the polls.
Chris Vail
IOW: the legislature has to respond to the electorate.
Gee.....what'll those people think of next?
Chris
Steve Bartman
<a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>IOW: the legislature has to respond to the electorate.
>Gee.....what'll those people think of next?
Isn't it you who always brings up the stalking horse of Jim Crow laws
and the Will of the People vis a vis morality? Same diff.
loki
> My Muslim friend pointed out that the overwhelming
> majority of Americans are also polygamists. We
> just do it one at a time. His people do it all at the
> same time, and for exactly the same reasons. To his
> POV, his way is more efficient.
Most of the polyamory folks will say the same thing.
They also point out that their way keeps parents in the same
home with their children.
Loki
charles krin
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:00:56 -0600, "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Wait a sec here. You mean that if I have sex in Kansas (which I've
>>certainly
>>done) that I have to wear shoes????
>
>I recall reading about this law in the '70s when I was more in danger
>of a violation. Apparently if an adult was caught alone with an
>underage female not wearing shoes it was prima facia evidence of a
>statutory rape. Girls only of course.
>
>Steve
lol...that was the case in ILL years ago, if a male was caught in a
motor vehicle with *any* female not related to him...and the female
was barefoot...
ck
doc krin
motto for the nuke generation: "you are what you heat!"
charles krin
<kzr...@NSmindspring.com> wrote:
>The blood tests are for syphillis. Florida, among
>other states, dropped them some time ago as not
>being cost effective. Over a 30-something year
>period they found exactly 3 cases, at a cost of
>several million dollars per case.
considering the rate of syphilis in the general population, I *doubt*
it was lower than one case a year...
One point here is that most of the states dropped blood testing prior
to marriage when public health types pointed out that both HIV and
Hepatitis B were blood born, and needed to be screened for more than
syphilis, because these disease have limited treatment options and a
much more damaging course in modern society...between the folks
screaming at the budget busting (10-15 years ago the tests were much
less precise and much more expensive), the labs screaming about
liability (the tests, being less precise, had a high chance of giving
false results, and opening the labs to civil charges) and the folks
screaming invasion of privacy (even though all three diseases are
known public health risks), the states quietly gave up on mandatory
testing- my first wife and I had to have blood testing within 3 days
of the license being issued in 1975 (in IL), my second wife and I had
to meet no such requirement in Louisiana in 1990 (the requirement was
dropped in 1989, IIRC).
loki
> lol...that was the case in ILL years ago, if a male was caught in a
> motor vehicle with *any* female not related to him...and the female
> was barefoot...
Are you serious?!?!? Gods, I *never* wore shoes in the summer
when I was a kid...
Loki
J.T. McDaniel
"charles krin" <ck...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:3b3c9u82qlhvs6kcq...@4ax.com...
dozens annually -- where the cost argument came
in was that they only found the three cases where
the person didn't already know about it. It wasn't
really a cost to the State deal, either, since the
couple had to pay for the testing.
loki
> One point here is that most of the states dropped blood testing prior
> to marriage when public health types pointed out that both HIV and
> Hepatitis B were blood born, and needed to be screened for more than
> syphilis, because these disease have limited treatment options and a
> much more damaging course in modern society...between the folks
> screaming at the budget busting (10-15 years ago the tests were much
> less precise and much more expensive), the labs screaming about
> liability (the tests, being less precise, had a high chance of giving
> false results, and opening the labs to civil charges) and the folks
> screaming invasion of privacy (even though all three diseases are
> known public health risks), the states quietly gave up on mandatory
> testing- my first wife and I had to have blood testing within 3 days
> of the license being issued in 1975 (in IL), my second wife and I had
> to meet no such requirement in Louisiana in 1990 (the requirement was
> dropped in 1989, IIRC).
Actually, I thought Illinois went to requiring HIV testing prior to marriage
as well.
As to busting budgets, it's only the budgets of the folks getting married
that have problems, at least in Illinois. The folks getting married
paid for the tests. Do they still require them?
