Can any of us come up with examples of parties that are not allowed to form a certain type of contract with each other based upon some physical characteristic (as opposed to a legitimate lack of capacity to enter into one)?
Well, organ and blood donation, but that sort of rides the line.
Can any of us come up with examples of parties that are not allowed to form a certain type of contract with each other based upon some physical characteristic (as opposed to a legitimate lack of capacity to enter into one)?
Joining the military is dependent upon a large number of physical characteristics.
Joe, all he said is that he couldn't think of any other examples. He never said there weren't any, and he never said he considered any. It wasn't a statement of fact that anyone has to prove. It was simply a comment on his speculation, however lacking that analysis might have been. You might as well ask him to prove that he thinks he likes pie.
You're right. I was just getting pissed off. In addition to the pomposity of the statement, it was obvious where it was going. He wanted to draw some sort of conclusion that marriage, as some sort of "unique and special contract" deserved some sort of special status. It didn't help my being pissed off that earlier in the day he was talking about Maine being yet another time that a state said "no" to same-sex marriage in a popular election, the obvious point being that we should somehow just let it go because "the people have spoken".
Can any of us come up with examples of parties that are not allowed to form a certain type of contract with each other based upon some physical characteristic (as opposed to a legitimate lack of capacity to enter into one)?
Why do you want to exclude lack of capacity? That's a physical characteristic of age or disability.
Well, organ and blood donation, but that sort of rides the line.
I've never donated an organ. Do you actually sign a contract with the person you are donating to (or receiving from), or is it just a consent form for the hospital? I am pretty certain there is law that prohibits trade in organs, which leads me to believe you couldn't have a valid contract for organ donation. Maybe if the donatee detrimentally relied on your promise to donate your organ...and I'm gonna stop there. The point is, is that actually a type of contract? Even if it is, it's limited for a legitimate medical reason that is designed to protect the parties against death or serious harm.
Joining the military is dependent upon a large number of physical characteristics.
True; generally the limitations are justified by the job requirements, but not always. The military has a problem with gays as well.
Why do you want to exclude lack of capacity? That's a physical characteristic of age or disability.
It's a mental characteristic that is a result of a physical condition OR a mental characteristic that cannot be attributed to a specific physical condition. Lack of capacity raises a legitimate concern about the mental state of the parties, whereas a solely physical attribute that does not impact the ability of a party to reasonably enter a contract does not. Therefore I am looking for examples of contract limitations that limit physical attributes of the parties for the sake of the physical attribute and not for the sake of the affect of the physical attribute on the mental state.
Why do you want to exclude lack of capacity? That's a physical characteristic of age or disability.
It's a mental characteristic that is a result of a physical condition OR a mental characteristic that cannot be attributed to a specific physical condition. Lack of capacity raises a legitimate concern about the mental state of the parties, whereas a solely physical attribute that does not impact the ability of a party to reasonably enter a contract does not. Therefore I am looking for examples of contract limitations that limit physical attributes of the parties for the sake of the physical attribute and not for the sake of the affect of the physical attribute on the mental state.
That's why I said age. Age is a physical condition. The underlying principle of lack of capacity due to age mught rest on consideration of mental state, but the bright line rule is concerned purely with age, a physical characteristic.
You're right. I was just getting pissed off. In addition to the pomposity of the statement, it was obvious where it was going. He wanted to draw some sort of conclusion that marriage, as some sort of "unique and special contract" deserved some sort of special status. It didn't help my being pissed off that earlier in the day he was talking about Maine being yet another time that a state said "no" to same-sex marriage in a popular election, the obvious point being that we should somehow just let it go because "the people have spoken".
Pointing out that all ballot attempts at legalizing gay marriage have failed is a fact. I did not post that fact in some lame attempt at convincing people that they should simply give up because "the people have spoken". The "people spoke" when prohibition was passed and then they "spoke again" when it was repealed.
Joe, your "Steve Derangement Syndrome" is getting the best of you. You need to chill out and stop assuming things.
Joe, your "Steve Derangement Syndrome" is getting the best of you. You need to chill out and stop assuming things.
If anyone here has a syndrome Steve, it is you. No one else here has bent over backwards to support the birthers, or the tea-baggers, or tried to justify slavery, or any of a number of stupid things you have said or done.
It's easy to assume things about you given your history. If you don't want people to assume things about you, you should go back to school and learn about the things you try to talk about, or at least learn to write clearly so that people don't think that you are falling back into your old bullshit.
Joe, your "Steve Derangement Syndrome" is getting the best of you. You need to chill out and stop assuming things.
If anyone here has a syndrome Steve, it is you. No one else here has bent over backwards to support the birthers, or the tea-baggers, or tried to justify slavery, or any of a number of stupid things you have said or done.
The point is, is that actually a type of contract? Even if it is, it's limited for a legitimate medical reason that is designed to protect the parties against death or serious harm.
I think it's considered a contract between you and the state or hospital. Limits are there for a legitimate medical reason, however. Histocompatibility and all that.
He wanted to draw some sort of conclusion that marriage, as some sort of "unique and special contract" deserved some sort of special status.
Huh, that's interesting. I took it as pointing out an anomaly in the contract requirements that needs to be examined for reasonableness. I think he was actually pointing out why limiting marriage contracts is not consistent with our laws. Funny how people can read such different things from the same words.
As for age, the Minor status is a controversial topic. I don't purport to know all the intricacies, but from what I know:
There are conditions that make the contract valid, such as the subject of the contract being a necessity. Other than that, while the contract is generally VOIDABLE, it is not VOID from the outset. From what I know (there could be jurisdictional differences), technically, minors can contract. They simply have the opportunity to void the contract in most cases. They can affirm or abandon the contract when they reach the age of majority, which is another difference between age and other physical characteristics: age changes in a predictable manner, and every person is subject to the exact same limitations while in the age range of minority. You could argue that this is not discriminatory because it is applied to every person; every person at one time or another is a minor and therefore subject to those limitations, but they will have the opportunity at the age of majority to enter or affirm contracts. This is very different from being prohibited from entering into the contract at all, as in gay marriage.
Insurance contracts can be void because of the physical characteristics of a party, and not necessarily because of the party's misrepresentations of a physical characteristic.
Requirements contracts might be another area in which the physical characteristics of the parties might matter. I don't have a specific example in mind, because I'm winding down and running out of steam for the night. I'm just throwing it out there.
As for age, the Minor status is a controversial topic. I don't purport to know all the intricacies, but from what I know:
There are conditions that make the contract valid, such as the subject of the contract being a necessity. Other than that, while the contract is generally VOIDABLE, it is not VOID from the outset. From what I know (there could be jurisdictional differences), technically, minors can contract. They simply have the opportunity to void the contract in most cases. They can affirm or abandon the contract when they reach the age of majority, which is another difference between age and other physical characteristics: age changes in a predictable manner, and every person is subject to the exact same limitations while in the age range of minority. You could argue that this is not discriminatory because it is applied to every person; every person at one time or another is a minor and therefore subject to those limitations, but they will have the opportunity at the age of majority to enter or affirm contracts. This is very different from being prohibited from entering into the contract at all, as in gay marriage.
That analysis is very reasonable and correct that contract with minors are generally voidable rather than void. That voidability, however, has the practical effect of disallowing minors from contracting. No one wants to risk having the contract declared void, even if it can be affirmed upon majority, so you don't see many contracts with minors in the real world. That voidability has the practical effect of barring them from entering into contracts.
Of course, you're right that minors will relinquish their status as minors while a gay person cannot relinquish his/her status as a gay person.
He wanted to draw some sort of conclusion that marriage, as some sort of "unique and special contract" deserved some sort of special status.
Huh, that's interesting. I took it as pointing out an anomaly in the contract requirements that needs to be examined for reasonableness. I think he was actually pointing out why limiting marriage contracts is not consistent with our laws. Funny how people can read such different things from the same words.
No, his practice has pretty consistently been an exercise in attempting to twist things around into a justification of some half-assed, fundamental-type, conservative principle. Based on his history, I'm fairly certain that my assessment of his intent is correct.
Please excuse the double post, but I'm using my phone and it won't let me edit my last post.
I was thinking more about contracts than marriages in that last post. To the best of my recollection, marriages between minors are not just voidable but void. Other examples of marriages that can be held to be void are marriages between family members such as cousins or siblings, a marriage in which one or both parties are incapacitated, or marriages that result in bigamy or polygamy.
Now we just have to get it through the State Senate.
Should be easy. The Democrats control the senate currently, so it shouldn't be an issue. Oh, wait, except that the Democrats are often pussies. -_-
I'm hopeful, though. The majority of the state is urban and liberal. I'd verymuch like our fair state to join the modern world in the first wave of states, rather than being in the history books with the reactionaries and laggards. I'll wager much of the south and midwest won't legalize gay marriage until the federal government eventually forces them to.
Didn't the assembly pass that bill months ago, and hasn't the senate been shitting around the bush since then till now? The governor has urged them to bring it up several times now and they've decidedly ignored it for each session. First we had Malcom Smith terrified to even bring it to a vote until he was sure it would actually pass, then we had that retarded assbagging coup that just fucked everything over, and now we still have a razor thin majority and assholes like Ruben Diaz holding an insane amount of power in deciding whether or not the issue even comes to a vote. Just a couple of weeks ago it was all over the news, supposedly the senate thought maybe that they might perhaps supposedly bring this annoying issue to a vote this month. People were holding rallies, everything. The senate did what I knew they would do and dismissed voting on it immediately. Things will not get done for us in NY state. Not with this senate.
I mean, recently I've been hearing radio ads about how our rights are teh suck and the state doesn't have time for us and "HUURR MARRIDGE = ONE PENIS + ONE VAGINA". Maybe they're scared and that's a good sign, but I'm getting a little tired of getting my hopes up this year.
Comments
Joe, your "Steve Derangement Syndrome" is getting the best of you. You need to chill out and stop assuming things.
It's easy to assume things about you given your history. If you don't want people to assume things about you, you should go back to school and learn about the things you try to talk about, or at least learn to write clearly so that people don't think that you are falling back into your old bullshit.
As for age, the Minor status is a controversial topic. I don't purport to know all the intricacies, but from what I know:
There are conditions that make the contract valid, such as the subject of the contract being a necessity. Other than that, while the contract is generally VOIDABLE, it is not VOID from the outset. From what I know (there could be jurisdictional differences), technically, minors can contract. They simply have the opportunity to void the contract in most cases. They can affirm or abandon the contract when they reach the age of majority, which is another difference between age and other physical characteristics: age changes in a predictable manner, and every person is subject to the exact same limitations while in the age range of minority. You could argue that this is not discriminatory because it is applied to every person; every person at one time or another is a minor and therefore subject to those limitations, but they will have the opportunity at the age of majority to enter or affirm contracts. This is very different from being prohibited from entering into the contract at all, as in gay marriage.
Requirements contracts might be another area in which the physical characteristics of the parties might matter. I don't have a specific example in mind, because I'm winding down and running out of steam for the night. I'm just throwing it out there. That analysis is very reasonable and correct that contract with minors are generally voidable rather than void. That voidability, however, has the practical effect of disallowing minors from contracting. No one wants to risk having the contract declared void, even if it can be affirmed upon majority, so you don't see many contracts with minors in the real world. That voidability has the practical effect of barring them from entering into contracts.
Of course, you're right that minors will relinquish their status as minors while a gay person cannot relinquish his/her status as a gay person. No, his practice has pretty consistently been an exercise in attempting to twist things around into a justification of some half-assed, fundamental-type, conservative principle. Based on his history, I'm fairly certain that my assessment of his intent is correct.
I was thinking more about contracts than marriages in that last post. To the best of my recollection, marriages between minors are not just voidable but void. Other examples of marriages that can be held to be void are marriages between family members such as cousins or siblings, a marriage in which one or both parties are incapacitated, or marriages that result in bigamy or polygamy.
This is AMAZING!
Now we just have to get it through the State Senate.
I'm hopeful, though. The majority of the state is urban and liberal. I'd verymuch like our fair state to join the modern world in the first wave of states, rather than being in the history books with the reactionaries and laggards. I'll wager much of the south and midwest won't legalize gay marriage until the federal government eventually forces them to.
I mean, recently I've been hearing radio ads about how our rights are teh suck and the state doesn't have time for us and "HUURR MARRIDGE = ONE PENIS + ONE VAGINA". Maybe they're scared and that's a good sign, but I'm getting a little tired of getting my hopes up this year.
Seriously, though, don't fuck this up, NY!
I was watching the vote, and anyone who didn't vote yes on that bill has to be freaking heartless, I was in tears...
What was the result?
Oh god, the anticipation.