bartshan-83
-
Posts
3,466 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bartshan-83
-
-
No, it's not.
And if you're driving drunk and kill someone, in most states you'll get charged with some variation of "manslaughter", not "murder", precisely because there was no intent to kill. Your example supports exactly what I'm explaining. You have to prove intent to kill in a murder case - throwing a brick or driving drunk does not constitute intent to kill unless you specifically aim said brick or car at a person with the expectation said person will die from it.
That's not entirely true. You're right that in this case, would need intent to kill for 1st Degree murder, but not for 2nd degree. Murder does not require intent to kill, it requires some sort of malice aforethought. Generally, there are four classifications of that (1) intent to kill, (2) intent to inflict great bodily harm, (3) reckless indifference to human life, and (4) intent to commit a felony.
So intent to kill is one of the ways to get murder, but it is not the only way. Now this obviously varies state to state. Those 4 categories are common law definitions. That is why I said I thought the NC statute was vague. Actually, I misspoke. It is not vague, it is just not detailed. Some states parse murder into the different degrees by specifically defining them. Other states, like NC, just define 1st degree, and say the rest is 2nd degree.
So, IMO, in this case, there is no 1st degree murder. NC statute requires "by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14‑288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon."
So you must make the argument that the guy INTENDED for her to die when the paver left his hand. I think that is a stretch.
BUT, if NC follows the other common law definitions of malice aforethought, then I could much more reasonably buy intent to inflict great bodily harm or depraved indifference. Hence, 2nd degree murder.
The only other way to get Murder 1 would be to consider the paver a deadly weapon (check) and show that he was committing a felony (don't think so). I couldn't find any felony that match up with damaging her car.
-
johnnyb has nailed it throughout the thread.
I think the NC statute is kind of vague and I think objectively, this is 2nd degree murder (closer to manslaughter than 1st degree). In some states, it would probably be voluntary man.
If I were defending him, I'd argue that he was just trying to damage her car and scare her. Of course, if I were really defending him, I'd tell him to take a plea.
If I were prosecuting him, I'd definitely push for 1st Degree. He's either going to fold and plead out to life, or he is going to take his chances with a pretty unsympathetic jury. Because as a juror, while I'd feel uncomfortable about 1st degree, I'd probably sign up for 2nd degree. No way he'd walk out with manslaughter.
-
As a Notre Dame fan I got to see a lot of Clausen. I never had the feeling that he'd make it as an NFL QB. The guy could prove me and a lot of other critics wrong, but he hasn't done it yet.
I understand the idiots who spell his name Clausssssen
I understand the idiots who think he is the same as Brady Quinn
I understand the idiots who read that he showed up in a limo 4 years ago and made their opinion then
I understand the idiots who don't like him because they don't like ND
They didn't see him play.
But as a Notre Dame fan, who saw what he did the last year, what didn't you like about his game? He was the most accurate QB I've seen in years. He made maybe, 5-6 mistakes all season. If he had been on a team with a top-30 defense or a good coach, they would have made a NC run and he'd have won the Heisman.
I'm not calling you an idiot at all, so please don't take it that way. If Clausen busts out, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. But it would still be a surprise. And if you saw him play a lot, I can't understand how it wouldn't be.
-
I could not agree more that the sheer volume of dollars being talked about here are grotesque (i.e.- from another dimension, uncanny, etc).
No player is worth that, and the game cannot support those kind of salaries. No game can. But, that is kinda the point, ain't it? Reach the pros, and it's not about "the game" anymore. Its a profession. Kill or be killed. Laws of the jungle.
Atleast that's from a players perspective (or so I've heard).
I don't that there is anything wrong with making a living for yourself, and if your talent is so rare that you are the top in your profession that you should be paid according to what the market will allow. I also look at movie stars, and when they gross something like $20-30 million for 1 movie, 1 freakin' movie w/maybe 4 months of "work" and no threat to their life or health (like professional athletes), and I say more power to them.
But at some level, with the rest of the world sinking in recessions, and riots, and protests, and devaluing of cash, lay-offs, etc...how is it that these major issues are not shown in the entertainment industry? Speaking of the bigger picture, are we all like the ostrich; just sticking our heads in the proverbial sand while being besieged with entertainment to deny the very stiff realities that we are finding ourselves more, and more faced with on a daily basis?
I don't think greed is the correct judgement. I think, looking at the bigger picture, if you can't afford your rent or mortgage, you shouldn't be supporting Revis', either. If you can't pay your phone bill, you should not be buying "gear". If you can't put food on the table or are on welfare, owning a jersey should be the farthest thing from any realistic thought.
After all, aren't we, the fans, the ones who give our dollars to this cause? Don't we support the market that builds the "pie" that players like Revis keep wanting to take a bigger piece out of?
I used to have this old shop teacher in high school that used to say "every time you point the finger at somebody, there are 4 more pointing back at you". Instead of pointing the finger at Revis for wanting to be paid according to his ability, maybe you should ask why you keep supporting the very ability for him to even fathom the thought.
This.Seconded again.
When is last time someone complained about a WNBA chick holding out for $50MM?
We all cringe at the $$$ amounts being discussed, but if you are legitimately upset about Revis's situation, remember there is one thing, and one thing only, separating HIM from that WNBA shooting guard:
YOU.
-
I work in a place where (for the longest time) I felt I was underpaid and overworked compared to my peers. If I had refused to work because of that, my employers would have easily found someone else to do my job for the existing salary...even if they thought I was the best guy in the group.
Yes, but that is the exact same situation Revis is in.
His employer (Jets) will decide if he is worth the money. If he is not, they will replace him with someone who is cheaper, even if they think he is the best guy (CB) in the group (team/league).
-
Sorry, in all this emotional blustering, I honestly missed your post...and I had a call I had to get on, you know, actual work.
Regarding #2, since apparently everyone has now stipulated #1
....Easy there....no stipulation.
It's not the same, but it is linked and I can prove it using the contrapositive:if everyone has a right to define marriage individually
then,
no one has a right to deny an individual's definition of marriage.
If the first is true, then the second also has to be true, or it's a no go. Logic is a B word, huh?
If you decide that a Catholic wedding is defined narrowly as: in a Catholic church only, without all the religious machinations that Catholic priests require, they would be violating your civil rights by denying your definition of marriage. So, as a consequence, they would in fact be forced to allow you get married per your definition....but that violates the 1st Amendment...so...we are still nowhere on this.
Marriage is not currently a right. Passing a Federal law(and it has to be Federal), of any kind, that makes it a right changes the status of marriage from an option, to a right, for everybody, in all circumstances, or it fails the "equal protection under the law" thing.
This is where this disconnect is occurring.
If Perry v. Schwarzenegger goes to the US Supreme Court, and it is ruled that Prop 8 (and other analogous state statutes) is unconstitutional, it will not be the same thing as passing a federal law that says "Marriage is a right that can be defined by anyone and any such definition must be accepted by everyone." It will simply be a declaration that a state will not have the legal power to prevent a church (or any legal entity) from marrying a gay couple.
This is very much akin to the decision in Loving v. Virginia. To this day, I am unaware of any successful lawsuit by an interracial couple against a church that refused to marry them because it contravened the canon.
Why you think these two situations would turn out differently is what I do not understand. The Free Exercise Clause is not easily trampled. If a gay couple decides to sue a church who won't marry them, why would they win when an interracial couple has yet to do so?
This is why I view NEW civil union law as the only rational, legal, and viable option to get this done. You can't get what we are all after without considering the unintended consequences. We have done that far too often, and that is how you end up with things like Medicare.What is wrong with this proposal:
1. Any religion that wants to marry a gay couple may do so without interference from the state.
2. Any religion that does not want to marry a gay couple because it is in conflict with its beliefs, may do so without interference from the state.
3. Getting married in a secular fashion, will still be called "marriage" so we don't have to re-write thousands of laws regarding marital rights. People are then free to define their marriage as it is defined within the institution that performed it.
People from Church X that believes in marriage as between a man and a woman can continue to believe that. It does not devalue or divest the institutional meaning of that marriage when another entity defines it differently.
To use an analogy I just thought of and I hope makes some sense, marriage licenses become sort of like driver's licenses. Every license gives you the same right to drive a vehicle, but the forum that granted the license has discretion over who/how/when, etc. you can obtain one. If Maine says you can get one at 15 and New York says 17, it doesn't matter. They are still both licenses and people from either state can both drive a car. I know this is not the same, but I'm using it to make a broader point that I hope you understand.
-
The best time to kick a man is when he's down. He's right there where your feet are.
That's funny.
-
You're obviously still hurt that these guys are no longer with the Bills. But for your own health its time to let it go. I know people like to think the only way you can win a super bowl is with a pro bowl left tackle but thats just not the case. The only people who believe that are the idiots with no football knowledge who listen to blow hards on the radio who rant about it all day long...
I am...I'm so torn up about it. It literally eats away at me everyday. I've deleted anyone named "Jason" or "Peter" from my phone and email. And April is now 30 days of hell.
Can you help me?
-
Clearly. And this is also a case of liberals being liberals.
Liberals thought they saw an opportunity to attack religious people and the right in general. So, this went from a small civil issue to be solved by a few obscure lawyers in the back rooms of state houses, to an all out war started by cynical, political hacks. They severely miscalculated, if you want to call it that. It seems clear that not a lot of actual, rational calculation went into this. Hmm. Anybody else see a pattern? How much "calculation" went into the stimulus bill? Health Care? The year spent "engaging" Iran?
Instead, we had the emoting we see in this thread, and the rush to call everyone, even people that were unsure of the issue, a bigot if they didn't fall into absolute lock step immediately. Look how casually that word has been thrown around in this thread.
These fools counted on people being afraid to be called names. The problem is: nobody cares if the name caller is doing so as an obvious political ploy. You don't see me being afraid, because I am not afraid of political hacks, or the fools they have conned into believing their propaganda.
I didn't call you a bigot.
You've advanced two separate arguments in this thread:
1. It's the "liberals" fault that gay marriage rights aren't picking up traction because they structured the fight in a very bad way.
2. That disallowing states from preventing churches from marrying gay people is the same as forcing the churches to marry gay people.
I'm addressing #2 (as others have in this thread). Where are you getting this from?
-
I'd like to learn more about good cheeses too. I made friends with this french kid growing up and I was lucky enough to be invited to go visit him and his family in France a few times when I was younger. After every dinner at a restaurant, the waiter would come around with this giant plate of different cheeses and each person would select a few slices. At the time, I thought it was ridiculous excuse for 'dessert' and just wanted some fuggin ice cream or something.
I go to VT every summer and always pick up some Cabot Seriously Sharp Cheddar. I recommend that 3lb block. Nice brick of cheese!
Give me some of that, a few slices of sopressata and some baguette or crackers....I'm chillin.
Of course when I buy it at home from the supermarket, it doesn't taste as good. Probably all in my head.
-
Couple of things here.
#1) To get fried wings without frying, try this method. I do it, and I swear you will not know they were not fried. Takes a little extra work, but well worth it if you want to avoid frying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HX6q61JWR4...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LDgcKb7UVY...feature=related
Very, very interesting! Cool videos! I think I might give that whole method a try. You've done it before?
I especially liked the construction of the multi-tiered strainer.
Of course, watching those videos while the frozen pasta lunch on my desk mocks me is not recommended. Ugghh.
-
Baby, we're so not money and we don't even know it.
-
I am on the fence on such games. It looks bad for big schools, but the weaker and/or smaller schools benefit financially (more than usual) and, hopefully, competitively. About 3 years ago, UB traveled to Auburn. Auburn stomped the snot out of UB, but, IIRC, UB received a check that was bigger than anything they received playing a conference rival. Besides, this is how the weaker/smaller schools move up.
Look at Boise St. Today, people are running around yelping about how the big schools are scared to play them. Yet, if the same big schools played Boise St 10 years ago, the same people would B word about how the big school was packing their schedule with a powder puff opponent, with absolutely no thought that Boise State MAY have wanted such a match up.
No no...I agree with all that. I have a slight problem with power conference schools only scheduling these powder puff games at home, but overall, I agree that the lesser school wants it badly so who am I to stop that.
What I was talking about is when these matchups occur at bizarre neutral sites. There was no reason whatsoever for ND to play a WASHINGTON ST. school in SAN ANTONIO. It was a shameless money-grab. I don't like big schools scheduling these inequitable 7-4-1 models.
I mean, ND is playing only THREE true away games this year. We are doing and 8-3-2!! Sickening. Now the Navy at Giants stadium is kind of a standard deal for us and the Army at Yankees stadium is okay with me as a traditional throwback (as long as it doesn't happen again for 10 years). But I don't like how we strong-armed WSU last year and I don't like how we scheduled UConn to a 10-year home-and-home when all five UConn "home" games will be outside of Storrs.
This was all the work of Kevin White and his lunacy. Now with adding Texas, Miami and OU back to our schedules in the next 5-10 years, we will be getting back to normal.
-
I meant to post this last week when the thread started. There was a very cool article about the creation of the Madden franchise...from it's inception to the juggernaut it is now.
It's a bit long, but I thought it was a very cool read. It was cool seeing all the covers back to back. I remember playing '92 on SNES and Thurman being so nasty you could run all the way back to your own endzone and still outrun everyone back for a TD
'95 on Genesis...the first I remember being able to high-step to the endzone. Deion was a monster. Plus the badass FOX theme song.
'96 might have been my favorite because of the cool skill-based Create-a-player. I liked that you actually had to complete drills to make your guy good at his position
Anyway...
-
The owner, Gary Korkuc, says he didn't want the cat because it was possessive, greedy and wasteful.
Gee, shocker...it's a fugging cat!!
Although, what does "wasteful" mean? Did the cat not clip coupons? Leave the light on when leaving a room? What?
-
Just finished watching the Phillies ass whipping and caught some Eagles training camp coverage. I know they aren't Bills anymore, but just some notes:
Peters
- described his own play last year (Probowl) as a "6.5/7 out of 10"
- looked in great shape. took part in his first ever voluntary conditioning program this offseason. Loved this quote "coming in [to training camp] in shape really helps."
April
- was running all around like a madman yelling and blowing his whistle
- was wearing a referees uniform. he said he does it to help keep the players attention while they practice plays. he said he's been doing this for 8-9 years. I have no memory of that. I do miss that guy. Truly the one bright coaching spot of the past decade.
Nothing groundbreaking...I was just watching and thought I'd pass it along.
-
While I'd say !@#$ Jerry Jones on principle as well, I'm not totally against these neutral site games as long as they are part of a home-and-home.
What I can't stand is the kind of barnstorming, revenue whoring games that many teams schedule to take advantage of weaker opponents. ND's last AD (Kevin White) engaged in this disgrace and we ended up getting games like Washington St. in San Antonio.
-
Can't wait till week 2 when my Wolverines go to your place,it's always a good game!
GO BLUE!!!!!
I'll be there. Couldn't agree more. And after last year's mess, a good Wolverine beat-down is what I need in my life.
As a Florida fan, I was expecting to see them ranked somewhere between 8 and 12 in the various polls, but that doesn't have as much to do with Tebow leaving as the changes everywhere else on the field. After all, Meyers won a championship with Leak, who didn't have the arm Brantley does and fit less in the spread. Granted, it's a big change, but there are bigger worries IMO. WR's/TE's are all either unproven or coming off injuries. OC Addazio has to prove himself without Tebow for the first time (I'm very skeptical of him). DC Charlie Strong is gone (this is huge). The defense lost one of the best MLB's in college, two very good DE's, the best CB in college, and a couple other good secondary players.I guess to sum all that up.....3 is too high, I think. Next year they should be looking to be at the top of the polls again.
No matter how stupid these things are, there are two reasons I like them. 1, college football is CLOSE! I'm like a friggin teenage girl at a boy band concert this time of year. 2, USC nowhere to be found!
To your first paragraph, you obviously know the team better than I do. I just have always held the opinion that Tebow was a lights-out grand slam for Meyer. Obviously you are right about them winning with a square peg QB in Leak, but that team was loaded as well (from both Zook and Meyer's first full class). I'm excited to see if Meyer can reload in 1-2 years or if the Tebow Era will forever be his pinnacle.
And for you last point, I completely agree. I mock these polls in principle, but they get me excited when I realize how close we are to kickoff. And I did a double-take looking for Southern Cal. With all the mess they are in, I had forgotten about the Coaches Poll ban. Love it.
Good thing they actually play the games. Bama has a tough row to hoe this year, losing 9 starters on D, and having to play 6 of their 8 conference games when the opponent has a week off prior to the Bama match up. Throw in the possibility of losing Marcell Dareus for a couple of games (or more), and Bama could be in trouble before the season is even half over.This is Boise State's year. If they want to be taken seriously, this is the year to do it.
Looking at the top 10 of that list:
Bama and Florida have their issues (already discussed), Texas is switching their offense to a more pro style (to match Gilbert's abilities), OU has to replace Bradford, and Nebraska is still rebuilding (their offense was putrid last year).
Ohio State, Iowa, and even Wisconsin @ 12 all have to play each other, and whoever is the top team out of the Big Tenleven+1 will have at least one ding on their record (IMO).
That leaves TCU and Virginia Tech.
They can't do anything about TCU (and who also could end up in the running for the BCS CG).
But the Broncos do play VT right out of the gate, and that does give them an opportunity to make a statement early in the season.
Interesting take on Bama...pretty cautious. You think they are the favorites? Leaving their ranking alone, would you give a different team better odds to win the NC? Boise?
-
My wife has had one for a year or so and loves it. She was the classic "I like REAL books" person, but was converted almost immediately. She still reads real books from time to time, but she hasn't purchased a non-Kindle book since she's had it.
In fact, I've yet to come across anyone who has been displeased after purchasing one. And the price certainly is right now. I remember paying something like $280 when I bought hers.
-
The best thing to do is give the dog tons of positive experiences outside your home. Take him places on weekends/after work where there are people. Start with quiet places with a couple of people and work your way to more boisterous activities.
We do, and actually, it's because he likes it so much. We feel terrible about how he feels at our house. We have a townhouse, so there isn't a lot of backyard and something puts the fear of god into him when we walk him out in front of our house (suburb...dead end street...mostly quiet...nothing menacing). When he goes to the bathroom, he is visibly shook. He's constantly darting his head around. So he pretty much hates where we live it seems.
But he loves our parents' homes. More land to run and he just comes out of his shell. Plus we take him to a nearby dog park very often and while he was a little wary at first, he is opening up more and more each time.
If you came across us with him at the dog park, you would think he was a normal, friendly dog, just a bit shy of people. But the instance we get him back, the 15 foot walk from the car to our front door turns him into a wreck. It's just so counter-intuitive that the place he is most familiar with (front of house and grass area) is the place he is scared of the most. Yet brand new places with new people and dogs get him maybe 1/10th as frightened.
But we love him and we're trying. When he comes out of his shell, he is a fun, playful, energetic little guy. I hope we get to see more of that side as time goes on.
-
unfortunately there isnt really a short cut on this. it's going to be at least a couple years of consistently working with the dog and getting him to the point where he can feel safe and confident. and will probably have to continue throughout his entire life. even further, any little slip up can set the work back by weeks. what's even tougher with dogs like this is that you cant really discipline him when he does do something wrong, or else you are back at square one. house training and what not come later, right now, the only thing to be working on is his confidence and trust. just show him lots of love.
its a tough job, but you are definitely an amazing person for doing it. and it will be worth it in the long run.
best wishes to the entire family!
Thanks!
You hit the nail on the head there with the discipline. We got him when he was 6-7 months so he was mostly housebroken. However, he has had several accidents since. One night I came upstairs to give him a tiny rawhide stick to chew on (size of a pencil). When I rounded the corner, I caught him peeing. Instinctively, I snapped the rawhide in my hand towards him and gave him a stern "NO." I didn't hit him with it, I just pointed it at him with a quick motion (kind of hard to describe with typing...I think you get the picture). Anyway, it set him off and he went flying under our bed. I was crushed. I felt so angry with myself but also discouraged because that was about a 2 outta 10 on the discipline scale.
And I hate to admit this, but I feel so jealous that he likes my wife so much. He is almost completely normal around her. Like I said, he bonded with me first and then just changed. It's selfish, I know...and I feel guilty about it. But he is making small steps all the time and that is what I try to keep on my mind.
-
Agreed, and, they shouldn't pass laws forcing religions to marry people they don't want to, just because some of their members think its a good idea.
Is that what Loving v. Virginia did?
All of this is fine, but you forgot: if gay marriage is defined as a "right", then a church refusing to perform a gay marriage is illegal. At the very least, it is something that would open the door to a mountain of civil lawsuits. What is to stop 2 gay Catholics from demanding that they be married in a Catholic church? The church has no standing to deny them their newly legislated, not inherent, rights. And, therefore, the church could be sued civilly and brought up on civil rights violations.And the church would win. Find me legal precedent that makes you think otherwise.
Denying a service, marriage, based on sexual preference would be discrimination, and subject to prosecution. And, the same goes for straight people. IF you give gays the "right" to "marriage", then you give it to straight people, then, straight people can go into a Catholic church and say "F off, we aren't going through all that crap" marry us now! Since marriage is now a right, and not merely a option, that can of worms is now open as well.What is this pandora's box you are talking about? What law currently on the books requires any church to marry anyone?
-
My brother and sis-in-law did the same thing, taking in an abused dog (lab/terrier mix, 9 months old. Previous owner left it locked in a shed, occasionally went out and threw it food and beat it). It took about three years for the dog to become well-adjusted enough to approximate normal doggie behavior.
Yeah, I feel like we are in for a long ride. He's made incredible strides in some areas, yet absolutely none (even regression) in others. Now he is only 10 months old and we've had him for 3. What is strange is, the first day he came to our house, he bonded with me right away. He laid in my lap, came to me when I put my hand out and generally seemed ok. But within 72 hours, he was terrified of me. It probably took 5-6 weeks to get him back to that original comfort level. I think it's definitely a male thing as Steely said, but it is strange how his panic comes and goes.
Did your brother and SIL do anything extraordinary to try to help their dog get over his fear? Or did they just have to kind of wait it out until he found it on his own?
The vet we take him to has a animal psychologist who spent over and hour with my wife on her first trip there completely unsolicited. She gave lots of pointers and stuff, but nothing groundbreaking.
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/2/week/1
I guess now is always a good time to rehash the argument that (a) preseason polls are nothing but destructive to fair ranking as they are completely arbitrary and only serve to either ensure that a top team will remain there or that an outsider will have an uphill battle all the way.
Also that college coaches are the most unqualified people to be ranking OTHER teams. They work 70 hours a week on THEIR team and spend 1 week each on the team they are playing next. They don't have the time, inclination or means to watch other teams' games. If anything, they hand off their weekly homework to an assistant or team tech. Rant over.
Interesting notes:
- Bama at #1...fair enough. I don't see any other argument.
- Flordia at #3...interesting. I would have thought losing God himself from your team would merit a drop of at least a couple of spots. And I say that mostly-seriously. Tebow ran that show. I'm curious as to how Meyer does without him. Big shoes for Brantley.
- OU at #8...quite the leap back up. Who's their QB? Landry Jones?
- Spots 18-23 taken by previously unranked teams.
- ND at 33...can't argue that at all. I have no idea what is in store. Interesting point is that we are six spots BEHIND Cincinnati. Hmmmmm....
Thoughts?
Prop 8 struck down
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I'm not going to lie and say that I'm familiar with each individual fight in each of those 45 states. But if the point of contention is "whether or not to call it marriage" and that is a very important point to many gay people, then I don't equate refusing to capitulate with poor representation.
If calling it marriage is a very important point of the argument, then surrendering that "isn't doing it properly." If I'm negotiating something and I tell my lawyer that there is something that I just won't budge on, you better believe he better not budge.
And while many might find the word argument trivial, it obviously isn't to many people since it is hotly contested on both sides.
Maybe I'm not understanding you, but how are those things opposites? I think that all religious marriages should also have to be certified civilly. So I think I'm agreeing with you there.
If you are saying that you have a problem with any religion being allowed to perform a legally recognized marriage, then I'd agree with you. But I don't see how that is important when discussing the topic at hand. It's a different fight.
What do you mean when you say marriage is an option, not a right? I consider marriage a right. Many courts have agreed. Now this is a very tricky argument I think, and not a brush off for either side. Because this will always inevitably lead to a "where do we draw the line?" discussion. Everyone has their lines. I'm no better.
But understand that what Loving did was make it illegal for states to criminalize interracial marriage. So there was never a proclamation or statute that read "Interracial marriage is now a right." It was done in reverse by stopping the bans.
That is what would happen with the gay marriage stuff. There would never be (I think) a statute saying "Gay marriage is a right." Rather, states simply would not be able to prevent legally recognizing them.
I think this goes back to the heart of the argument over whether or not to call it "marriage." I believe that fight is significant enough for gay people that they will not abandon it (I'm speaking so generally I know this).
I think I'm basically agreeing with you with some minor exceptions. Let me revise my plan:
- All church marriages have no independent legal meaning. The meaning they have is contained within the church and its convocation.
- The state cannot prevent any church from marrying or refusing to marry anyone they want. And why would they if it carried no legal status?
- All church marriages need to be certified civilly for legal recognition and the rights that come with it.
- And the kicker, we will call these civil unions.....(drum roll please)....marriages!
Now, no church needs to redefine their beliefs. No church is interfered with by the state. Everybody gets "married" by civilly. And we don't have to re-write everything to accommodate civil unions.
So the all this discussion comes down to a single word. Just as it always has been. I'd be inclined to agree with you that this portion of the fight is what has clogged the entire movement and that it is insignificant in comparison to the bigger picture.
But I am unwilling to make that decision for a class of people who are fighting for it.