Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:47 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood 
Author Message
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6488
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The thread where we air out unpopular opinions
Sean wrote:


Marriage should not be a government issue. It should be settled by private individuals and their families.


Why should marriage not be a government issue? Marriage is a contract that carries with it legal benefits. It absolutely should be a government issues...it is a government issue, fundamentally.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:53 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3993
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: The thread where we air out unpopular opinions
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:


Marriage should not be a government issue. It should be settled by private individuals and their families.


Why should marriage not be a government issue? Marriage is a contract that carries with it legal benefits. It absolutely should be a government issues...it is a government issue, fundamentally.

Does that mean you agree with with the Defense Of Marriage Act?


Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:04 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2725
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The thread where we air out unpopular opinions
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:


Marriage should not be a government issue. It should be settled by private individuals and their families.


Why should marriage not be a government issue? Marriage is a contract that carries with it legal benefits. It absolutely should be a government issues...it is a government issue, fundamentally.


A contract is fundamentally a civil court issue

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:10 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6488
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The thread where we air out unpopular opinions
Vexer wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:


Marriage should not be a government issue. It should be settled by private individuals and their families.


Why should marriage not be a government issue? Marriage is a contract that carries with it legal benefits. It absolutely should be a government issues...it is a government issue, fundamentally.

Does that mean you agree with with the Defense Of Marriage Act?


No, DOMA is absurd.
NotHughGrant wrote:
Well a contract is fundamentally a civil court issue


Courts are part of the government

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2725
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Well, not really.

Seperation of powers is implied here and expressed stateside

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:14 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Here's where JamesKunz gives me an A.

Separation of powers involves three distinct branches--lawmakers, law interpreters, and the jerks in the White House. Though they are (or are supposed to be) starkly divided, they all fall under the general heading of the federal government. Each is in place to provide a check and balance to the other two, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down if any one of them is removed.

---

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that marriage is either all or nothing as far as the government goes. If it involves legally binding contracts of any sort, including benefits thereof, then it can only be a government issue. If religious organizations insist on getting involved, then marriage should have no legally binding status or benefits at all. The fact that the two are conflated is the source of the trouble: the government is obligated to treat everyone with equal status under law, and religious organizations believe they should have no such obligation.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:27 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6488
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Ken wrote:
Here's where JamesKunz gives me an A.

Separation of powers involves three distinct branches--lawmakers, law interpreters, and the jerks in the White House. Though they are (or are supposed to be) starkly divided, they all fall under the general heading of the federal government. Each is in place to provide a check and balance to the other two, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down if any one of them is removed.



That's an A alright.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:33 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:


Marriage should not be a government issue. It should be settled by private individuals and their families.


Why should marriage not be a government issue? Marriage is a contract that carries with it legal benefits. It absolutely should be a government issues...it is a government issue, fundamentally.

There should be no legal benefits associated with marriage. It is a private issue; it should not be controlled by the government. If anything, the issue of marriage demonstrates just how greatly governments try to regulate people's behavior.

That being said, I support any legislation which guarantees marriage equality. I just think that it is an issue where government intervention is unnecessary, especially at the federal level.


Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:43 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6488
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Sean wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:


Marriage should not be a government issue. It should be settled by private individuals and their families.


Why should marriage not be a government issue? Marriage is a contract that carries with it legal benefits. It absolutely should be a government issues...it is a government issue, fundamentally.

There should be no legal benefits associated with marriage. It is a private issue; it should not be controlled by the government. If anything, the issue of marriage demonstrates just how greatly governments try to regulate people's behavior.

That being said, I support any legislation which guarantees marriage equality. I just think that it is an issue where government intervention is unnecessary, especially at the federal level.


So you don't think there should be any difference between married people and dating couples, for the purposes of wills, taxes, ownership, emergency room protocol, etc?

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:16 pm
Profile
Online
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 264
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Kunz,

Let me address your points seperately:

Taxes: No. Why should married people be taxed differently? Parents and those with dependents should get a tax break but single parents are going to need a tax break more than if there are two parents who are contributing time and resources. If there are no kids, then why should the government treat singles vs. married differently with regards to taxes? Ditto the idea that married people are more deserving of healthcare and other benefits for being in a monagomous sexual relationship over the unmarried.

Other legal stuff: Can easily be covered by civil unions, which in my ideal world would carry few benefits other than indicating to the state stuff like: Hey if I die or become ill and unable to make medical decisions for myself, here is the person I want getting my stuff/kids or making medical decisions etc. (in the absence of other arrangements).

I'm in the middle of writing an extended blog post on this, but basically it breaks down that our current legal understanding of marriage is... screwy. Namely it does not operate in any way like a normal contract legally should. Minors can easily get married (as early as age 13 depending on state and I personally see no reason why marriage should be restricted to age 18 like every other contract). You have to go through the state to get a divorce (normal everyday contracts usually either just expire on their own or can easily be ended by communicating as much. If you think this is no big deal, allow me to ask what is the point of forcing a victim of domestic violence to have to go through the state to get a divorce, thereby making it harder for them to end a violent relationship. And can we please get over the idea that marriage is intrinsically tied with parenting (historically, not even close to being the case) but you can be married without kids and unmarried with kids.

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:16 am
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2725
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Quote:
Here's where JamesKunz gives me an A.

Separation of powers involves three distinct branches--lawmakers, law interpreters, and the jerks in the White House. Though they are (or are supposed to be) starkly divided, they all fall under the general heading of the federal government. Each is in place to provide a check and balance to the other two, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down if any one of them is removed.


This doesn't change the fact that saying "courts are part of government" is reductive. If you wrote "courts are part of government" in a law or politics essay, any self-respecting tutor would kick your ass.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm of the opinion that marriage is either all or nothing as far as the government goes. If it involves legally binding contracts of any sort, including benefits thereof, then it can only be a government issue. If religious organizations insist on getting involved, then marriage should have no legally binding status or benefits at all. The fact that the two are conflated is the source of the trouble: the government is obligated to treat everyone with equal status under law, and religious organizations believe they should have no such obligation.


The government involvement wasn't about contracts and the legal status of them as you well know. It was about playing to the crowd.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:37 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
NotHughGrant wrote:
Quote:
Here's where JamesKunz gives me an A.

Separation of powers involves three distinct branches--lawmakers, law interpreters, and the jerks in the White House. Though they are (or are supposed to be) starkly divided, they all fall under the general heading of the federal government. Each is in place to provide a check and balance to the other two, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down if any one of them is removed.


This doesn't change the fact that saying "courts are part of government" is reductive. If you wrote "courts are part of government" in a law or politics essay, any self-respecting tutor would kick your ass.

We may be running into a cultural difference here. The last history professor I had would most definitely cast a well-honed stink eye at any student who might insist that there is a division between the government and the courts... and she was very careful with how things were defined.

For example, she suggested that the American Revolution be more properly considered the American Rebellion, and that slavery from the African perspective would more properly be called enslavement.

Believe it or not, I was as pedantic as I am before I became this person's student.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:45 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2725
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
I was taught the opposite on the basis that the seperation of courts and government is the foundation of western democracy and the rule of law, as it (in theory) means government can't arbitrarily lock people up and that government itself can be held accountable to the law.

(although I am well aware this often means little in practice)

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:55 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 665
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
The courts are a separate branch of government and are supposed to operate independent of the executive and legislative branches. As such they are, or should be, in a position to determine objectively whether the state or the citizen is in violation of the letter, and in many cases, the intent of the law.

For those who believe the government should be involved in defining marriage since they've opted to extend benefits to the people who have chosen to enter that contract, do you believe that people who violate the contract through uncontested divorce should be required to refund those benefits to the government? Or that if one party causes failure of the contract through infidelity or other unacceptable behavior they should be charged with criminal conduct for engaging in a government contract fraudulently?


Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:19 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6488
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
NotHughGrant wrote:
I was taught the opposite on the basis that the seperation of courts and government is the foundation of western democracy and the rule of law, as it (in theory) means government can't arbitrarily lock people up and that government itself can be held accountable to the law.

(although I am well aware this often means little in practice)


In America, the courts are absolutely, 100% considered part of the government. They are one third of the equation. We have three branches

Legislative -- Congress -- Makes Law
Executive -- President/Governors -- Enforces Law
Judicial -- Courts -- Interprets Law

That monitor each other ("checks and balances") to ensure none of the others gets too powerful.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:06 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6488
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
thered47 wrote:
Kunz,

Let me address your points seperately:

Taxes: No. Why should married people be taxed differently? Parents and those with dependents should get a tax break but single parents are going to need a tax break more than if there are two parents who are contributing time and resources. If there are no kids, then why should the government treat singles vs. married differently with regards to taxes? Ditto the idea that married people are more deserving of healthcare and other benefits for being in a monagomous sexual relationship over the unmarried.

Other legal stuff: Can easily be covered by civil unions, which in my ideal world would carry few benefits other than indicating to the state stuff like: Hey if I die or become ill and unable to make medical decisions for myself, here is the person I want getting my stuff/kids or making medical decisions etc. (in the absence of other arrangements).

I'm in the middle of writing an extended blog post on this, but basically it breaks down that our current legal understanding of marriage is... screwy. Namely it does not operate in any way like a normal contract legally should. Minors can easily get married (as early as age 13 depending on state and I personally see no reason why marriage should be restricted to age 18 like every other contract). You have to go through the state to get a divorce (normal everyday contracts usually either just expire on their own or can easily be ended by communicating as much. If you think this is no big deal, allow me to ask what is the point of forcing a victim of domestic violence to have to go through the state to get a divorce, thereby making it harder for them to end a violent relationship. And can we please get over the idea that marriage is intrinsically tied with parenting (historically, not even close to being the case) but you can be married without kids and unmarried with kids.


Some interesting points here. I don't have much to counter. Perhaps...you're right? :)

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:07 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2725
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
JamesKunz wrote:
NotHughGrant wrote:
I was taught the opposite on the basis that the seperation of courts and government is the foundation of western democracy and the rule of law, as it (in theory) means government can't arbitrarily lock people up and that government itself can be held accountable to the law.

(although I am well aware this often means little in practice)


In America, the courts are absolutely, 100% considered part of the government. They are one third of the equation. We have three branches

Legislative -- Congress -- Makes Law
Executive -- President/Governors -- Enforces Law
Judicial -- Courts -- Interprets Law

That monitor each other ("checks and balances") to ensure none of the others gets too powerful.


Courts make law in the form of common law. And there is a large common law precedent in contract law.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:33 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Courts interpret laws, and their rulings collectively become case law... which is only nominally law, because the rulings only apply to future interpretations of laws that already existed.

It's stupid and confusing, but that's what happens when you let idiots run things.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:37 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2725
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Common law (over here) is judge-made law. There are entire areas of law with no or very little statute whatsover.

The laws of Tort, for example, are almost all case-law. The cases provide the precedent and deviations from the precedent can be overrulled in the higher courts using only previous cited cases.

For example - Donoghue v Stevenson is the foundation for the basic Tort of Negligence. A concrete example of Judge-made law.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:39 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6488
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Ken wrote:
Courts interpret laws, and their rulings collectively become case law... which is only nominally law, because the rulings only apply to future interpretations of laws that already existed.

It's stupid and confusing, but that's what happens when you let idiots run things.


You know it's easy to mock, but America has been a democracy for 230 years without ever letting an extremist take over and without ever having the government collapse (quasi-exception -- civil war) and that's not easy. France, which has been a democracy for almost the same amount of time, is on Attempt #5. Our system is imperfect but there is no system of ruling millions of people that's even close to perfect. And yes we lag behind Sweden and Norway blah blah blah I know, but we have a much larger and much more heterogeneous population, which makes ruling more difficult. Our system is pretty good

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:12 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr