Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: This isn't a question (Score 1) 463

by AK Marc (#49762843) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
There are no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract. If I call up and cancel my mortgage contract, there are set penalties, written into the contract, same with phone service, for those under contract. But the State doesn't punish you for entering into a contract lightly. For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.

That would result in the system we have now, with state sanctioned marriages, and controls on them.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 463

by AK Marc (#49762829) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Can you give an example of a negative outcome?

A step-parent relationship is legally the same as an adoption here. The only reason to perform a step-parent adoption is to block birth-parent visitation. So step parent adoptions are rare. But, marriage to the parent of a child is the equivalent. One is the legal guardian of the children in the relationship, regardless of blood. So, if the birth parent in the married couple dies, the child's care is uninterrupted. The surviving parent is sole guardian, and legally the parent, unless the other birth parent had some formal custody, or wishes to pursue it.

But living together without marriage? The child of a sole-custody arangement is an orphan the same as if both parents died, and the non-married non-birth parent is treated as if a neighbor walked up after a car crash that killed both parents, and offers to look after the new orphans.

I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage

You should not rush to judgement.

Comment: Re: This isn't a question (Score 1) 463

by AK Marc (#49762537) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Think about it for a minute - what actual, tangible, benefit do gays achieve by being able to call their relationships a marriage?

Do you want a list of the thousands of rights that come with marriage? The rights of survivorship are ignored by almost all, at least until their spouse dies suddenly, and they have to take over the life. When my dad died, I could have sued his partner for her house. They weren't "married", but had lived together for 10+ years, and lived as man and wife. As he made tangible improvements to the property, and as I'm his son, I have a right to whatever holding he had in that property. Since he wasn't married, I could claim against that as his heir. If they had been married, then I'd have had no claim. It would have passed to his wife without claim or ability for incident.

That's one of the thousands of rights that married people take for granted. In most cases, even a written living will is trumped by the "marriage" card. Though, that's changing. But a non-married partner will be ignored by all. And that's not changing.

of course most have little interest in real human rights - just ask around here about people's views on abortion for example.

Since someone doesn't agree with your fascist declaration of when life begins, you assert that their value of life is different. Nah, you are just a fascist aggressor who hates people.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 463

by AK Marc (#49762499) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago when the defenses of marriage were being erected, the arguments then were that marriage was an idea whose time has ended. The people came together to support marriage. More than one movement has talked about ending marriage, and all that did that failed. Quickly and miserably. So they moved on to working within the system.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 463

by AK Marc (#49761897) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
I'm not keeping anything, or doing anything, or complicating anything. I'm stating that the rules are hard-coded into laws. Laws on property, inheritance, privacy, and everything else.

With your "marry anyone and divorce them anytime you want" rule, just marry everyone you do an illegal deal with. You can't be compelled to testify against your spouse. Divorce them after the deal, and the illegal acts are still under priveledged communication rules.

Abandon all that, and telling your wife that you hate the boss at work, can be used against you when they find that the boss was run over at work. So you either have to change millions of laws, or break the idea of "marriage" completely.

Which do you find preferable? Why?

Most people find it easy that they can have a single contract with no modifications or negotiations allowed (though separate property contacts, commonly called pre-nups, are allowed, though in practice, rare). The millions of laws written around marriage work together to define it in a contractual, legal, financial, and societal context. It may not be perfect, but it's better than abolishing a legal recognition of any relationships.

The law could very simply state (all laws regarding marriage are null and void. from this day forward the laws are as follows....

Yeah, and so the one law passed to do that is in what jurisdiction? Federal? They don't define "marriage" now, but put rules on it based on what the 50 states decide. So at a minimum, you'd have to have 51 states (DC is a "state" for most purposes), plus the feds, and get that 52 law bundle passed at the exact same instant for that to work. Plus, the "laws" in many places aren't laws, but regulations and administrative rules. Your "simple" law would have to change the IRS code, and hundreds or thousands of other federal regulations with weight of law. And the countless local rules on marriage. State law in Texas allows a minor to drink, under the supervision of an adult. So a 21 year old married to a 19 year old, can buy drinks for, and hand drinks to the "under-age" drinker. But that's not the same everywhere. Thousands of little things like that would make a massive change to the legal burden of formerly married people, once you abolish marriage, in the way you state.

You obviously don't even understand that, let alone have an opinion how it would work after. How does your one simple law fix under-age drinking law in Texas (a state matter) and the IRS code (not coded into law), at the same time?

"One simple law" change for multiple independent jurisdictions. With no understanding of law, or reality.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 339

We've got the 2nd largest european economy after germany (we overtook france recently) and one of the highest employment rates in europe, so I'd be interested to hear what your definition of "strong" is.

Must be the Conservative Conspiracy media that's covered in the international news. I hear about how hard the UK has it because their presence in the EU causes all the poor eastern European people to flock to the UK to steal all the UK jobs, working for peanuts and taking all the money out of the country when they are done.

England must be super-strong. They were claiming that Scotland would collapse economically if they weren't in the EU, just 9 months ago when the Scottish freedom was considered. So Scotland is hanging by a thread, on the edge of collapse. Or at least, so says England.

Comment: Re: Meh... (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#49761673) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

But hey, you don't see any real differences between reservoirs and rivers - and you spout complete nonsense about Dallas pumping water out of the Trinity and into city reservoirs

So, what feeds Lewisville Lake? Does Dallas pull drinking water from Lewisville Lake? Where does the waste from Gainsvile go?

You don't stick to facts, and don't answer direct questions. So I assume more distraction and smoke and mirrors, and no answers or discussion.

I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson