Aceflyer

Yeah, this flu has been blown way out of proportion by the media.

Have now pinged Bargeld as well. Hopefully someone will get to this shortly.

Well let's hope BG gets to this. I will also send an email to Wonderer but I do not expect him to take direct action.

Split off from GetContinuum topic and moved to the SSC board. I do not have FTP access to sscouncil.com so I will PM BlueGoku about this. I too have noticed some weird issues on the forum lately but was unsure if it was just me. Thanks for reporting this.

I didn't attack anyone personally. And my post was never directed at Brain. My post was directed at AKD and the guy who agreed with him. They were the ones who claimed Brain's post was a discussion-ender, which it wasn't and shouldn't be. Brain's original post was perfectly valid and in fact, as I have stated, I agree with him. I also do not have any personal grievances against Brain - I don't like him as a person but I don't have any issues with him. (I suspect Brain feels the same way about me, although I could be mistaken, of course.) While it's cute that AKD and a SSF Admin are calling me out by stating that my post was motivated by unnamed "personal issues" with Brain, as one can see from the above this is blatantly untrue as my post was not directed at Brain to begin with.

I do agree with Brain's point, as stated in my previous post. I don't agree with the supposition that Brain's word is law throughout Continuum.

An incredibly arrogant idea. Brain is neither God nor PriitK, nor is he in any position to speak for the Continuum community as a whole. He is in a position to speak for SSCE Hyperspace but we are not just talking about HS here. Therefore, anything he says is merely his opinion and is only as valid as anything that other people here say. While Brain did raise some valid points, saying that his post "ended the discussion" is premature at best.

Online battle? How would that even begin to work? I think their intentions are pretty straightforward. Either they get 'us' (by 'us' I mean the interested community) on-board, and get us to help out whenever possible, or they don't, and do a little more work. They'd prefer the former but are fine with the latter.

Ah yes. The infamous AKD lag module- I've heard much praise heaped on it.

What Bak said. Animals, children, and people in comas aren't capable of giving legal consent.

It is obviously impossible for anyone to be able to predict the actual outcome of a hypothetical case that hasn't even been brought to court. Heck, even for an actual case with directly relevant legal precedent from one or more other courts, it is generally not possible to accurately foretell the outcome, as different justices and different courts often employ different methods of analyses and/or reach different conclusions. I thought these facts were so plainly obvious that it would be redundant for me to specifically point them out when posting. The other plainly obvious fact is that essentially all significant posts in World Discussion consist of members' opinions. Does everyone now need to preface each post with a legal disclaimer stating that their post merely constitutes personal belief and not professional legal opinion? I stated that, using the Iowa high court's reasoning in Varnum v. Brien, polygamy would not pass the specific threshold test applied to gay marriage. It is plainly obvious that there is no guarantee that the exact same Varnum v. Brien reasoning would be applied in a hypothetical plural marriage case. It is obviously entirely possible that using different reasoning, plural marriage could be construed to pass the Varnum v. Brien threshold test. It is also obvious that a court might choose to analyze plural marriage from another angle altogether and not use a threshold test at all. All of this is plainly obvious to anyone who actually takes a minute to think this through. WTF? I am 100% pro-gay marriage. Where in blazes are you getting the idea that I'm "annoyed" because gays "bother" me? Overly broad blanket statement. Lots of people are disallowed from doing lots of things simply because these things annoy others. It is only when we get to certain basic rights when your statement becomes valid.

So do you feel the government should permit same-sex couples to civilly wed under the law? Or do you feel the government should restrict civil marriages to heterosexual couples? If the latter, why do you think your personal beliefs about "the way it's meant to be" constitute a legitimate reason to deny a fundamental right to other people?

What lengthy legal disclaimer do you need? Simple instead of stating that it would "X", state maybe, or possibly, or might "X" would have meant you needed no disclaimer. The aforementioned would have meant that you are stating there is a possibility that it would not pass a threshold test, which no one here would argue. The problem is, even in an online forum, if you post something that you cannot possibly know, thus the outcome of a threshold test that has never occurred and pass it off as a definite legal position, people will argue that. No one states that your argument has to be loophole-free but it you pass it off as a legal argument, it should in fact be a legal argument, not how you feel a judge would rule on a hypothetical case. Wow. You actually expect everyone to treat World Discussion as an actual court of law. Hate to break it to ya man, but this is an online gaming forum. On such a forum I'm not going to bother making sure my posts are legally loophole-free. I expect a certain amount of basic common sense to be used in interpreting SSForum posts and I don't think this is unreasonable for me - or anyone else - to expect. Again I do not disagree with the principle - note your misspelling of the word, btw - that otherwise qualified people should be able to have multiple spouses if they so desire. What I disagree with is the claim that an original freewheeling interpretation of the text of the constitution is somehow sound legal reasoning. What I disagree with even more strongly is the opinion that such freewheeling interpretations are somehow superior to analysis based on prior court rulings. What actually irks me are strawman attacks on my posts for not being at a caliber of quality required in an actual court of law.

