Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Steve Sloan II wrote: It's not *exactly* the same scenario, but I doubt a step-parent has much more pull than an adoptive parent. Less - an adoption creates a legal relationship between the parent and the child, and diminishes (remember when it used to sever?) the legal relationship between the child and the natural parent. A step-parent has no legal relationship with the child in the absence of the spouse that brought them together, and no weakening of the legal rights of the natural parent... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > One factor which might (or "might should" -- who knows what > the courts would do) have some bearing is what the child's > age was when the divorce occurred. If the child was very > young at the time of the divorce, the only "Dad" s/he may > have ever known is the stepfather. OTOH, if the child was > 5 years and 11 months old when the divorce became final and > the mom remarried . . . I've heard of far too many child custody cases where the judge took a child away from her adoptive parents, the only parents she remembered, and gave her to a biological parent who just showed up one day. It's not *exactly* the same scenario, but I doubt a step-parent has much more pull than an adoptive parent. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
At 07:51 PM 7/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: "Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 07:42 PM 7/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > >Is there some age at which children of divorced parents can have a say > >in where they live? > > > >Various states in the US have that, and the age varies from state to > >state. It's 14 *somewhere*. Don't know anything beyond that. > > In some states, that is the age when one can get married. (Though some > states have recently been changing the laws which allow that.) Don't you need parental permission to marry at that young an age? In most states. In some parts of Utah, though, the problem is that the parents are members of the same group as the old man who wants to take the 14-year-old as #4 or #5 . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 07:42 PM 7/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > >Is there some age at which children of divorced parents can have a say > >in where they live? > > > >Various states in the US have that, and the age varies from state to > >state. It's 14 *somewhere*. Don't know anything beyond that. > > In some states, that is the age when one can get married. (Though some > states have recently been changing the laws which allow that.) Don't you need parental permission to marry at that young an age? I think the law in New Hampshire was that a girl could be married at 13 with her parents' permission, but just going out and getting married on her own she had to be older. Not sure how much older. (And this was playground rumor when I was 12 or so, so take it with some NaCl if you are so inclined.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
At 07:42 PM 7/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Russell Chapman wrote: > > Julia Thompson wrote: > > >Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: > > > >Woman & man marry > >Woman & man have baby > >Woman & man get divorced > >Woman gets custody > >Woman marries another man > >Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old > > > >Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? > > > This is something that keeps me awake at night... My ex-wife is a > fruit-loop who has no concept of responsibility at any level, and can't > cope with the children for more than an overnight visit every few > months. My second wife, despite having been thrown in the deep end with > no preparation and all the challenges that step-parents face, is a > wonderful mother who would do (and does) anything and everything for the > children. > My custody of the children is just a casual agreement between us, there > is no court order. > If something happenned to me, the default position of the authorities > would be to return the children to their natural mother, and her family > would want that to happen (my family would not!). I have a clause in my > will that basically begs the authorities to leave the children with > their step mother, which they may take note of, but that is as much as I > can do. Obviously, as the children get older the risk is less and less, > but when they were 6 it was a real concern about which I had no control. > (they're 10 & 13 now). Is there some age at which children of divorced parents can have a say in where they live? Various states in the US have that, and the age varies from state to state. It's 14 *somewhere*. Don't know anything beyond that. In some states, that is the age when one can get married. (Though some states have recently been changing the laws which allow that.) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
At 04:31 PM 7/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > ...my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent: > > > > In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done > > in a similar fashion in > > the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a > > "child of tender years" (age > > 9 and under in Texas) is automatically made the > > custody of the mother. > > The argument being that a young child needs a mother > > on a daily basis more than he/she needs a father. > > > > This brings questions to mind immediately: > > > > * If homosexual men are allowed to adopt children > > under 10 years of age, > > will this not constitute prejudice against divorced > > heterosexual men? Just thought of a scenario not handled by this: Woman & man marry Woman & man have baby Woman & man get divorced Woman gets custody Woman marries another man Woman is killed in an accident when child is 6 years old Who gets primary custody at *this* point? The bio-dad or the step-dad? One factor which might (or "might should" -- who knows what the courts would do) have some bearing is what the child's age was when the divorce occurred. If the child was very young at the time of the divorce, the only "Dad" s/he may have ever known is the stepfather. OTOH, if the child was 5 years and 11 months old when the divorce became final and the mom remarried . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Brown v. Board was a completely different example, involving > an amendment > that had been passed relatively recently in history, and in the Supreme > Court overturning its previous interpretation. In the case of > gay marriage, > the USSC has never even ruled on the subject whatsoever. So...what you are saying is that it was never subjected to a test of it's constitutionally? Sounds like the USSC didn't wasn't chaning anything at all then... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Julia Thompson wrote: > BTW, my sister once told me that I'm not terribly good at > being subtle. > I've been working on it since. Do I succeed at times? Yes. Whenever you have unobservant audience. ;) Ritu GSV Ms. Subtlety ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 04:41:27PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > At 05:13 PM 7/28/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: > > > >I think she was joking. > > > > I know I was. > > That makes 3 of us (or 2.5, depending on Julia's "vagueness")! Considering the contents of my belly, go for any number from 0.5 to 3 for me. :) Julia past "elephant", approaching feeling like "beached whale" at times ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 04:41:27PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At 05:13 PM 7/28/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: > >I think she was joking. > > I know I was. That makes 3 of us (or 2.5, depending on Julia's "vagueness")! -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
At 05:13 PM 7/28/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 03:22:20PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At 02:56 PM 7/28/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > >And I'm a horrible person and egg him on when he goes into that sort > >of mode. >:) > > How does that make you a horrible person? Sounds like you and I are > cut from the same cloth (more "warp" than weft, one presumes) . . . I think she was joking. I know I was. -- Ronn! :~) "Humor...it is a difficult concept." --Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley) to Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) in _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn_ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 03:22:20PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > At 02:56 PM 7/28/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > > >And I'm a horrible person and egg him on when he goes into that sort > > >of mode. >:) > > > > How does that make you a horrible person? Sounds like you and I are > > cut from the same cloth (more "warp" than weft, one presumes) . . . > > I think she was joking. "Joking" is close. "Being humorous" may be vaguer, but in this case, more accurate. BTW, my sister once told me that I'm not terribly good at being subtle. I've been working on it since. Do I succeed at times? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 02:56 PM 7/28/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > >And I'm a horrible person and egg him on when he goes into that sort of > >mode. >:) > > How does that make you a horrible person? Sounds like you and I are cut > from the same cloth (more "warp" than weft, one presumes) . . . Well, I was exaggerating. I mean, look at that emoticon But I do have a tendency to egg people on at just the wrong time, for the amusement of myself and them, and to the annoyance of many of those around us. (And the funny thing is, if I'm with a large enough group from my husband's family, I can get away with it so much longer than he'd *ever* be able to.) Just a streak of something, not quite sure what. (I'm sure I've mentioned that I played "Devil's Advocate" in Sunday school a lot when I was in high school, as well.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 03:22:20PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At 02:56 PM 7/28/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > >And I'm a horrible person and egg him on when he goes into that sort > >of mode. >:) > > How does that make you a horrible person? Sounds like you and I are > cut from the same cloth (more "warp" than weft, one presumes) . . . I think she was joking. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
At 02:56 PM 7/28/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: > I know, I know, but we've got a lot of smart people here and I'm > guessing that most of them are aware of Erik's libertarian views, not to > mention his tendency to use sarcasm (especially when dealing with > intolerance), so the statement: > > "Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't > healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally > marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent > parents." > > Has to stand out as either so far out of character as to be absurd or > extremely sarcastic. And I'm a horrible person and egg him on when he goes into that sort of mode. >:) How does that make you a horrible person? Sounds like you and I are cut from the same cloth (more "warp" than weft, one presumes) . . . But any back-and-forth we get going in *that* situation isn't hurting either of *us*, and if someone doesn't get it, I'll try to let them know what's going on (at least at my end) one way or another. And if you read enough threads in which Erik and I participate, you may figure out all that yourself. FWIW, if anyone is ever uncertain whether something I have written is meant seriously or sarcastically, please feel free to ask me, either on- or off-list, and I will clarify it before things get out of hand and feelings get hurt. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
