Why does the government get to decide whether or not homosexual couples can marry even though marriage is a religious thing?
Marriage is not "one" thing, much less a religious thing. If marriage was a religious thing then you couldn't get married in court or a boat. and Athiests couldn;t marry. So, clearly marriage is not a religious thingA marriage is really multiple "contracts"1) Personal ContractThe people getting married are promising to love/honor/cherish/take care of each other. The government and church really has nothing to do with this. Although, traditionally, this contract is taken before God by most people, so it makes it semi-religious.. depending on the religion, I guess.2) Social ContractThe people getting married are asking everyone around them to treat the couple as an unit, and at the same time promise to act as an unit. Or , IOW, you are asking society to treat both of you as one, and the ceremony is a formal declaration of both of you getting joinedAgain, the government has nothing to do with this. THe government cannot force other people to treat you as one. Traditionally, the religious institiutions represented society, so, you would make this promise to the priest. Although it's becoming less true now.3) Legal ContractThe government gives you some rights as a married couple (shared property, tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc) and at the same time it gives you responsibilities (child care responsibilities, debt responsibilities, etc). CHurch has diddly squat to do with this. And the government enforces the legal contract only, not the personal and social ones. In any democracy, Religion shouldn't have the right or the responsibility to make law. That's what elected representatives for.When we talk about government allowing gay marriage, we are talking about the legal contract only. In fact, when we talk about marriage in context of the government, it is implied that we are talking about the legal contract. And Religion has nothing to do with it. Government has nothing to do with the personal and social contract. It cannot make 2 married people love each other. It cannot force members of society to accept 2 people as married. No one can force you to accept gay marriage.If you don't like gay marriage, just think of the couple as roommates. Honest to goodness, all we can do is ridicule you, not make you accept the marriage.
Does the Army violate the enlistment contract?
This depends on what exactly you're asking. Does the Army violate some sort of recruiting contract? i.e. did your recruiter say you'd be a ultra-secret super-special sniper/assassin saving the world solo, and then the Army made you a cook with the rest of the POGs? That's to be avoided by making yourself competitive and never signing a contract you don't read and understand. Fact of life in the military--nothing's true until you read it on paper. And then there's usually a waiver somewhere/somehow to change that too. I'm not so sure about the 8-year thing either. Enlistments last 2, 4, and 6 years last I heard, though you become part of the Inactive Ready Reserve for a few extra years once you finish the initial time. IRR only gets called up in time of war. A few have been called up for OEF/OIF. As far as getting out at the end of your contract, stop-loss is historically uncommon, but has been recently used to prevent people from jumping ship when the Army needs them most. It usually doesn't last long though.
Are contracts voided when one party becomes deceased?
Say you are paying rent, as is detailed in a lease between you and a landlord. If the landlord passes, must you continue paying rent (supposing that a new lease is not drawn up between the new landlord/owner of the property and you). Or, suppose you have a contract with the now deceased party to sell their home for them, in return for some percentage. Once the owner is deceased, and the property is transferred, could you still argue that the contract with the previous owner is still good?
Did israelis really encircled our 3rd army(20,000) in the end of "yom kippur" war?
i know egyptians say nope it's a lie and israelis say it's a fact..i ve watched many documentaries and saw red cross passing food and stuffs to our third army under observation of israelis and many other sources say it happened..i don't want a patriotic talk..i want facts,did it happen or not?,what's ur sources(reliable ones) and evidences of that....and if it was sadly true i wonder where were our strategic reserves,where were our generals when they let that gap open for israelis to pass and fight civilians and people of suez??
Can you sign a contract that would take away your constitutional rights?
People wave their constitutional rights all the time... They will wave their right to a jury trial, or to effective counsel...all kinds of things. That doesn't mean that a contract that takes away certain rights would be at all enforceable. For instance...you sign an employment contract...in it, it says that you agree to plead guilty to any crime you are charged with, or they can fire you. That's not an enforceable part of a contract. One that you see a LOT is that you agree to waive your right to sue a party for negligence by signing a contract. Generally, a contract cannot take away your right to sue someone. Ever. Now, an employment contract that stated you could not carry weapons on the premises, that would be enforceable. They cannot say you can no longer own a gun, though and expect it to be enforced. By the way, I use the term "enforceable" here...basically, you can write ANYTHING into a contract. You can write "The undersigned hereby surrenders his life, liberty, possessions and soul to me!". The person can sign it. But when you go and sue for breach, the judge does not have to honor any of the contract that contradicts the law. EDIT: I love coming back to questions and getting the REAL story... You have NO constitutional right to protect your property with force. In fact, many states specifically prohibit the use of force when it comes to protecting property, and that is during the act! If you go AFTER the act, it's out and out assault, no ifs ands or buts. And yeah, they could kick you off and take your cash. Deal with it without using any form of violence. Call the cops, get a mediator...do what you need to do...but you have no constitutional right to knock someone around since they knocked you, or your property around.
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves?
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." choice is freedom, even if the choice is to disobey. this is wrong since desire is not dictated by an external force. true freedom can only be achieved by know ones own desire, not limits of society or law. thus, freedom is choice, not an alternative path. "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." it basically says chaos forms order; or at least should form order rather than a governing force. there will always be an opposing perspective as long as there is more than one conscious entity present. thus, there is no possibility of order when considering the human race as long as there is no governing force that is absolute. the person who said this feels government should do next to nothing and the people should decide what is fair. example: a person robs a store; the clerk or owner should decide what is to be done with the criminal rather than the laws of the government. this is not logical since no one would agree with everyone and it would be equivalent to the wild where the strongest survive. seeing as humans have weapons of mass destruction, letting society decide for itself is never a good idea. people are dysfunctional and irrational. if a person breaks up with their companion(romantically speaking), the other person may decide to end the ex's life. how just would this be; not at all. there will only ever be one possible scenario where no person can impede on another person's life. when every person lives by them self and only interacts with a computer interface for needs; sustenance or other needs/desires. this may sound like a hellish world but no one will be able to control anybody else. in order to preserve overall freedom some luxuries must be sacrificed. like society.
How binding is an addendum to a contract? What are the required characteristics of a proper addendum? Are there some cases I can look at?
It depends. The provisions of the addendum have to be enforceable, first of all. But assuming they are, if the parties to the contract agree that the addendum is part of the contract, then it’s part of the contract, as binding as the original document.The understanding between the parties that the addendum is part of the agreement has to be set forth in the original document or on the addendum, in language that usually provides that the addendum is incorporated into the agreement by reference - or some similar language.If there is any relevant case law, I don’t know of any. It’s basic contract drafting. The kind of thing you learn on the job, not in contract law class. I doubt any cases have ever defined what makes for addendum validity.To be clear, an addendum isn’t going to be questionable just because it’s an addendum. Contracts are amended, customized, and changed all the time. Addendums are a way of doing that.Seek legal counsel. Most attorneys offer free initial consultations and can tell you fairly quickly whether you have a valid legal claim or not over a particular contract.
Why does Cuba tolerate the presence of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?
The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base has been used by the US since the Spanish American War. The US got a lease for the land before the Cuban revolution when relations between the US and Cuba were better. After the Cuban revolution, the situation became much less friendly. At one point, the Cuban government cut off water and electricity. Now the base gets its water from a desalination plant that is very expensive. All supplies are shipped in by barge (or flown in) and the base has to generate its own electricity. Additionally, there is a minefield no-man’s land and guarded fences all the way around the base that are reminiscent of the Berlin Wall. So essentially, Cuba honors a longstanding treaty/lease but that’s about as far as it goes.