And neither does anyone else

Post #348,344 by crazy 9/29/11 10:32:02 PM Reply	And neither does anyone else Because the offer of civil unions is a red herring to avoid giving them what they want. Because YOU equate marriage with YOUR (or any other of the popular "current") religions, and they pretty much feel GOD HATES FAGS (and shrimp, too). But I don't. So your statement concerning separation of church and state and your belief that I'm arguing against that missed the core piece. Marriage is not a religious issue. It is a personal issue between 2 people. You (your culture) does not get to take away something and graciously offer to give it back, with a different name. It existed before your culture did, and will exist long after your culture is gone. Not yours to take, not yours to give. It's a generic fuck-off feeling here. You assume some level of power here. Maybe because you are so tolerant of others and feel they should appreciate your kindness toward them.
Post #348,360 by beepster 9/30/11 8:31:38 AM Reply	Sure appears that way You want legal protection for a personal/religious choice of 2 committed persons...and you appear to want it without a clear legal definition. In will ignore the various bullshit accusations thrown in your post .. Because simply all of those YOU statements about equating marriage and such are accusatory to me, and simply wrong. No one is offering to take something away and give it back you idiot. The law in current form is based on the religious culture in which it was written. You know, the one that you say was stolen from you...etc. And I assume no level of power...I know the basis of our legal code and know that to solve this issue requires a legal definition separate from one so entwined by the majority to a religion. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,378 by crazy 9/30/11 10:30:20 AM Reply	Ah, me idiot It's ok beep. But, really, read the whole thread again.
Post #348,381 by beepster 9/30/11 10:41:47 AM Reply	I don't need to re-read your completely ignoring the basis of the laws in this country being attached to those religious beliefs you obviously don't share. Willful ignorance or idiocy. You choose. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,397 by Another Scott 9/30/11 11:26:10 AM Reply	Hmm, I thought our laws were dervied from English common law http://en.wikipedia....the_United_States At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War. http://en.wikipedia....erican_common_law I don't see anything about our laws being attached to religious beliefs there. Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,398 by beepster 9/30/11 11:33:51 AM Reply	dig deeper start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,400 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 11:40:07 AM Reply	I think I can make the argument that Canon Law is the reason behind the 1st Amendment.
Post #348,401 by crazy 9/30/11 11:41:32 AM Reply	Yup And Beep would probably like it revoked. Only when people are insulting religion, of course.
Post #348,404 by beepster 9/30/11 12:09:39 PM Reply	Know what. Fuck you. Full stop. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,408 by crazy 9/30/11 12:16:05 PM Reply	Very good example I say something insulting (as considered by some, a perfectly reasonable observation to others), I get a demand to stop, using directed profanity. I think we are pretty clear this point has been proven. Hey Beep: I'll fight for your right to continue to insult me. Something tells me you don't agree with that attitude.
Post #348,410 by beepster 9/30/11 12:18:28 PM Reply	Of what, exactly. Your ability to assume a position for me and insult me, directly? Barry, we are done here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,412 by crazy 9/30/11 12:22:36 PM Reply	If you say so But again and again, either an insult of association fits or it doesn't. Either prove the accusation wrong or say openly they fucked up. Don't defend where we are simply because it's been that way long enough, and the rest of us need to put up with it, or follow YOUR path to fix it. Oh, actually, here the core phrase. LONG ENOUGH. But once you do that, you now have to deal with NOT fixing it. And that hurts you. Sorry.
Post #348,414 by beepster 9/30/11 12:34:57 PM Reply	There's an accusation now? Why don't you make up my response, too. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,456 by crazy 9/30/11 6:44:22 PM Reply	Easily But I know when to stop. You've displayed enough to be obvious. Don't peel away the layers, danger there. Of course, when the same silly argument pops up in the future, I'll slap it down. Unless admin tells me otherwise, or until enough people I respect (you know, the rational kind as well as willing to actually tell their kids the truth) tell me to stop.
