These entertainments are, of course, fantasy. The people depicted in TV and the movies are also better-looking than people in real life. It's more fun to imagine yourself as more attractive and more financially comfortable than you really are, so entertainments offering that fantasy tend to sell better than entertainments offering a fantasy life involving no sex, no beauty, and only ketchup sandwiches for lunch.
If marriage is about property rights (and to a large extent, it is), then that's all the more reason that it should be offered to same-sex couples on the same terms as it is offered to mixed-sex couples.
1. Illegal immigrants are purportedly attracted to Alabama by the generous social services on offer there, causing a suite of problems.
2. The state therefore criminalizes offering social services to illegal immigrants.
3. Churches are in the business of offering social services through their charitable ministries.
So if a church's charity gives away winter jackets to ten or more people that it has reason to believe are illegal immigrants, the church has commtited a felony. As I wrote, it's probably fair to say that the state wouldn't likely charge a church with a crime for giving away winter coats -- but since section 13 criminalizes any enticement or succor of any kind, the state could theoretically do this if it chose to.
Now, you may find risible the notion that someone from Mexico would be motivated to make the dangerous journey to el Norte and find their way to Alabama lured by the tales of the posh and luxurious Episcopelean homeless shelter in Montgomery. But it's no more silly an idea than the notion that they'd go there so that their kids could enroll in Alabama's world-famous public schools (which rank 44th out of 51 in graduation rates, 62% overall graduation rate and 33% graduation rate for Hispanics although to be fair, if Alabama students do graduate, they seem to do just a little bit above average on their SAT's).
For those of you looking, this is a reference to a comment at the cross-post on my own blog. (Among other chestnuts, the commenter offers a defense of this law that it is not a law at all but rather an 'instruction booklet.')
The entire purpose of the post is for E.D. to espouse advocate SSM and then for him to criticize intellectually engage folks that don’t agree with him.
Which, as corrected, is pretty much how it has worked out.
I can do you one better, Rufus, I've actually been snipped. Yet no one questions that Mrs. Likko and I are "really" married in either a legal or a social sense. This demonstrates that the extant definition of marriage already excludes conception as a necessary, much less sufficient, element.
Russell's argument is that society only cares about procreative sex; it seeks to encourage this behavior. That was the intellectual foundation for the conclusion of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Morrison v. Sadler, which is that because heterosexual sex can sometimes produce unintended children, society can rationally and legitimately offer a special kind of privilege to heterosexual couples so as to encourage them to jointly raise the children resulting from such accidental sexual encounters.
But if procreation is not really part of what marriage is, since marriage licenses are issued to couples who cannot possibly procreate (like Mrs. Likko and I), then why are we even talking about the fact that two men can't concieve?
Prof. George, the current intellectual darling of the anti-SSM movement, attempts to square this circle by arguing that heterosexual coitus is "imitative" of procreative sex, thus morally sanctionable (unlike other kinds of sexual activity), and thus appropriate to legally favor. For all the erudition George brings to the table, his argument is ultimately fancy intellectual window dressing on the core concept that the imitation of procreative sex somehow is procreative sex. Which it isn't.
Dr. George is guilty of either magical thinking (the voodoo doll somehow is the victim) or an elaborate expression of an aesthetic preference for penises in vaginas as opposed to other imaginable combinations of genetalia. Maybe Dr. Russell didn't go so far down this rabbit hole as Dr. George (I'm confident you'll correct me if I'm wrong, TVD) but if we do drill down to the end of that rabbit hole all we shall find are small round pellets that are neither appealing nor useful.
We've no way of knowing whether Art Deco gets off on lesbian porn, nor any particular concern if he does. I'll attack his arguments, but not him. What he does in the privacy of his own sock and what he looks at while he does it, is not at issue here nor should it be.
I would also not call the picture in the OP pornographic.
...you are asking institutions of state to enforce general obligations...
What do you think I do in court all day long, if not ask an institution of the state to enforce general obligations, whether those be in the form of contracts, or deeds to real property, or [gasp] marriages?
...and asking that the state, the corporation, and individuals view you a certain way and treat you a certain way. You are asking that your elective associations be sanctioned and rendered a part of social architecture.
As to the government and corporations regulated by it, I don't just ask that they treat my wife and I this way. I demand it. If my demands are not met, I will use the courts to compel recognition and sanction. To do so is my right as an American citizen.