Loki
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:48:22 GMT, Fred J. McCall
And babies often take less than 9 months.
Fred J. McCall
:"charles krin" <ck...@iamerica.net> wrote
And you're the one who remembers all the great sex. See why they had
that law? ;-)
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:CFD2AD69314FDBC1.B93FE85A...@lp.airnews.net...
Your Muslim friend is wrong. Even assuming that half of marriages end in
divorce, every one of those divorced would have to remarry for half of
Americans to be "polygamists" by his definition. In reality, less than half
of marriages end in divorce, so the number of so-called "polygamists" isn't
even a majority let alone an "overwhelming majority".
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
news:9f1d9ucn4b88tdc45...@4ax.com...
> It also reminds me just how much Jerry Falwell (interestingly, my
> spelling-checker wants to change his name to "Falsely") reminds me of
> the Taliban.... They seem to have a lot in common, philosophically.
Well, they're all fundamentalists.
Fred J. McCall
:On 18 Mar 2002 14:47:37 GMT, bar...@aol.com (Barlow2) wrote:
:
:>Guys, I skimmed the court decision, and all it says is that the "female" in
:>question does not meet the state of Kansas definition, and that it's the job of
:>the state legislature to change the law, not the court.
:
:It said that the legislature failed to define, yes, but then it did
:its own defining in order to rule. It could have declined to rule and
:kicked the case back, but it didn't.
Supreme Courts practically never do this. If they did, who would
decide the question? Doing this is merely a way of saying that a
lower court decision was correct, and hence is still a decision.
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
Fred J. McCall
:On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:40:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Lots of issues about property and children would need to be resolved
:>for anything like this.
:
:Very true. For Property, why not use the same rules as for people
:living together? If the couple wished to have community property, etc,
:they can do so by contract. There are Palimony precedents in at least
:some states that could be expanded to cover Alimony type issues.
Except those precedents are based on community property law, which
assumes there are TWO people. If you have a line marriage with 30
people in it and one of them leaves, what do they get? Three percent
of everything? Nothing? What they came in with? A percentage of
increase in value prorated by what percentage of new capital they
brought in? Who gets kids if the person leaving is one of the
biological parents?
See, there are lots of sticky questions and no precedents. The only
answers would seem to be something along the lines of incorporating
the marriage and issuing stock as people come in that must be bought
back when they leave or something, and even that has its problems.
How would you set a fair value on the stock?
:>My position on this is sort of like George's
:>on evangelists, I'm afraid. I used to be in favour of gay marriage,
:>until a bunch of militant gays decided that my position didn't go far
:>enough and tried to bully me into adopting more of their positions (on
:>adoption, for example).
:
:However, I don't consider it right to be against an issue just because
:I dislike some of it's proponents. IMHO the issue should stand or fall
:on it's merits, not those of it's supporters or detractors.
I decided I didn't like ANY of its proponents, given that when the
extremists started bashing the rest of the community was silent. That
implies at least tacit approval of the tactics of the extremists.
:>Being stubborn, I went the other way, instead. Actually, I'm more
:>likely to agree to polygamous/polyandrous marriage than to gay
:>marriage at this point. I took enough abuse over it that this is no
:>longer an issue I'm willing to be reasonable on, I'm afraid.
:
:I was undecided on gay marriage until the Fundies started saying that
:it should not be allowed because the purpose of marriage was children.
:The inherent illogic of their position, not to mention their manner of
:presenting it, caused me to think on the issue, and also to have the
:same reaction you did, only in the opposite direction. Now, i feel
:that marriage, and what defines it, is no one's business but the
:individuals, so the best option IMHO is to get the state out of the
:equation.
Perhaps, but there are too many social and legal implications for that
to be practical.
Fred J. McCall
:Ya know, a lot of the analysis on the roots of terrorism point
:to the fact that a lot of these people really don't have anything
:to call a future. It's not just poverty, it's unemployment,
:underemployment, lack of property, lack of family.....
The problem with this hypothesis is that the bulk of the suiciders are
from families with above average incomes and educations.
:And one of the reasons for lack of family is polygamy. Every
:Muslim with four wives implies that there are three other men
:who won't be able to find a wife.
Sorry, but this just doesn't follow, since there is a requirement that
the man have sufficient income to actually support those wives. What
that really means is that you have to be pretty wealthy for multiple
wives to even be an option.
:People who don't have a stake in their own future are less likely
:to give a damn about anyone else's future.
But, again, the suicide bombers are typically middle class or above.
In the case of the folks involved in 9/11, they were essentially upper
middle class professionals.
To think that these people are engaging in suicide tactics out of
hopelessness is a failure to understand what motivates them.
loki
> hopelessness is a failure to understand what motivates them.
Except in Palestine. Those folks really don't have any future
so what the heck...
Loki
Chris Vail
"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17005092c...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <kcuc9u40nknaq6oq6...@4ax.com>, sbar...@visi.com
> says...
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:10:33 -0600, "Chris Vail"
> > <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >IOW: the legislature has to respond to the electorate.
> > >Gee.....what'll those people think of next?
> >
> > Isn't it you who always brings up the stalking horse of Jim Crow laws
> > and the Will of the People vis a vis morality? Same diff.
>
> and defense of marriage laws.
I do.
The Constitution specifically states the right to
vote in an election, which the Jim Crow laws
sought to circumvent.
The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly
provide for a right to a marriage that is recognized
by the government. The court properly referred
the creation of this "right" to the political process.
This is the old "strict constructionism" vs "judicial
activism" argument. The Kansas court is appropriately
one of strict constructionism, and evidently the
people of Kansas want it this way.
Chris
Chris Vail
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:00:56 -0600, "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Wait a sec here. You mean that if I have sex in Kansas (which I've
> >certainly
> >done) that I have to wear shoes????
>
> I recall reading about this law in the '70s when I was more in danger
> of a violation. Apparently if an adult was caught alone with an
> underage female not wearing shoes it was prima facia evidence of a
> statutory rape. Girls only of course.
This was true until the 70's, when many such laws
were modified. AFAIK, it was only enforced
when Officer Opie snuck up upon a car out in the
backwoods somewhere, late at night where the
Mayor's daughter and that Miller boy who didn't
make the football team were engaged in hot-and-heavy
passion in the back of an old Dodge. Everyone knew
that Susie wasn't a slut, therefore that Miller boy
was about to rape her, though only her shoe had
fallen off.
The times changed--for the better, I hope.
Now the Texas law has been re-written. Technically,
sex with any person under the age of 18 is Aggravated
Sexual Assault on a Minor. However, it is kind of silly
to prosecute this charge when folks can be married at 17.
As a matter of practicality, the DA's rarely file charges
if the difference in age between the two participants is
2 years or less, and neither party (or their parents) files
a complaint.
Recently, a Dallas Police Officer (who was off duty at
the time) was fired, and charged with ASAM because his
30 YO g/f committed oral sex on a 17 YO boy in the
apartment swimming pool while he videotaped.
The girl was also charged though the boy (and his parents)
refused to file a complaint. The officer and the g/f were
convicted, given probation and are now registered sex
offenders. The officer had bragged about the incident to
other officers.............
Texas law does not recognize "Accessory" to felonies.
All participants (even passive ones) of a felony are
equally guilty of the crime.
Chris
gws
news:20020318094737...@mb-cq.aol.com...
> Guys, I skimmed the court decision, and all it says is that the "female"
in
> question does not meet the state of Kansas definition, and that it's the
job of
> the state legislature to change the law, not the court.
>
While the Kansas Supreme Court created some political cover for itself by
declaring that the Kansas marriage statute is clear and unambiguous, I found
its reasoning unpersuasive. Here is what the Kansas marriage statute says:
"The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract
between two parties who are of *opposite* *sex*. All other marriages are
declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. The
consent of the parties is essential. The marriage ceremony may be regarded
either as a civil ceremony or as a religious sacrament, but the marriage
relation shall only be entered into, maintained or abrogated as provided by
law."
