tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post4898026587780972065..comments2023-04-12T04:24:20.883-05:00Comments on Flyover Libertarian: There is No Sanctity of Marriage to PreserveTAShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00260719592299142917noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-45252452483103715732010-08-29T12:25:29.919-05:002010-08-29T12:25:29.919-05:00Your point is well made about marriage being a dea...Your point is well made about marriage being a dead institution in the USA. When I discuss marriage with conservatives, they seem to have some idea that we are still living back in the 1950s. They do not quite get the point that the world which they are trying to salvage has long since been overrun by barbarians. <br /><br /><i>When determining custody of children, judges determine what's in the best interest of the child.</i><br /><br />"Best interests of the child" are usually code words for taking away the rights of adults in general, and men in particular. <br /><br />For the best interests of liberty, we ought to be tossing a lot of judges into the hoosegow!Californiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-58884971967282217292010-08-19T01:20:47.792-05:002010-08-19T01:20:47.792-05:00My passion for blogging comes and goes too.My passion for blogging comes and goes too.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01023125641719686613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-4084901243420063572010-08-15T18:38:03.896-05:002010-08-15T18:38:03.896-05:00Not so fast, Half Sigma.
Paterson Signs No-Fault ...Not so fast, Half Sigma.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/politics/Paterson-Signs-No-Fault-Divorce-Bill-20100815-apx" rel="nofollow">Paterson Signs No-Fault Divorce Bill</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-85520718809828245412010-08-13T14:56:38.223-05:002010-08-13T14:56:38.223-05:00New York doesn't allow no-fault divorce, and i...New York doesn't allow no-fault divorce, and it doesn't make NY a better place to live, it just creates more work for divorce lawyers.<br /><br />Under community property theory, which I prefer over the older theory, all money earned during the marriage belongs to each partner 50/50, but any money people had before they got married, and they didn't comingle, they can keep for themselves. This is fair enough.<br /><br />When determining custody of children, judges determine what's in the best interest of the child. It's strange for someone who believes in HBD to argue that mothers aren't better with raising children than fathers.<br /><br />The law has always been like this, but there used to be strong social stigmas against divorce so it didn't happen. You can't blame the legal system because social customs have changed in a bad way. But feel free to blame liberals and the media if you'd like.Half Sigmahttp://www.halfsigma.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-55811961169911338472010-08-12T09:59:57.053-05:002010-08-12T09:59:57.053-05:00I agree. Marriage is dying.
The bigger story was...I agree. Marriage is dying.<br /><br />The bigger story was that the ruling revealed who is running the country. The voters of CA said no. A judge said yes, in part because it was in the "interests of CA." Apparently the voters are not to be consulted in determining the interests of the state.<br /><br />The elites are firmly in control. If you doubted it before, it's not possible to doubt now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-64713995023556459162010-08-11T21:34:43.843-05:002010-08-11T21:34:43.843-05:00The issue isn't really about gay marriage, or ...The issue isn't really about gay marriage, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about the ability of states to make their own laws defining the terms of marriage. Marriage is not a federally protected constitutional right. It is a religious custom that was codified into law by various states with differing terms for each state. A federal judge should not be able to overrule a state's constitutional referendum simply because he doesn't like the law. The idea that denying officially recognized marriage status to gays somehow denies equal protection under the law is absurd because gay marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. To say as much, you would have to say that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, which it clearly isn't. There would be a stronger case against denying incestuous marriage, yet I don't see anyone championing that cause.Sagathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114681080265415155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-18389218483880619062010-08-11T21:11:35.773-05:002010-08-11T21:11:35.773-05:00"The only foreseeable problem with this scena..."The only foreseeable problem with this scenario is...which of the two gay partners is going to get assigned the role of 'husband'?" - Ping Jockey<br /><br />Well, that's where the marriage analogy ends. A settlement ending a gay marriage couldn't be influenced by anti-straight or anti-male bias. <br /><br />Conservatives have a very strong emotional attachment to old-fashioned marriage. It's like the respect people have for their dead ancestors - I'm talking about those kinds of respect being related, not just analogous. <br /><br />Conservatives would be better off trying to end no-fault divorce (through ballot measure), as well as open marriages and infidelity (through civic action - a change in attitudes), than to try to stop gay marriage.B322https://www.blogger.com/profile/18257802768718375656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5676126733684584121.post-72224391352119980762010-08-11T18:28:35.199-05:002010-08-11T18:28:35.199-05:00If there IS a threat to marriage, it seems that it...If there IS a threat to marriage, it seems that it is not so much the Gays as it is the current feminist version of 'marriage' as it is presently practiced -- where the woman marries the man, later divorces him, legally kidnaps his children, smears his reputation with false charges of all kinds, and steals nearly everything he has and will earn in the future (with the full approval and assistance of the government, to boot!)<br />If anything, the current furor over Gay Marriage seems ridiculous, like a red herring that draws attention away from the present injustices in divorce that severely punish the husband...<br />hmmm...<br />On second thought, maybe the best way to kill the idea of Gay Marriage would be to let the gays marry, and THEN have them go through the wringer of "no-fault" Gay Divorce! Turn the divorce industry loose on the Gay community and let it do to the gays what it has done to hetero husbands, and then the idea of Gay Marriage will probably become anathema.<br />The only foreseeable problem with this scenario is...which of the two gay partners is going to get assigned the role of 'husband'? (Maybe the one with the greatest amount of money?)Ping Jockeynoreply@blogger.com