"Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
news:2pab50FirknhU1@uni-berlin.de...
> necoandjeff wrote:
>
> > "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2p7b0vFh6ku5U4@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>necoandjeff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:2p4te9FgunrvU4@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>There is a law that affirmatively allows people to drive on public
> >>>
> >>>roads?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>At least there is in the state of Florida. We call it Florida Statute
> >>>>322.03.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ah, you're talking about licensing drivers. I thought you were
referring
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>a law that granted access to the public to public roads.
> >>
> >>Then why did you ask about a "law that affirmatively allows people to
> >>drive on public roads"? Driving a motor vehicle is not the only access
> >>to a public road. One can also ride a bicycle, jog, walk, stroll, or
loaf.
> >
> >
> > Another semantic boondoggle.
>
> I had no idea that the distinction between "access" and "drive a motor
> vehicle" is a frivolous semantic quibble. However, "boondoggle" is a
> very fun word to say. Boondoggle!
>
> > The law to which you refer allows people to
> > drive, period.
>
> Period? No, just on public roads. I don't need a license to drive a
> motor vehicle on my property. Didn't you read 322.01(15)?
>
> > I was referring to accessing public roads, specifically.
>
> Yes, I only mentioned public roads, too. This is because a license is
> only needed to drive on public roads, not private property. I can whip
> shitties on my 160 acre homestead without my seat belt, without a
> license, and drunk as a skunk if I like.

Got it. We're on the same page now. Believe it or not, I have had freeways
and highways exclusively in my mind through this entire exchange. But you're
right. Even the street we live on is a public road and no you don't need a
license to drive on private property.

> > Assuming you are licensed to drive, I think people are allowed to drive
on
> > public highways because there is no law preventing them from doing so.
>
> Yes, they are *licensed* to drive. That is what a driver's *license*
> does. It grants a *license* to drive a motor vehicle on *public* roads.
>
> >>>In any event, I
> >>>would still say that the ability to obtain a drivers license is a
right.
> >>
> >>Yes, I know that is what you would say.
> >
> >
> > As would many, many others.
>
> Many, many others would say that the state should not grant licenses for
> same-sex marriages. Does that convince you? No, and for good reason. The
> popularity of an opinion is irrelevant to the merit of a proposition. A
> common example of the ad populum fallacy is the argument that the USA
> must get the blessing of many countries before conducting its foreign
> policy.

If it were up to the people, it might. But it isn't since the constitution
already tells us (or at least I believe it tells us) that there is a much
higher hurdle we have to leap than to simply have a legislature pass a law
or to have the voters pass a ballot initiative.

And nobody that matters argues that the U.S. *must* get the blessing of many
countries to conduct its foreign policy, just that in some cases (such as
cases where we have been getting such a blessing for 12 years or so
regarding one particular aspect of our foreing policy) we SHOULD.

> >>Did he say that? This thread has become such a blur.
> >
> >
> > KG: "Quite an imagination you have there if you think marriage, let
alone
> > same-sex marriage, is a right."
> > MF: "Marriage is indeed a right, Mr Gowen."
> > KG: "Sorry, but it is not."
> > MF: "Sorry, but it is."
>
> Oh, sorry. When I think of "Mike" on this group, I tend think of Mr.
> Cash, and more than one Mike participated in this thread.
>
> > Which term exactly is the term of art you are referring to, fundamental
> > rights, God-given rights? And I believe the term "several states" is an
> > attempt at quantifying how many states there are,
>
> Yes, I agree that the term attempts to quantify the states.

I left out the word "don't" before "believe," but I suspect you knew that.
The phrase "several states" is *not* an attempt at quantifying anything. But
I suspect you know that too.

> >>Ok. I'll concede this point to you if you concede that people on my side
> >>"win" because "way more people" oppose the granting of marriage licenses
> >>to same sex couples. We win!
> >
> >
> > Na, ah, ah.
>
> Cherokee?

No, cheeky.

> > Meaning is determined by the collective, which is why I win.
>
> Really? I don't have much of a linguistics background, but this seems
> like an incorrect statement to me. Can you tell me how I can know which
> idiolect and dialects win? This is very important to me because I prefer
> winning to losing, so please reply as soon as possible.

I never said there can only be one right answer with language, just that
meaning is determined by the collective. In this case, small sub-collectives
count too, which, you may be interested to know, is why it is possible to
have a world with 2,796 functional languages.

> Let me guess: dialects of Japanese that use "oru" to refer to the
> actions of third parties don't "win"?

They win among people who speak that dialect. The prescriptivists who tell
them they are wrong, lose.

> By the way, didn't the collective in Florida determine the meaning of
> marriage in Florida with Florida Statute 741.212(3)?

I trust you know the hierarchy of laws? The supreme court may not have said
so yet (and they may not have the courage to) but the voters are Florida
aren't allowed to pass a law that trumps the fourteenth amendment (haven't
we had this conversation already?)

> > You
> > don't win until you get both houses of Congress to pass an amendment by
a
> > 2/3 majority (or get 2/3 of the state legislatures to propose an
amendment)
> > and then get 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it.
>
> Well, at least you have read some parts of the constitution. Quite a
> document, eh? I seem to have the abridged version, though. It's missing
> the rights to privacy and to stab scissors into a baby's brain.

Yes, that right to privacy is a potential loophole that you could drive
Michael Cash's truck through. Something should be done about that.

> > Because that is the
> > only way to make a change to the law that would be able to take on
> > fourteenth amendment equal protection. Gambare! It ain't gonna happen.
>
> I only "win" in that scenario if an equal protection violation exists.

Why? Passing the amendment would trump the fourteenth amendment, if such a
violation exists, but it would still trump everything below it, even if it
didn't. Either way you would win with such an amendment (but it ain't gonna
happen.)

> >>I wouldn't. I've encountered far too many members of the bars of *the*
> >>*several* *states* who have mistakenly (IMO) believed far more egregious
> >>things. I know one con law professor who believes that public nudity is
> >>a constitutional right. (Really) Thus, the idea of a lawyer thinking
> >>that sexual discrimination is a per se EP violation is not at all hard
> >>for me to imagine, especially a lawyer from California. Then again,
> >>maybe my example doesn't work very well if you believe that public
> >>nudity is a constitutional right. Let me know and maybe I can dig up
> >>another one.
> >
> >
> > OK, there are lots of stupid lawyers out there, granted. but someone who
> > just passed the bar 3 years ago? I assumed you would know the rule,
can't I
> > ask the same courtesy from you?
>
> I'm not intellectually *lazy* enough to dismiss all lawyers that have
> opinions I think are "far out" to be stupid, although I am sure some are
> stupid. Like I've said, there's no way of knowing how badly years of
> living in San Francisco have poisoned your mind.

It has liberated it.

> > And, after living in San Francisco for 6 years and witnessing several
Pride
> > Parades, Bay to Breakers, Sunday afternoons in Golden Gate Park, etc. I
have
> > to believe public nudity is a constitutional right, so on to your next
> > example.
>
> Do you know what I love about gay pride parades? How they remind
> mainstream America that gays are just like anyone else. Who needs
> religious zealots to make wacky and outlandish caricatures about
> homosexuals when I can see them throw a parade featuring brandished
> "double dongs" and leather-clad men leading leashed "gimps"?

To borrow a term from sci.lang.japan ヒュ〜〜. Gay pride parades have Hughed
you in a big way my friend.

> That's what this marriage tempest in a teapot is all about: pretending
> to be mainstream.

There's no pretending about it. Gays are just as mainstream in most aspects
of their life as, well, the mainstream. And there are just as many wacky
ones as there are wacky heterosexuals; a few but whaddya gonna do, and who
the hell really cares? Seems as though you've been busy buying up
stereotypes my friend.

> >>I was just giving an example of a religious zealot who made a big stink
> >>until the government mollified him. Right about that time he was getting
> >>mollified, another man thought that mollification and religious zealotry
> >>was a bad idea. Then again, James Earl Ray was not a lawyer so maybe you
> >>would deal with religious zealots in another way.
> >
> >
> > The government doing the right thing while mollifying someone is
different
> > from the government doing the wrong thing while mollifying someone.
>
> Can you please tell me how I can tell when the government's mollifying
> of a religious zealot is doing the right thing and when it is doing the
> wrong thing? I prefer a fancy "balancing test", or maybe one with prongs!

That's subjective. I'll answer on a case by case basis if you like.

> >>Effect on heterosexual marriage is irrelevant to me as I do not think
> >>that any such effect is a condition precedent for opposition of same-sex
> >>marriage. I was simply making a prediction.
> >
> >
> > Well, the argument is used by plenty of conservatives who have nothing
but
> > straws to clutch.
>
> Funny that you mention straws. Gather enough together and you can make a
> man to knock down. Burning Man! Woohoo! Man, that shit is tight.

TO BE CONTINUED...