Well, since hospital visitation is the paramount concern this is easly solved by making sure the law supports some sort of decision making contract in the event of hospitalization, without even a need to classify or recognize the arrangement of the individuals inolved. Even a best friend, and instructior, or whatever, could be delegated such powers. That is, it wouldn’t be a quasi-marriage state. And since this would be far more likely to gather broad-based support, it is the more logical approach. IF, visitation is the concern.
Does it violate the Wisconsin constitution? Set aside the teeth-gnashing and righteous indignation for a second - if the law violates the state constitution as it is written (presumably because it affords an “arrangement” similar to marriage), then there’s a legitimate problem here. Whether the governor should (or should not) uphold the law raises additional questions (of executive discretion on executing laws that executive considers unconstitutional).
But the question(s) appear to be a valid.
FWIW, I don’t like laws like these, and when I was living in a state that had a similar cosntitutional amendment up for referendum (not in that state now), I voted it against it precisely because it went this far (too far, in my view).
That said, this issue in Wisconsin is a fair one.
But, ironically, it’s clear that left-wing “rationalists” - who herald themselves as champions of “reason” - are nothing but blubbering emotionalists on this issue: the issue swept under the rug is the detached constitutional technicalities of the law, and the argument is a sobbing “how could he!”. It’s about “feelings”, and the governor should set aside the will of the people and not be “cruel”.
Not surprising. They aren’t as “rational” as they put on. As if a governor - any governor - should govern like that.
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
We hold these truths to be self evident… endowed by their creator… firm reliance on divine providence. Everybody knew what that meant and the vast majority agreed on what was moral and what was not. Hence limited government. That’s how we got started and that’s how we ascended. We began our decline when your tremendous wisdom launched it’s assault upon this nation in earnest in the 60’s. Congratulations, you’ve been very successful. We are now teetering on the brink of social destruction and bankruptcy. [/quote]
Would you agree that we were a LOT smaller back then to? European immigrants were largely Christian, with highly similar cultural backgrounds, making a common moral and social agreement possible.
We’re 280 million now with a lot of social and cultural enclaves. Do you feel it is appropriate to marginalize groups other than Christian, via legislation? I don’t personally feel comfortable with government having that kind of power. [/quote](Emphasis mine.) No, I don’t think it’s appropriate. it was the very voluntary nature of private morality that made this country possible. This post of yours was very insightful BTW. You are correct. We are no longer united and are for that reason utterly ill equipped for the freedom we once enjoyed. There simply cannot be limited government where nobody agrees on what’s right and wrong. Christianity provided that and we soared. Do I even have to finish?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I think it’s immoral to kill someone, or to take their property. So I guess government is involved in morality.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I agree to some extent, although personal liberty is itself a moral.[/quote]
I would say as long as you are not harming others liberty what you consider moral and I conider moral could be two completely different things.[/quote]
That’s a very simplistic view but then again you are a libertarian. You folks don’t take into account the ripple effect of breaking laws you consider harmless. You’d rather let people do anything they want within the confines of your dogma and then pay the price later.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
Firstly I will say that from the information that has been presented I would agree that this is over the top. I don’t like the idea of linking it to Republicans however, just because one or two Republicans are involved. The overwhelming majority of Republicans would agree with me that this interpretation of the law is wrong.
In relation to the government’s roles and responsibilities: The entire criminal and civil legal system is based on laws that govern morality. Morality is determined by agreed standards of the population. The population has entered into a ‘social contract’ whereby they accept these standards and laws. To suggest that morality is not the domain of the government/judiciary is absurd.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
Firstly I will say that from the information that has been presented I would agree that this is over the top. I don’t like the idea of linking it to Republicans however, just because one or two Republicans are involved. The overwhelming majority of Republicans would agree with me that this interpretation of the law is wrong.
In relation to the government’s roles and responsibilities: The entire criminal and civil legal system is based on laws that govern morality. Morality is determined by agreed standards of the population. The population has entered into a ‘social contract’ whereby they accept these standards and laws. To suggest that morality is not the domain of the government/judiciary is absurd.[/quote]
The government is to uphold Liberty. LIBERTY and one more time LIBERTY. WHat you choose to do with your liberty is of no concern to me.
There is no social contract, there are laws to uphold and protect liberty and that is all the government is allowed to do.
If it was for Morality the only way to enforce the laws is through force and fear. When the people are afraid of their government there is tyranny.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I think it’s immoral to kill someone, or to take their property. So I guess government is involved in morality.[/quote]
Just because you believe it is immoral does not mean the government is involved in morality. Those right there are to protect your liberty.
If it does not pick my pocket or break my leg what difference is it to me-Thomas Jefferson.
Hows that for getting back to the founding fathers.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I think it’s immoral to kill someone, or to take their property. So I guess government is involved in morality.[/quote]
Just because you believe it is immoral does not mean the government is involved in morality. Those right there are to protect your liberty.
If it does not pick my pocket or break my leg what difference is it to me-Thomas Jefferson.
Hows that for getting back to the founding fathers.[/quote]
Pick pocketing = theft = immoral behaviour restricted/controlled/punished by law
Breaking someone’s leg = assault occasioning bodily harm = immoral behaviour restricted/controlled/punished by law
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
Firstly I will say that from the information that has been presented I would agree that this is over the top. I don’t like the idea of linking it to Republicans however, just because one or two Republicans are involved. The overwhelming majority of Republicans would agree with me that this interpretation of the law is wrong.
In relation to the government’s roles and responsibilities: The entire criminal and civil legal system is based on laws that govern morality. Morality is determined by agreed standards of the population. The population has entered into a ‘social contract’ whereby they accept these standards and laws. To suggest that morality is not the domain of the government/judiciary is absurd.[/quote]
The government is to uphold Liberty. LIBERTY and one more time LIBERTY. WHat you choose to do with your liberty is of no concern to me.
There is no social contract, there are laws to uphold and protect liberty and that is all the government is allowed to do.
If it was for Morality the only way to enforce the laws is through force and fear. When the people are afraid of their government there is tyranny.[/quote]
You have a very narrow and restricted view of what government’s duty comprises. I consider myself to be in favour of small government yet I know that the functions of government are many, not least of which are providing essential services and making/interpreting law through legislative, executive and judiciary branches. In addition, ‘force and fear’ are how all laws are upheld. That’s why Police carry guns and magistrates confine people to prison etc. Your statements are nonsense, to put it kindly.
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
A worthy sentiment to be sure.
But what the human mind seeks to understand - it so seeks to control.
Such is the nature of the beast so to speak.
One should print a T-Shirt of that - a good quote.
Regards.
ps; In regards to the topic at hand, should a Govt seek to control what it’s people do in their spare time provided they are not harming others.
I would say not - While I don’t particularly understand same sex attraction - neither do I condemn it.
You only get one go at this thing called life - to live a lie and deny who you are would be the greatest mockery of your birth. I would hope all would agree - to be happy with who you are is the greatest feeling of all.
If you are not denied that right, why would you seek to deny others such a right.
As it’s a majority American board - I would point you to your Constitution. A document that should be the envy of the world - a document that when Ireland achieved it’s Independence it took alot from.
As a man once said - “It’s far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them”
Did your founding fathers envisage that one day Government would seek to control whom their citizens could visit in hospitals ? Have the Government of the Day sunk so low that they now legislate whom you can visit in hospital - does your mind not boggle at the thought or does your short sighted views on the visitor and the visitee blind you ?
Regards.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I think it’s immoral to kill someone, or to take their property. So I guess government is involved in morality.[/quote]
It sure is, in the for m of killing more people and taking more property than any other organisation.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I agree to some extent, although personal liberty is itself a moral.[/quote]
I would say as long as you are not harming others liberty what you consider moral and I conider moral could be two completely different things.[/quote]
That’s a very simplistic view but then again you are a libertarian. You folks don’t take into account the ripple effect of breaking laws you consider harmless. You’d rather let people do anything they want within the confines of your dogma and then pay the price later.
[/quote]
That’s a very simplistic view but then again you are a conservative. You folks don’t take into account the ripple effect of passing and enacting laws you consider to be beneficial. You’d rather control people at every twist and turn to make them live up to your dogmas and then pay the price later, when you have bred a nation of serfs.
Adams got it absolutely right.
[quote]Voluminous wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In relation to the government’s roles and responsibilities: The entire criminal and civil legal system is based on laws that govern morality. Morality is determined by agreed standards of the population. The population has entered into a ‘social contract’ whereby they accept these standards and laws. To suggest that morality is not the domain of the government/judiciary is absurd.[/quote]
I’m sorry your quote is absurd at best, it’s not fathomable how you came to arrive at this conclusion.
You think morality comes from the general population, from whence did the first morality “Code” come from ?
Can you find me any conventions so to speak where the rights and wrongs of the world were considered ?
Do you just speak for your Country in this regard perhaps ? Have you considered before the Govt came to be who provided the rules of morality to the people of the day ?
[/quote]
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Morality is innate and has been with mankind since recorded history. The first laws came about from the family then the tribe, then the citystate. The norms that the tribe/citystate/country have are enshrined into law(religious, political or otherwise). This is standard social contract theory. Those who oppose it regard all morality to be of devine origin(Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan) or argue that morality doesn’t really exist(Friedrich Nietzsche). I thought this was common knowledge and I don’t even know what you’re disputing here.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Voluminous wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In relation to the government’s roles and responsibilities: The entire criminal and civil legal system is based on laws that govern morality. Morality is determined by agreed standards of the population. The population has entered into a ‘social contract’ whereby they accept these standards and laws. To suggest that morality is not the domain of the government/judiciary is absurd.[/quote]
I’m sorry your quote is absurd at best, it’s not fathomable how you came to arrive at this conclusion.
You think morality comes from the general population, from whence did the first morality “Code” come from ?
Can you find me any conventions so to speak where the rights and wrongs of the world were considered ?
Do you just speak for your Country in this regard perhaps ? Have you considered before the Govt came to be who provided the rules of morality to the people of the day ?