As to individuals, at least with respect to marriage, they can do what they like. I've never argued that any individual has to personally or socially acknowledge my marriage or anyone else's.
My marriage to a woman is no less an "elective association" than it would have been had I chosen to marry a man instead. Do I have the right to ask, to demand, and indeed to compel the state to recognize my "elective association"? Bet the house on it. And my gay neighbors should have the same right.
I didn't ask Prof. George or Mr. Blankenhorn. I asked you. It sounds like you think that attraction to the same sex is a "sexual disorder," which is a proposition about which we will have to disagree. It sounds as though you claim that the sterility (by which I presume you mean "childlessness") of a relationship is causally linked to its being worthy of no more import than an ordinary friendship between men. That means you're attacking my childless, heterosexual marriage as well as those of my gay neighbors and colleagues. Sorry if I seem snippy, but an argument based on reproductive capability is personal to me, because I happen to think my marriage is just as good as anyone else's even if my wife and I haven't had children.
I do not concede that those of us who favor the legal recognition of same-sex marriage have an obligation to offer any justification for it other than that there are people who desire to be married -- as a legal proposition, the burden is on the government that offers marriage to some people but not others to justify why it treats them unequally. I do not have to offer a justification for why I engage in acts of free speech. I do not have to offer a justification for why I want to own a gun. I do not have to offer a justification for why I do not want to quarter soldiers in my own house. And so on right on down to I do not have to offer a justification for why I should be permitted to marry a would-be spouse who mutually consents to the marriage. But even if the burden were on me to offer a justification for same-sex marriage, "equal treatment before the law" would be a more than sufficient justification for it. So would a justification like "I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children." You might want to look up who offered that opinion.
if you are in a discussion with an ideologue and offer a pragmatic solution or view of a problem, the ideologue will attribute to you (almost of necessity) an ideology and attribute your suggestion/solution as evidence of that ideological identity.
Which is how I get tarred on the same blog from time to time as a typical liberal, a dangerous conservative, and a sniveling Broderist.
Politics is the mind-killer. I like it here at LOOG because it's a place where normally, one can get away from politics and talk about either theory or policy without having to carry water for either Team Red or Team Blue. At least, as far as most of the commentariat is concerned. When something emotional like the Norway shootings happens, though, it's easy for people to allow their intellectual structures to collapse for a time.
I've come to think it's better to wait out the event and offer calm reflection than to immediately jump into the fray, especially when the facts of the case emerge in a confused fashion as they often do in the hours and days after a crisis (and my restraint has been aided in this iteration of that cycle by an unusually heavy professional schedule in meatworld).
To the fanatic, one who ought to be an ally but refuses to buy in to the fanaticism is probably worse than an enemy -- because this is not just someone who will attack and destroy you, this is someone who will betray you first. Thus,
In this worldview, it is the appeasers and apostates, the people who are supposed to protect their culture, who are the biggest problem. As Spencer Ackerman notes, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists kill far more Muslims than they do Westerners, just as Breivik chose to kill his fellow countrymen and their children.
Which dovetails into the concept that in the fight against terrorists, we are at greater risk from ourselves than we are from our enemies.
Bear in mind that according to the Pew Research Center, roughly one in twelve babies born in the U.S. are born to parents who lack legal documentation to be here (and about a quarter of all babies born here are born to non-citizens).
To adversely possess land at common law, the would-be owner must:
1) Openly, notoriously, and hostilely occupy the land for "X" time,
2) Exclude others from the land, particularly the titled owner,
3) Improve or usefully exploit the land during his occupancy,
4) Not be sued for trespass, ejectment, or some other remedy.
There are easy and cheap ways to defeat a claim of adverse possession against you. Since the use must be "hostile" to the interests of the titled owner, if the tilted owner grants consent to your use of the land, your use is no longer hostile and the claim to have adversely possessed the land will be defeated.
Many states have particular traps for the would-be adverse possessor. For instance, in California, the adverse possessor must pay all the property taxes during the initial adverse possession period, which can be something of a challenge when you aren't sent the tax bill. It sounds like in Texas, you have to publicly file your claim in court before the adverse possession clock starts to run.
