Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Martin Blank » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:43 am

collegestudent22 wrote:There is no reason why a standard contractual set of rights and obligations for marriage would not exist without the government administering it. The only difference would be that people (of any sexuality) wouldn't have to go to the government, hat in hand, and beg for their marriage to be recognized.
No one "begs" for a marriage to be recognized. You fill out a form, it's signed off by the proper people, and it's filed. The only reasons the government can question it is in the case of someone who is apparently already married, underage, mentally incompetent, or (with some exceptions) of the same gender.

And who would set up this standard contract? There are thousands of legal firms specializing in family law throughout the country. Each of them would have a "standard" contract. Hospitals would spend time going through the contract--if it were brought with--to figure out who could make decisions. It would be a nightmare. Standardization of any significant extent would be backed up by the government, dragging it back into it.

Changing it to a contract also increases the costs involved. Filing for marriage is usually inexpensive; in California, it's about $60-$70. That amount will usually get you about 20 minutes with an attorney, not long enough to get a contract settled out.

Your way, incidentally, would allow siblings to get married--unless, of course, the government restricted that right of entry into the contract. Anti-incest laws have been challenged in court, and the courts have found that the government has a compelling reason to ban incest, not least of which is the societal cost of inbreeding.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:57 am

Martin Blank wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:There is no reason why a standard contractual set of rights and obligations for marriage would not exist without the government administering it. The only difference would be that people (of any sexuality) wouldn't have to go to the government, hat in hand, and beg for their marriage to be recognized.
No one "begs" for a marriage to be recognized. You fill out a form, it's signed off by the proper people, and it's filed. The only reasons the government can question it is in the case of someone who is apparently already married, underage, mentally incompetent, or (with some exceptions) of the same gender.
So it's complicated begging. Government has veto power over the intimate relationships of individuals. That's just messed up. End Jim Crow completely. Do away with marriage licensing laws!
And who would set up this standard contract? There are thousands of legal firms specializing in family law throughout the country. Each of them would have a "standard" contract.
So? We already have overlapping jurisdictions for various laws. We already have situations where contractual obligations can differ from instance to instance - including power of attorney.
Hospitals would spend time going through the contract--if it were brought with--to figure out who could make decisions. It would be a nightmare.
Power of attorney contracts already exist, and fulfill this exact role, among others. Visiting "rights" should be determined by hospitals in agreement with patients and their legal representatives, not by some kind of bullshit social consensus as to who should be allowed to visit patients.
Standardization of any significant extent would be backed up by the government, dragging it back into it.
Standardization does not require government - only a market demand for simplicity over specific features.
Changing it to a contract also increases the costs involved. Filing for marriage is usually inexpensive; in California, it's about $60-$70. That amount will usually get you about 20 minutes with an attorney, not long enough to get a contract settled out.
How complicated do you expect this contract to be? I just bought a car, and that contract required no time with any lawyers and no fees whatsoever. Why do you need any of that for a simple marriage contract regarding power of attorney privileges and property arrangements for a union?
Your way, incidentally, would allow siblings to get married--unless, of course, the government restricted that right of entry into the contract. Anti-incest laws have been challenged in court, and the courts have found that the government has a compelling reason to ban incest, not least of which is the societal cost of inbreeding.
The government has found that the government has a compelling reason to do a lot of things in the past. Like prevent gay people or interracial couples from getting married. The court that just gave itself the power to determine what is the limits of itself has no justification for anything, in my mind. Besides, the "societal cost" of inbreeding is a fabrication of government policy in the first place, just like the "societal cost" of the uninsured or the heavily obese.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

bagheadinc
Bay Harbor Butcher
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:25 pm
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: Male
Location: Fruitland, MD

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by bagheadinc » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:39 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:I just bought a car, and that contract required no time with any lawyers and no fees whatsoever. Why do you need any of that for a simple marriage contract regarding power of attorney privileges and property arrangements for a union?
Because your car doesn't have the opportunity to demand different terms in the contract, nor does it have the ability to make legal decisions should you not be able to, nor will it fight for half (or more) of your assets should you choose to end your agreement.
collegestudent22 wrote:Besides, the "societal cost" of inbreeding is a fabrication of government policy in the first place
So the increased risk of recessive mutations causing various disorders was just made up by the government and has nothing to do with genetics. Got it.
Image

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:38 pm

bagheadinc wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:I just bought a car, and that contract required no time with any lawyers and no fees whatsoever. Why do you need any of that for a simple marriage contract regarding power of attorney privileges and property arrangements for a union?
Because your car doesn't have the opportunity to demand different terms in the contract, nor does it have the ability to make legal decisions should you not be able to, nor will it fight for half (or more) of your assets should you choose to end your agreement.
I didn't make the agreement with my car... I agreed to a fairly complicated multi-page contract with the finance company, regarding various obligations of both myself and the car dealer, after haggling the basic terms out with another human being. No lawyers necessary or anything. The problem is with including "visiting rights" and the like in the idea of marriage, when (a) there is no such "right to visit", only a high desire to do so for most people and (b) a separate agreement is the only just way to determine interactions there.
collegestudent22 wrote:Besides, the "societal cost" of inbreeding is a fabrication of government policy in the first place
So the increased risk of recessive mutations causing various disorders was just made up by the government and has nothing to do with genetics. Got it.
Nonsense. This is not a "societal cost", but one borne by an individual and their descendants. Can't even be sure that it is a net cost at all in the long run. For one, evolutionary theory virtually requires that incestuous relations are necessary early in the existence of a species, and an increased risk of mutation may lead to beneficial ones (virtually has to in some degree, unless evolution is just a load of hot air?). Plus, having laws against incest is to have laws that are virtually unenforceable until it is already "too late" with regards to this cost. Sure, they can't get married.... but it isn't the marriage that is the root problem there.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

bagheadinc
Bay Harbor Butcher
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:25 pm
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: Male
Location: Fruitland, MD

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by bagheadinc » Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:06 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:I didn't make the agreement with my car... I agreed to a fairly complicated multi-page contract with the finance company, regarding various obligations of both myself and the car dealer, after haggling the basic terms out with another human being.
I was obviously doing that as a joke to belittle your comparison of buying a car and a marriage contract, but my point still stands. Just replace car with finance company or dealership. The a legal contract with a dealership and/or finance company is much more simplistic than a life long partnership agreement would be. Financial agreements are pretty cut and dry, "I pay this much over this period of time, you charge this much interest, I don't pay, I lose the car". And no, you are not haggling with another human being, you are haggling with an organization; even if you are dealing with one person while making the terms, they are a representative of the company.

A contract where you would name somebody power of attorney and agree to property/financial ownerships, etc would absolutely require an attorney. These already exist and if you sign a power of attorney or prenup without consulting a lawyer, you are asking for trouble.
collegestudent22 wrote:Can't even be sure that it is a net cost at all in the long run.
Yes, we can. It's been observed. Without genetic variation, evolution will fail.
collegestudent22 wrote:For one, evolutionary theory virtually requires that incestuous relations are necessary early in the existence of a species
Correct, and then branches out, you need variation for evolution to work. We are not in the early existence of our species, so your point is moot.
collegestudent22 wrote:and an increased risk of mutation may lead to beneficial ones (virtually has to in some degree, unless evolution is just a load of hot air?).
Except there incest results in little genetic variation, a very important requirement in beneficial mutations. Sure there is still a chance of a beneficial one, but a much greater chance of either no mutation or a negative one.
collegestudent22 wrote:Plus, having laws against incest is to have laws that are virtually unenforceable until it is already "too late" with regards to this cost.
Umm...ok? There is a law against speeding, but it can only be enforced after you speed. There is a law against stealing, but it can only be enforced after you steal something. There is a law against murder, but it can only be enforced after you kill somebody.
collegestudent22 wrote:Sure, they can't get married.... but it isn't the marriage that is the root problem there.
Fair point, but you could say the same thing about underage drinking. Sure, they can't buy alcohol...but it isn't the purchase of alcohol that is the root problem there.
Image

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Deacon » Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:40 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:There is not a "societal cost", but one borne by an individual and their descendants.
Not in our socialist society...
For one, evolutionary theory virtually requires that incestuous relations are necessary early in the existence of a species, and an increased risk of mutation may lead to beneficial ones (virtually has to in some degree, unless evolution is just a load of hot air?).
Whether you're right or not about marriage contracts, that's a really terrible argument.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Martin Blank » Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:50 am

collegestudent22 wrote:So? We already have overlapping jurisdictions for various laws. We already have situations where contractual obligations can differ from instance to instance - including power of attorney.
Power of attorney is regulated by--wait for it--the government! Certain people have automatic power of attorney: spouses, parents of minors, and legal guardians, for example. When there's a lack of a contract, they have to be able to fall back to something. Even with one, a power of attorney contract can be very simple, providing overarching power, or extremely complex, with power in some areas and not others. For example, you may have an investor who has power of attorney over your financial matters but not over your health matters.
Power of attorney contracts already exist, and fulfill this exact role, among others. Visiting "rights" should be determined by hospitals in agreement with patients and their legal representatives, not by some kind of bullshit social consensus as to who should be allowed to visit patients.
Visiting rights can be determined by contract, but in the absence of a contract--such as when the patient is unconscious and the hospital can't even figure out insurance, let alone who the patient's attorney is--then the law provides the required guidance.
Standardization does not require government - only a market demand for simplicity over specific features.
You do know this is the legal profession we're talking about, right? Have you ever been around two attorneys handling one topic who are not technically opposed but not technically on the same side? :glare:
How complicated do you expect this contract to be? I just bought a car, and that contract required no time with any lawyers and no fees whatsoever. Why do you need any of that for a simple marriage contract regarding power of attorney privileges and property arrangements for a union?
Great. So you're going to do this with every hospital that you could possibly go to, right? Every bank? Every medical professional? And do you have any idea how many attorney hours went into the contract that you signed? It took a sizable number of hours to get me approved by my employer's legal department to perform training for a company that is not my primary employer, for which primary employer I do no formal training (so no conflict of interest) and who wanted me to be able to train. It culminated in a letter--not a contract--authorizing me to perform the training.
Your way, incidentally, would allow siblings to get married--unless, of course, the government restricted that right of entry into the contract. Anti-incest laws have been challenged in court, and the courts have found that the government has a compelling reason to ban incest, not least of which is the societal cost of inbreeding.
For one, evolutionary theory virtually requires that incestuous relations are necessary early in the existence of a species, and an increased risk of mutation may lead to beneficial ones (virtually has to in some degree, unless evolution is just a load of hot air?).
Inbreeding doesn't increase mutations. It increases the incidence of recessive gene expression and it has been shown to be a major problem in recovering species. It's why when wolf and big cat species have been brought back from a couple of dozen individuals, it's usually by bringing in a closely-related species to improve the variation in the available genes.

There have been many experiments inbreeding animals and some studies on human inbreeding, which can happen in small populations with little external influence. This is not a trivial matter, and yes, there are societal costs that come from decreased fitness (or sometimes outright failure of fitness) for the workforce, resources go to supporting that person and possibly that person's offspring, deterring them from more effective use in the overall economy.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:00 am

bagheadinc wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:Can't even be sure that it is a net cost at all in the long run.
Yes, we can. It's been observed. Without genetic variation, evolution will fail.
A few relationships will not end all genetic variation.
Except there incest results in little genetic variation, a very important requirement in beneficial mutations.
Actually, it's virtually irrelevant - the mutations are not affected much by genetic variation. If they were, then evolution would be impossible.
collegestudent22 wrote:Plus, having laws against incest is to have laws that are virtually unenforceable until it is already "too late" with regards to this cost.
Umm...ok? There is a law against speeding, but it can only be enforced after you speed. There is a law against stealing, but it can only be enforced after you steal something. There is a law against murder, but it can only be enforced after you kill somebody.
There should be no law against speeding, either. And one can certainly prevent theft and murder beforehand - these involve unwanted intrusions against a person who can defend themselves.
collegestudent22 wrote:Sure, they can't get married.... but it isn't the marriage that is the root problem there.
Fair point, but you could say the same thing about underage drinking. Sure, they can't buy alcohol...but it isn't the purchase of alcohol that is the root problem there.
Shouldn't be a law against underage drinking, either.
Power of attorney is regulated by--wait for it--the government!
And it shouldn't be. Why is there always the presumption that if something is done by the government, it must be done by them? Or is even necessary at all?
When there's a lack of a contract, they have to be able to fall back to something.
Fall back to there is no power of attorney if it is not granted. Not difficult.
Even with one, a power of attorney contract can be very simple, providing overarching power, or extremely complex, with power in some areas and not others. For example, you may have an investor who has power of attorney over your financial matters but not over your health matters.
No reason this cannot be sorted out through individual decisions. It isn't all that complex to say "Person X has power of attorney over A, B, and C only, and only in these circumstances".
Visiting rights can be determined by contract, but in the absence of a contract--such as when the patient is unconscious and the hospital can't even figure out insurance, let alone who the patient's attorney is--then the law provides the required guidance.
The required guidance is simple. You don't have any evidence that the patient is OK with you visiting, nor can he provide that evidence now. So you can't visit. I realize that could upset people - but that doesn't mean you can violate people's rights. The real problem is there is no such thing as a generic "right to vist" - there is only the "right to allow selected visitor's". It is not the right of the patient's loved ones to visit - it is the right of the patient to accept visitors, provided the hospital allows this.
You do know this is the legal profession we're talking about, right? Have you ever been around two attorneys handling one topic who are not technically opposed but not technically on the same side?
I'd say that the biggest reason for this problem is the way government creates law and can force people to submit to it.
Great. So you're going to do this with every hospital that you could possibly go to, right? Every bank? Every medical professional?
That's unnecessary. Their policies would operate much as before. They would, just as now, request some evidence of power of attorney. You'd still have publicly accepted notaries and arbitration firms dealing with contracts and agreements. The only thing missing is monopolistic government.
It took a sizable number of hours to get me approved by my employer's legal department
This is a problem of government. Without the various laws. it would work like this. Company A would say "we're ok with you doing training for some other companies", Company B would say "we'd like you to train these people", and you'd agree or not. No "number of hours", no needing to go through legal, none of that.
yes, there are societal costs that come from decreased fitness (or sometimes outright failure of fitness) for the workforce, resources go to supporting that person and possibly that person's offspring, deterring them from more effective use in the overall economy.
Two major fallacies there: it is not a social cost to lose something that was never guaranteed in the first place, such as a certain composition of the workforce. The other is that the only reason resources go to that person and their offspring, instead of more effective use, is because of government welfare programs - the subsidization of individual cost by the collective. It is, once again, an individual cost forced upon society.
Whether you're right or not about marriage contracts, that's a really terrible argument.
It's a fact - whether incest leads to a cost or not is not guaranteed. Beneficial mutations can be recessive just as they can be dominant. Regardless, the main point is that these people should bear whatever cost results themselves, and they should be free to choose, even if the choice is really stupid.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

