quote:Romney: "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."
Daily Kos claims that Romney is a bit confused:
quote:Via The Plank, where they note that the whole seven-year-contract with option to renew is, in fact, a plot point in a novel by fellow Mormon Orson Scott Card.*
*UPDATE: Card's book with the seven-year marriage contracts? It's called "The Memory of Earth," and it is a fictionalization of the Book of Mormon set in outer space.
Actually, knowing that Romney is such a big fan of OSC that he would confuse one of OSC's plot points as reality makes me want to vote for him even more.
It is not my intent to turn this into a "whoa those Christian Right-pandering politicians are weird" thread. Even if this report were true, I don't see it as a big deal. Politicians say weird things to pander to specific groups all the time. I have nothing against Romney and just wanted to share this because of the OSC mention.
In fair disclosure, my favorite Republican candidate is Mike Huckabee.
[ May 08, 2007, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Here's info about marriage in France. Doesn't say a thing about seven-year contracts. Never heard of those from my French friends either or seen them mentioned in French movies - or indeed any media instance, French or Finnish or British or American, before this.
So I got curious and followed the links to whether this Romney guy actually said any such thing. Apparently he did if Washington Post is to be believed. He said so when talking to a Christian right wing audience.
What bothers me about this: 1) That mister Romney would be stupid enough to think such things really happen in France. 2) That his audience would be stupid enough not to boo him out of the stage when he said so. 3) That Washington Post and the journalist who wrote the story would be stupid enough not to raise a fuzz about this point.
This guy doesn't really stand a change of becoming the president, does he?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's a valid critique. He bitched about imaginary contract marriages in France. It's an isolated incident, but anyone who aspires to be president should have better command of facts than this shows.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I agree it was a stupid thing to say. There are so many things wrong with marriage in France (and throughout Europe, and America and ...) that there's no need to make stuff up.
I'll still vote for Romney if he makes it through the primary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'll still vote for Romney if he makes it through the primary.
Because not one of the gazillion non-Republican candidates appeals?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Perhaps the Mitt Romney from a neighboring parallel universe (where such term marriages actually exist in France) and our homegrown one somehow switched places. That would mean that Romney wasn't wrong at all -- merely unobservant, having missed the fact that he's no longer in the universe where he started. Can't blame a man for that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
That's your answer for everything.
At least it is where I'm from.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Perhaps the Mitt Romney from a neighboring parallel universe (where such term marriages actually exist in France) and our homegrown one somehow switched places. That would mean that Romney wasn't wrong at all -- merely unobservant, having missed the fact that he's no longer in the universe where he started. Can't blame a man for that.
If I remember correctly, the marriage contracts in Basilica were for one year, not seven.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I'll still vote for Romney if he makes it through the primary.
Because not one of the gazillion non-Republican candidates appeals?
Because I don't feel any other viable candidate as accurately represents my interests and views. Despite making this faux pas, I still feel Romney is the best prepared major candidate to run the country. At least, to run it the way I would like it run.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"If I remember correctly, the marriage contracts in Basilica were for one year, not seven."
You are correct, sir!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What bothers me is the linking between what Romney said and OSC's stories. How in the world are the two related? There's no evidence, as far as I can see, that they are.
I would like to know where Romney got the idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He'd only have a goatee if he were from the Universe Where Everyone Is Evil and Wears a Goatee. If he were from Earth-2, he'd be a little older and more idealistic, or else totally psychotic. Instead, he appears to be from the Universe Where Mitt Romney Is Slightly Misinformed.
The switch may have happened in the middle of his term as governor, which would explain the sudden flip-flops.
---------
quote:Because I don't feel any other viable candidate as accurately represents my interests and views.
Which interests and views are those? I don't mean that to sound snarky; I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't care a tremendous amount whether a Mormon ever gets the Presidency. 6-plus years of President Cheney has been a turd sandwich to some degree, but in less than 2 years, he'll be gone. That's the great thing about our 2-term system. I say we change it to one term, if anything. Or, as some say, get rid of the Presidency altogether.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What bothers me is the linking between what Romney said and OSC's stories. How in the world are the two related? There's no evidence, as far as I can see, that they are.
Also, OSC is far from the only SF writer who has used the concept of temporary-but-renewable contract marriages. Perhaps Romney has read some of Anne McCaffrey's non-Pern novels as well.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: He'd only have a goatee if he were from the Universe Where Everyone Is Evil and Wears a Goatee. If he were from Earth-2, he'd be a little older and more idealistic, or else totally psychotic.
And if he were from most of the Stargate alt-universes, his hair would be longer.
And if he were from the alt-universe of Lois&Clark, he'd be armed. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Has he been wearing an eye patch or grill mouth lately and saying "Bizarro!" all the time? 'Cause he could be the Bizzaro Romney. 'ts always possible.
quote:It's called "The Memory of Earth," and it is a fictionalization of the Book of Mormon set in outer space.
Is this line supposed to detract further from Romney, in a "look at this crazy book that this crazy guy read!" type of way? 'Cause that's how it reads to me.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It reads to me as accurate, provided you're willing to allow "outer space" to be defined as "not on Earth (most of the time)". It suffices for a one sentence explanation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What bothers me is the linking between what Romney said and OSC's stories. How in the world are the two related? There's no evidence, as far as I can see, that they are.
Also, OSC is far from the only SF writer who has used the concept of temporary-but-renewable contract marriages. Perhaps Romney has read some of Anne McCaffrey's non-Pern novels as well.
Or Heinlein.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's no way I'm voting for somebody who's read Heinlein. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ok, where in the OSC books is this concept? As fans of his, can anyone quote? Not that I don't believe, but it would be nice to have all the fact - instead of assume another political is right because they disagree with the other political message.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"This guy doesn't really stand a change of becoming the president, does he?"
Nationally his numbers are low. However, in some primary numbers he is equal to or ahead of the other frontrunners.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's in the Homecoming books -- in the city analogous to Jerusalem, marriages last for one year at a time, at which point they can be renewed. IIRC, it's considered in poor taste to keep the same husband through the years, as Nafai's mother has done with his father.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"in the city analogous to Jerusalem, marriages last for one year at a time," so to say the 7 years comes from Homecoming Series is a stretch almost as bad as the comment itself about France?
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
The bloggers who made that connection aren't running for president, though. Plus they were joking (I think, at least).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Snail, I wish they were joking, but I know enough of the kind of stories people make up about Mormons to highly doubt it. At least there were a few there, if I remember correctly, that indicated more than one book had that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
France has a contract called something like a pact of solidarity. It's considered a contract under the law and is being used instead of marriage by a lot of people. This is to what Romney was referring. I have been unable to confirm if it can have a definite end date at the time of execution.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Occiasional, it's not a bash-Mormons thing, it's because he's running for president. Every word candidates say is combed over, and yes, crap gets made up, sloppily researched, and distorted.
That's interesting Dag, no bloggers or MSM have picked up on that yet.
A leaked Romney stratergy memo explains this meme: run against France as a boogeyman.
quote: Last week, the Globe wrote about a leaked memo by strategists advising former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Romney, the memo advised, could eventually win the GOP nomination, but it acknowledged that right now the "electorate is not where it needs to be for us to succeed."
One way to win over the doubters, the memo suggests: Run strongly against "bogeymen" like . . . France.
"Occiasional, it's not a bash-Mormons thing, it's because he's running for president."
Its hard to tell the difference. Even some Liberal bloggers who aren't hook, line, and sinker into the meme's see some bigotry beyond the politics.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: France has a contract called something like a pact of solidarity. It's considered a contract under the law and is being used instead of marriage by a lot of people. This is to what Romney was referring. I have been unable to confirm if it can have a definite end date at the time of execution.
Finland has similar contracts as well. (So do the rest of the Nordic countries as well as Britain at least. Probably most of Europe does.) Basically they're for people who date or live together but for reason or another don't want to get married. They give you some of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage but not all. In France they're also extended to unions of gay people, so basically the French form of same-sex marriage is done through these pacts; gay people can't marry like the regular folk. These pacts (as well as the similar contract in Finland or Sweden or any other country) don't need to be renewed after a time frame; they are for life (or until the couple marries or breaks the pact). Though I suppose it ought to be noted that legally they're easier to break than marriages.
I suppose I can see how someone from a conservative Christian background would find the concept troubling quite on its own. So why invent the 7-year time-frame issue, why not talk about it as it is?
[ May 09, 2007, 04:27 AM: Message edited by: Snail ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dag, it's debatable what Romney was referring to, since it doesn't exist. Perhaps he conflated the French film 7 ans de mariage with the pacts? Who knows?
Mitt's website is mum about the issue.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This is to what Romney was referring.
I've looked for confirmation of this, but I couldn't find any. What's your source on this being what he was referring to?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Dag, it's debatable what Romney was referring to, since it doesn't exist.
Also, I still don't have any evidence that built-in term limits on the pacts are not allowed or, if they are allowed, whether 7-year limits are common. If you have some evidence either way, I'd like to see it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:This is to what Romney was referring.
I've looked for confirmation of this, but I couldn't find any. What's your source on this being what he was referring to?
First google result for "romney pact of solidarity" (without quotes).
It took me about 2 minutes to find the reference to the French law on the subject yesterday, which seemed a very likely possibility. I found the blog post I linked above about 30 seconds later.
I'm a little surprised that people who seemed to care so much about this (and many blogs seemed to go nuts for it) somehow managed to discuss it for so long without even introducing this as a possibility. (Edit: this sentence was in reference to the blogs, not Hatrack.)
