Wonktonodi said:
perhaps not, there are many powers that the states have with the criminal justices systesm that are far too large. the "special" rights are ones they signed up for, all couples that aren'y maried yet don't have it, those that are do. Since you aren't legally married to your bf, they wouldn't think of you as attached to him and thus don't think of him as leverage. 14th constitutional amendmemnt. considering that it had to go to the supreme court, I'd say on the state level people weren't doing that well. if it wasn't an issue it wouldn't have gone that far. most people in most states coudn't just tell judges they were married and get the benefits. I believe in a unified law, I don't believe in people trying to make their own law outside the law then expecting it to have the same standing. I don't believe people should be allowed to put anything in a contract, that's not that I don't think some people, all people. You can try and say I'm not for equality, but contracts aren't people, you had NO qualifiers in there, I don't agree with contracts that would then infringe on other people rights, (a contract to kill someone) contracts that significantly take away people right, slavey, opressive work conditions, you can say people had to agree to them, but if you take the state out of the equation, that leave too much room for coertion. Peoples rights aren't limited by their own abilities to defend them. That's why I'm in favor of the state having limitations on what people can do with contracts. I think we are talking around eachother here. The simple thing is many institutions offer benefits to spouces, some do to significant others, those get paid out because the people were married, those do discriminate agains those who are single, they themselves lose nothing. If they have a significant other but aren't married, well then they lose out, but they know that is the fact currently with the system as it is. Before same sex mairages were legal it wasn't a choice of being married or not, it was just no. But in those cases it's not the state the decides who gets the benefits, it's the couple that got married that did. People when they make their wills determine who gets what, if they don't then things It was enough of a thing that it's in the constitution as a requirement for president. There were also plenty of laws passed involving it including the Aliens and sedition acts back in 1798. Though those had controversies and some were let to expire in 1800 and 1801, others were used during WWII though that's movie away from citizenship through getting married, the point is that it is important to have that as a way of not having people deported. Yes there needs to be plenty of reform with imigration , though I don't think taking this away is part of the solution. |
I don't view that as right. There are many reasons why people choose to not get married besides detachment. I know people who have gotten married after 6 months precisely because they were pressured in to it by their families and pregnancy and I also know long-lasting couples (who could have gotten married) who were not married for up to fifteen years, before they finally decided they had the resources, funds, and desire to do it. That is why I promote de facto or sui jurus marriage rather than statutory marriage. Furthermore, I think nobody should be compelled by the state to testify against anybody else. That is immoral and amounts to a subtle form of slavery. Same holds for things like jury duty.
To get to the supreme court it had to go through various other courts, and it still doesn't change the fact that it was the judicial system and a common law appeal (by Kennedy) which made the decision final, not congress and their statutes. Even before this many state laws were overruled by federal judges, and local laws by state judges. So the judicial system and common law has been on the side of gay marriage for the last few years now.
A contract to kill somebody is not a valid contract. The person who was being killed (unless it was assisted suicide which I support) had not agreed on that matter. We are obviously not talking about invalid contracts. We are talking about contracts in which all participants agree with what is written, spoken, or recorded. All of these should be enforced by the state Your assumption is that you know better about the needs of those involved than they do, which is quite elitist in my opinion, and something the social conservatives did with respect to gay marriage. It honestly isn't any of your business what two people voluntarily agree to do, as long as neither of them are coerced into doing it and they aren't affecting the rights of others.
What if I want somebody besides my spouse to be the decision maker in the hospital, or I want somebody to be the decision-maker, but I don't want to marry them? What if I trust them to make the right decision more than my spouse? I know a particular case of a man who almost died because his wife was a Jehovah's Witness and his family had to bribe the doctors to actually give him a blood transfusion. If my spouse were a Jehovah's Witness (let's assume that would work lol) I would respect his beliefs, but I would also tell him that he can't make the decisions for me in the hospital, and I would want to change that. There should be a more versatile and less rigid legal framework here, and that is why it is argued that the state should not be involved (at least on the statutory end of things), because it just doesn't allow for that. It is far too rigid and inefficient.
The constitution fails to define "citizen" and that is the only place it is even used in the constitution. As far as De Jure citizenship goes, it did exist, as you noted with the Alien and Sedition acts, but defacto federal citizenship wasn't really a thing until the 14th amendment. Being a federal citizen really wasn't an issue and it meant very little until then. Nevertheless these acts were the actions of the federalists, and I generally have disdain for them as a party.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=citizen
Regardless of the U.S constitution, I don't believe in the concept of citizenship. All permanent/semi-permanent residents of a geographical region should have the ability to participate in the politics of said region (if politics are to exist.) That is only fair, as these politics affect all individuals in that region, regardless of their "citizenship.
There would be no such thing as deportation in an ideal world. People would be free to move to wherever they wish. However, I recognize that we don't live in an ideal world, and states like to limit migration and deport people. For that reason, reform of what is considered "marriage" would make this a non-issue. Any sui jurus marriage would be recognizable for grounds of a green card and eventually citizenship. In fact, this would prevent marriage fraud, where people say they are married when they are only statutorily married.