[Emphasis added.]
It is clear that a post-op transsexual is no longer a male, so how can she
not be a female? Thus, contrary to the Kansas court's holding, the meaning
of the term "opposite sex" in the context of a post-op transsexual is, it
seems to me, anything but clear. It is for courts to resolve such
ambiguities, not duck them and leave correction of the problem to a
legislature that will likely also duck the problem. What the Kansas court
has done is make permanent a permanent legal limbo -- a limbo upon which
these poor people spent a lot of time, money, and pain trying to get out of
in the first place. Thus, I would have dissented -- but the court did not
solicit my opinion.
There is an oddity here, too. The Kansas court seemed to indicate that a
post-op transsexual could marry a female and not violate the Kansas marriage
statute because she would be still of the "opposite sex" from her female
partner.. Odd, very odd.
Grey Satterfield
gws
news:7gdc9uofijglbguj7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:51:27 -0500, Diane Wilson <di...@firelily.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Loki is correct that there are a few hundred legally married
> >same-sex marriages in the US, due to changes after marriage.
> >The courts, so far, have left those alone, unless I've missed
> >something (which is possible; I pretty much ignore the trans
> >community any more).
>
> Strictly speaking, someone who has a sex change operation is still
> biologically the same sex, with cosmetic alteration. A man who has
> his reproductive organs removed, is still biologically a male.
Years ago some cynical doctor said of either Christine Jorgensen or
what's-her-name Richards, the transsexual tennis playing doctor, "He's just
a mutilated male." You want to talk about howls of protest!
Grey Satterfield
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>lol...that was the case in ILL years ago, if a male was caught in a
>motor vehicle with *any* female not related to him...and the female
>was barefoot...
Well, my wife tends to favor slip-on footwear, in the summer
generally without socks. For her to take them off on long car trips
isn't unusual. Stupid law!
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:Ya know, a lot of the analysis on the roots of terrorism point
>:to the fact that a lot of these people really don't have anything
>:to call a future. It's not just poverty, it's unemployment,
>:underemployment, lack of property, lack of family.....
>
>The problem with this hypothesis is that the bulk of the suiciders are
>from families with above average incomes and educations.
I was just reading a bit about M*** Atta. (Can't think of his
first name right now.) His father kept griping because "Doctor"
wasn't part of his name. His father also considered him a girl--he
would say "I have three girls" when he really had two.
>:And one of the reasons for lack of family is polygamy. Every
>:Muslim with four wives implies that there are three other men
>:who won't be able to find a wife.
>
>Sorry, but this just doesn't follow, since there is a requirement that
>the man have sufficient income to actually support those wives. What
>that really means is that you have to be pretty wealthy for multiple
>wives to even be an option.
So? Still, for every man with two wives there's another with
none.
>But, again, the suicide bombers are typically middle class or above.
>In the case of the folks involved in 9/11, they were essentially upper
>middle class professionals.
But they aren't the norm for suicide attackers.
>To think that these people are engaging in suicide tactics out of
>hopelessness is a failure to understand what motivates them.
Having a reasonable amount of money doesn't make someone not a
failure.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>Ya know, a lot of the analysis on the roots of terrorism point
>to the fact that a lot of these people really don't have anything
>to call a future. It's not just poverty, it's unemployment,
>underemployment, lack of property, lack of family.....
>
>And one of the reasons for lack of family is polygamy. Every
>Muslim with four wives implies that there are three other men
>who won't be able to find a wife.
>
>People who don't have a stake in their own future are less likely
>to give a damn about anyone else's future.
Agreed. It only makes sense to permit it if it's permitted both
ways.
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>: Oh, come on now--there's been stuff on TV about this. One guy's
>:having big legal troubles. It seems that one wife had a kid before 14
>:years 9 months. Age of consent in Utah is 14.
>
>And babies often take less than 9 months.
