Honorary president of the BSA comes out in favor of gay marriage

[Oak Tree 15]

By allowing any two people to create privileged communication by signing a contract? I foresee a lot of crminals using that.

 

Sigh, Merlyn, I was actually trying to agree with you. There are a number of ways the government could create this right. Presumably you'd only allow you to have an exception with one other person who would effectively be your spouse.

 

I actually find this privilege a bit odd. I'm not clear on what the state's interest is in allowing someone to prevent their spouse from testifying against them.

[packsaddle 753]

You know, I've often wondered about that as well. What IS the basis for this 'spousal privilege' when it comes to such things?

I suspect that in this case 'spousal privilege' isn't a 'gag rule' and if the spouse WANTS to provide testimony, that is still open. I could be wrong about this. Maybe one of the legal eagles could clarify....

[moosetracker 132]

I can't do the legal Eagle info.. But personally I always thought it was an extention of "self" incrimination rule.. Your spouse and you are considered "joined" or "as one", or "your other half".. So by forcing a spouse to testify against you, it is similar to self-incrimination..

 

But, I do believe you are right. They can't force them to testify against their spouse, but if they are willing, they have ther right to do so, in most cases.. I think there is something about something they are told by their spouse in confidence that would cause something similar to a client-atterney priviledge.

 

Don't know how it works though, because I also think if they are silent, they can then be arrested as accomplices.. so the whole thing is very murky.. Because I can see if the spouse knows something (told in confidence) and stays quiet, then they are now an accessory.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[packsaddle 753]

To me it is a really interesting twist on the concept of deception that people who lie together can lie together, lol. Seriously, even if all what you describe is accurate, I still would like to know the basis, the origin, of this legal 'doctrine'. Is it grounded in religion? Or somewhere else that I don't know about?

[Oak Tree 15]

IANAL, but it appears there are two separate privileges in spousal communication. One deals with whether you can testify against your spouse if you want to, and the other is whether you can stop your spouse from testifying against you.

 

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege, some states and the federal government let you testify against your spouse if you want to, but the majority of states allow you to stop your spouse from testifying against you.

 

If I've got that wrong, I'm sure Beavah can clarify things.

 

Here's what lexisnexis has to say: "There are two spousal privileges. The spousal testimonial privilege provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal prosecution. A second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil and criminal cases. Some jurisdictions have both privileges, while others have one or the other. "

 

And "The modern justification for this privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship."

 

This blog entry states that 19 states have abandoned spousal privilege. http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/09/spousal_privilege_has_outlived.html

 

This one says that more than 40 states have eliminated the privilege.

 

The law seems to have originated with the idea that a wife was property and this was therefore a form of protection against self-incrimination. It seems to me like these are outdated along with the idea that a wife can't claim rape, or that a woman can't own her own property. I'm all for treating everyone equally here.

[packsaddle 753]

Just went to a wedding. Catholic (he) married Jew (her). The Rabbi performed the traditional Jewish ceremony. As far as I could tell, there was no hint of a Catholic presence at the wedding, not sure what that was all about. Nice ceremony by the way, and the Rabbi had a great sense of humor...although I'm not sure that any of it was meant as a joke.

 

ANYWAY, the Rabbi informed the new husband, once the vows were over, that here's what has changed: Everything that the woman owned, she still owns. And everything that the man owns, is now hers. Lots of nervous laughter in the audience. I think this was the first time the groom (one of my scouts from long ago) comprehended the magnitude of what he had just done...judging from the stunned look. Yep, I really enjoy moments like those.

 

OakTree, that 'wife as property' thing...is that related to the Baptist mandate for the wife to "submit"? I'd be interested in learning who, if anyone, protests loss of 'spousal privilege'.

[moosetracker 132]

SQUIRRELL!!!

 

Not to pull a redirect, but this news article, so states so many things we hit upon in this thread..

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47409207/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

 

I think the reporter tried hard to be objective, trying to show both sides of the story.. But, may lean to my side, since I do like the article.. A conservative may pull out why it is not objective.

 

But, the churches who are for same-sex marriages, or homosexual leaders are not considered "fringe" groups as Beavah would like to state they are.. In fact they state Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as mainline.. I would also not consider the Episcopalian as fringe either (At least not in America, really don't care about other countries).. Now I knew the protestants I usually end up hooking up with, tend to be fringe Churches, normally young and liberal. But, I know others are not all fringe groups.

 

The talks about the debates within the faiths, and that some are just ignoring thier conservative churches ruling and setting up a sort of underground system of blessing the unions..

 

Other things we have discussed here are hit upon in the article.

 

If you don't read the full article.. Don't miss the last line.. Maybe because it rests on this last line alone, it may be cause for the conservative, to think it is biased.. Because it is a great parting shot for my side of the fence!

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Engineer61 19]

"So, Engineer61, what you are saying is that announcing that he is in favor of gay marriage could help the President win re-election? "

 

Well, not exactly, I think the election is for Romney to lose.

 

My thought is that while the gay marriage issue won't help Obama win the election, it can help Romney lose the election. It's like the abortion issue...an extreme polarizer.

 

I think that Obama voters fall into camps ...

 

1) Those that will vote for the Democrat, no matter what.

 

2) Those that will vote for Obama because they agree with him.

 

3) Those that will vote for Obama because Romney is Mormon.

 

4) Those that are looking for a reason not to vote Romney.

 

I think the gay marriage issue targets camp 4. Mostly moderate Independents and Republicans.

 

[Oak Tree 15]

packsaddle,

 

The whole "wife as property" thing comes from English common law. It's referred to as "coverture" (or "couverture") - you can get some of the sense from this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

 

Time magazine traces the origin back much furtherThe legal precedents for discrimination against women date back to the beginnings of Western law itself.* In the classic era of Athens, women fitted approximately the same category as slaves. Early Roman law candidly referred to the "perpetual tutelage of women" and considered them to be under the manus (hand) of their fathersThe traditional wedding vow that includes the word obey or submit comes from a different source, I think. This tends to come from New Testament quotes like Ephesians 5:22-2422 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.As for who argues in favor of coverture these days, I feel like it has to be a pretty small group. There probably isn't any large lobbying group focused on repealing this aspect of coverture, though. Just my guess.

[scoutingagain 20]

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

 

Try using that line at home and see how far it goes next time SWMBO wants to move the couch again.

 

SA

 

[bacchus 10]

It's funny that the "Honorary President of the BSA" is running against the guy who can become the first Eagle Scout elected as "Honorary President of the BSA".

 

I know, Ford was an Eagle too, just not chosen by the Electoral College.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Engineer61, I think that a meeting of your group #3 could probably be held in a phone booth -- and you can't even find a phone booth anymore.

 

Anyone who is not voting for Romney specifically because he is LDS is not likely to be voting for Obama either. They are much more likely either stay home on election to to vote for some third-party fringe candidate.

 

I suspect, however, that most of those who are prejudiced against LDS'ers will probably put that issue aside for the moment and vote for Romney anyway.

[CA_Scouter 11]

I thought Santorum suspended his campaign??

[bacchus 10]

Santorum suspended his campaign April 10, 2012. Why?

[Mr. Boyce 13]

I'll tell you, I'm so tired of hearing all this "gay, gay, gay" stuff. Why isn't the OP considered a troll with this stuff?