Post #348,411 by crazy 9/30/11 12:18:34 PM Reply	Hey, I'm a canon law scholar now, yay http://en.wikipedia....he_United_Kingdom My area of interest would be in punishment for Blasphemy of course. Happy reading!
Post #348,405 by beepster 9/30/11 12:12:20 PM Reply	That would all be well and good. But it wouldn't make a difference. If the basis of common law is canon law, which it is, it's too ingrained. And I would also reply in retort that the church of england, and not canon law, was the reason for the first amendment. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,452 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 5:20:53 PM Reply	Not sure it is. What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in the first century has developed into a highly complex legal system encapsulating not just norms of the New Testament, but some elements of the Hebrew (Old Testament), Roman, Visigothic, Saxon, and Celtic legal traditions. In the Roman Church, positive ecclesiastical laws, based upon either immutable divine and natural law, or changeable circumstantial and merely positive law, derive formal authority and promulgation from the office of pope, who as Supreme Pontiff possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person. The actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal or moral in nature, but indeed all-encompassing of the human condition. While the original rules included those traditional elements above, the Canon law as a whole dictates what is acceptable and what is not. (Thus the term Canon) Common Law does not have "rules". In fact, the entire composition of Common law is based on "what has been decided before", particularly in civil suits. It's not because someone (or some God) decreed what is the ideal, but rather it's because this case is similar to the case last year. ie: stare decisis In fact...if you go back to Henry II (birthplace of Common Law) you'll see that there was a huge fight between the law of the King (Common) vs Church Law (canon).
Post #348,453 by Another Scott 9/30/11 5:26:19 PM Reply	Thank you.
Post #348,457 by beepster 9/30/11 6:47:33 PM Reply	Re: Not sure it is. It's in there. http://www.hanselawr...f/Vol1No1Art7.pdf Roman and canon law were used to fill gaps while common law was emerging. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,463 by S1mon_Jester 9/30/11 7:48:38 PM Reply	Actually, if you read carefully... Local matters were dealt with by the feudal courts, which were eventually eclipsed by the popularity and expansion of the royal courts.The extent to which judges drew upon the Roman Law and Civil Law during the formative years of the common law is unclear. She goes on to state that because they were trained at schools that taught Roman law there must have been influences. Oh and they used Roman terms (actually they still use Latin). One writer suggests that the early royal judges made new laws Âout of necessityÂ, reshaping local customs, Roman Law and Civil Law principles to fit around the forms of action that were used in the courts. The courts never revealed the origins of these customs and principles. Instead, the doctrines of precedent and stare decisis as well as the fiction that judges merely declare the law ensured that their decisions would be presented as the product of reason. I'll grant you that our legal system (both criminal and civil) still uses Latin.
Post #348,470 by beepster 9/30/11 8:22:49 PM Reply	Can't cut and paste from pdf First paragraph page 82 Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #348,528 by S1mon_Jester 10/1/11 10:10:29 PM Reply	Here is your quote. The ecclesiastical courts applied the canon law, a subcategory of the Civil Law as defined. These courts dealt with the clergy and personal matters including matrimony and probate. While the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was eventually transferred to the common law courts in the 19th century, the canon law influenced equity before then,which, in turn, later became a part of the Common Law. A few thoughts. 1) Roman Law != Canon Law. 2) I am not willing to concede that Canon Law is the basis of Common Law. I will, however, concede that Canon Law influenced Common Law. (Canon law include laws of matrimony and probate after all, and these areas were originally outside the King's dominion. However, influence is slippery term. Certainly Canon Law influenced Henry VIII decision - but I'm not sure I'd argue that that they were based of Canon Law. :-)
Post #348,529 by beepster 10/1/11 10:57:24 PM Reply	Concession My first post was too broad, should have.said canon law was influential, but not "the" basis. In the areas under discussion in this thread, it was the basis...but not overall. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!