[/quote]
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Morality is innate and has been with mankind since recorded history. The first laws came about from the family then the tribe, then the citystate. The norms that the tribe/citystate/country have are enshrined into law(religious, political or otherwise). This is standard social contract theory. Those who oppose it regard all morality to be of devine origin(Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan) or argue that morality doesn’t really exist(Friedrich Nietzsche). I thought this was common knowledge and I don’t even know what you’re disputing here.[/quote]
I don’t understand the way of your understanding - I confess that, hence why I deleted my psot - but you arrived at it before I could delete it.
To also admit, I have not read Friedrich Nietzsche’s work but his quote is along the lines of what I profess to be my understanding;
[quote]
Nietzsche called the establishment of moral systems based on a dichotomy of good and evil a “calamitous error”[/quote]
To explain why will take me pages and pages and to be fair, I have not the time nor the will to see it through.
I will leave you with the thought - In the American Constitution the biggest part for me is “All men are created equal”
For your theory to play out - that would need to be the case. From history it is apparent it was most certainly not the case.
So your theory has a fatal error, you assume 1 man - 1 voice whereas the world operated and still operates on a different scheme where not everyone is created equal.
If we’re all born with the same morals then why is the world so morally different - perhaps we were not ?
I know this probably confuses more than explains, and for that I apologise - explaining a moral belief system is beyond what a few lines of text could achieve.
Regards
[quote]
Nietzsche calls for exceptional people to no longer be ashamed of their uniqueness in the face of a supposed morality-for-all, which Nietzsche deems to be harmful to the flourishing of exceptional people. However, Nietzsche cautions that morality, per se, is not bad; it is good for the masses, and should be left to them. Exceptional people, on the other hand, should follow their own “inner law.” A favorite motto of Nietzsche, taken from Pindar, reads: “Become what you are.”[/quote]
I would add “Become what you are, not what is expected”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
Firstly I will say that from the information that has been presented I would agree that this is over the top. I don’t like the idea of linking it to Republicans however, just because one or two Republicans are involved. The overwhelming majority of Republicans would agree with me that this interpretation of the law is wrong.
In relation to the government’s roles and responsibilities: The entire criminal and civil legal system is based on laws that govern morality. Morality is determined by agreed standards of the population. The population has entered into a ‘social contract’ whereby they accept these standards and laws. To suggest that morality is not the domain of the government/judiciary is absurd.[/quote]
The government is to uphold Liberty. LIBERTY and one more time LIBERTY. WHat you choose to do with your liberty is of no concern to me.
There is no social contract, there are laws to uphold and protect liberty and that is all the government is allowed to do.
If it was for Morality the only way to enforce the laws is through force and fear. When the people are afraid of their government there is tyranny.[/quote]
You have a very narrow and restricted view of what government’s duty comprises. I consider myself to be in favour of small government yet I know that the functions of government are many, not least of which are providing essential services and making/interpreting law through legislative, executive and judiciary branches. In addition, ‘force and fear’ are how all laws are upheld. That’s why Police carry guns and magistrates confine people to prison etc. Your statements are nonsense, to put it kindly.[/quote]
He’s one of dem dar leeebertarians. What do you expect? They have a narrow and simplistic view of all things. And largest among their ranks are young males. That’s why you get all the Paul for President nonsense here on T nation.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I think it’s immoral to kill someone, or to take their property. So I guess government is involved in morality.[/quote]
It sure is, in the for m of killing more people and taking more property than any other organisation.
[/quote]
And thank God they are there to kill the bad guys and take their stuff. I honestly think you suffer from US envy.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
This is why Government should never legislate morality. [/quote]
But that is what government does. From prostitution to public intoxication, larceny, murder, DWI, and on and on. Really most laws are morality based. And I’m very happy about that. [/quote]
The Government is there to protect and uphold Personal liberty not morality. Things such as prostitution,drug laws, laws on marriage, public intox(as long as you are not harming anyone/thing) are not the responsibility of the governments. In fact each one of these that I listed clash with the governments role.
What is moral to you and moral to me are two different things how can a government possibly legislate morality.[/quote]
I agree to some extent, although personal liberty is itself a moral.[/quote]
I would say as long as you are not harming others liberty what you consider moral and I conider moral could be two completely different things.[/quote]
That’s a very simplistic view but then again you are a libertarian. You folks don’t take into account the ripple effect of breaking laws you consider harmless. You’d rather let people do anything they want within the confines of your dogma and then pay the price later.
[/quote]
That’s a very simplistic view but then again you are a conservative. You folks don’t take into account the ripple effect of passing and enacting laws you consider to be beneficial. You’d rather control people at every twist and turn to make them live up to your dogmas and then pay the price later, when you have bred a nation of serfs.
[/quote]
That’s why we believe in smaller government - Right?
Don’t go borderline nutty on me orion we still have a long way to go my friend.
Aaaaaaaaaaand…yet another thread dissolved into a brochure on libertarianism and its philosophical justification.
“It’s awesome.”
Can we stick to the actual subject? This law - whether good, bad or indifferent - is in place by a referendum of Wisconsin voters, and no one is going to strike it down because it doesn’t pass the Ron Paul seal-of-approval.