After a week of Flag and Marriage controversy, how about a topic even more controversial? Charlie Sheen.
There could be a law school class; Charlie Sheen and the Law.
Charlie on Restraining Orders:
“Great. I was already planning on staying 100 parsecs away from her.” (A parsec is a unit of length equaling 3.26 light-years.)
Charlie on being “Bi-Polar:”
“I’m bi-winning. I win here and I win there. Now what? If I’m bipolar, aren’t there moments where a guy like crashes in the corner like, ‘Oh my God, it’s all my mom’s fault!’ Shut up! Shut up! Stop! Move forward.
Charlie on suing CBS:
“They’re trying to destroy my family, so I take great umbrage with that. And defeat is not an option. They picked a fight with a warlock.”
Charlie on why he is a “Winner:”
“I’m sorry, man, but I’ve got magic. I’ve got poetry in my fingertips. Most of the time — and this includes naps — I’m an F-18, bro. And I will destroy you in the air. I will deploy my ordinance to the ground.“
Charlie on Drugs:
“I am on a drug. It’s called Charlie Sheen. It’s not available because if you try it once you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body. It’s too much.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Restrictions as to who can marry based on Gender are Unconstitutional.
Obgerfell v. Hodges, as of today, a Landmark case in U.S. History has determined that States cannot restrict marriage to only persons of the opposite sex.
A summary of the analysis, held, in part:
“Four principles demonstrate that the [right to] marriage [applies] with equal force to same-sex couples.
First…the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy… marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
Second…the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals…Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.
Third…protecting the right to marry…safeguards children and families …and the related rights of child-rearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without…marriage…children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. …The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.
Fourth… marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle… The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. Pp. 12–18. (3)
The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
Arguments that allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and parenthood. ..the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Pp. 23–27. (c)
The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28.”
If you are otherwise eligible to marry, a restriction based purely on gender will not prevent you from marrying. Mississippi is getting more change than I think she cares to get, but same-gender marriage is now the law of the land. This is truly not a surprising result.
Also, the third point is precedent to allow same-gender adoption.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi, admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, and predicts an increase in Family Law cases soon.
Heritage or hate? Those arguments will not get you to a consensus. Think dollars and sense. Changing the flag will be a boon for the economy. For flag makers, sticker vendors, hat makers and those artisans that make those tiny spoons you see at the Flying J. A new flag can still have roots in heritage, NOT be associated with hate, AND be the will of the people!
Interestingly the tragedy out of South Carolina is the reason this is on the forefront today and it’s NOT even South Carolina’s State Flag.
I’ve seen the South Carolina State Flag on everything. Hats, shirts, koozies, stickers, key chains, bow ties. The list is endless. It is time for Mississippi to have a State Flag that the entire State can be proud of.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families in South Carolina.
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi and supports changing the flag in Mississippi and vows to not wear a bow tie with the current state flag on it.