[ May 09, 2007, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Dag, it's debatable what Romney was referring to, since it doesn't exist.
Also, I still don't have any evidence that built-in term limits on the pacts are not allowed or, if they are allowed, whether 7-year limits are common. If you have some evidence either way, I'd like to see it.
Well, here you go:
From the French Civil Code, available in English through here (search for article 515).
quote:Art. 515-7 Where partners decide by mutual agreement to put an end to a civil covenant of solidarity, they shall file a joint written declaration with the court office of the tribunal d'instance under the jurisdiction of which one of them at least has his residence. The clerk shall enter that declaration into a register and shall ensure its preservation. Where one of the partners decides to put an end to a civil covenant of solidarity, he or she shall serve notice of his or her decision on the other and shall send a copy of that notice to the court office of the tribunal d'instance which received the initial instrument. Where one of the partners puts an end to a civil covenant of solidarity by marrying, he or she shall notify his or her decision to the other by service and shall send copies of the latter and of his or her record of birth on which mention of the marriage has been made, to the court office of the tribunal d'instance which received the initial instrument. Where a civil covenant of solidarity comes to an end by the death of at least one of the partners, the survivor or any party concerned shall send a copy of the record of death to the court office of the tribunal d'instance which received the initial instrument. A clerk who receives a declaration or instruments provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall enter or have entered mention of the end of the covenant into the margin of the initial instrument. He shall also have registration of that mention written into the margin of the register provided for in Article 515-3, paragraph 5. Abroad, receiving, recording and preserving a declaration or instruments referred to in the first four paragraphs shall be the responsibility of French diplomatic or consular agents, who shall also undertake or have undertaken mentions provided for in the preceding paragraph. A civil covenant of solidarity shall come to an end, according to the circumstances: 1° As soon as a mention is made in the margin of the initial instrument of the joint declaration provided for in the first paragraph; 2° Three months after service delivered under paragraph 2, provided that a copy of it was brought to the knowledge of the clerk of the court designated in that paragraph; 3° On the date of the marriage or of the death of one of the partners. Partners shall undertake themselves the liquidation of the rights and obligations resulting on their behalf from the civil covenant of solidarity. Failing an agreement, the judge shall rule on the patrimonial consequences of the breach, without prejudice to damage possibly suffered.
So basically the Pacs ends either with a mutual announcement that it will end, three months after one of the partners involved has requested for it to end, when the partners marry or when one of them dies. The main difference to a marriage in this regard is that you don't necessarily have to contact a judge.
Nothing about build-in term limits, seven years or otherwise, here in the law text.
Nothing about build-in term limits when I Google "pacs sept ans".
Nothing about seven-year term limits on the news items from 2006, French or international, when the Pacs had been in effect for seven years (they'd been introduced in 1999) and those terms would have come up.
I'd say Mitt Romney made it up.
[ May 09, 2007, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Snail ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So basically the Pacs ends either with a mutual announcement that it will end, three months after one of the partners involved has requested for it to end, when the partners marry or when one of them dies. The main difference to a marriage in this regard is that you don't necessarily have to contact a judge.
Nothing about build-in term limits, seven years or otherwise, here in the law text.
That doesn't actually answer the pertinent question, though. Romney didn't claim that the law required 7-year terms. He asserted that some people contracted it for 7-year terms. The law does not say that this isn't allowed, and it certainly doesn't say whether it's done or not.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Where would you find official documentation stating that something that doesn't happen doesn't happen? Do we have any legal docs in America specifying every number of years that marriage contracts are not for?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Instead, he appears to be from the Universe Where Mitt Romney Is Slightly Misinformed.
I'm from that universe too. It is a strange place...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Where would you find official documentation stating that something that doesn't happen doesn't happen? Do we have any legal docs in America specifying every number of years that marriage contracts are not for?
There are numerous studies on how long marriages last on average, what percentage have prenuptial agreements, what the typical terms of such agreements are, and many other aspects of marriage in America.
Further, a court case, regulation, or official commentary stating "a term limit in a document establishing a PACS [renders the PACS void | is enforceable | is not enforceable | some other effect] would give us a good idea.
For example, I could find the case that states that pre-nuptial agreements are enforceable in Virginia. I could also find numerous cases stating that certain types of provisions are not enforceable, and that the inclusion of certain provisions renders the entire agreement unenforceable.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That doesn't actually answer the pertinent question, though. Romney didn't claim that the law required 7-year terms. He asserted that some people contracted it for 7-year terms. The law does not say that this isn't allowed, and it certainly doesn't say whether it's done or not. [/QB]
True, I suppose. So far I see no evidence to support they do happen, though.
Again, a search on Google.fr with the words "sept ans pacs", "sept ans pactes civils de solidarité", "sept ans mariages", "periode pacs", "periode pactes civils de solidarité" or "periode mariages" lend no results about seven-year pacts or marriage pacts with any kind of a pre-determined length. (Could be I'm not searching with the right words as I'm good at reading French, not producing it.) On English Google all I can come up with are the blogs discussing this Mitt Romney incident. The French Wikipedia article on the Pacs is quite thorough but it doesn't mention anything about term-limits either.
I found several Pacs formulas also. Here's one, here's another. Neither of these contains a place for a term-limit though of course it doesn't mean that other kinds of forms aren't possible.
Lastly, though, France is not some 100% über-liberal anti-Christian anti-traditional-values nation. Nicholas Sarkozy, the new president, voted against the Pacs when they were first passed. Jacques Chiraq was also against them. One right-wing member of parliament gave a five-hour speech against them at the National Assembly when they were being considered, she even waved a Bible around to the listeners.
Now, granted, their main objection to the Pacs was that they'd be allowed for homosexuals as well. But do you seriously think that these people - and more importantly, their voters - wouldn't make any sort of a ruckus if the great new fad in France was to make seven-year contract marriages? Do you honestly think the French media would deign to report it - or the international media for that matter? In France at least even an isolated attempt to make a legally binding seven-year pact would merit headline stories. Quite likely the Vatican would release some sort of a statement as well.
Yet there is none of that. There are just Romney's statements.
Let's consider the Islamic temporary marriages I posted a link about earlier in this thread. A Google search for "Islam temporary marriage" leads to several sites explaining this concept as well as news stories about current cases of such temporary marriages in Muslim countries. "seven year marriage France" only leads to Mitt Romney and the movie 7 ans de mariage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's all fine analysis. It's probably correct. It's not sure enough to justify the name-calling that so many bloggers have engaged in on this subject though. (Even sure evidence wouldn't really justify the name-calling, of course.)
Nor is it sure enough for your accusation that Romney "made it up." Even if there are no 7-year PACS, there are many scenarios that have Romney giving that speech without having "made up" the story. Given the fact that you can't prove your theory to be correct, your "made it up" accusation is even less warranted.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:Even if there are no 7-year PACS, there are many scenarios that have Romney giving that speech without having "made up" the story.
Like what scenarios?
OK, I'm sorry, I suppose in light of the evidence we can't say he "made it up".
Romney's statements were insulting as well, though. They were insulting to Europeans in general and to the French in particular. And I find it quite sad that the way to win votes in America is to say bad things about non-Americans.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Like what scenarios?
Like he heard someone tell him about frequent 7-year marriage contracts?
Like he read it on a blog somewhere?
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Even so, I still find it troubling that he wouldn't check and double-check before making that statement. Or wonder about the things I mentioned in my previous post.
Again though, there is no evidence to show he "made it up". I take that back.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I love it. We no longer need incisive op-ed writers and satirists in this world; its absurdity is already so transparent!
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's all fine analysis. It's probably correct. It's not sure enough to justify the name-calling that so many bloggers have engaged in on this subject though. (Even sure evidence wouldn't really justify the name-calling, of course.)
Nor is it sure enough for your accusation that Romney "made it up." Even if there are no 7-year PACS, there are many scenarios that have Romney giving that speech without having "made up" the story. Given the fact that you can't prove your theory to be correct, your "made it up" accusation is even less warranted.
OK. This is probably bothering me more than it should, so I'm bringing it back up even though the discussion was sort of past it already...
But how is the evidence I presented not convincing enough that what Mitt Romney said is not true?
I mean, he said that he'd been told how in France marriage pacts are only made to last for seven years and then accused Europeans of being shallow.
There is absolutely no evidence to back this up. No other instances of talk about "seven-year French marriage pacts" can be found on the Internet. Or has any of you heard of them in other places? Yet somehow the burden of proof is not on Mitt Romney's camp but on those who call him on it.
So OK, apparently his statements can only be disproved if I find some sort of a French legal document detailing what the was decided in a case where a French couple tried to apply a term to their pact of solidarity. But I don't have time to do that, I'm not quite sure where to look for, and lastly, what if such documents don't exist because no one has ever thought of applying a term to their pact?
What if he hadn't been making statements about a foreign nation but about some American minority and their ways? Are all things said by presidential candidates extremely likely to be true even if there's little to no evidence for them?
How come it is wrong to conclude from all this that what he said wasn't a fact?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But how is the evidence I presented not convincing enough that what Mitt Romney said is not true?
I mean, he said that he'd been told how in France marriage pacts are only made to last for seven years
No, he didn't, at least according to the opening post: "marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up."
It doesn't say he'd been told that ALL marriages are only 7 years. "Frequently" would be true even a small percentage of the time.
quote:So OK, apparently his statements can only be disproved if I find some sort of a French legal document detailing what the was decided in a case where a French couple tried to apply a term to their pact of solidarity. But I don't have time to do that, I'm not quite sure where to look for, and lastly, what if such documents don't exist because no one has ever thought of applying a term to their pact?
Considering that your main complaint about Romney is his inaccuracy, you would do well to make sure your response is accurate. You asserted that a particular statute proved Romney was wrong. It didn't.
Just because it would be difficult for you to prove him wrong doesn't mean that I can't point out the area still open to doubt.
quote:What if he hadn't been making statements about a foreign nation but about some American minority and their ways? Are all things said by presidential candidates extremely likely to be true even if there's little to no evidence for them?
I haven't said one thing about Romney being correct. I pointed out what he was referring to and stated that I couldn't find confirmation as to whether he was right or wrong.
You seem to have taken offense at that. I'm not sure why, exactly, but I'm not going to suddenly believe that you've proved something you haven't proved because you feel passionately about it.
In fact, I've already said that you're analysis is probably right. Since you seem to be taking exception to something I haven't said, I suggest you reread what I did say before getting upset with me.
quote:How come it is wrong to conclude from all this that what he said wasn't a fact?
I didn't say it was wrong to conclude that - as long as one is up front about where the area of doubt still lies. I specifically wrote that regarding your "made it up" statement.
It's wrong to conclude that he made it up without more evidence that he did.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:No, he didn't, at least according to the opening post: "marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up."
It doesn't say he'd been told that ALL marriages are only 7 years. "Frequently" would be true even a small percentage of the time.
Well, if you want to get down to technicalities then what he said was absolutely positively wrong as he was talking about "marriage" and the civil solidarity pacts specifically aren't considered marriages.
quote: Considering that your main complaint about Romney is his inaccuracy, you would do well to make sure your response is accurate. You asserted that a particular statute proved Romney was wrong. It didn't.
OK, reading what I wrote again I suppose I did with the "here you go" at the beginning of that post. If you disregard that and read everything else I wrote in that post I don't think I stated anywhere that Romney was now proved wrong, just that the seven-year contracts were not mentioned anywhere.
quote:I pointed out what he was referring to and stated that I couldn't find confirmation as to whether he was right or wrong.
And what I specifically don't understand is why you continue to feel so compelled to make this point.
Yeah, it's true that it'd be pretty difficult to disprove his statement. So what? I'm sure if I wasn't on night duty and if it wasn't 5 am and if I'd gotten some sleep during the past 18 hours and if I was given a considerable amount of time and then perhaps some more time after that I could come up with some equally insane claim about United States which would then be equally difficult to disprove.
And if we want to get down to technicalities again, what I said about Romney was specifically "I'd say he made it up." Which is a conditional. Speculation. A theory. Not a conclusive statement. More than anything it was a stupid joke, I certainly didn't mean it as an all-out explanation to why he said what he did. Still, if that is all this is about then I really wish I hadn't said it.
I don't understand, though, how what I said can be considered worse or more insulting than what Romney himself said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you disregard that and read everything else I wrote in that post I don't think I stated anywhere that Romney was now proved wrong, just that the seven-year contracts were not mentioned anywhere.
This would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't just posted "But how is the evidence I presented not convincing enough that what Mitt Romney said is not true?"
I've explained repeatedly now why what you posted does not resolve my doubts. I've also stated - repeatedly now - that I think Romney is probably wrong about this.
quote:
quote:I pointed out what he was referring to and stated that I couldn't find confirmation as to whether he was right or wrong.
And what I specifically don't understand is why you continue to feel so compelled to make this point.
Because, based on your responses, it's not at all clear to me that you get that this is what I have said. Case in point:
quote:I don't understand, though, how what I said can be considered worse or more insulting than what Romney himself said.
I don't understand why you think I think that.
quote:And if we want to get down to technicalities again, what I said about Romney was specifically "I'd say he made it up." Which is a conditional. Speculation. A theory. Not a conclusive statement.
I didn't say it was conclusive. I said it was an accusation. And it was. My use of the word "conclude" in my last post was specifically intended to contrast with your use of the word - that is, to demonstrate what types of conclusions I think are unwarranted based on the current evidence.
quote:More than anything it was a stupid joke, I certainly didn't mean it as an all-out explanation to why he said what he did. Still, if that is all this is about then I really wish I hadn't said it.
No, my last response was to you re-replying to a post I made before you clarified that your "made it up" comment wasn't accurate. For some reason you felt "compelled" to revisit the issue, and I simply clarified what my original intent was in posting the response to which you re-replied.
In short, the reason I feel "compelled" to post here is that you are repeatedly making false implications about what I've posted. (See, e.g., "I don't understand, though, how what I said can be considered worse or more insulting than what Romney himself said.") I will continue to clarify as necessary.
What this is "all about" is that I am quite interested to get a definitive answer about the enforceability of term-limit provisions in PACS and similar arrangements - and "definitive" could include "it's never been tested in court so we don't know."
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:I've explained repeatedly now why what you posted does not resolve my doubts. I've also stated - repeatedly now - that I think Romney is probably wrong about this.
I guess why I find your continuing doubts so disturbing is that Romney's statements just are so out of the blue regarding all I know of French society and the reality of marriage there. Because to me there is absolutely no doubt that those statements are false.
It's not your fault, I suppose, it just weirds me out a bit. I apologize if I got you riled up or frustrated. I think I understand what you're saying now.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And I find it quite sad that the way to win votes in America is to say bad things about non-Americans.
It's a well-established political tool, and not unique to America.
I don't like it either.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: He'd only have a goatee if he were from the Universe Where Everyone Is Evil and Wears a Goatee. If he were from Earth-2, he'd be a little older and more idealistic, or else totally psychotic.
And if he were from most of the Stargate alt-universes, his hair would be longer.
And if he were from the alt-universe of Lois&Clark, he'd be armed.
Beat me to it. Although in some of the SG alt-universes, he might just wear glasses, or be dead, or be President.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have a feeling he'd prefer that last one. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Because I don't feel any other viable candidate as accurately represents my interests and views.
Which interests and views are those? I don't mean that to sound snarky; I'm genuinely curious.
Sorry this took me so long to get back to. Life came in the way.
I like Romney's focus on work and personal responsibility and accountability. I like the compromise he brokered in health care in Massachusetts. I like his focus on conservative social values, particularly his opposition to gay marriage. I like his moderate pro-life position. I like his focus on government efficiency and restricting tax growth.
I don't like his stances on energy and education, and I'm sure a slew of other things. But of all the major candidates positions, I find that I support more of his than any other's.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No, he didn't, at least according to the opening post: "marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up."
It doesn't say he'd been told that ALL marriages are only 7 years. "Frequently" would be true even a small percentage of the time.
When did we cover marriage here? I thought we were talking about pacts of solidarity, which, as I understand it, are designed specifically to distinguish them from marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When did we cover marriage here?
I quoted the opening post. It seems marriage has been covered here since the thread started.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe Squick's point is that whoever told Romney that marriage in France is frequenty contracted in seven year terms was mistaken, even if a pact of solidarity can have a term limit, and even if seven years is a frequently used duration, because a pact of solidarity is not a marriage.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Who is to say he'll really slow tax growth? In MA, he did an end around and jacked up all the fees for services instead... Which is essentially the same as raising taxes, except it's a regressive sort of tax.
he talks a good game, but his record in MA finds it a bit wanting, combined with his flip-flopping nature.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I believe Squick's point is that whoever told Romney that marriage in France is frequenty contracted in seven year terms was mistaken, even if a pact of solidarity can have a term limit, and even if seven years is a frequently used duration, because a pact of solidarity is not a marriage.
Yes, but it was being presented as a new form of marriage. I've read many times on this board that if we converted to all civil unions, people would still call them "marriages."
In many states, deeds of trusts have replaced mortgages. They are very different instruments to accomplish the same thing - secure a loan with real property. A politician who mentioned the practices associated with deeds of trust in another state would not be committing a serious error if he spoke of that state's "mortgage policies."
If 7-year terms were a common feature of PACS in France, then Romney's statement would be a fair one, and accurate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes, but it was being presented as a new form of marriage.
By whom? I'm not at all versed on the issue, but what I've read so far leads me to believe that one of the main things about the Pacts of Solidarity is that they are emphatically not marriages.
quote:If 7-year terms were a common feature of PACS in France
But, if I understand what Snail posted, they are not in any official manner. It's possible that there is some common practice that no one has provided any evidence for that people are getting out of them after 7 years. But if people were getting married and then getting divorced 7 years later as a matter of course it would be at least as fair a statement (if we grant that you can use marriage as a referrant to pacts of solidarity). There's nothing that has come up about these pacts so far that makes they fit this statement any more than marriages themselves.
---
Also, have we gotten any confirmation other than from an anonymous blogger that this is what Romney was talking about?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Considering we've already gotten evidence through the leaked memo that certain members of Mitt Romney's campaign have advocated him taking potshots at "bogeymen", specifically naming France and here he is taking seemingly baseless potshots at France, I think it's reasonable to be pretty suspicious about the motives or justification here.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wouldn't call the potshots baseless; I would call them stupid potshots, though.
America deserves someone who isn't going to bow to screed. I hope Romney changes his tactics.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I wouldn't call the potshots baseless
Where's the basis then? Is there any indication that people in France are making contracts for 7 year marriages?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But, if I understand what Snail posted, they are not in any official manner. It's possible that there is some common practice that no one has provided any evidence for that people are getting out of them after 7 years. But if people were getting married and then getting divorced 7 years later as a matter of course it would be at least as fair a statement (if we grant that you can use marriage as a referrant to pacts of solidarity). There's nothing that has come up about these pacts so far that makes they fit this statement any more than marriages themselves.
Not really true - they are explicitly contracts, so the "contracted" portion applies more to PACS than traditional marriages. Even though marriage is considered in some ways as a contract, it's not really one. PACS are - for example, the law specifically outlines the requirements for modifying a PACS. To that extent, there is something in the statement that applies more to PACS than to marriage.
Further, the fact that they are contracts leaves open the possibility that a contract term (e.g., 7 years) would be enforceable. I don't know. I'm interested mainly because it's the kind of thing I'm interested in, but it would also shed some light on Romney's statement.
But if a pre-defined term is enforceable, that is quite different from the situation in which a relationship is terminable by one of the parties at an undefined future date.
quote:Also, have we gotten any confirmation other than from an anonymous blogger that this is what Romney was talking about?
First, the blog isn't anonymous, although it might be pseudonymous. Second, the guy was very critical of Romney on this issue, so bias is unlikely. Third, this wasn't the blogger's analysis of what Romney was talking about, it was a claimed report from the Romney campaign.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Where's the basis then? Is there any indication that people in France are making contracts for 7 year marriages?
No one seems willing to even look into this so far. Most of the people chastising Romney in the blogsphere didn't even mention the PACS.
There are a couple of studies on how the PACS are being used, but I don't have access to them.
This is a major gap in the knowledge needed to evaluate Romney's statement. We know 1) they are contracts, 2) they are easier to terminate than a marriage in France, 3) expiration dates are common attributes of contracts.
I don't see a reason to have a strong preference for whether term limits are allowed or not allowed here. And there's no information at all as to whether they are used if allowed.
What, exactly, is your conclusion of baselessness based on?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From some guy on the internet. This is not, to me, a credible source for any sort of the certainty you seem to be treating it with. Something from the Romney campaign itself or something in a repudible media outlet, but some guy saying that someone at the campaign told them without any other sort of reason to believe him isn't to me establishing it as a certainty.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What, exactly, is your conclusion of baselessness based on?
That there is no basis yet provided, that people have investigated and found nothing, and that it is pretty difficult to believe as merely a bald assertion. Especially since this has been laid out as a Romney campaign strategy.
I'm not even willing to grant that we are sure that it was these pacts that he was talking about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That there is no basis yet provided, that people have investigated and found nothing, and that it is pretty difficult to believe as merely a bald assertion. Especially since this has been laid out as a Romney campaign strategy.
I'm not even willing to grant that we are sure that it was these pacts that he was talking about.
There's a hell of a lot more evidence that he was talking about PACS than there is that he is wrong about term limits existing.
He talked about people contracting for marriage. PACS are specifically defined as contracts for a marriage-like relationship (an alternative to marriage).
A person with an anti-Romney slant who has a consistent and fairly large internet presence claims to have contacted Romney's campaign about the issue and been told that these are what he was talking about.
You still clearly haven't done a modicum of research into this. Time's (in association with CNN) blog now carries a reported interview with a Romney spokesman confirming that Romney was discussing PACS, and that he got confused regarding the 7 years based on how long they have been available.
Regardless, I'm still interested in an answer to the legal question as to whether limits are enforceable, and the social question as to whether limits are included. Those would be interesting facts to know, regardless.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Who is to say he'll really slow tax growth? In MA, he did an end around and jacked up all the fees for services instead... Which is essentially the same as raising taxes, except it's a regressive sort of tax.
Or appropriate individual responsibility (i.e. shifting the burden for services from tax-base to pay-for-use). I'm generally (not always) in favor of moving costs from government (which is prone to inefficiency and bureaucracy) to individuals, and allowing social structures other than government (families, churches, charities) to help those individuals who can't afford the fees on their own.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You still clearly haven't done a modicum of research into this.
I have no idea why you think you know enough about what I did to claim this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because you've twice now asked questions where basic Google searches could reveal the answer.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Who is to say he'll really slow tax growth? In MA, he did an end around and jacked up all the fees for services instead... Which is essentially the same as raising taxes, except it's a regressive sort of tax.
Or appropriate individual responsibility (i.e. shifting the burden for services from tax-base to pay-for-use). I'm generally (not always) in favor of moving costs from government (which is prone to inefficiency and bureaucracy) to individuals, and allowing social structures other than government (families, churches, charities) to help those individuals who can't afford the fees on their own.
Except if you need to drive a car, and license, inspection and registration fees go up, then contrary to a reasonably intelligent financially secure individual, the average person who is most punished by the hikes will just try to get by without it for a while, completely meaning to pay it eventually... And then they get caught and have to pay stiffer fines they can't really afford.
It's the paradox of the American ideal of rugged self-independence meeting plain old ignorance. --
I'm all for personal responsibility, but that's easier to say when you are financially secure, or have a large church organization that has a system set up for this... Unless someone in the church doesn't like you/holds a grudge and won't provide you the funds, or you lose your job due to the company going out of business.
