...and here's the slippery slope

[maxiep]

All must go through mediation before you can even see a judge. I already said that.

The success rate of mediation is very small.

When it's binding arbitration, there's no difference between that system and a judge, other than one is based on common sense and the other is based on the law. I have a friend of mine who is stuck in a three-year divorce because of the legal system. The judge desperately wants to rule in her favor on the civil end, but is even more terrified of having her decision overturned by the state Supreme Court. So, she keeps giving this person bites at the apple until she can find a legal basis to support what is plainly obvious to everyone.

Again, the state doesn't need to be involved in these matters.

 

[magnifier661]

When it's binding arbitration, there's no difference between that system and a judge, other than one is based on common sense and the other is based on the law. I have a friend of mine who is stuck in a three-year divorce because of the legal system. The judge desperately wants to rule in her favor on the civil end, but is even more terrified of having her decision overturned by the state Supreme Court. So, she keeps giving this person bites at the apple until she can find a legal basis to support what is plainly obvious to everyone.

Again, the state doesn't need to be involved in these matters.

Anything agreed in arbitration is legally binding. Problem is the arbitrator cannot intervene. They can only suggest and the two parties must agree. If they can't, then the judge must make the ruling.

 

[maxiep]

Anything agreed in arbitration is legally binding. Problem is the arbitrator cannot intervene. They can only suggest and the two parties must agree. If they can't, then the judge must make the ruling.

Not true. You can go into binding arbitration, and where there is disagreement, the arbitrator decides.

 

[magnifier661]

Not true. You can go into binding arbitration, and where there is disagreement, the arbitrator decides.

You are talking about two entirely different things. You are talking about business arbitration; which is entirely different than family law.

 

[maxiep]

You are talking about two entirely different things. You are talking about business arbitration; which is entirely different than family law.

And why can't family law be just like business arbitration?

Rather than see things how they are and say "no", why not think about how things should be and work to change them?

 

[magnifier661]

And why can't family law be just like business arbitration?

Rather than see things how they are and say "no", why not think about how things should be and work to change them?

Because in family law, you have love involved. It's a little different if its just separation of assets. When children are involved, neither side thinks the other should have them more.

The declarations are different and there is way more at stake.

 

[maxiep]

Because in family law, you have love involved. It's a little different if its just separation of assets. When children are involved, neither side thinks the other should have them more.

The declarations are different and there is way more at stake.

It makes no difference to the arbitration process. When you enter binding arbitration, someone decides and the others have to live with the decision. Love doesn't matter, it just makes it more emotional.

 

[PapaG]

Next wave already are the pedophiles making the argument that they are genetically disposed to be attracted to kids...

I don't care about polygamy or even incest. I do care about what the ramifications may be for this, though. In some areas, there are people pushing for 14 year-olds being able to vote. Now this is a potential slippery slope.

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia
Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

 

[PapaG]

Because in family law, you have love involved. It's a little different if its just separation of assets. When children are involved, neither side thinks the other should have them more.

The declarations are different and there is way more at stake.

It's a lot different (I'm agreeing with you here, Mags). Viewing children as an "asset" is a bit troubling to me, maxiep. It's not like you're deciding on who gets the SUV and who gets the sedan. I'm of the belief that parents are best having a relationship with both of their parents, barring judiciary reasons for one parent not being allowed much, if any, access. An arbitrator has no business involving themselves in custody issues, since witnesses can't be called.

 

[magnifier661]

It's a lot different (I'm agreeing with you here, Mags). Viewing children as an "asset" is a bit troubling to me, maxiep. It's not like you're deciding on who gets the SUV and who gets the sedan. I'm of the belief that parents are best having a relationship with both of their parents, barring judiciary reasons for one parent not being allowed much, if any, access. An arbitrator has no business involving themselves in custody issues, since witnesses can't be called.

Exactly!!!!

 

[PapaG]

It makes no difference to the arbitration process. When you enter binding arbitration, someone decides and the others have to live with the decision. Love doesn't matter, it just makes it more emotional.

Kids aren't "assets". I'm a bit shocked that someone would agree to let an arbitrator decide how much they get to see their kids. It seems borderline sociopathic and distanced from reality. I'm not saying that's you at all, but have you really thought this through completely?

 

[magnifier661]

I've been in arbitration twice and I'm glad the arbitrator wasn't able to decide the outcome.

 

[maxiep]

It's a lot different (I'm agreeing with you here, Mags). Viewing children as an "asset" is a bit troubling to me, maxiep. It's not like you're deciding on who gets the SUV and who gets the sedan. I'm of the belief that parents are best having a relationship with both of their parents, barring judiciary reasons for one parent not being allowed much, if any, access. An arbitrator has no business involving themselves in custody issues, since witnesses can't be called.

Arbitrators can read depositions. Arbitrators can ask questions. And for areas where you feel arbitrators have limitations, allow a change in parameters. You have arbitrators that specialize in all kinds of areas. Why not family disputes? They would be as skilled, if not more, than family court judges. Hell, we all know there is a bias against dads in the legal system. I would argue it would be a much more level playing field with arbitrators.

I simply don't see a reason why you need the government or the legal system in marriage.

 

[Denny Crane]

But everyone would get a civil union from the government if they wished. Marriage would be for religious institutions. How is that unequal?

Because the law is thousands of years established.

 

[maxiep]

I've been in arbitration twice and I'm glad the arbitrator wasn't able to decide the outcome.

I can say the same about Federal Court. Judge Ancer Haggarty fucked me simply because he didn't want to be bothered with a case. Judge Lydia Munro of the Connecticut Family court is screwing my friend even though she has acknowledged that she is in the right, simply because she's afraid of having her ruling overturned on appeal.

 

[maxiep]

Because the law is thousands of years established.

And marriage between one man and one woman is thousands of years established. Slavery was thousands of years established. The world being flat was thousands of years established.

What's your point?

 

[magnifier661]

I can say the same about Federal Court. Judge Ancer Haggarty fucked me simply because he didn't want to be bothered with a case. Judge Lydia Munro of the Connecticut Family court is screwing my friend even though she has acknowledged that she is in the right, simply because she's afraid of having her ruling overturned on appeal.

The arbitrator can fuck you the same; so what's the difference.

 

[maxiep]

The arbitrator can fuck you the same; so what's the difference.

My first point is...exactly. What's the difference? So why should the government do it?

My second point is that you can't avoid specific judges, you can avoid specific arbitrators. It gives you more flexibility. It's also cheaper and shortens the process.

Win. Win. Win. Win.

 

[magnifier661]

My first point is...exactly. What's the difference? So why should the government do it?

My second point is that you can't avoid specific judges, you can avoid specific arbitrators. It gives you more flexibility. It's also cheaper and shortens the process.

Win. Win. Win. Win.

The government is there for protection though. When you file for divorce; your financial liability is severed; plus the other parent cannot leave the state until the divorce is final and agreed upon by both parties.

You start taking shit like that away and one of the parent will be fucked. Flight risks, financial fucking, etc. you need the law to protect you. An arbitrator cannot put the other in contempt, nor enforce the laws that protect you.

 

[Denny Crane]

And marriage between one man and one woman is thousands of years established. Slavery was thousands of years established. The world being flat was thousands of years established.

What's your point?

You can't easily toss common law history out the window if you want the laws to be proper and work.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I've been in arbitration twice and I'm glad the arbitrator wasn't able to decide the outcome.

Bingo . . . I will take a court hearing with a judge over an arbitration 9 out of 10 times. The quality of judges on the bench can be debated, but overall the level of intelligence and fairness is much higher in teh courts than in some law office where a lawyer tries to act like a judge.

I do think there are times arbitration make sense, but many times arbitration is one step below Kangaroo Court.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So your significant other is seriously injured and in critical condition. Hospital won't allow you to see them because you are not related or married. Fair to gay couples who can't marry?

What about in the case of death without any kind of will. Doe the significant other have any rights to the estate?

What about when the couple splits and their are children involved. If they were never married do they both have the same rights to custody?

I don't know the answers, but it seems there are times it helps to be legally married to your significant other so as to protect or add to your rights. I don't care what they call it, but I think consenting adults should be allowed to "marry." But for all that believe in this philosophy, does that mean prostitution should be legal?

 

[RR7]

So your significant other is seriously injured and in critical condition. Hospital won't allow you to see them because you are not related or married. Fair to gay couples who can't marry?

What about in the case of death without any kind of will. Doe the significant other have any rights to the estate?

What about when the couple splits and their are children involved. If they were never married do they both have the same rights to custody?

I don't know the answers, but it seems there are times it helps to be legally married to your significant other so as to protect or add to your rights. I don't care what they call it, but I think consenting adults should be allowed to "marry." But for all that believe in this philosophy, does that mean prostitution should be legal?

My assumption, hate to speak for someone, but am assuming that when maxiep is suggesting civil unions, it's essentially what we call marriage now. And only religious ceremonies take the name wedding, but that ultimately, a wedding doesn't give you any added benefit under the "new" law.

 

[PapaG]

My first point is...exactly. What's the difference? So why should the government do it?

My second point is that you can't avoid specific judges, you can avoid specific arbitrators. It gives you more flexibility. It's also cheaper and shortens the process.

Win. Win. Win. Win.

Because in a court of law, you can call witnesses. You can't do that in arbitration. It's a simple yet large benefit to someone who feels they are in the right. Letting one person go on he said/she said seems stupid to me, and your actions regarding PDXKass here tell me you may not be the best person to have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. You seem extremely insecure.

 

[maxiep]

The government is there for protection though. When you file for divorce; your financial liability is severed; plus the other parent cannot leave the state until the divorce is final and agreed upon by both parties.

You start taking shit like that away and one of the parent will be fucked. Flight risks, financial fucking, etc. you need the law to protect you. An arbitrator cannot put the other in contempt, nor enforce the laws that protect you.

So, why start with the government? If there are bad acts, then you can go to it. Use it as a last resort, not the first one. Maybe a little personal responsibility? We seem to have lost it and use the government as a crutch. That crutch isn't free and it robs us of liberty.

 

[maxiep]

You can't easily toss common law history out the window if you want the laws to be proper and work.

We've had marriage for thousands of years and government involved in marriage laws for what, a few hundred at most? Obviously, marriage somehow managed to survive without government.

You keep hawking those Libertarian sentiments, though.

 

[maxiep]

So your significant other is seriously injured and in critical condition. Hospital won't allow you to see them because you are not related or married. Fair to gay couples who can't marry?

What about in the case of death without any kind of will. Doe the significant other have any rights to the estate?

What about when the couple splits and their are children involved. If they were never married do they both have the same rights to custody?

I don't know the answers, but it seems there are times it helps to be legally married to your significant other so as to protect or add to your rights. I don't care what they call it, but I think consenting adults should be allowed to "marry." But for all that believe in this philosophy, does that mean prostitution should be legal?

Civil unions cover all those instances. What separates civil unions and marriage is the imprimatur of moral judgment. The government can't discriminate, religions can. Get the moral judgment out of government; it doesn't belong in that sphere.

 

[maxiep]

My assumption, hate to speak for someone, but am assuming that when maxiep is suggesting civil unions, it's essentially what we call marriage now. And only religious ceremonies take the name wedding, but that ultimately, a wedding doesn't give you any added benefit under the "new" law.

Exactly. What it does is remove any discrimination from the process. Any two or more consenting adults should be able to go to the government if they wish to codify their union and be able to do so. It's not the government's job to tell people who they can and cannot join civilly. Get the government out of the discrimination business.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why do you care if it's called "marriage" or "civil union" ?

You expect government to associate all the attributes of "marriage" to "civil union" as if it were actually possible. It's not.

So you end up with separate but equal. it's not really equal after all.

 

[maxiep]

Because in a court of law, you can call witnesses. You can't do that in arbitration. It's a simple yet large benefit to someone who feels they are in the right. Letting one person go on he said/she said seems stupid to me, and your actions regarding PDXKass here tell me you may not be the best person to have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. You seem extremely insecure.

I believe in personal responsibility. If you get married to someone, you need to first try to work things out with that person. You both have that responsibility. You're using government as your mommy over how to cut the PB&J in half. It's time we had the expectation that adults will act like adults. Couples act like children because we enable them to do so.

As I said before, an arbitrator can read depositions, so your concern about witnesses go out the window. You can supply proof to an arbitrator. The biggest difference is that an arbitrator allows you to solve your problems privately, in the court of common sense, rather than publicly in a court of law, which can be twisted on technicalities.

And you can rest easy. I never plan on becoming an arbitrator. Besides, you would always have the option of not hiring me. Of course, I'm pretty bored and am considering getting my law degree on a lark. One day, you may end up with me on the bench, and you wouldn't have a choice. I would be assigned to you. Which would you rather choose? I choose freedom.