Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and

joanestes2000@yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:

> Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.com> wrote
> 
>
> Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system.  Without a formal
> notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
> U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all.  As
> evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
> federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
> universal.

You are talking about gay marriage right?  If you are there is nothing
preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
woman doing the same with a man.  So they are not being discriminated
against.

Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to.  Now the financial and legal benefits
of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do.  Now
gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?

We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
the amendments to the constitution.  And the people who wrote the US
constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
best document they could write after years of trying.  Also the fact
that the bar is so high for changing it is good because it prevents
all kinds of stupidity from happening.  Societies that change too fast
fall apart.

marc

Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@optonline.net> writes:

> joanestes2000@yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
> 
>
> You are talking about gay marriage right?  If you are there is nothing
> preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
> woman doing the same with a man.  So they are not being discriminated
> against.

Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
scrutiny.

They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals.  In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.

Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage.  I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health.  No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.

And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
"sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)?  Then, you have people
getting married primarily for tax benefits.  That's not the kind of
commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
Health are trying to make.

> Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
> relationship if they want to.

Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway....  (Granted, this wasn't about
their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
recently.)

> Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
> social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
> that is very expensive to do.

This argument doesn't hold water.  In particular, in its recent decision,
the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
purposes of procreation.

So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage.  While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books.  Because then, we could enforce it.  Vigorously.

Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
those straight couples in which:

- either he or she is naturally infertile
- he's had a vasectomy
- she's had her tubes tied
- she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
wants to have children)
- they've simply chosen not to have kids
- (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
prefers to use a condom.

Is that really what you want?

This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either.  I don't think there's a
state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
the preceding conditions.  So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
marriage is all about procreation.

> Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
> economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
> benefit's?

Because they may want to adopt children?  Because they may have children of
their own from previous straight marriages?  Because the benefits of
marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
children?

> We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
> the amendments to the constitution.  And the people who wrote the US
> constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
> best document they could write after years of trying.

Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
summer, not "years of trying."

That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
(legally) fundamental notion of human rights.  Trying to add another layer
above that is somewhat problematic.

> Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] 
is
> good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.

Agreed.  This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
fails.  If only state constitutions were as hard to change.

> Societies that change too fast fall apart.

This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?

Richard

Ketil Malde <ketil@ii.uib.no> writes:

> Yoyoma_2 <Yoyoma_2@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>
> Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
> back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...

It takes all types....

cobbe@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

> Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@optonline.net> writes:
> 
>
> Oh, brother.  Here we go again.  (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.)  I'm
> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
> scrutiny.

Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.

>
> They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
> sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
> not affect heterosexuals.  In general, a heterosexual person is not
> prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.

Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.

>
> Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
> marriage.  I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
> an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons o
f
> public health.  No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
> the case of same-sex marriages.

WTF?!?!  You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?
Does this only apply to people who are not members of your class of
people?

My point is that the state has no reason to provide economic and legal
special status to couples who by definition can not produce children and
perpetuate the state by assuming a major financial obligation, caring
for their children.

>
> And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
> telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect th
e
> "sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)?  Then, you have people

I am not talking about that so lets keep it on topic.

> getting married primarily for tax benefits.  That's not the kind of
> commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
> of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
> Health are trying to make.

Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other
in the case I am making.  The things society give to people who are
going to ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel
expense, are in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of
marriage) does not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so
why should it get the economic benefits.

> 
>
> Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway....  (Granted, this wasn't about
> their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
> closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
> recently.)
> 
>
> This argument doesn't hold water.  In particular, in its recent decision,
> the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
> contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
> purposes of procreation.

First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
this case.  And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
is a pretty hard court to beat.

>
> So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
> that established procreation as the basis of marriage.  While this effort
> seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
> have this law on the books.  Because then, we could enforce it.  Vigorously.[/colo
r]

So you do not support Row V Wade?

>
> Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
> those straight couples in which:
>
>  - either he or she is naturally infertile
>  - he's had a vasectomy
>  - she's had her tubes tied
>  - she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
>    the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
>    wants to have children)
>  - they've simply chosen not to have kids
>  - (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
>    prefers to use a condom.
>
> Is that really what you want?

I never said that.  But the point is that simple fact is that without
a man and a woman having sex *with each other* it is very unlikely
that you will have children result from said sex act.  And with out at
least a reasonable potential for children to exist society has no
interest in supporting you in you lifestyle with special privileges
because you are not even potentially supporting society by possibly
having children.  Also there is the fact that with children removed
from the picture there is no reason that both people can not have jobs
that allow them to bring in money and benefits/pensions that the
traditional atomic family did not have.  The wife generally worked at
taking care of the kids and house and this did not come with a check.


>
> This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either.  I don't think there's a
> state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
> the preceding conditions.  So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
> marriage is all about procreation.

I never said it was, I said that society's benefit was the continuation
of society and because of that it granted some special privileges to
the class of people that were doing this.  It did this out of self
interest.

> 
>
> Because they may want to adopt children?  Because they may have children of[/color
]

produce not get surplus.

> their own from previous straight marriages?  Because the benefits of

if they were married to a person with a different count of X
chromosomes, then yes it is possible.  And did not society grant them
the special privileges also?

> marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
> children?

but as a class straight couples produce children, and bear the cost of
them, and gay couples do not produce children.


> 
>
> Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
> summer, not "years of trying."
>
> That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
> particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
> (legally) fundamental notion of human rights.  Trying to add another layer
> above that is somewhat problematic.
> 
>
> Agreed.  This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendmen
t
> fails.  If only state constitutions were as hard to change.
> 
>
> This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
> this claim up?

Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real
problems.

marc

>
> Richard

"Anton van Straaten" <anton@appsolutions.com> writes:

> Marc Spitzer wrote: 
>
> This argument makes no sense.  First, gay people can and do adopt, and thi
s
> would presumably be easier for gay couples if they were legally recognized
.
> Second, there's no legal requirement for married couples to have children,
> so childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same marital benefit
s
> as childless straight couples.

I used the word produce, ie make.  And as a class gay( male or female)
sex does not produce children.  And as a class straight couples who
have sex do, or at least *can*, produce children.

Also the legal assumption for marriage is that there is one person
earning money to support two adults(husband and wife) and some children.
The legal protections granted the adult that stayed home was granted
to them because their job was to raise the kids and this benefits
society.

Also please keep in mind that when I say society I am not talking about
goverment.

>
> Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds.  It boils do
wn
> to your acceptance of principles.  If you fundamentally don't believe in t
he
> concept of same-sex marriage, and perhaps believe that some book written
> thousands of years ago prohibits this (alongside its exhortations to kill

I never brought religion in to this.  My argument was purely secular,
you want something from society so what does society get from you to
balance it.


marc


> all the women and children in the villages of your enemies[*]), then n
o
> amount of rational argument is going to help, and whatever happens will ha
ve
> to be decided as the result of a political war.
>
> Anton
>
> [*] http://mindprod.com/biblestudy.html references, among many others,
> Ezekiel 9:6, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
> and women".

Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@optonline.net> writes:

> cobbe@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:
> 
>
> Funny I could say the same thing about pro gay marriage.

Then do.  Put your money where your mouth is and explain why our
justifications for asking to be allowed to marry don't hold up.  Explain
the overriding interest the state has in preventing us from marrying.  The
ability to procreate doesn't cut it; see below.
 
>
> Lots of people are not allowed to marry who they choose, they propose
> and get told no, or they are too closely related, and the list goes on.

First, I should obviously have said `a heterosexual person is not prevented
*by the government* from marrying the person of his/her choice'.  People
who propose and are rejected aren't the problem.  Second, I dealt with
people who are too closely related in the following paragraph.
 
>
> WTF?!?!  You are saying to prevent children from being born it is OK
> for the state to prevent a class of people from getting married who
> want to, because the state does not want those children in existence?

(I don't mean to be rude, but you do know what `consanguinity' means, right?
)

Yes.  Inbreeding produces less healthy children.  If you like, I'll gladly
support the right of cousins, even siblings, to marry, so long as they
don't have kids.

> Well to be honest marriage and love have nothing to do with each other in
> the case I am making.  The things society give to people who are going to
> ensure the continuation of said society, at great personnel expense, are
> in society's best interest and gay marriage(as a class of marriage) does
> not help society achieve its goals of perpetuation so why should it get
> the economic benefits.

[Snipped lots more of the same.]

Look: as long as married heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or
who can and choose not to, are granted all the economic and legal
privileges that couples with children enjoy, then you cannot deny those
rights to same-sex couples simply because they cannot have children.  You
have two options in that case:

- deny the privileges associated with marriage to *all* couples who do
not have children, gay or straight; or

- allow same-sex couples to marry, with all attendant privileges.

Anything else singles out a group of citizens for special treatment and is
thus unconstitutional.  (And also plain wrong.)

> First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
> this case.  And If you wanted to talk about way out in left field that
> is a pretty hard court to beat.

What law did they make?  And why is protecting the rights of citizens `way
out in left field'?  For full credit, your answer must also explain why
the judicial decisions in Brown v. Board of Education and Loving
v. Virginia (the decision which struck down antimiscegenation laws) were
not also `way out in left field.'

I'm sorry, but that sort of argument no longer convinces me: too many
people have used it to complain not about a fundamental problem but about a
decision with which they don't happen to agree.  Just like the complaint
about "activist judges."
 
>
> So you do not support Row V Wade?

Irrelevant.

