Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Give the People What They Want

Devoted reader Robert writes to complain:

I feel obligated to inform you that the quality of KAR posts are declining.

Now, I might be compelled to give a shit if people: a) paid for the content of this blog; b) allowed us a "down" week or two once in a while - I can't play the lovable-nutjob-on-meth role all the time; c) sent a compliment or positive feedback our way every once in a while so we have a better idea of what hits and what misses (although I acknowledge and thank all those who have done so); or d) helped us out when we come under the occasional moonbat attack.

That being said, Robert redeems himself by at least making his criticism constructive:

I like Learned Foot's brilliant legal analysis, haiku's, and when he says poop alot

I like Dementee's raging rants, and when he eats moonbats.

Fair 'nuff.

From yesterday's Strib (emphasis mine):

In one of her answers, Sen. Michele Bachmann states that "in the Netherlands, group marriage is now legal." This is a complete lie, rapidly spread by the right wing media outlets.

The people in question in Holland entered into a private agreement not licensed or recognized as any kind of legal marriage by the Dutch government. People in any society can enter into similar legal contracts.

VAN WAN DYK, ISANTI, MINN.

AND NOW, YOUR BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN MOMENT OF THE DAY:

Aside from his cutting-edge legal observations, this guy can also fill you in on all the latest activities of the N0rth Star Gay R0de0 Assn.

OK. First, he accuses Bachmann of "lying" (and again, I must implore all moonbats to buy a friggin' dictionary) about the group marriage thing in the Netherlands.

Then he writes that that the Netherlands does not license or recognize group marriages.

THEN he characterizes these group "arrangements" as a "legal contract".

I'm not even going to try to research Dutch law, so I'll just nuke the shit out of his "argument".

BRILLIANT LEGAL ANALYSIS PART:

Stripped to its essentials, a contract in the sense used by Dyk has two essential elements. First, there must be a meeting of the minds resulting in an agreement. Second, it must be legally enforceable (as intended by the parties) by a court of competent jurisdiction. If it's not enforcable, it's merely an agreement, and not a contract.

EXAMPLE: Say I agree with Frankie "the Nose" Nunzio that I will purchase his Porsche for $50,000. We memorialize the agreement in writing, I pay him the money (cash, of course), and per our agreement, he promises to deliver the car on Monday. When Monday rolls around, "The Nose" not deliver the Porsche. Instead, he delivers a '72 Pinto.

I sue the piss out of him. And I would win (assuming I could remain alive long enough to get the case docketed), because we 1) had an agreement and b) it was legally enforcable according to its terms. There was a "legal" contract and one party breached it. The law will provide a remedy.

Now let's change the facts. Let's assume that instead of contracting to buy a car from "The Nose," I instead agree with him to pay him $50,000 to whack someone who wrote me a complaint about my blog. He takes the 50 grand, but likewise fails to perform his end of the deal.
If I sued him, would I win?

Of course not, silly goose! The subject matter of the contract (murder) is illegal, and the courts will not sanction illegal behavior. The contract is void ab initio. That is, not only is it unenforceable, but it was never even a contract in the first place because it was missing one of the two elements essential to contracts - legal enforceability.

So back to Dyk's letter. If, as he asserts, you have groups of three or more people forming arrangements (read: "agreements") that are characterized as some sort of equivalent of "marriage;" and if Dutch courts enforce these arrangements, then a legal contract exists. And if this group living arrangement is a "legal contract," how exactly is that different than the Dutch government "recognizing" polygamous marriage (by way of its courts rather than its law-making body)?

It's not.

And then it follows, if the converse is true - that the Dutch government has no law recognizing polygamous marriage, and courts will not enforce these so-called "legal contracts" - then they're not really contracts at all, and Dyk is, um, lying.

THE PART IN WHICH DEMENTEE EATS A MOONBAT:

DEMENTEE INTERRUPT: COME TO DEMENTEE, BROKEBACK MOONBAT!!!!!!! ME WANT TO EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT YOU!!!!!! RAAAAAAWWWWWWWRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

*CHOMP*

THE PART IN WHICH LEARNEDFOOT SAYS "POOP" A LOT, IN HAIKU FORM:

Poop poopy poop poop
Poop pooper poop poopy poop
Poop poop poop and poop.

Happy now?

No comments: