** Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides has an industry he thinks should get new tax breaks. The entertainment industry. Usually, it is a big source of funding for Democratic candidates for high office. It hasn’t been so helpful to the opponents of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
** Could juvenile crime rates in California actually be going down?
** NWN has been very slow to load since late morning and I have had trouble posting. It turns out that the server hosting this blog and others including the LA Weekly and OC Weekly has been under a concerted attack.
** In a move denounced by a conservative leader as turning the California Republican Party into a “gay marriage party,” Arnold Schwarzenegger headlines a big LA fundraiser tonight for the Log Cabin Republicans.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
This is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. First, this is a REPUBLICAN group, and secondly, AS isn’t showing up to campaign for gay marriage. This might be the very first time that a statewide republican officeholder ever showed up to even acknowledge the existence of the Log Cabin club, something this yahoo should be ashamed of, not criticizing.
If the republican conservatives wanted to make someone uncomfortable, they might start by asking the gay community why they won’t support gays who are republican. There are at least 3, maybe 5 openly gay republican candidates for state legislative spots this year, but I am sure that, because these folks are GOP candidates, the vast numbers of gay voters in their districts will leave them out to dry because they are republicans.
Arnold said on the Today Show right after he entered the recall race:
“All marriages should be gay marriages.” Or something to that effect. As a former body builder and Hollywood actor, he has a full appreciation for homosexuality.
Hey, I report, you decide.
This is a very silly attitude on the part of this “conservative” leader. What is it he is conserving, his own squeamishness?
Hap,
You wrote “There are at least 3, maybe 5 openly gay republican candidates for state legislative spots this year”
If they are open, why the uncertainty of the number?
Just curious.
I do not understand what happened to the “healthy libertarian” wing of the Republican Party…Gay Marriage and Abortion should not be viewed as liberal …they are libertarian in nature. In any event, Judge Posner (below) got this whole “marriage thing” right for all of us!:
“Under a contractual approach, gay marriage as an issue would disappear, because the state would not be being asked to “recognize” gay marriage and by doing so offend people who are distressed by homosexuality. No one thinks that homosexuals should be forbidden to make contracts, and marriage would be just a contract so far as any legal consequences were concerned. It would be left to individual religious sects to decide whether to permit church marriages of homosexuals.”
“The more fundamental economic question is why marriage is a legal status. One can imagine an approach whereby marriage would be a purely religious or ceremonial status having no legal consequences at all, so that couples, married or not, who wanted their relationship legally defined would make contracts on whatever terms they preferred. There could be five-year marriages, “open” marriages, marriages that could be dissolved at will (like employment at will), marriages that couldn’t be dissolved at all, and so forth, and alimony and property settlement would be freely negotiable as well. The analogy would be to partnership law, which allows the partners to define the terms of their relationship, including the terms of dissolution. As with all contracts, the law would impose limits to protect third-party interests, notably those of children.
If outrage costs are set to one side, a purely contractual approach to (or replacement for) marriage makes sense from an economic standpoint because it would permit people to define their legal relationships in accordance with their particular preferences and needs. For those who did not want to bother to negotiate a “marriage” contract, the law could provide a default, one-size-fits-all solution …the conventional marital status embodied in state marriage statutes. That would reduce transaction costs for those people content with the standard “form contract.” The law would, however, have to decide what contractual relationships qualified for social security and other public benefits to which spouses are entitled under current law.
The contract approach to marriage may seem radical, but that is because of a lack of historical perspective. Marriage has changed enormously over the course of history.
The more fundamental economic question is why marriage is a legal status. One can imagine an approach whereby marriage would be a purely religious or ceremonial status having no legal consequences at all, so that couples, married or not, who wanted their relationship legally defined would make contracts on whatever terms they preferred. There could be five-year marriages, “open” marriages, marriages that could be dissolved at will (like employment at will), marriages that couldn’t be dissolved at all, and so forth, and alimony and property settlement would be freely negotiable as well. The analogy would be to partnership law, which allows the partners to define the terms of their relationship, including the terms of dissolution. As with all contracts, the law would impose limits to protect third-party interests, notably those of children.
If outrage costs are set to one side, a purely contractual approach to (or replacement for) marriage makes sense from an economic standpoint because it would permit people to define their legal relationships in accordance with their particular preferences and needs. For those who did not want to bother to negotiate a “marriage” contract, the law could provide a default, one-size-fits-all solution—the conventional marital status embodied in state marriage statutes. That would reduce transaction costs for those people content with the standard “form contract.” The law would, however, have to decide what contractual relationships qualified for social security and other public benefits to which spouses are entitled under current law.
The contract approach to marriage may seem radical, but that is because of a lack of historical perspective. Marriage has changed enormously over the course of history.”
Judge Richard Posner July 17, 2005 (Posner-Becker Blog)
I’m not sure I have enough attention span left to read that.