No, see, I think this law would be wonderful, in the short term, as an
object lesson.  Since it would almost certainly prevent many heterosexual
couples from marrying each other, and might possibly annul existing
straight marriages, it would demonstrate to a large number of people that
legally basing marriage on procreation is a bad idea.  One would hope that,
after a short time of that sort of thing, the legislature or the people
would come to their senses and strike the law down.

> Also there is the fact that with children removed from the picture there
> is no reason that both people can not have jobs that allow them to bring
> in money and benefits/pensions that the traditional atomic family did not
> have.  The wife generally worked at taking care of the kids and house and
> this did not come with a check.

A) The wife may generally have been a stay-at-home-mom in the 50s, but an
increasing number of mothers, in straight marriages, are working
full-time jobs today.  Lots of straight couples have two incomes too.

B) The benefits of a legal marriage are not purely economic; they also
involve things like hospital visitation rights, custody over adopted
children, bereavement leave, authority to make funeral arrangements,
etc.  So, even if gay couples do have an economic edge over straight
couples (which you have not demonstrated), that still doesn't make up
for the inequalities.
 
>
> Not handy, but I think of a society as people who more or less agree
> on a set of rules for behavior and if the rules change too fast large
> chunks of the group stop agreeing with them and then you have real
> problems.

Again, sounds plausible, but without evidence, this is just rhetoric.  Show
me the history.  We've got lots of examples of societies falling apart: the
fall of the Roman Empire, various dynastic changes in China, various
dynastic changes in India, and so on.  Surely you should be able to trace
at least *one* of those instances back to excessively rapid social change.

Richard

Marc Spitzer wrote:
> First of all courts should not make law, and that is what they did in
> this case.

From Boston.com: "The court, in a 4-3 ruling, ordered the Legislature
to come up with a solution within 180 days."

What is your understanding of the system of checks and balances provided
by the US Constitution? How is the judiciary to check the power of the
legislature and the executive if every petitioner must be told "Well,
son, it may not be fair, nor even constitutional, but that's the law as
written by the legislature."?

Explain your answer.

If you were to walk into a law library, would the books be filled with
the writing of judges, or of legislators?

Does a law student spend his nights reading judgments, or legislation?

--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada

Cameron MacKinnon <cmackin+nn@clearspot.net> writes:

> Marc Spitzer wrote: 
>
>  From Boston.com: "The court, in a 4-3 ruling, ordered the Legislature
>  to come up with a solution within 180 days."

Now the court in question in this case told the legislature to come up
with a law we like or else and that is not the courts job.

>
> What is your understanding of the system of checks and balances
> provided by the US Constitution? How is the judiciary to check the
> power of the legislature and the executive if every petitioner must be
> told "Well, son, it may not be fair, nor even constitutional, but
> that's the law as written by the legislature."?
>
> Explain your answer.
>
> If you were to walk into a law library, would the books be filled with
> the writing of judges, or of legislators?

yes, both.  Did it once by accident.

>
> Does a law student spend his nights reading judgments, or legislation?

Does watching reruns of the "paper chase" count for an informed
oppinion.

marc

cobbe@ccs.neu.edu (Richard C. Cobbe) writes:

> Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@optonline.net> writes:
> 
>
> Then do.  Put your money where your mouth is and explain why our
> justifications for asking to be allowed to marry don't hold up.  Explain
> the overriding interest the state has in preventing us from marrying.  The
> ability to procreate doesn't cut it; see below.

Please list the arguments and I will be happy to.  But could you also
post some links to the studies that show that your dilution of the meaning
of family will not harm this country.  For a counter example look at France,
they have a birth rate of about 1.2 children per woman.  What this means is
that the population is getting older and they will soon have 1 retired perso
n
per person working.  Can you say N++ th republic?

> 
>
> First, I should obviously have said `a heterosexual person is not prevente
d
> *by the government* from marrying the person of his/her choice'.  People
> who propose and are rejected aren't the problem.  Second, I dealt with
> people who are too closely related in the following paragraph.

Yes you did in the paragraph below

> 
>
> (I don't mean to be rude, but you do know what `consanguinity' means, right?)[/col
or]

I just double checked to be sure, close blood relations.

>
> Yes.  Inbreeding produces less healthy children.  If you like, I'll gladly
> support the right of cousins, even siblings, to marry, so long as they
> don't have kids.

But the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids from societies POV,
next generation and all that.  And same sex marriages produce none so
why should your class get the privileges that go with marriage?  And
from society's POV no children should result from incest, because it is
in society's best interest to have close blood relations not have
sex/children with each other, that is why there are laws against just
that behavior and they can not get married.

> 
>
> [Snipped lots more of the same.]
>
> Look: as long as married heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or
> who can and choose not to, are granted all the economic and legal
> privileges that couples with children enjoy, then you cannot deny those
> rights to same-sex couples simply because they cannot have children.  You
> have two options in that case:

First of all I am talking about groups, not individuals.  And as a
class gay marriages can not produce children as a consequence of sex.
As a class straight marriages do so that class gets the protection
because as a class it perpetuates society.  And your class does not so
no brass ring.

>
>   - deny the privileges associated with marriage to *all* couples who do
>     not have children, gay or straight; or
>
>   - allow same-sex couples to marry, with all attendant privileges.

In a word, no.  Your group does not bring the potential for children
to the table, so why should you get privileges that are there to help
and encourage people to get together to have children and bear the
cost?  Just because you want it does not make it a good idea.

>
> Anything else singles out a group of citizens for special treatment and is
> thus unconstitutional.  (And also plain wrong.)

We single out lots of groups for special treatment in society, for
example men register for the draft, and can be drafted, and women do
not.

> 
>
> What law did they make?  And why is protecting the rights of citizens `way
> out in left field'?  For full credit, your answer must also explain why

What right?  Who is stopping you from going out finding a woman, asking
her to marry you, getting her to say yes and then getting married?
Who said gay men can not do that?  The same as any other man.

> the judicial decisions in Brown v. Board of Education and Loving
> v. Virginia (the decision which struck down antimiscegenation laws) were
> not also `way out in left field.'

If I remember what little I know about it the court found that as long
as long as things were separate they were never equal and it was
always tilted in one direction.  And this conflicted with several
parts of the constitution, including the 14th amendment.


>
> I'm sorry, but that sort of argument no longer convinces me: too many
> people have used it to complain not about a fundamental problem but about 
a
> decision with which they don't happen to agree.  Just like the complaint
> about "activist judges."

All I need to say to that is "Living Constitution".

> 
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> No, see, I think this law would be wonderful, in the short term, as an
> object lesson.  Since it would almost certainly prevent many heterosexual
> couples from marrying each other, and might possibly annul existing
> straight marriages, it would demonstrate to a large number of people that
> legally basing marriage on procreation is a bad idea.  One would hope that
,
> after a short time of that sort of thing, the legislature or the people
> would come to their senses and strike the law down.

Well you will XXXX over anyone you can to get your way, how childish.
And there is a very good chance that the politicians who passed that
law would get shot and they know that.  That they would get removed from
office is a given and they know that as well.

> 
>
> A) The wife may generally have been a stay-at-home-mom in the 50s, but an
>    increasing number of mothers, in straight marriages, are working
>    full-time jobs today.  Lots of straight couples have two incomes too.
>
> B) The benefits of a legal marriage are not purely economic; they also
>    involve things like hospital visitation rights, custody over adopted
>    children, bereavement leave, authority to make funeral arrangements,
>    etc.  So, even if gay couples do have an economic edge over straight
>    couples (which you have not demonstrated), that still doesn't make up
>    for the inequalities.

No children vs children.  And so what you do not as a gay couple bring
anything to the table to justify any special privileges.  You just are
saying that since things are not going your way it needs to be fixed.

> 
>
> Again, sounds plausible, but without evidence, this is just rhetoric.  Sho
w
> me the history.  We've got lots of examples of societies falling apart: th
e
> fall of the Roman Empire, various dynastic changes in China, various
> dynastic changes in India, and so on.  Surely you should be able to trace
> at least *one* of those instances back to excessively rapid social change.

ok Japan after Commodore Perry.


marc

>>>>> "AvS" == Anton van Straaten <anton@appsolutions.com> writes:
AvS> ...  Second, there's no legal
AvS> requirement for married couples to have children, so
AvS> childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same
AvS> marital benefits as childless straight couples.

Maybe one ought to question whether those benefits should be there at all.
What are those benefits?  The ability to get a tax break when the spouse
is not working?  The ability to get insurance through work for the
non-working spouse?  Inheritance?  Having a say in health matters (as in
pulling the plug)?  Husband-wife privilege in court?

I often wonder if the law is making it very advantageous to be married in
some cases and thus making the right to marry attractive.  With divorce
rate around 50% (for first marriages, as far as I can tell) maybe people
should be discouraged from marrying?  Maybe those benefits (outside of child
rearing stuff) should be available to someone of the person's choosing
regardless of sex and marriage?

Gay love and everything is fine and dandy, but I can't help thinking
all the money and benefits that I missed out on by being a single
person who just happened to be responsible about marriage.  Missed out on
them means I funded them in some manner.  Why is that injustice not getting
fixed instead of making yet another kind of -- possibly temporary -- union
more attractive?

AvS> Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds. [...]

Indeed.  I suspect there's some monetary  benefit that people are sing
the existence of which itself should be questioned in the first place.

cheers,

BM