Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents

You wrote: "I posted Harlan's definition of 'reasonable' due process some time ago. You ignored it."
Harlan's obiter dictum about due process is vague and does not tell us how to draw regulatory lines.

>> Ah yes, the 'vague' dodge again. Anything you can't counter is too vague. <<

You wrote: "Whatever. -- In effect your long winded ramblings are spamming the thread. -- Feel free to continue, but be aware that bafflegab gets old real fast on FR."
At this point I'm posting for the gallery. You are clearly impervious to reason, and have adopted the solipsist's approach to law and the Constitution:

Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Address:http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm Changed:12:43 AM on Sunday, April 16, 2006

'The Constitution clearly means what I think it means', and in a world of one, that works great. In a world of 2, or 300 million, it doesn't work at all.
The funny thing is, those reading our little mental tennis match are mostly WITH YOU on the desired outcome. They don't like gun restriction laws, etc. Unfortunately, you're not giving them any arguments. You've just dug in your heels and said "The Constitution is CLEAR", or that Harlan has given a clear standard for regulation - which then invites me to post and parse the actual "clear" text, and point out that it isn't.
The folks who want to agree with you wish it WERE clearer, but it isn't, which is why you have the problem of gun control in the first place. If the Constitution were as clear as you say it is, we wouldn't be where we are.
Your audience is looking for you to give them ARGUMENTS, REFERENCES.

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms? (gun control) [Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3898e08f2c05.htm

You've pointed at a couple of obscure references in vague language: the 2nd Amendment and dictum by Harlan, and you've just kept repeating the mantra "It's clear! It's Clear! IT'S CLEAR!!"
This is amusing to me, because every time you repeat it and I just repost the text of the 2nd Amendment without ellipses:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",

it just reiterates the point that it ISN'T clear. The words "right" and "well-regulated" appear in the same sentence.

>> Goofy observation, reading the two in context. <<

When you keep saying it's clear, but then won't give a clear standard of regulation (Harlan's dictum is no clearer than the Amendment), it's discouraging to those folks who really want you to win this argument with me. They want good slam-dunk CLARITY to show why it is that California can't ban assault rifles. They want an answer as clear as you say it is to be able to respond to my analysis that California CAN ban assault rifles, and that it's a matter of the state's legislative and democratic processes.
But all you're giving them is solipsism. You don't LIKE it, clearly, but all you do is point to an unclear text and keep hammering over and over and over again "It's CLEAR!"
They want to see you win this argument.
But they're discouraged by your solipsism.
I'm sure we can have another 8 or 10 or 50 repititions of the same thing here, so let's have at it. I've got the rest of the day and the week, months, years and a lifetime.

>> Feel free to rant on <<

Back and forth we'll go, the "Bafflegabber" vs. the Solipsist, in a perpetual tennis match.
Trouble is, with each go 'round, any gun control freaks are getting better and better arguments, from me, to bolster their position, but the pro-gun-rights crowd are just getting a repetition of "It's clear" from you. It's doesn't help you cause to do that. The Second Amendment says there's a right, and that there's regulation of the right "well-regulated" is the second word of the sentence.

You've said that reasonable regulation is fine...but that reasonable regulation is as Harlan "defined" it

>> Well put. Most arms regulations are arbitrary impositions on our liberties. <<

in another vague sentence. And then you say that it could be reasonable to private citizens to possess nuclear weapons, that regulating that to zero would be unreasonable regulation.
Regulating private possession of nuclear arms to zero is the ONLY "reasonable" rule. But you won't even go to zero on THAT, which tells everybody reading that your standard of "reasonable regulation" is not reasonable. Would Justice Harlan have said that prohibition of private possession of nuclear arms is "reasonable regulation"? Of course he would have. Anybody who isn't off his rocker can see that.
It doesn't help your case that you cannot say that regulation of a class of arms: nuclear weapons, to ZERO is the only reasonable regulation. THAT much is obvious to everybody else reading what you post. But you won't say it.
Which defeats the rest of what you say, because everyone can tell that you're unreasonable. Private nuclear weapons, ANY private nuclear weapons, is flippin' lunacy.
And you CAN'T say that, because you think that some limited possession of nuclear weapons by private citizens is constitutionally protected. Amazing.

>> Straw man.. - I've said that some limited possession of nuclear ~materials~ by private citizens is constitutionally protected. -- And that misuse is criminal. <<

Of course, therefore, I am going to camp in that courtyard, because that's where I beat you every time. Not in YOUR mind, but in the mind of anyone else reading. You think the 2nd Amendment protects some limited private right of nuclear arms possession. You think that regulating private possession of nukes to absolute zero is unconstitutional and you think this is CLEAR enough that all you have to do is say "The Constitution and Judge Harlan", and that gets you there.
Every time I can get you to reiterate that, you drive another nail in your credibility. Believe me, the gun rights folks wish you would stop doing that, because it's embarrassing to all of them. The NRA doesn't think THAT. But you think it's CLEAR.
Amazing.

>> What is truly amazing here is to see you ranting on & on, -- totally unaware of how you're embarrassing yourself. -- Thanks <<

401 posted on 05/26/2006 6:05:51 AM PDT by tpaine

You can rest whatever you want. The marriage part is irrelevant.

