Posted: Apr 19, 2012 8:28 am
SECOND POST - LION IRC
Reactionary Judges in the past have argued the need for a strident line in the sand against liberalised marriage laws.
See this example of a Supreme Court Judge who, in his (conservative) judgment, gave a spirited defence of the virtues of [ [ REDACTED ] ] as being a fundamental principle of western civilisation.
He said that "the preservation of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage"...“represents a pressing and substantial objective for all of the reasons that have seen the ascendance of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage as a norm in the West,” and that “the law seeks to advance the institution of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times.”
He also launched an all-out attack on the concept of [ [ REDACTED ] ] , which he said “has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice”. “There is no such thing as so-called ‘good [ [ REDACTED ] ] ’", he added.
Before you question His Honour’s thinking as out-dated, last century, bigoted, homophobic, etc. I point out that the judgment was from November 2011 not 1911. It was in a jurisdiction which legalised gay marriage in 2005 and the judgement was against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The five redacted words, in order, are;
Chief Justice Bauman British Columbia supreme court.
I mentioned 4 thematic categories - Legal, Philosophical, Biological and Religious culture - which can be encapsulated into the one convenient sentence which I am going to cover in as much detail as 4,500 words will allow.
Read it without the Chapter and Verse reference.
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
* This sentence connotes Legality in the sense that it quite obviously appears as a declaration of what shall be. That is a function of what Governments, (with or without mandates) do. They declare what shall be or shall not be. Let’s debate before we legislate rather than litigate after it’s too late.
* The Philosophy is invited, from the very first word – “therefore”. We are talking about a proposition which arises...
from REASON – from the thinking Mind. Note how the philosophers are also drawn, almost immediately, to whats called “pros hen legomenon” that are embedded in the sentence and which, in a (Platonic) sense, need to be grasped epistemologically and individually. What really ARE the “things” we are debating? What do these words – man/wife/father/mother – actually mean? Is there a “category” in there somewhere? Man/mother/father/family? Man now leaves his childhood family and does what? Joins as one with his wife and she with her husband as “one”. One what?
* Enter Biology One “what” asks the philosopher? A new biological family. We are starting the process over again. We repeat as necessary to avoid species extinction. How does it “work” asks the biologist? How do the biological/anatomical jigsaw pieces fittogether? Is there a gene for heterosexuality? The sentence from Genesis describes a biological process which cannot be ignored in this debate.
* Finally, we come to Religious Culture. What’s got to do with religion? Not much apart from our apparently innate (born that way) habit of asking “what ought we to do” questions and trying to derive “moral landscape” answers. Religion is ubiquitous. Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man”) has a culture of religion. So much so that the human right to religion is enshrined. And pursuit of gay marriage does challenge many segments of religious culture, especially people who hold that we don’t have the right to re-word Genesis 2:24. This can’t and won’t be ignored in our debate either.
So anyway, a Lawyer, a Philosopher, a Biologist and a Rabbi are all sitting in a bar one day arguing about whose profession is the most important and the Lawyer says to the Rabbi….
What does the lawyer say?
One of the “gay marriage” considerations in the mind of constitutional lawyers, family law specialists, human rights lawyers, etc. will be the increased workload.
In jurisdictions which changed marriage law during the 60’s and 70’s giving effect to so-called “no fault divorce” the work load went through the roof.
Why?
Because a simple change in marriage law didn’t make things simpler at all.
No fault divorce didn’t result in less legal conflict.
Making it easier to get divorced didn’t cost one lawyer their job.
On the contrary.
In Australia the proportion of single-parent families with children sky-rocketed.
12% in 1980;
15% in 1990;
20% in 1997
21% in 2008.
The more “tolerant” marriage rules worked.
Men were finding it MUCH easier to marry whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted
.....and to leave the marriage whenever they wanted.
In 1960, approximately 4.8% of Australian babies were born outside of marriage.
In 2008 that number had reached 34.4%
Which Australian political party, when in Government, made this phenomenal change to marriage law?
The Australian Labor Party. - The one which in its amended (pro-gay marriage) platform now ironically calls marriage…
“a mutual commitment to a shared life…”
In these charts and stats we see commitment going down and divorce rates [b]going up.
Assets were being divided up – not shared.
Custody battles became the ugly opposite of “mutual commitment”.
In 1974 a modest 12% of marriages consisted of at least one person who had previously been married.
In 2004, that number had more than doubled.
An ominous warning.
A widely cited Brookings Institute study found that $229 billion in US Government welfare expenditure between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture.
Aren’t we simply making marriage more complex, more amorphous, less recognisable by anyone other than A LAWYER?
Civil marriage law litigation is more complex today – not less.