So here's what happens in Flower Mound, Texas -- the original owner has walked away. The bank will eventually take title. If the bank is smart, it will realize that someone is living in its house. If I am right about Texas law, it can do that by running a relatively cheap court filing search. When it finds that Kenneth Robinson is living in the house, it can record a revocable license to permit Robinson to do this. Now, Robinson's use is permissive, not hostile.
Best of all, from the bank's point of view, is that there is nothing Robinson can do to stop them from unilaterally granting him permission to use the house.
If Robinson refuses to move, he will have to be evicted and yes, that is potentially expensive. And if a license is granted and then revoked, that means the potential recovery of money damages for the reasonable rental value of the house will be set aside, because Robinson will have lived there with the bank's permission during that time. But he very likely doesn't have any money to recover anyway, so giving up the past reasonable rental value for the time he was trespassing in the bank's house isn't giving up anything but phantom dollars nine times out of ten. And keeping the bank's title clear of competing claims is worth giving up a little bit of money anyway.
There is still the matter of getting him out of the property when the bank decides to liquidate it. Offering him "cash for keys," while morally unpalatable, often makes economic sense in situations like these.
It sounds to me like Rhesus and Dolon have the same story -- both fly off half-cocked and ill-prepared for the challenges they are going to face, and then reality gives them the smackdown. It also seems very Greek to hold them up as parallels to one another on opposite sides of the conflict.
Rhesus may be prepared for a fight, but he isn't prepared for subterfuge. Dolon is simply not prepared for the world at all. Hector should have put the kibosh on such a silly plan. Odd, though, that in both Euripedes and Homer there is an emphasis on the animalistic element ofhis story. Is there a play on words going on with his name in the original Greek?
On “Normalizing the Upper-Middle-Class in Movies and Television”
These entertainments are, of course, fantasy. The people depicted in TV and the movies are also better-looking than people in real life. It's more fun to imagine yourself as more attractive and more financially comfortable than you really are, so entertainments offering that fantasy tend to sell better than entertainments offering a fantasy life involving no sex, no beauty, and only ketchup sandwiches for lunch.
On ““Yuck” a Duck”
If marriage is about property rights (and to a large extent, it is), then that's all the more reason that it should be offered to same-sex couples on the same terms as it is offered to mixed-sex couples.
On “Picture of the day”
Although it doesn't work out so well for last week's casserole, I'm willing to wager.
On “Charity, Religion, Immigration, and Federalism”
Here's the connection:
1. Illegal immigrants are purportedly attracted to Alabama by the generous social services on offer there, causing a suite of problems.
2. The state therefore criminalizes offering social services to illegal immigrants.
3. Churches are in the business of offering social services through their charitable ministries.
So if a church's charity gives away winter jackets to ten or more people that it has reason to believe are illegal immigrants, the church has commtited a felony. As I wrote, it's probably fair to say that the state wouldn't likely charge a church with a crime for giving away winter coats -- but since section 13 criminalizes any enticement or succor of any kind, the state could theoretically do this if it chose to.
Now, you may find risible the notion that someone from Mexico would be motivated to make the dangerous journey to el Norte and find their way to Alabama lured by the tales of the posh and luxurious Episcopelean homeless shelter in Montgomery. But it's no more silly an idea than the notion that they'd go there so that their kids could enroll in Alabama's world-famous public schools (which rank 44th out of 51 in graduation rates, 62% overall graduation rate and 33% graduation rate for Hispanics although to be fair, if Alabama students do graduate, they seem to do just a little bit above average on their SAT's).
"
For those of you looking, this is a reference to a comment at the cross-post on my own blog. (Among other chestnuts, the commenter offers a defense of this law that it is not a law at all but rather an 'instruction booklet.')
On “Picture of the day”
More charitably:
Which, as corrected, is pretty much how it has worked out.
"
I can do you one better, Rufus, I've actually been snipped. Yet no one questions that Mrs. Likko and I are "really" married in either a legal or a social sense. This demonstrates that the extant definition of marriage already excludes conception as a necessary, much less sufficient, element.
Russell's argument is that society only cares about procreative sex; it seeks to encourage this behavior. That was the intellectual foundation for the conclusion of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Morrison v. Sadler, which is that because heterosexual sex can sometimes produce unintended children, society can rationally and legitimately offer a special kind of privilege to heterosexual couples so as to encourage them to jointly raise the children resulting from such accidental sexual encounters.
But if procreation is not really part of what marriage is, since marriage licenses are issued to couples who cannot possibly procreate (like Mrs. Likko and I), then why are we even talking about the fact that two men can't concieve?
Prof. George, the current intellectual darling of the anti-SSM movement, attempts to square this circle by arguing that heterosexual coitus is "imitative" of procreative sex, thus morally sanctionable (unlike other kinds of sexual activity), and thus appropriate to legally favor. For all the erudition George brings to the table, his argument is ultimately fancy intellectual window dressing on the core concept that the imitation of procreative sex somehow is procreative sex. Which it isn't.
Dr. George is guilty of either magical thinking (the voodoo doll somehow is the victim) or an elaborate expression of an aesthetic preference for penises in vaginas as opposed to other imaginable combinations of genetalia. Maybe Dr. Russell didn't go so far down this rabbit hole as Dr. George (I'm confident you'll correct me if I'm wrong, TVD) but if we do drill down to the end of that rabbit hole all we shall find are small round pellets that are neither appealing nor useful.
"
We've no way of knowing whether Art Deco gets off on lesbian porn, nor any particular concern if he does. I'll attack his arguments, but not him. What he does in the privacy of his own sock and what he looks at while he does it, is not at issue here nor should it be.
I would also not call the picture in the OP pornographic.
"
What do you think I do in court all day long, if not ask an institution of the state to enforce general obligations, whether those be in the form of contracts, or deeds to real property, or [gasp] marriages?
As to the government and corporations regulated by it, I don't just ask that they treat my wife and I this way. I demand it. If my demands are not met, I will use the courts to compel recognition and sanction. To do so is my right as an American citizen.
As to individuals, at least with respect to marriage, they can do what they like. I've never argued that any individual has to personally or socially acknowledge my marriage or anyone else's.
My marriage to a woman is no less an "elective association" than it would have been had I chosen to marry a man instead. Do I have the right to ask, to demand, and indeed to compel the state to recognize my "elective association"? Bet the house on it. And my gay neighbors should have the same right.
"
I didn't ask Prof. George or Mr. Blankenhorn. I asked you. It sounds like you think that attraction to the same sex is a "sexual disorder," which is a proposition about which we will have to disagree. It sounds as though you claim that the sterility (by which I presume you mean "childlessness") of a relationship is causally linked to its being worthy of no more import than an ordinary friendship between men. That means you're attacking my childless, heterosexual marriage as well as those of my gay neighbors and colleagues. Sorry if I seem snippy, but an argument based on reproductive capability is personal to me, because I happen to think my marriage is just as good as anyone else's even if my wife and I haven't had children.
I do not concede that those of us who favor the legal recognition of same-sex marriage have an obligation to offer any justification for it other than that there are people who desire to be married -- as a legal proposition, the burden is on the government that offers marriage to some people but not others to justify why it treats them unequally. I do not have to offer a justification for why I engage in acts of free speech. I do not have to offer a justification for why I want to own a gun. I do not have to offer a justification for why I do not want to quarter soldiers in my own house. And so on right on down to I do not have to offer a justification for why I should be permitted to marry a would-be spouse who mutually consents to the marriage. But even if the burden were on me to offer a justification for same-sex marriage, "equal treatment before the law" would be a more than sufficient justification for it. So would a justification like "I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children." You might want to look up who offered that opinion.
"
Then please consider my misstatement of your position a platform upon which you may expound upon what you contend is the true argument.
"
Better than a toaster!
"
To be fair, Art Deco has actually stated, in the most succinct fashion imaginable, the true argument against same-sex marriage.
"
The wallpaper on my phone is this image, which I'm sure you've seen before.
On “My first piece in ‘The Atlantic’”
You also get republished this way. See, for instance:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642436-fantasy-s-spell-on-pop-culture-when-will-it-wear-off
Why Richard Dawkins would care about your piece, other than that he liked it, is sort of beyond me.
"
Oh, and be sure to update your bio. You've earned bragging rights.
"
That is a major feather in your cap. Congratulations!
And a good piece, too.
On “Curb Your Dogma”
Which is how I get tarred on the same blog from time to time as a typical liberal, a dangerous conservative, and a sniveling Broderist.
