"the voters will create pressure to make the arbitration to work according to the community standards"

The voters 'could' (not 'will').

The voters ‘could’ also move to amend the Federal Constitution and bring back slavery.

Would you support such a thing?


I'm wondering how many contracts between folks today (properties, services, etc.) are overtly blunted or directed by the voters?

#

And: this "this marital contract is valid even though it is between a 40-year-old man and a 9-year-old girl" is not possible (as discussed up-thread) for reasons that have nuthin' to do with voters.

I suggest using a notary in my first post.

Recognition/witnessing (for legal purposes) is not the same as licensing or promotion.

Notarizing is simply the formal declaration that 'this' is agreed upon by those involved and such agreement occurred on this date.

Again: not the same as licensing or promotion.

It's nothing but scrap paper if the law changes.

True, as with any contract today.

Not seein' your point.

"This is true even if the voters are wrong." (eight posts ago)

If the voters want to bring back slavery, for some insane reason, then slavery will have to be brought back, or the government will not be representational. A just government derives its power from the will of the governed. If the people demand slavery in enough numbers, and their current government doesn't agree, the government will be overthrown to achieve it.

Community standards are almost certainly wrong about other things right now. We may be wrong about things we don't know about. Who knows what will seem like overarching government in 50 years, 100 years? Many things that seemed like very obvious truths back then, seem ridiculous, even horrible now.

I was stating an example, not advocating an approach. Come on, man!

Read harder, it's been the same throughout the thread. Anyone else seein' my point now that I've made it several times?

Mostly, though, it's recognized that contracts between or among those capable of consent lead to stable transactions and therefore can contribute to relatively stable economies.

Yes, contracts can be heavily monitored but this is not the baseline.

And most contracts between individuals occur with minimal government involvement (except in the case of dispute).

I suggest that a neat way to bypass all the piecemeal, patchwork, struggle to secure marriage rights for gays is to simply move the impetus into contract law wherein A and B (and C and D, if we're talkin' about polygamy) can bestow by way of contract most of the rights and responsibilities that can now be found in government sponsored marriage.

Still not seein' why this suggestion is unworkable or so offensive to so many.

I can only conclude that the endeavor to secure government sponsored and licensed marriage for gays folks has less to do 'rights' and more to do with 'forcing approval'.

I work hard to minimize the involvement of folks in my business while, at the same time, a whole whack of others work just as hard to maximize involvement of other folks in their business.

*shrug*

If that’s what (other, you) folks want: most assuredly their/your wish will be granted.

‘nuff said.

Of course you don't, because you feel you can handle your life without government involvement. Want to form a partnership with someone, just make a simple contract.

But when the partnership goes sour, the enforcement or dissolution of the contract is up to the government to mediate... make that dictate. Any changes in the law after the contract was made, could void all or part of that contract.

"If the people demand slavery in enough numbers, and their current government doesn't agree, the government will be overthrown to achieve it."

Might makes the right: glad to see we agree.

Again: I suggest that a neat way to bypass all the piecemeal, patchwork, struggle to secure marriage rights for gays is to simply move the impetus into contract law wherein A and B (and C and D, if we're talkin' about polygamy) can bestow by way of contract most of the rights and responsibilities that can now be found in government sponsored marriage.

Still not seein' why this suggestion is unworkable or so offensive to so many.

Offensive I can't answer, but you can't write any contract with anyone that dictates law or policy to the IRS, SS or any other government agency. You'd have a hard time dictating policy to private companies like hospitals too.

"This is true even if the voters are wrong."

Yeah, well, that's on you now. When you decide to be intellectually honest with yourself, you will re-read the thread for comprehension.

~ and you will be shocked at your own slippery-slope, straw man, weasel arguments ~

Someone, following this thread, sent me the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/op...ontz.html?_r=0

Now, gonna read the thread, as suggested.