Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1083

Why should it be irrelevant for singles? I can adopt a child, or have a child without marriage, even more than one, from more than one partner, who each have more than one partner. So what, why aren't we all given those protections?

It's irrelevant for singles, because if you die, you have no spouse to inherit your assets, which is what marriage is about. Yes, you can adopt a child or have a child without one, but there are separate intestacy statutes about how property passes to your child. Marital statutes are about inheriting from a spouse.

It's like saying you don't drive and don't have a car, and then asking why RMV laws are irrelevant for you. It's not an imposition on your civil rights that you're not required to get annual inspections on your skateboard.

Comment Re:Why should the government write these contracts (Score 1) 1083

If this is the only thing that legal "marriage" is all about, then why restrict it in the ways we restrict it? Why can't a sister and a brother get all of these benefits, if they wanted? Why can't they have access to all of these wonderful legal benefits of "marriage"? Even if they don't have an incestuous relationship, but just are otherwise unmarried and love each other (even not "in that way")?

Because we don't want property passed between siblings probate-free?

The question I take away from GP's point, though is -- why can't you just have a bundled contract that grants all those rights? Why couldn't two sisters sign up for it together, instead of just an unrelated man and woman, or (as of today in the U.S.) two unrelated lesbians? Or how about three unrelated lesbians or a group of three gay guys or whatever -- couldn't they be eligible for most of those bundled contract rights?

Go re-read the post you're replying to. It explains why marriage places obligations on a bunch of parties who never signed any contract. Even if you bundle contracts, that still doesn't apply to people who never signed them.

Comment Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1083

It will certainly be a massive pain in the ass. But administrative inconvenience is not an adequate justification for denying people their fundamental rights or equal protection of the law. It'll take a while, but just as this took a while, but in time polyamororous marriages will be legally recognized.

Unlikely. It's not an equal protection issue because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Hence, it's just a regular old issue, like a zoning variance or naming a post office. If poly people want polygamy, then they can draft a bill and get it passed. It's not a big deal.

Comment Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1083

"That's not true for gay marriage, where literally nothing but the label on a line on a form changes."

Nothing but a label.

Nothing but a label.

Your turn to repeat it, unless you'd actually like to provide some argument for a change?

"The side of law and logic?"

So.. you supported the Defense of Marriage act? Because that was law. Right?

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. DoMA was in violation of both the due process clause and the equal protection clause (as well as being a violation of the 10th amendment and outside of Congress' power under Article I). The side of law and logic was the side that won in Windsor.

What you're basically saying is that convenience is more important than civil rights. Gay marriage was "easy" to do, so it gets implemented. Poly or single is not, therefore they get nothing, and it's okay to continue discriminating against them.

Nope, I'm saying that the arguments for the two are entirely different, and that one is a due process and equal protection issue, while the latter is simply a lack of existing statutes.

Taxes? You file as a group, just like a couple does.

Is that legal right now? Can I get a group of people and file taxes together? No? You mean you have to write a new statute to cover it, just as I said?!

Inheritance? You divide the assets, same as when the last parent dies and the estate is divided equally or as laid out in the will.

So you're going to treat spouses like children for the purpose of division of assets? That would require changing hundreds of laws, and would make estate taxes a huge issue again. Good job. You haven't really thought this through, have you?

Children? Again, as laid out in the will or the court decides based on whatever criteria they wish to use, or ideally the surviving adults come to agreement.

"I'm OhPlz, and I'm suggesting a pragmatic solution: we just let the court decide based on whatever criteria they wish to use, or maybe people can just come to an agreement."
Seriously, do you even understand why courts and laws exist and we don't just have everything based on "whatever criteria a judge wants"?

Step back and really think about your comments. You are the new traditionalist. You really are. You're reaching for justification to continue denying something to a smaller portion of the population.

Step back and really think about yours - you're saying "we don't need laws, we can just let judges decide whatever they want". That's more "traditionalist" than me... mind you, it's also several thousand years out of date.

Comment Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 2) 1083

All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.

As noted in another reply to GP, marriage places obligations on people outside of the contract. The government enforces those obligations too, even though the INS, DoJ, IRS, VA, etc., haven't signed any contracts with married couples. So, the government's role in marriage goes beyond merely enforcing contracts.

Comment Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 5, Insightful) 1083

You are as obsessed with the number two as traditionalists were with the words man and woman. Can't you see that?

Nope. If you change "husband and wife" to "spouse and spouse" in existing statutes, nothing else changes. Taxes are still the same, marital privilege is still the same, immigration is still the same, etc. In fact, if any existing statute treated husbands and wives differently, it would already be unconstitutional due to discrimination on gender.

But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?
Or what about medical proxy? You go into a coma, your first spouse says 'pull the plug', your second spouse says 'keep him alive at all costs'. Does the doctor get to decide? Because they can't. Under existing law, no matter what decision they make, the other spouse sues and wins.

In both cases - and in many others - the laws have to change. That's not true for gay marriage, where literally nothing but the label on a line on a form changes.

Marriage is not exclusively about property and inheritance. I can sign a property deed along with someone I'm not married to and I can do the same in my will for inheritance. Man and woman, only two, it's the same type of argument.

You've got it backwards - property and inheritance are not exclusively about marriage. That's why you can also sell deeds and leave things to your children. But yes, marriage is about property and inheritance, which is why when you're married, not only do you not need a will to leave things to your spouse, any such will is irrelevant because you won't even go to a probate court.

"Draft that law, and then you can have polygamy. Until then, not yours."

Exactly what the LGBT crowd was always told until the courts said no.

And what law would the LGBT crowd need to write? None, as noted above. Literally nothing changes in existing laws when there are two spouses, regardless of their genders. Not one single law is different. If you don't believe me, then go find one that has to be changed. I'll wait.

How does it feel to be on the other side?

The side of law and logic? Feels great, just as it always has.

Comment Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 5, Insightful) 1083

How is that any different?

How is "more than 2" different from "2"? Are you sure Slashdot is at your speed?

We've moved away from biological reproduction and/or religion as a basis for the definition of marriage, so surely any combination must now be accepted, right? Single people shouldn't be left out, told they can't have what others have. Polys as well.

No, marriage is about property and inheritance rights. It's irrelevant for singles, and it's different for polys since you would need some sort of proportional probate system. Draft that law, and then you can have polygamy. Until then, not yours.

Comment Re:Why should the government write these contracts (Score 5, Informative) 1083

Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts. And why should being in a private contract give one special rights?

Well, contracts exist only between the parties, right? They're not binding on anyone else. For example, if I sign a contract with my buddy buying your car for a dollar, you don't have to turn it over to me, just because I have a contract, right?

So, let's say you replace the marriage contract between two parties and the state and just have private contracts... Well, what requires a hospital to let you visit someone you signed a contract with in the ICU? What requires the IRS to let you two file taxes together? What requires the prosecution not to call them as a witness to your conduct? What requires the INS to let them come into the country, merely because they signed a contract with you? What requires a veteran's cemetery to let you be buried together if only one of you is a veteran? What prevents the state from taxing you on property when they die? Etc., etc. There are literally over a thousand rights and privileges that attach with marriage and are binding on third parties who never signed any contract.

Why? Because it's valuable to society. Having two people look out for each other drastically reduces expenses.

Comment Re:Actually it doesn't matter (Score 0) 190

It is being diluted by being used as a generic reference to large-screen movies.

Once again, -1 offtopic to you.

Please try to keep the discussion somewhat on topic. Pointing out situations that haven't happened isn't useful to anyone, and in fact is quite harmful to your own reputation.

That is on topic - it was used as a generic reference to large-screen movies, rather than those specifically manufactured by the IMAX corporation.

That said, it doesn't quite fall under dilution (the Federal Trademark Anti-Dilution Act, amending the Lanham Act to not require evidence of actual confusion for trademark infringement), because, as others have noted, it's not a trademark use in commerce (and no, merely mentioning a word in a magazine is not going to always be a use of that word in commerce, if you're not using it to sell anything). The GP has confused dilution and genericide, the latter of which is a legitimate concern for the IMAX corp. If "IMAX" becomes a generic term for any large format movie, they'll lose their trademark right. This is different from dilution, which would be, for example, someone selling giant genetically engineered apples as "IMAX-sized apples" or selling 12" dildoes as "IMAX-dildoes". Even though there's no possibility anyone would think the IMAX company was behind those, it would serve to dilute the distinctiveness of their mark.

Comment Facebook Hello app helps (Score 1) 193

I was getting robocalls multiple times a day ("Hi, this is Rachel from Card Services!" or "[foghorn] All aboard for the S.S. Takeyourmoney!" or "Stop! Do not hang up! The FBI wants you to protect your identity with Identity Block!") until I installed Facebook's Hello app. I can't speak to its primary contact functions, as most of my friends don't bother putting their phone numbers into Facebook, but it has one neat feature: "Automatically block calls from numbers that have been blocked by a lot of other people."

I turned that on, and the calls dried up. Haven't had one in weeks.

Comment Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism (Score 1) 412

>> stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence).

you're either
a) female
b) been single all your life
c) found and dated the one woman on the planet who can handle criticism calmly.

I think the existence of GamerGate shows that this is not anything unique to women.

Comment Re:Is there one lawyer who isn't a lying fuck? (Score 1) 75

Reading this, and based on my personal experience, I doubt it.

Perhaps you should re-read it, considering that there's a lawyer on the other side that's taking Prenda down.

How many laws do attorneys have to break before they face something beyond a fine? 100? 1000? 10000? If you read the Prenda law articles, it's clear that if a non-lawyer did even one of those things, they would already be in jail by now. Those bastards lied their fucking teeth out, and made real good money doing so. And all they have to pay is a fine. BFD.

That's because before someone goes to jail, you have to have a trial and a conviction. And while Prenda's cases have been dismissed with prejudice, and they've had to pay damages and fines for sanctions, they haven't been criminally charged. You know, for someone whining about lawyers, you sure don't know much about the legal system.

Comment Re:Too late for him (Score 1) 144

The man in question had actually finished serving his sentence of 44 months (less than 4 years) and been released from prison.

That said, after reading what this moron actually posted on Facebook, I am glad he spent his time in prison, even if the Judge gave the jury 'poor' instructions.

He certainly sounds like the kind of angry idiot that was (and probably still is) dangerous.

This also isn't a win for him, yet... It's getting remanded back to the appeals court (and possibly, eventually back to the trial court), and so his fight isn't over. On retrial, a jury could still convict him by finding that he actually did intend to threaten his ex when he sent her a facebook post saying that her restraining order wouldn't protect her from a bullet, rather than just that a reasonable person would interpret it to be a threat.

Comment Re:Defensive (Score 1) 97

If that was truly the case, they could have filed the provisional, and then not followed on with the full filing.

If they did that, the provisional application would never be published or open to public inspection, so it would be useless to prevent a troll from getting a patent on the same technology.

Or they could have made an announcement that they were simply preventing future lawsuits.

Looking at the people here calling for blood, do you think such an announcement would be taken without a grain of salt? There's nothing binding in an announcement.

Or they could have filed in the name of the actual inventors (which would be far more defensible in court than what they did)... you get the point.

They did file in the name of the actual inventors. If you click the links, they're by John Resig and Joel Burget.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy

Working...