Politics is the mind-killer. I like it here at LOOG because it's a place where normally, one can get away from politics and talk about either theory or policy without having to carry water for either Team Red or Team Blue. At least, as far as most of the commentariat is concerned. When something emotional like the Norway shootings happens, though, it's easy for people to allow their intellectual structures to collapse for a time.
I've come to think it's better to wait out the event and offer calm reflection than to immediately jump into the fray, especially when the facts of the case emerge in a confused fashion as they often do in the hours and days after a crisis (and my restraint has been aided in this iteration of that cycle by an unusually heavy professional schedule in meatworld).
On “Breivik’s Cold Logic”
To the fanatic, one who ought to be an ally but refuses to buy in to the fanaticism is probably worse than an enemy -- because this is not just someone who will attack and destroy you, this is someone who will betray you first. Thus,
Which dovetails into the concept that in the fight against terrorists, we are at greater risk from ourselves than we are from our enemies.
On “Explosions, shootings in Norway”
I see that the shooting suspect was described as blond and Nordic looking.
On “Rumors of the Democratic Party’s Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated”
Bear in mind that according to the Pew Research Center, roughly one in twelve babies born in the U.S. are born to parents who lack legal documentation to be here (and about a quarter of all babies born here are born to non-citizens).
Whether those people came here intentionally to have a so-called "anchor baby" is a doubtful proposition in my opinion, but there is some basis in fact to the legend.
FWIW, I find the term moderately offensive. It's impolite but there are worse things you can call someone.
On “Adverse Possession”
To adversely possess land at common law, the would-be owner must:
1) Openly, notoriously, and hostilely occupy the land for "X" time,
2) Exclude others from the land, particularly the titled owner,
3) Improve or usefully exploit the land during his occupancy,
4) Not be sued for trespass, ejectment, or some other remedy.
There are easy and cheap ways to defeat a claim of adverse possession against you. Since the use must be "hostile" to the interests of the titled owner, if the tilted owner grants consent to your use of the land, your use is no longer hostile and the claim to have adversely possessed the land will be defeated.
Many states have particular traps for the would-be adverse possessor. For instance, in California, the adverse possessor must pay all the property taxes during the initial adverse possession period, which can be something of a challenge when you aren't sent the tax bill. It sounds like in Texas, you have to publicly file your claim in court before the adverse possession clock starts to run.
So here's what happens in Flower Mound, Texas -- the original owner has walked away. The bank will eventually take title. If the bank is smart, it will realize that someone is living in its house. If I am right about Texas law, it can do that by running a relatively cheap court filing search. When it finds that Kenneth Robinson is living in the house, it can record a revocable license to permit Robinson to do this. Now, Robinson's use is permissive, not hostile.
Best of all, from the bank's point of view, is that there is nothing Robinson can do to stop them from unilaterally granting him permission to use the house.
If Robinson refuses to move, he will have to be evicted and yes, that is potentially expensive. And if a license is granted and then revoked, that means the potential recovery of money damages for the reasonable rental value of the house will be set aside, because Robinson will have lived there with the bank's permission during that time. But he very likely doesn't have any money to recover anyway, so giving up the past reasonable rental value for the time he was trespassing in the bank's house isn't giving up anything but phantom dollars nine times out of ten. And keeping the bank's title clear of competing claims is worth giving up a little bit of money anyway.
There is still the matter of getting him out of the property when the bank decides to liquidate it. Offering him "cash for keys," while morally unpalatable, often makes economic sense in situations like these.
On “Euripides: Rhesus and overenthusaistic coyotes”
Sorry, I was unclear -- I was referring to Dolon, not Rhesus.
"
It sounds to me like Rhesus and Dolon have the same story -- both fly off half-cocked and ill-prepared for the challenges they are going to face, and then reality gives them the smackdown. It also seems very Greek to hold them up as parallels to one another on opposite sides of the conflict.
Rhesus may be prepared for a fight, but he isn't prepared for subterfuge. Dolon is simply not prepared for the world at all. Hector should have put the kibosh on such a silly plan. Odd, though, that in both Euripedes and Homer there is an emphasis on the animalistic element ofhis story. Is there a play on words going on with his name in the original Greek?
On “Mascots, justice, and the role of Harry Potter and Katniss Everdeen”
Damn you damn you damn you damn you, RTod. I have work to do here.
Instead, I got only 28 out of 45 correct.