You do not need to I doubled copied it ! ..I do not do well typing and copying in this little box! But this is great stuff. I LOVE POSNER! …I HAVE A CRUSH ON HIS “MIND”!!!!!
Larry, you asked why I was uncertain about the number of openly gay republicans running, and the truth is, I am not sure. I don’t really follow these things, but I did read somewhere that there are a few running, at least 3, but it could be as many as 5, all of which are republican, while the democrats are losing at least one that I know of who are incumbents.
And the father of the conservative movemment, Barry Goldwater, came out strongly for gay rights, later in his life.
Bill, where was Reagan on the issue of gay rights, do you know?
Hap,
Thanks for the clarification. As I said, I didn’t have a point, I was just curious.
Barbara,
I believe the “two-stage” marriage is common in European countries. The couple registers the marriage with what amounts to the county clerk. This is the legal marriage. In addition, they may choose to have a social celebration, often a church-based marriage. I doubt this would ever be the case here–churches would fight to retain their part in the legal process.
I welcome being corrected, if I have this wrong.
Barbara – please summarize that humongous comment in 3 sentences.
In tonight’s Angelides ad showing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger riding backwards on his motorcycle, Angelides mentions “cuts in education” again.
I have never in my life seen an ad on TV advocating gay marriage. Maybe the gay community should spend just a little bit of effort lobbying voters on that topic before doing all this wacko Legislature endrun stuff. The same goes for licenses for illegals – convince me through TV ads that the people who want this aren’t totally crazy and representing citizens of other countries.
Anyway, AS is the closest thing we have to a conservative so I’ll be voting for him. Unless they are using Diebold machines, then I won’t be voting for anyone.
Some of First Lady Nancy Reagan’s best friends were gay.
Hmm. I spoke too soon. With Star Jones being replaced with Rosie O’Donnell on The View, more TV will be devoted to these issues. Star Jones kicks ass and she will be missed. Good-bye Star!
Larry -
That’s, for the most part, what happens in the US. Except here, we generally combine it into one procedure. But to have a valid marriage, you have to have a marriage license (issued by the state/county/whatever jurisdiction). Typically these are signed right after a ceremony of some sort, be it religious or secular. Without the license though, the state won’t recognize the marriage (most states nowadays don’t recognize common law marriages – Texas and Idaho being the closest states to California that do).
To me, there’s no reason why the state shouldn’t recognize gay marriages from a legal standpoint. If, however, churches don’t want to perform them, then that’s fine. But it seems improperly discriminatory to me when the government won’t recognize it. (I also like Posner’s argument, though I wouldn’t take it to the law and economics extreme that he does.)
You missed entirely what Judge Posner is saying…he is saying coupling for the purpose of marriage should be structured under “partnership law” i.e., get the state out of it entirely…
“One can imagine an approach whereby marriage would be a purely religious or ceremonial status having no legal consequences at all, so that couples, married or not, who wanted their relationship LEGALLY DEFINED would make CONTRACTS on whatever terms they preferred”
Larry–You may not have heard of the candidates because the media does not give them that much attention.
William Chan in AD 16, Brenda Carol Green in AD 42, Mark Patrosso in AD 23, Ralph Denney in AD 76 and Steven Sion in AD 42 join Peter Hankwitz in CD 27 as Log Cabin Members on November’s ballot.
Yeah, but these are all cannon-fodder offices for safe Dem districts. No Log Cabin member would be able to survive a Republican primary in a Republican district. Even the lamest candidate would parade out their wife and kids as a way of subtly reminding voters of their opponent’s persuasion.
Barbara, I didn’t miss anything about Posner’s analysis. He’s the father of the law and economics judicial philosophy (or at the very least, the one judge who popularized it).
Basing marriage on a “partnership” theory (which in itself is a form of contract theory – because partnerships are governed by partnership agreements which are contracts) is the epitome of marriage as understood through “law and economics” theory.
Posner was the one who, again, popularized economic breaches of contracts. Sometimes, he says, it’s in the best interests of the parties to a contract to let one party (or both!) breach a contract despite its validity, because it would be in their greater economic interests to do so. That’s exactly what he argues for in the piece that you cited.
Moreover, contracts aren’t immune from government interference/regulation. By the terms of the Constitution, the Federal government can interfere anyway they want with contracts. State governments can, in some instances, dictate terms of private contracts (though per the Constitution, they can’t alter existing valid contracts). Parties to contracts are dependent on the government to enforce contracts – that’s exactly what they do with divorces! Divorces are simply the end of marital contracts, and courts settle disputes arising out of that failed contractual relationship. But I agree with Posner that we could benefit from a more contractual view of marriages, while I wouldn’t go to his extreme of partnership law governing.
nVhll008OL 8WOcetjNpDOet BErAVsTa3Tck
Web Hosting Connecticut…
NSI followed suit, forcing the issue of separation of Registry and Registrar. In contrast, current broadband Internet connections are…