I'd rather they bumped up the income tax on people like me than raise the fees... I can more easily bear the burden, and they don't get to wave their hands while trumpeting their ability to hold firm on tax rates on a technicality. I feel a social responsibility in that regard.
But I'm weird.
-Bok
EDIT: This shouldn't mean I'm not for governmental reform and streamlining, it's just that when people usually use such terms, it's a euphemism for some variant of the "starve the beast" scheme, which assumes an adversarial position concerning government that I don't hold, nor like much.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:It's a well-established political tool, and not unique to America.
I know. It certainly happens here in regards to the EU, and politicians are also keen to use perceived faults of America to cover for real faults in themselves.
quote:Time's (in association with CNN) blog now carries a reported interview with a Romney spokesman confirming that Romney was discussing PACS, and that he got confused regarding the 7 years based on how long they have been available.
That's good to know. I do think it'd be more classy for him to apologize for the statement, as it was rather misleading.
quote: Regardless, I'm still interested in an answer to the legal question as to whether limits are enforceable, and the social question as to whether limits are included. Those would be interesting facts to know, regardless.
I'm still rather skeptical that limits are included, because I do think even an isolated incident with a limit would have drawn headlines from the French media and protests from the French right-wingers. I agree, however, that it'd be interesting to know if they're enforceable.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I'd rather they bumped up the income tax on people like me than raise the fees... I can more easily bear the burden, and they don't get to wave their hands while trumpeting their ability to hold firm on tax rates on a technicality. I feel a social responsibility in that regard.
But I'm weird.
-Bok
Why wouldn't you meet your social responsibilities through giving to organizations rather than giving (or being compelled to give) to the government? If the federal government, say, cut Medicare by 50% (reducing your tax burden significantly) couldn't you just funnel that money into some charity that provided for the healthcare needs of the poor? We don't need governments to meet our social responsibilities; they are just a good hammer for compelling us to do so. And that compulsion comes at a price of inefficiency and bureaucracy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the federal government, say, cut Medicare by 50% (reducing your tax burden significantly) couldn't you just funnel that money into some charity that provided for the healthcare needs of the poor?
Right now, it's hard to find non-religious charities that fulfill those functions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Senoj: interestingly, amount given to charity per dollar income is extremely insensitive to changes in the tax rate, historically.
In other words, whatever you think people (in genera) would or wouldn't do, people don't. I know you were speaking to a particular person, but across the population as a whole the aggregate is important.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I'd rather they bumped up the income tax on people like me than raise the fees... I can more easily bear the burden, and they don't get to wave their hands while trumpeting their ability to hold firm on tax rates on a technicality. I feel a social responsibility in that regard.
But I'm weird.
-Bok
Why wouldn't you meet your social responsibilities through giving to organizations rather than giving (or being compelled to give) to the government? If the federal government, say, cut Medicare by 50% (reducing your tax burden significantly) couldn't you just funnel that money into some charity that provided for the healthcare needs of the poor? We don't need governments to meet our social responsibilities; they are just a good hammer for compelling us to do so. And that compulsion comes at a price of inefficiency and bureaucracy.
The government is the only organization I know that will provide these funds to Muslim citizens, Jewish citizens, Christian citizens, Asian citizens, Black citizens, White citizens, children, the elderly, and whoever else I may be forgetting.
I know we can't prove it either way, but I can't help but thinking that $100 given to the government is at least as efficient than splitting that same money between the 5-10 groups, and ensures that more varied types of folks will be able receive the aid.
-Bok
EDIT: Also another point of consideration. When push comes to shove, any NGO providing benefits will choose to serve their underlying ideology, whereas with the government, I, as a citizen, am part of the pushing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The government is the only organization I know that will provide these funds to Muslim citizens, Jewish citizens, Christian citizens, Asian citizens, Black citizens, White citizens, children, the elderly, and whoever else I may be forgetting.
Then maybe you should start an organization which does that instead of leaving it up to the government to do so.
quote:I can't help but thinking that $100 given to the government is at least as efficient than splitting that same money between the 5-10 groups, and ensures that more varied types of folks will be able receive the aid.
I find that hard to believe, considering the efficiency of the government.
quote:When push comes to shove, any NGO providing benefits will choose to serve their underlying ideology, whereas with the government, I, as a citizen, am part of the pushing.
You're also part of the pushing if you're a member of a NGO doing the good works you think should be done.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A poster for this upcoming mini-series reminded me this morning that one needn't leave the US to find populations where temporary marriages are normal.
And I'm not just talking about divorce, but the attitude that "starter marriages" are ok, or even recommended. While not terribly common, it is definitely out there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then maybe you should start an organization which does that instead of leaving it up to the government to do so.
Unless he thinks the government is actually relatively efficient, which I believe he's already said is the case.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)