We are fighting now more than ever over custody, fighting in courts over anonymous sperm donations, arguing about the rights of unknown parents/absent parents/single parents, arguing over discrimination in favour of or against de facto marriage, challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples…
As social dysfunction - domestic violence, poverty, child abuse, crime, drug abuse, mental illness – related to marriage breakdown increases, State (and private sector) spending on these social pathologies must increase.
As it turned out, politicians and judges, (who are effectively also lawyers), who naively thought that legal restrictions on getting married, (and similar legal hurdles on getting unmarried) made people think more carefully before actually getting married, were right. Social experiments are expensive.
What will the lawyers do with social policy legislation which further widens and relaxes the legal definition of matrimony?
Make a living. ....arguing about whatever we pay them to argue about.
They will also earn a living, from the Bench or the Bar, taking part in what is called judicial activism, arguing and adjudicating disputes which arise entirely because The Law is open to further interpretation.
This is how case law works and these are “ought” questions” – political science.
We pay them to argue about…
-whether The Law allows Cyber marriage
- Statutory waiting periods for when applying for permission to marry.
- Statutory waiting periods of legal separation prior to Decree Nisi. (A Decree Nisi is a provisional decree used in many “Magna Carta” jurisdictions, when a court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to file for a divorce.
-Whether someone is or is not a legally authorized marriage celebrant.
- The legal definition of cohabitation.
- One Judge versus seven million Californians
- Dysfunctional families pay family law solicitors to argue about custody - of the furniture, the fridge, the TV, of the dogs and the cats in the cradle and the silver spoons.
- the requirement to be physically present at your marriage *cough* ceremony?
- the requirement to prove your identity in order to get married?
- The person wanting (the State’s) permission to marry who can’t or chooses not to disclose the identity of their parents?
- the States right to demand proof that a person isn’t already legally married in another jurisdiction before it grants a (second?) marriage certificate?
- the United States right to prevent a visiting 14 year old girl, legally married in South Africa (by the State) from having consensual sex with her 50 year old South African husband while in America?
Is the answer… “why not?” or “of course not” ?
Call a lawyer. But first read…
Article 13.
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
This is a debate about the legal definition of matrimony.
Does anyone seriously think things will get BETTER if we multiply matrimonial complexity X sexual orientation X polygamy X gay adoption?
My opponent says “I will limit the number of arguments I make in favour of legalising gay marriage.”
It’s a remarkable offer.
But actually, it will be me limiting the number of Crocodile Gandhi’s pro-gay marriage arguments.
BTW…
Reactionary Judges in the past have argued the need for a strident line in the sand against liberalised marriage laws.
See this example of a Supreme Court Judge who, in his (conservative) judgment, gave a spirited defence of the virtues of [ [ REDACTED ] ] as being a fundamental principle of western civilisation.
He said that "the preservation of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage"...“represents a pressing and substantial objective for all of the reasons that have seen the ascendance of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage as a norm in the West,” and that “the law seeks to advance the institution of [ [ REDACTED ] ] marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times.”
He also launched an all-out attack on the concept of [ [ REDACTED ] ] , which he said “has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice”. “There is no such thing as so-called ‘good [ [ REDACTED ] ] ’", he added.
Before you question His Honour’s thinking as out-dated, last century, bigoted, homophobic, etc. I point out that the judgment was from November 2011 not 1911. It was in a jurisdiction which legalised gay marriage in 2005 and the judgement was against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The five redacted words, in order, are;
[Reveal] Spoiler:
…monogamy, …monogamous, …monogamous, …monogamous and …polygamy
Chief Justice Bauman British Columbia supreme court.
I mentioned 4 thematic categories - Legal, Philosophical, Biological and Religious culture - which can be encapsulated into the one convenient sentence which I am going to cover in as much detail as 4,500 words will allow.
Read it without the Chapter and Verse reference.
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
* This sentence connotes Legality in the sense that it quite obviously appears as a declaration of what shall be. That is a function of what Governments, (with or without mandates) do. They declare what shall be or shall not be. Let’s debate before we legislate rather than litigate after it’s too late.
* The Philosophy is invited, from the very first word – “therefore”. We are talking about a proposition which arises...
from REASON – from the thinking Mind. Note how the philosophers are also drawn, almost immediately, to whats called “pros hen legomenon” that are embedded in the sentence and which, in a (Platonic) sense, need to be grasped epistemologically and individually. What really ARE the “things” we are debating? What do these words – man/wife/father/mother – actually mean? Is there a “category” in there somewhere? Man/mother/father/family? Man now leaves his childhood family and does what? Joins as one with his wife and she with her husband as “one”. One what?
* Enter Biology One “what” asks the philosopher? A new biological family. We are starting the process over again. We repeat as necessary to avoid species extinction. How does it “work” asks the biologist? How do the biological/anatomical jigsaw pieces fittogether? Is there a gene for heterosexuality? The sentence from Genesis describes a biological process which cannot be ignored in this debate.