402 posted on 05/26/2006 6:50:24 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)

"That ruffled my feathers too. I've heard of occupancy permits for businesses (bad enough) but now permits for a house for personal use?"

It's more common than you might think. When we added on to our house last year, the last part of the building permit that we had signed off on at the final inspection was the CO (Certificate of Occupancy).

My father-in-law is a building inspector for three small towns in Colorado and he is required by law to withhold a Certificate of Occupancy for new builds, renovations, etc., (anything requiring a building permit) if the property is not up to minimums for code (which makes more sense than this instance, since building code violations can sometimes be dangerous or cause a nuisance to the community).

403 posted on 05/26/2006 7:37:55 AM PDT by Pablo64 ("Everything I say is fully substantiated by my own opinion.")

Sure there's a Certificate of Occupancy.

But that CO should normally be granted or withheld based on the building being up to code or not, and not based on whether or not the occupants have a marriage license.

404 posted on 05/26/2006 9:00:07 AM PDT by Vicomte13 (Aure entuluva!)

THE GREAT DIVIDE [puritan v agrarian republicans]

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1638794/posts

405 posted on 05/26/2006 9:34:27 AM PDT by tpaine

>>>>"How about if the male adopts the female"

>>Then they're both guilty of incest.

Yes, but they could move in, right?

406 posted on 05/26/2006 11:32:22 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

There is nothing unusual here. This ordinance is designed to prevent home owners from renting rooms, turning their homes into cheap tenement houses.

Since the founding of our Republic, local issues are decided by local folks.

If these unmarried people don't like the ordinance, then don't move into the small town. The federal system guarantees that there will be plenty of towns available for unmarried people, since federalism protects true diversity among Americans.

407 posted on 05/26/2006 12:29:11 PM PDT by george wythe

To: yellowdoghunter

I find nothing sarcastic about giving children a loving, committed, stable home. Children need married parents, hopefully the two parents that made them.

Thank you for posting common sense on this thread.

408 posted on 05/26/2006 12:30:31 PM PDT by george wythe

"A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

Unless that ordinance is proven to be unconstitutional, they don't have a case.

409 posted on 05/26/2006 12:32:50 PM PDT by RobRoy

To: reillygirl246

There is enough instability in this world today, and the few moral values we can still teach our children without being corrupted by the outside world, we should. I certainly want my daughter to get married before having children with someone.

Excellent point.

410 posted on 05/26/2006 12:37:58 PM PDT by george wythe

To: george wythe

"A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

There is nothing unusual here. This ordinance is designed to prevent home owners from renting rooms, turning their homes into cheap tenement houses.

But it is being enforced [unconstitutionally] to prohibit an [unlicensed] family from living together.

Since the founding of our Republic, local issues are decided by local folks.

True, within the bounds of our Constitution.

If these townspeople don't like unmarried couples w/children living together, it us they who should move, -- into a planned community where such restrictive covenants are legal.
The federal system guarantees that there will be plenty of space available for these communitarian people, since federalism protects true diversity among Americans.

411 posted on 05/26/2006 3:55:24 PM PDT by tpaine

You can rest whatever you want. The marriage part is irrelevant.

That's your opinion and I have mine, unmarried couples are still living in sin according to the Bible and the thread talks about unmarried couples, period.

412 posted on 05/26/2006 9:37:23 PM PDT by garylmoore

"But that CO should normally be granted or withheld based on the building being up to code or not, and not based on whether or not the occupants have a marriage license.

I wasn't commenting on that. Please take the time to read all that I posted. FourtySeven was surprised that there was a requirement for a CO on property for personal use as opposed to property for business use. That's all I was addressing in my post. Period.

413 posted on 05/27/2006 7:30:42 AM PDT by Pablo64 ("Everything I say is fully substantiated by my own opinion.")

That's your opinion and I have mine, unmarried couples are still living in sin according to the Bible and the thread talks about unmarried couples, period.

And for people who don't believe in or care about the bible?

It's all irrelevant. But that's how you people get sucked in. It's the old bait and switch.

414 posted on 05/27/2006 8:12:30 PM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)

And for people who don't believe in or care about the bible?

OK, now I understand what kind of person I'm dealing with!
I'll pray for you.

415 posted on 05/27/2006 9:46:56 PM PDT by garylmoore

OK, now I understand what kind of person I'm dealing with!

What kind is that?

I'll pray for you.

If you haven't done so already, since you said you would, you have sinned. Hit your knees.

416 posted on 05/30/2006 9:13:48 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)

'A Black Jack ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together in a single family home unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".'

Oh boy. The 7 Mexicans down the street would be outlawed by this. (Never mind official immigration laws.)

417 posted on 05/30/2006 9:15:50 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)

To: george wythe

418 posted on 05/30/2006 9:27:34 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)

OK, now I understand what kind of person I'm dealing with!
What kind is that?

And for people who don't believe in or care about the bible?

That kind!

419 posted on 05/30/2006 11:03:40 PM PDT by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)

OK, now I understand what kind of person I'm dealing with! What kind is that? And for people who don't believe in or care about the bible? That kind!

People who ask questions? That kind?

If you have a point to make, don't be a coward, make it.

420 posted on 05/31/2006 6:03:09 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794