This wasn't a preemie. This was conception before age 14.
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Except those precedents are based on community property law, which
>assumes there are TWO people. If you have a line marriage with 30
>people in it and one of them leaves, what do they get? Three percent
>of everything? Nothing? What they came in with? A percentage of
>increase in value prorated by what percentage of new capital they
>brought in? Who gets kids if the person leaving is one of the
>biological parents?
Default, 3% of everything, it should be handled by a prenuptuial
contract, though. Children: I would say that normally the kids stay
with the group. It's 29 vs 1 in that case and it seems to me to be in
the best interest of the child to stay, although with visitation
rights.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>> They were means of catching STD's.
>
>Um, I trust you mean detecting STD's? <G>
Catch, as in catching a problem. aka detecting.
>Good point. Hmmm. There are, of course, lots of abuses of the present
>system, so changing it might be a good idea in any case.
Agreed. INS statistics say more than half of marriages are fake,
but I think they overestimate--they consider a marriage fake if it
breaks up in less than 2 years, but sometimes that's going to be
someone who got into it without realizing the cultural differences
that are going to cause problems.
>As a guess, how about an enhanced "sponsorship" sort of program,
>where a US Citizen assumes full responsibility for the foreign
>national, affirms that the foreign national will be living with them
>etc? Sure, there will be abuses of this system too, but as we already
>have immigration quotas (I think?) just deduct the number of
>"sponsorees" from the quotas to balance it out.
So long as there's a way to cancel it if the relationship fails.
(This would deport the person thus brought in.)
BlackBeard
<961C9100B38FF430.6DECA296...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>
>This was true until the 70's, when many such laws
>were modified. AFAIK, it was only enforced
>when Officer Opie snuck up upon a car out in the
>backwoods somewhere, late at night where the
>Mayor's daughter and that Miller boy who didn't
>make the football team were engaged in hot-and-heavy
>passion in the back of an old Dodge. Everyone knew
>that Susie wasn't a slut, therefore that Miller boy
>was about to rape her, though only her shoe had
>fallen off.
>
I do not believe this. No boy in texas got laid if he didn't make the
football team.
;)
>The times changed--for the better, I hope.
>
>Now the Texas law has been re-written. Technically,
>sex with any person under the age of 18 is Aggravated
>Sexual Assault on a Minor. However, it is kind of silly
>to prosecute this charge when folks can be married at 17.
I believe the age of consent for Texas is 17.
>
>As a matter of practicality, the DA's rarely file charges
>if the difference in age between the two participants is
>2 years or less, and neither party (or their parents) files
>a complaint.
California... Parents have no right to file charges under those conditions.
So if you catch a 17 yr. old boy with your 15 yr. old daughter... you
have no legal recourse. And of course, if you pick him up and throw him
out of your house... you go to jail.
:(
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
" To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty; To find the best in others;
To leave the world a better place, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition;
To know even one life has breathed easier because you lived.
This is to have succeeded".
BlackBeard
<lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Are you serious?!?!? Gods, I *never* wore shoes in the summer
>when I was a kid...
>
>Loki
Hmmm.. I heard that can lead to a general... 'rounding of the heels'.
Ducking and rolling...
Chris Vail
"BlackBeard" <Black...@middle.of.nowhere> wrote in message
news:BlackBeard-19...@keck-mac.chinalake.navy.mil...
> In article
> <961C9100B38FF430.6DECA296...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >This was true until the 70's, when many such laws
> >were modified. AFAIK, it was only enforced
> >when Officer Opie snuck up upon a car out in the
> >backwoods somewhere, late at night where the
> >Mayor's daughter and that Miller boy who didn't
> >make the football team were engaged in hot-and-heavy
> >passion in the back of an old Dodge. Everyone knew
> >that Susie wasn't a slut, therefore that Miller boy
> >was about to rape her, though only her shoe had
> >fallen off.
> >
>
> I do not believe this. No boy in texas got laid if he didn't make the
> football team.
That was why it was 'rape', cause no believed Susie
would let anybody put his hands down her pants if
he wasn't at least the fullback.........And then it was
her DUTY to do so...........at least after the homecoming
game........but only if we won, and said fullback caught
the winning touchdown pass with only seconds left on the clock.
> ;)
>
>
>
> >The times changed--for the better, I hope.
> >
> >Now the Texas law has been re-written. Technically,
> >sex with any person under the age of 18 is Aggravated
> >Sexual Assault on a Minor. However, it is kind of silly
> >to prosecute this charge when folks can be married at 17.
>
>
> I believe the age of consent for Texas is 17.
Nope: nothing on the books (though my data is
aging: this may have changed). Texas law only
recognizes adults (after age 18) and children (under
18, unless a court rules otherwise).
> >
>
> >As a matter of practicality, the DA's rarely file charges
> >if the difference in age between the two participants is
> >2 years or less, and neither party (or their parents) files
> >a complaint.
>
>
> California... Parents have no right to file charges under those
conditions.
> So if you catch a 17 yr. old boy with your 15 yr. old daughter... you
> have no legal recourse. And of course, if you pick him up and throw him
> out of your house... you go to jail.
Technically, a parent could file a complaint, but the
DA would probably lose the paperwork, or the
Grand Jury would no-bill should such an act be
consensual, and the two young-uns be within 2 years
of age of each other. I have ministered to guys in jail
who were caught in these circumstances. In the cases
where the parents did file the complaint and the Grand Jury
returned a bill, but the act was otherwise consensual, the
DA usually plea-bargained the case down to misdemeanor
status, and offered the kid time-served plus community service.
There was one guy for whom this was his fourth such offense
(with different girls each time), and he wasn't offered a plea
bargain.
I s'pose that Texas is a safer place to raise a daughter
than California (but not by much, admittedly).
Chris
Paul J. Adam
BlackBeard <Black...@middle.of.nowhere> writes
> California... Parents have no right to file charges under those conditions.
> So if you catch a 17 yr. old boy with your 15 yr. old daughter... you
>have no legal recourse. And of course, if you pick him up and throw him
>out of your house... you go to jail.
I thought that, in the US, as long as he was inside the house you could
just machine-gun him until he asks you to stop, and then ask the police
to come and collect the corpse before it stains the carpeting too badly?
Or have the organs of media reporting been less than precise?
(I _do_ know that it's a capital offence for a Scotsman to knock on a
door in Texas...)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
BlackBeard
<ABA9CB0A9FEEB907.79B19302...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Chris Vail" <a000...@NOTTHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>
>Nope: nothing on the books (though my data is
>aging: this may have changed). Texas law only
>recognizes adults (after age 18) and children (under
>18, unless a court rules otherwise).
>
Well, for what it's worth two different Age of Consent websites list Texas
AOC at 17.
>>
>>
>> California... Parents have no right to file charges under those
>conditions.
>> So if you catch a 17 yr. old boy with your 15 yr. old daughter... you
>> have no legal recourse. And of course, if you pick him up and throw him
>> out of your house... you go to jail.
>
>Technically, a parent could file a complaint, but the
>DA would probably lose the paperwork, or the
>Grand Jury would no-bill should such an act be
>consensual, and the two young-uns be within 2 years
>of age of each other.
Tried, was told 'too bad'.
BlackBeard
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I thought that, in the US, as long as he was inside the house you could
>just machine-gun him until he asks you to stop, and then ask the police
>to come and collect the corpse before it stains the carpeting too badly?
>
>
>Or have the organs of media reporting been less than precise?
Can't shoot him if he was invited in.
And in California, You must prove you felt your life (not possesions) was
threatened. There was a case where the homeowner was found guilty of
manslaughter when the armed intruder was shot dead, near the door on his
way out, shot in the back. (anecdotal)
>
>
>(I _do_ know that it's a capital offence for a Scotsman to knock on a
>door in Texas...)
That's Texas. I thought you were asking about the civilized world.
loki
news:BlackBeard-19...@keck-mac.chinalake.navy.mil...
> <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I thought that, in the US, as long as he was inside the house you could
> >just machine-gun him until he asks you to stop, and then ask the police
> >to come and collect the corpse before it stains the carpeting too badly?
> >
> >
> >Or have the organs of media reporting been less than precise?
>
>
> Can't shoot him if he was invited in.
>
> And in California, You must prove you felt your life (not possesions) was
> threatened. There was a case where the homeowner was found guilty of
> manslaughter when the armed intruder was shot dead, near the door on his
> way out, shot in the back. (anecdotal)
But here in Missouri I could shoot him and not have to worry about it.
<grin>
> >(I _do_ know that it's a capital offence for a Scotsman to knock on a
> >door in Texas...)
>
>
> That's Texas. I thought you were asking about the civilized world.
No comment.
Loki
BlackBeard
<lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> But here in Missouri I could shoot him and not have to worry about it.
><grin>
>
How many men HAVE you shot trying to escape your house?
;)
>>
>>
>> That's Texas. I thought you were asking about the civilized world.
>
>No comment.
>
>Loki
...baaach, baak, baak baak...
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
Even there, it is often middle class folks who are the suicide
bombers. It's not the folks in the camps doing this kind of thing,
generally.
Frankly, the Palestinians tend to self inflict. Everywhere that has
let them come in has regretted it. Their current plight is what is
generally called in poker circles "a real run of bad playing".
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.17005092c...@news.newsguy.com...
:>
:> Yup. And I fail to see the difference between Jim Crow laws
:> and defense of marriage laws.
:
:I do.
:The Constitution specifically states the right to
:vote in an election, which the Jim Crow laws
:sought to circumvent.
But the Constitution also specifically states that each State shall
determine who is and is not eligible to vote.
:The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly
:provide for a right to a marriage that is recognized
:by the government. The court properly referred
:the creation of this "right" to the political process.
:
:This is the old "strict constructionism" vs "judicial
:activism" argument. The Kansas court is appropriately
:one of strict constructionism, and evidently the
:people of Kansas want it this way.
Poppycock! This is in no way a strict/activist decision.
--
"The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one’s
neighbour and this fact goes far to account for religious
intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the
people next door are headed for hell."
-- Aleister Crowley
J.T. McDaniel
"Loren Pechtel" <pec...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:ogue9ug64la7estm5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:23 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >:Ya know, a lot of the analysis on the roots of terrorism point
> >:to the fact that a lot of these people really don't have anything
> >:to call a future. It's not just poverty, it's unemployment,
> >:underemployment, lack of property, lack of family.....
> >
> >The problem with this hypothesis is that the bulk of the suiciders are
> >from families with above average incomes and educations.
>
> I was just reading a bit about M*** Atta. (Can't think of his
> first name right now.) His father kept griping because "Doctor"
> wasn't part of his name. His father also considered him a girl--he
> would say "I have three girls" when he really had two.
>
> >:And one of the reasons for lack of family is polygamy. Every
> >:Muslim with four wives implies that there are three other men
> >:who won't be able to find a wife.
> >
> >Sorry, but this just doesn't follow, since there is a requirement that
> >the man have sufficient income to actually support those wives. What
> >that really means is that you have to be pretty wealthy for multiple
> >wives to even be an option.
>
> So? Still, for every man with two wives there's another with
> none.
>
still going to have a whole lot of leftover women.
They outnumber us, in case you haven't noticed.
--
Jack
http://withhonourinbattle.com
http://riverdaleebooks.com
http://navaladventure.com
Fred J. McCall
Fred J. McCall
: California... Parents have no right to file charges under those conditions.
: So if you catch a 17 yr. old boy with your 15 yr. old daughter... you
:have no legal recourse. And of course, if you pick him up and throw him
:out of your house... you go to jail.
So it seems to me like the only choice left is to mistake him for a
burglar and shoot him....