* Finally, we come to Religious Culture. What’s got to do with religion? Not much apart from our apparently innate (born that way) habit of asking “what ought we to do” questions and trying to derive “moral landscape” answers. Religion is ubiquitous. Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man”) has a culture of religion. So much so that the human right to religion is enshrined. And pursuit of gay marriage does challenge many segments of religious culture, especially people who hold that we don’t have the right to re-word Genesis 2:24. This can’t and won’t be ignored in our debate either.
So anyway, a Lawyer, a Philosopher, a Biologist and a Rabbi are all sitting in a bar one day arguing about whose profession is the most important and the Lawyer says to the Rabbi….
What does the lawyer say?
One of the “gay marriage” considerations in the mind of constitutional lawyers, family law specialists, human rights lawyers, etc. will be the increased workload.
In jurisdictions which changed marriage law during the 60’s and 70’s giving effect to so-called “no fault divorce” the work load went through the roof.
Why?
Because a simple change in marriage law didn’t make things simpler at all.
No fault divorce didn’t result in less legal conflict.
Making it easier to get divorced didn’t cost one lawyer their job.
On the contrary.
In Australia the proportion of single-parent families with children sky-rocketed.
12% in 1980;
15% in 1990;
20% in 1997
21% in 2008.
The more “tolerant” marriage rules worked.
Men were finding it MUCH easier to marry whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted
.....and to leave the marriage whenever they wanted.
In 1960, approximately 4.8% of Australian babies were born outside of marriage.
In 2008 that number had reached 34.4%
Which Australian political party, when in Government, made this phenomenal change to marriage law?
The Australian Labor Party. - The one which in its amended (pro-gay marriage) platform now ironically calls marriage…
“a mutual commitment to a shared life…”
In these charts and stats we see commitment going down and divorce rates [b]going up.
Assets were being divided up – not shared.
Custody battles became the ugly opposite of “mutual commitment”.
In 1974 a modest 12% of marriages consisted of at least one person who had previously been married.
In 2004, that number had more than doubled.
An ominous warning.
A widely cited Brookings Institute study found that $229 billion in US Government welfare expenditure between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture.
The Oracle of Delphi wrote: : “Almost all cultures that recognize marriage, also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage.
Aren’t we simply making marriage more complex, more amorphous, less recognisable by anyone other than A LAWYER?
Civil marriage law litigation is more complex today – not less.
We are fighting now more than ever over custody, fighting in courts over anonymous sperm donations, arguing about the rights of unknown parents/absent parents/single parents, arguing over discrimination in favour of or against de facto marriage, challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples…
As social dysfunction - domestic violence, poverty, child abuse, crime, drug abuse, mental illness – related to marriage breakdown increases, State (and private sector) spending on these social pathologies must increase.
As it turned out, politicians and judges, (who are effectively also lawyers), who naively thought that legal restrictions on getting married, (and similar legal hurdles on getting unmarried) made people think more carefully before actually getting married, were right. Social experiments are expensive.
What will the lawyers do with social policy legislation which further widens and relaxes the legal definition of matrimony?
Make a living. ....arguing about whatever we pay them to argue about.
They will also earn a living, from the Bench or the Bar, taking part in what is called judicial activism, arguing and adjudicating disputes which arise entirely because The Law is open to further interpretation.
This is how case law works and these are “ought” questions” – political science.
We pay them to argue about…
-whether The Law allows Cyber marriage
- Statutory waiting periods for when applying for permission to marry.
- Statutory waiting periods of legal separation prior to Decree Nisi. (A Decree Nisi is a provisional decree used in many “Magna Carta” jurisdictions, when a court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to file for a divorce.
-Whether someone is or is not a legally authorized marriage celebrant.
- The legal definition of cohabitation.
- One Judge versus seven million Californians
- Dysfunctional families pay family law solicitors to argue about custody - of the furniture, the fridge, the TV, of the dogs and the cats in the cradle and the silver spoons.
- the requirement to be physically present at your marriage *cough* ceremony?
- the requirement to prove your identity in order to get married?
- The person wanting (the State’s) permission to marry who can’t or chooses not to disclose the identity of their parents?
- the States right to demand proof that a person isn’t already legally married in another jurisdiction before it grants a (second?) marriage certificate?
- the United States right to prevent a visiting 14 year old girl, legally married in South Africa (by the State) from having consensual sex with her 50 year old South African husband while in America?
Is the answer… “why not?” or “of course not” ?
Call a lawyer. But first read…
Article 13.
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
This is a debate about the legal definition of matrimony.
Does anyone seriously think things will get BETTER if we multiply matrimonial complexity X sexual orientation X polygamy X gay adoption?
My opponent says “I will limit the number of arguments I make in favour of legalising gay marriage.”
It’s a remarkable offer.
But actually, it will be me limiting the number of Crocodile Gandhi’s pro-gay marriage arguments.
BTW…