bagheadinc
Bay Harbor Butcher
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:25 pm
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: Male
Location: Fruitland, MD

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by bagheadinc » Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:25 am

collegestudent22 wrote:There should be no law against speeding, either.
But there is, saying it shouldn't exist doesn't negate the point I made. Just because you can't prevent somebody from breaking the law doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced.
collegestudent22 wrote:And one can certainly prevent theft and murder beforehand - these involve unwanted intrusions against a person who can defend themselves.
So somebody walks up behind you on the street and shoot you in the back of the head, it's your fault that you died because you could have prevented it?
collegestudent22 wrote:Shouldn't be a law against underage drinking, either.
But there is, once again saying it shouldn't exist doesn't negate my point.
collegestudent22 wrote:And it shouldn't be. Why is there always the presumption that if something is done by the government, it must be done by them? Or is even necessary at all?
So who should regulate it?
collegestudent22 wrote:Fall back to there is no power of attorney if it is not granted. Not difficult.
So who would make decisions should the person not be able to. Decisions like, "should we pull the plug?" or if a risky surgery needs to be performed.
collegestudent22 wrote:This is a problem of government. Without the various laws. it would work like this. Company A would say "we're ok with you doing training for some other companies", Company B would say "we'd like you to train these people", and you'd agree or not. No "number of hours", no needing to go through legal, none of that.
How is that a problem of government? Companies don't spend countless hours on legal contracts because of the government, they do it because they want a contract that will benefit them with little to no loopholes. It's not like the government is stepping in and requiring these contracts. If the company wanted, they wouldn't even need a contract, but they do want it. They want to cover their ass.
Image

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Martin Blank » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:37 pm

cs22's points have devolved to approximately the level of an old argument (by Fuggle, I think) that there should be no minimum sex age laws, and that it should be OK for a five-year-old child to engage in sexual activities. He's basically arguing for one step shy of anarchy, and I don't expect any posts to change that view.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Deacon » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:35 pm

Most reasonable Libertarians don't even espouse that level of lawlessness. It's OK for a society as massive as ours to be governed by laws in general; it's the breadth and depth of those laws that I find onerous, as it's a source of many other problems. They tend to be enacted by few to force their own personal world view on others--OK let's get real and say they poll their constituents to find out which bribes will work the best so they can increase their standing and power. Rules get bent by those with enough power or influence, rather than revising the rules to be less overbearing or simply avoiding them in the first place.

I love the idea of a Libertarian in the White House, because he couldn't get just any old extreme thing done, but he sure could poke both Democrats and Republicans in the eye where they need it. As Penn Jillette often says, "If you want to find utopia, take a right on money and a left on sex, and it’s straight ahead." Let people be who they are, let them find their own path in life, and it'll generally work out. Stop sentencing minorities to a life of subjugation to and dependence on the State, but also stop trying to tell gay people they're not allowed to love each other. It doesn't really seem all that difficult. Stop trying to control everything.

The concepts of both Central Planning and Keynesian Economics are...wrong for humanity in almost all scenarios.

Image
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Martin Blank » Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:17 am

There's a line that I've kept around for years because it applies to your point. "All law is codified revenge." I don't know who said it (it's on the front of SJ Games's GURPS Illuminati), but it's true far more often than it should be.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Deacon » Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:30 am

I've never heard that before. While clearly not literally true across the board, it's interesting how aptly that concept fits to so many laws.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by ampersand » Fri May 03, 2013 6:08 pm

With all the discussion about gay marriage, I thought this tweet was rather funny:
Dustin Penner wrote:Honestly I don't care if you are gay or straight as my teammate. As long as you don't listen to Nickelback. #courage

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: Ninth Circuit upholds decision allowing gay marriage

Post by Deacon » Fri May 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Haha, that's great :D
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests