Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post Reply
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by JimHow »

I remember when I was mayor of Lewiston, Maine, geez, it was 26 years now that I was elected.
I was the "Boy Mayor," just out of law school, I knew it all.
I was elected mayor of an old Roman Catholic conservative Kennedy Democrat New England mill town.
We passed an ordinance back then, that said that in Lewiston you couldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the areas of employment, housing, credit, public accommodation. We were crucified. The crazies came out, we were promoting beastiality, and transvestism, and our children were going to be molested. The city council and I received death threats, we were on national TV, it was crazy. The ultimate heterosexual, I was openly vilified by many of the crazies as a raging homosexual.

And there was one complaint in particular, 20 years ago, that I heard over and over:
"If you give 'them' 'special rights' now, next they'll be wanting to get married."

Yes, I told many of the crazies. Yes they will. They'll eventually want to get married.

And then we suffered for nearly 20 years, as the cowardly Bill and Hillary Clinton came into office, and passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush came along and set things back another 8 years, and then the cowardly Barack Obama came along and put his finger to the wind and gauged that it wasn't politically popular, until it was, then he finally supported it.

Five out of seven members of the Lewiston City Council and I had the balls in an old New England mill town 20 years ago to support gay rights not when it was popular, but when it was violently opposed. And now, 25 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, has said that two people can consummate their love for each other, even if of the same sex. Live and let live. What's the big deal, for crying out loud.

A great day! Followed by victories on health care and housing yesterday. The right of center U.S. Supreme Court cementing the legacy of Barack Hussein Obama. Who'd have thunk it!?

Every time you think this country is hopelessly screwed up beyond repair, we have a couple of days like the past two, and we realize, despite its faults, its still a pretty amazing place.

I woke up this morning and a client had texted me that someone had been beheaded in France, followed by other terrorist attacks. And those ended up being like the fourth biggest stories of the day.

The 2004 La Lagune is deep purple colored, tannic and somewhat brooding. But I don't think this will improve with age. It is not a "pleasant" La Lagune but in many ways it is how I like them. Sort of the 2004 southern Medoc equivalent of the 2004 northern Medoc Clerc Milon from yesterday. Mouth-filling, cedary, argaux, 92+ points.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by JimHow »

If you want to get a good laugh, check out the enclosed video, at the very beginning you will catch a quick glimpse of the young Mayor How staring down a thousand VERY angry people the night we passed the ordinance:

http://portland.wcsh6.com/news/news/163 ... -revisited
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by stefan »

The Supreme Court decision is not controversial among the younger generation, so we have come a ways.

It is not easy to find a La Lagune that does not please.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Fascinating recount Jim.

That was indeed a giant leap.

The next big leap would be to outlaw guns, but I suspect that will be a much more formidable leap. A lot more innocent people will needlessly die in the meantime.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by DavidG »

You were a leader ahead of his time who was not afraid to lead, Jim, even if your constituents were not yet ready to accept where you were taking them or see where the world was going.

It's easier to be a benevolent dictator, isn't it?
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

I come at this from an altogether different angle and I'm not sure how many share it. I have never researched this to any extent and obviously this is not the basis of yesterday's decision but I would suggest simply that the state has no compelling interest in regulating this type of relationship between adults, period. It might have been justified in past times under different legal regimes but in my view no longer. My bottom line is that the state (meaning the states and the federal government) have no business sanctioning unions (call it marriage if you like) between adults. Think of it, two people must obtain a license from the government before they can marry-even in a religious ceremony. How intrusive is that? About as intrusive as it gets.

There used to be a lot of reasons, probably some good ones, for the state to regulate this relationship but today they have all, I believe, been superannuated. For example, legitimacy used to be required to inherit property. No more. The rights of the parties inter se marriage confers by law can all be duplicated or overridden by contract, and often are (as background I kind of came to this point after having interviewed a leading California family law attorney for a blog about pre and post nuptial agreements). Then there is this whole business of discriminatory treatment of married and unmarried persons when it comes to state benefits and taxation, which undoubtedly are motivated by either special interest (well, isn't everything in a democracy?) or some outdated concept of societal benefit.

This leaves people free to "marry" and if desired have the union consecrated or sanctioned in the religion of their choice (assuming the religion recognizes the union and of course I would not suggest it may be compelled to do so, in fact just the opposite) or to take vows (often meaningless) in front of people and have weddings and parties and honeymoons and all that at hotels and resorts and to contract to love, honor and support and then breach those contracts and then undo them in the courts or in arbitration/mediation. Anyway when you come to this view, and your mileage may vary, it is very easy to accept the Court's decision as having arrived at the sort of correct result regardless of whether you accept its reasoning.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by DavidG »

Art, I think I agree with the concept that government doesn't belong in our private lives, and that a large part of marriage is private. But I think there are some problems with saying that government sanction of marriage or union is irrelevant or easily supplanted by contract.

What about the right to refuse to testify against your spouse? Government sanction of the "union" might be useful there, to prevent any individual to claim that right? What if a criminal organization decided that all of its members would marry each other, and duplicate the right to not incriminate one's spouse by contract?

What about employment law and benefits? Does a government-sanctioned union provide clarity to employers regarding who is eligible for benefits?
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

Those are interesting points. Maybe Jim, who is an actual trial lawyer could weigh in on the privileges. I would make a couple of observations though. If the object of the privileges is to preserve the harmony (assumed) and stability (again we know from the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce that the fact of marriage hardly ensures a stable relationship) of a relationship between two people I don't see why it wouldn't be extended to any cohabitants. Wouldn't we want to accord the same respect to a couple who live together and have children and are good neighbors and pillars of the community but aren't married? So whatever relationship is deserving of that privilege, it could be determined at trial. I know that in some states the privilege is extended in the case of so-called common-law marriages which by definition the spouses were not wedded in a state-sanctioned ceremony. Plus in the case of the testimonial privilege the witness-spouse can waive it.

The employment benefits case seems easy to me. First of all some high-profile employers already have a policy of allowing employees (and this may be limited to gay/lesbian employees, iI'm not sure) to designate a beneficiary for what we can call "spousal" or "partner" benefits. (Ironically some employers who have this policy are now telling their gay/lesbian employees who reside in states where gay marriage is legal [obviously this is pre-yesterday's ruling] that they must get married to their partner in order to provide benefits to the partner. There is a further irony of sorts that this was resisted somewhat by the gay/lesbian community, or some in it, because it required them to come out publicly and not just privately to their employer.). Now that only seemed fair to me because heterosexual employees weren't allowed to designate a non-spouse as a beneficiary under those plans. So anyway my answer to that is in the case where an employer offers or there is a legal mandate to provide benefits to (currently) a spouse this can be done on the basis of a dependency designation or something like that. Everything becomes a check-the-box deal.

What do you think, Jim?
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by JimHow »

Interesting discussion. It has been a long time since I've been actively involved in the debate. One of the complaints was, oh, you can marry your mother, or marry your sister, etc., to gain benefits or protections along the lines of what David has raised. I think the spousal privilege against incrimination is an issue that could be addressed pretty easily. In 30 years and thousands of cases of criminal defense law I don't recall the husband-wife privilege being a major issue in any cases. As for employment-related benefits, maybe it is time for society to move toward allowing such designations of which Hound speaks. I'm all in on Hound's ideas about keeping government out of marriage and personal relationships. The overriding factor, far more than any other consequences that can fairly easily be addressed, is love, and the equal right to participate in it. About ten years ago I did one of the first parental rights cases in Maine involving a lesbian couple that had a baby together, the non-birth parent had been very actively involved in the sperm selection process, put the cost of it on her credit card, participated in the prenatal care, helped raise the little girl, etc., and then a few years later, when they broke up, establishing parental rights, visitation, child support, etc., was treated like any other parental rights case. These issues in the end tend to be no more complicated than those we see in heterosexual relationships. It really ends up not being a big deal, despite the worst fears of people. (To me, among the biggest impediments to gay rights has been this bizarre hang up we have in this country towards sex.) Let people pursue personal happiness with dignity and as little government interference as possible, the sun will keep rising. If you haven't read the Obergefell decision yet I highly recommend it, it is quite inspiring:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 6_3204.pdf
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by stefan »

>>
Think of it, two people must obtain a license from the government before they can marry-even in a religious ceremony. How intrusive is that? About as intrusive as it gets.
>>

The government gives certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to married couples. If a couple does not care about these, the parties can have a wedding and be wed in their own eyes but not in the eyes of the government. I see nothing intrusive about the government requiring a marriage license in order for a couple to be accorded special status by the government.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

That's the other point. Why is the government giving rights, privileges -- and I'm not sure what responsibilities you're referring to, for example parental responsibilities devolve upon parentage -- to two people who cohabit in a state-sanctioned relationship?
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by stefan »

Responsibilities? Well, in at least some states you are liable for debts incurred by your spouse. Through Social Security the government gives survivor benefits and retirement benefits to married couples. Income tax is different for married people.

I see nothing wrong with the government doing these things even if I disagree with some laws. Couples who want to avoid this governmental "intrusion" can do so by not getting a marriage license.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AKR »

I thought the spousal exemption was so the you could get the govt to ignore the testimony/complaints of your spouse!

Otherwise the courts would be filled with everyone carping about their SO.

Yet the IRS makes quite a little mint off getting spouses to rat out their partners.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

To the extent we agree government benefits for dependents or tax breaks for cohabitants are desirable, it can be done by designation as I mentioned above.

Are spouses per se personally liable for debts of the debtor spouse by law any longer in some or all places? I would have to check that but yes the community may be liable for debts and certainly jointly owned property like a bank account could be subject to attachment.

Anyway the small point was that doing away with the institution certainly solved the problem of who was entitled to be married. It is open to attack on the grounds of throwing out the baby with the bathwater I agree but over the years many of the problems or issues that were related to distinctions drawn at the line of married or not married have been overcome and I think most of the remaining issues are equally soluable. Somehow I have it in my mind that the whole civil institution was created long ago initially to formalize the husband's property rights in his wife. Certainly for many centuries it was less a partnership and more a sole proprietorship. In modern times all of that has been stamped out in western culture and what remains is the "marriage contract." Again this is an idea that has a lot of gravitational force for me. I'm certainly not wedded to it though.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

I see the Texas AG has issued an opinion relieving clerks and justices of the peace and judges from their duty to issue marriage licenses to and perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples if they find it abhorrent to their religious convictions because this would infringe upon their First Amendment free exercise rights.
User avatar
RDD
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by RDD »

NC passed a law relieving magistrates. Gov'nor vetoed. Veto over ruled.
Lot of ruckus about nothing............

Let's concentrate on flags.

I'd have a lot of respect for folks that said pull down the flag a month ago.
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AKR »

Germany has some common sense rules about Nazi accoutrement.

Yet here, anyone can walk around wearing Nazi outfits and flags without any consequence.

Given that America fought a war against them, and defeated them, why do we accept that that their symbols are ok?

It is strange to me. Its against the rules to burn a US flag...but A-OK to go around with an enemy flag?

The internet is quite infested with these.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by JimHow »

I see Rand Paul has taken Hound's position that government should have no role in marriage.
If we could only cut Rand Paul in half I'd consider voting for him.
Unfortunately, there's the good Rand Paul and the bad Rand Paul….
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by stefan »

>>
Given that America fought a war against them, and defeated them, why do we accept that that their symbols are ok?

It is strange to me. Its against the rules to burn a US flag...but A-OK to go around with an enemy flag?
>>

I think the courts ruled long ago that burning the American flag is protected by the free speech provision.
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by Chateau Vin »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:I see the Texas AG has issued an opinion relieving clerks and justices of the peace and judges from their duty to issue marriage licenses to and perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples if they find it abhorrent to their religious convictions because this would infringe upon their First Amendment free exercise rights.
Talk about crying foul...It's reckless to go about encouraging people to defy the court judgement. As AG, shouldn't he/she be upholding the law whether you agree with it or not? Now he thinks he is above the law? Now that is lawlessness...
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AKR »

stefan wrote:>>
Given that America fought a war against them, and defeated them, why do we accept that that their symbols are ok?

It is strange to me. Its against the rules to burn a US flag...but A-OK to go around with an enemy flag?
>>

I think the courts ruled long ago that burning the American flag is protected by the free speech provision.
So that lets the Nazis march around with their anti American banner?
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by stefan »

Full text of Paxton's opinion: http://bit.ly/1IEcPmV
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

I admit that ignorance probably underlies some of my feelings about state-sanctioned civil marriage. And some of my (possible) misapprehension about the fundamental right to marry makes some of the dissent at least superficially reasonable to me.

I don't understand what it means, "right to marry." For example, if the Colorado legislature decided that the state would no longer sanction (i.e. issue certificates for) marriage of any type, between any persons, would that be an unconstitutional deprivation of a fundamental right? This is not to say the state could outlaw religious marriage ceremony or contractual wedding vows or the like, it would just not issue certificates. It would be like not issuing drivers' licenses without also prohibiting people from driving cars.

If people could compel the state to issue marriage certificates, what if Colorado simply said it was going to suspend the privileges and benefits formerly accruing under law to married persons/couples? So no joint state tax returns, no state spousal benefits, would that be unconstitutional? I mean at the federal level Congress could legislate away Social Security survivor benefits, right? So if the government could effectively take away all of the things we now accept as accruing under law to the right to marry, what would be left of the right to marry? This is what I don't get about the right. What I think it leaves is a right that means the government can't prohibit two people from associating, cohabiting and making promises to one another. That's the right and it inures to people regardless of their sexuality. The problem comes as always when the government chooses to legitimize some associations and not others.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by stefan »

>>
So that lets the Nazis march around with their anti American banner?
>>

'Fraid so, Arv. As long as there is no incitement to violence, they are protected.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by stefan »

>>
What I think it leaves is a right that means the government can't prohibit two people from associating, cohabiting and making promises to one another.
>>

Isn't that pretty much what the Supreme Court said long ago when they ruled that anti homosexual laws were unconstitutional?
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by Chateau Vin »

AKR wrote:Germany has some common sense rules about Nazi accoutrement.

Yet here, anyone can walk around wearing Nazi outfits and flags without any consequence.

Given that America fought a war against them, and defeated them, why do we accept that that their symbols are ok?

It is strange to me. Its against the rules to burn a US flag...but A-OK to go around with an enemy flag?

The internet is quite infested with these.

I respectfully disagree...Although I can see the technicality of flag burning as free speech, flag merely does not represent a government or a group of people. One can oppose own government or people, but IMO can be done other than flag burning. The flag also represents freedom, culture, the country's history, etc. Why burn it to express your displeasure while proud of its aspects of what it represents? But nevertheless, I think the Supreme court said flag burning is protected under freedom of speech...

On the other note, IMO, some countries in Europe have some of the silliest anti-semitic laws. One can go to prison for merely denying holocaust...

Why should some countries ban Swastika altogether? Swastika symbol has been there for millenia in the Indian subcontinent and the Hindus have been using it as a religious symbol of peace and prosperity for the past few thousand years. Yes, the bigoted Nazis used it for their propaganda, but would you ban the cross since it was also used/is being used by KKK to advance its propaganda?

Any law should be thoughtful and balanced. If the pendulum swings too far, it results in more complications. I know I might ruffle some feathers, but my post is only aimed at self-examination and exchange of ideas in civility...
User avatar
AKR
Posts: 5234
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:33 am
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AKR »

If you let the Nazis have their flag, pretty soon they'll start asking for the Sudetenland.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by DavidG »

Hound, I agree in principle that state-sanctioned marriage and all of the legal accoutrements could be replaced by contractual agreements between the parties and changes to the various laws about spousal benefits and rights, taxes, criminal prosecution, etc. Seems like a lot of effort to make a point that civil marriage is different from and irrelevant to the religious or interpersonal aspects. I'm looking at it from a practical rather than a philosophical perspective. I agree philosophically that there is no inherent need for state-sanctioned marriage, but once you start talking about changing all of the laws necessary to get there from here, you know there are going to be multiple political firestorms. People start digging in their heels over issues both real and imagined.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by DavidG »

AKR wrote:If you let the Nazis have their flag, pretty soon they'll start asking for the Sudetenland.
The slippery slope argument cuts both ways. Take away their flags now, and who knows what we'll be taking away next?

Allowing expression of beliefs we disagree with or find despicable (as long as they don't incite violence) while at the same time vigorously opposing them is part of what makes us a great and strong country.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Celebrating a historic couple days with 2004 La Lagune.

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

David, as practical matter I am not advocating abolishing state-sanctioned marriage. We have however just seen the end of a decades-long battle for equality, which, as I think I have demonstrated, was a battle for nothing except a battle itself.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 14 guests