I reiterate that I do not as a rule insert lengthy legal disclaimers or check to make sure my posts are loophole-free and legally sound because this is just an online gaming forum for crying out loud.

Your post is absurd. Never once have I claimed that my analysis is necessarily bulletproof or that an actual court would necessarily agree with my analysis. In fact, even actual judges and courts do not necessarily always reach the same conclusions with each other when analyzing the same issue. Particularly for issues in flux, there is almost never a guarantee that every court in the nation would adopt the same analytical methods or reach the same conclusions. I do not as a rule insert lengthy legal disclaimers or check to make sure my posts are loophole-free and legally sound because this is just an online gaming forum for crying out loud. I do not appreciate your continued attempts to attack a claim I never made and this is why I am not going to further argue this issue with you.

Sentences obviously aren't private property but I don't appreciate it when people take my words and twist them to suit their own needs. It's a common tactic propaganda artists use against the opposition and the practice just irks me. This statement is merely your opinion, not a fact. Eh? I never tried to argue for the courts any more than you did. Just because I happened to base my arguments on precise legal precedent rather than on broad original interpretations of the text of the constitution doesn't imply I was claiming to singlehandedly be speaking for the US Supreme Court or any other court. I did not invent the threshold test. Such a test was applied recently by the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien. No. That was me analyzing court opinions regarding gay marriage and concluding that if the same chain of reasoning were to be applied to poly marriage, poly marriage would not pass the same threshold test that gay marriage passed. An actual court considering poly marriage might use a different chain of reasoning altogether. Again, your accusation that I was "speaking for the courts" is ludicrous and brings up the phrase "attacking a strawman." The above, using your own logic, is either you "speaking for the courts" or is merely your personal opinion. Your quotes from legal documents don't help your point unless you are presuming to speak for the courts. I could address your points in more detail but am not inclined to do so as you would just dismiss it as me "speaking for the courts" again. I happened to base my arguments on precise and recent legal precedent. You based your arguments on your own broad original interpretations of the text of the constitution. The former approach is clearly favored by actual courts as they base their arguments on legal precedent whenever possible. At this point I am done with this 'debate' as it is evident we are going in circles. I am happy to discuss different perspectives on the implications of recent legal precedent but would rather not attempt to defend myself from strawmen on the one hand and argue against freewheeling interpretations of the text of the constitution on the other hand.

My problem is with the fact that you "took a sentence from my post [and] adjusted it to meet [YOUR] needs." As you have now admitted the fact that you did in fact do this 'adjusting', we are fine. No. That's your opinion. You're not any more qualified to speak for the courts than I am. Quit trying to denigrate my posts. No. That's your opinion. Your opinion is that there's no legal argument. Your judgment is based off personal opinion, not legal precedent. In your opinion that may be the case. Legally is a different story.

My statement: I didn't quote your sentence at all. I took your sentence and created my own sentence. Thus my statement was neither out of context nor misleading because it was not your sentence, it was mine. I simply analyzed your argument and posted the same argument you made for my side of the argument. Except that that sentence wasn't my argument. You cherry-picked a single sentence from my post/argument, and rephrased it to make it mean something totally different. The same argument made for gay marriage can be in fact made for polygamy. The supreme court interprets the doctrine to state that it is unconstitutional for marriage to be defined as a man and a woman, you can also discern that it is unconstitutional for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman. The base of the argument is that you cannot limit marriage as a union of just a man and woman because it infringes on the rights of those civilians whom choose to marry someone of the same gender. The exact argument can be made that you cannot limit marriage as a union of a singular person, to another singular person because that infringes on the rights of those civilians whom choose to marry multiple partners. Your argument that being heterosexuals are allowed marriage and thus it's unjust to deny homosexuals the right of marriage again can be elaborated to if you allow monogamous marriage it is unjust to deny polygamous marriage. Incorrect, because we again are not even looking at equal protection here. Plural marriage would never make it to that stage because as previously stated it would fail the threshold test. I'm not sure why you keep harping on the fact that the constitution doesn't prohibit plural marriage. The question is not whether the constitution prohibits plural marriage, the question is whether the constitution requires plural marriage. And the answer to that question is (unfortunately) no. That is completely based on your opinion. Someone could pose the same argument for homosexual couples because they cannot bear children. That alone is not a "superficial difference" between heterosexual couples. The fact that you consider homosexuality a superficial difference and polygamy non-superficial really has no legal standing. Both, would be and are, up to the interpretation of the supreme court at that time. Which is why gay marriage has been illegal for so long, because it has been morally unacceptable. There is no better legal argument to ban gay marriage than there is to ban polygamous marriages. Obviously any statements made by me constitute my opinion, just as any statements made by you constitute your opinion. Based on analysis of the courts' opinions, differences in genitalia were considered analogous to differences in skin color or race. You have two people. If two people of the same skin color but different genders can marry under state (not constitutional!) law per the legislature or per the will of the people, then the constitution mandates that the same state law must also allow two people of different skin colors or of the same gender to marry. You can't allow some two-people couples to marry but not allow other two-people couples to marry. If you allow some two-people couples to marry you must allow all two-people couples to marry. This is not the same as saying if you allow some two-people couples to marry you must allow all n-people couples to marry. What about the case where n = 1? Morally I think plural marriage is just as right as gay marriage. But if the court would want to mandate plural marriage they would have to go about it a different way legally, they couldn't just use the same argument they used for gay marriage (which was based on the argument used for interracial marriage). Please cite. Here's a quick and dirty citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marr...e_United_States 1996 was the year the federal DOMA was passed, incidentally, which is why I said '1996' and not '1998' earlier.

Yes you were cherry-picking. Out of my entire post, you extracted a single sentence and used it in a misleading, out-of-context manner. The threshold test means that the case is only considered if plaintiffs are found to be 'similarly situated'. Gay couples are similarly situated to current different-sex couples because there are only superficial differences (i.e., in genitalia). Hence the court could go on to consider whether equal protection would mandate that gay couples receive access to the same right to matrimony granted to similarly situated different-sex couples. Plural couples are not similarly situated to different-sex couples because the presence of one or more additional people in the relationship definitely does not constitute a superficial difference. Hence, the court would dismiss the hypothetical case at this point because equal protection does not apply between parties who are not similarly situated. Again, the constitution, as far as I know, does not ban plural marriage. However, merely because it does not ban a specific practice does not mean it mandates that said practice be legal. What this means is that the constitution could not be used to overturn a hypothetical statutory ban on plural marriage. However, similarly, the constitution could not be used to overturn a hypothetical law permitting plural marriage. In essence, the issue of plural marriage is left to the legislative branch to decide. Still sounds like a mess to me. Divorce proceedings between 2-people couples already often are amazingly complicated, just imagine the mess with a plural couple. None of this though has any bearing on whether plural marriage should be allowed or not.

Way to cherry-pick which sentence from my post to reply to. How about this sentence immediately following that sentence you cherry-picked?

No. Gay marriage has only been excluded by law since 1996 or thereabouts when conservative activists started pushing for passage of "Defense of Marriage" laws that 'defined' marriage as only being between a man and a woman. As multiple state Supreme Courts have found, these laws violate the doctrine of equal protection. If same-race heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, then equal protection mandates that interracial couples and homosexual couples must also be allowed to marry. There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to allow some couples to marry but not others. To clarify, the same legal reasoning does not apply to plural marriage because this would not pass the threshold test.

Not quite. There is no existing right to plural marriage and so the government is not infringing here.

I personally would support people if they want to be in a poly relationship and want their relationship to be recognized as a plural marriage. However I disagree that gay marriage concerns the same issue that poly concerns. Gay marriage is not about creating a 'new' right. Just like interracial marriage, gay marriage is merely about having the government recognize that an existing civil right - the right of two consenting people to enter into civil marriage - is not illegally denied to a minority group. However, there is no existing civil right for multiple consenting people to enter into a plural marriage. Thus, the poly issue is about creating a new right, whereas the gay marriage issue isn't about creating a new right at all. Edited for clarity. -Ace

happy b-day and SS anniversary PoL.