So then the states would have to pass new laws to ban new gay marriages in their own state.
If the Equal Protection clause were used to force states to recognize same-sex marriages in other states, state laws preventing gay marriages would be evidently unconstitutional based on that clear precedent and would be struck down in short order.
That's why it's important to know what the specific grounds are for the scenario Steve proposes.
I forsee a bizarre union between the NRA and GLAD.
I'm not sure how this would go if two states go to court arguing for two different definitions of marriage. I do know that many states have different minimum ages for marriage but if underage people go out of state to get married the home state will honor that otherwise legal marriage.
I do think that if states are required to honor the "public acts" of other states than DOMA is the only thing standing in the way of gay couples marrying out of state (less than optimal solution) and having their home state honor that union. Further all it takes is a few good examples of the positive impact of such unions to garner support for change.
I'm not sure how this would go if two states go to court arguing for two different definitions of marriage.
I don't think they would; such a challenge would probably be citizens suing for recognition after having been denied it, rather than one state suing another.
I do think that if states are required to honor the "public acts" of other states than DOMA is the only thing standing in the way of gay couples marrying out of state (less than optimal solution) and having their home state honor that union.
Ah, so you're arguing this on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. As far as I can tell, there is actually not much precedent for the application of this clause to marriages.
After all, in the case of interracial marriage, there was quite a long time during which some states recognized it and others did not, and yet I can't find a notable case of this being successfully challenged on the basis of that clause.
Moreover, if (as you propose) DOMA is struck down on the basis of a states' rights argument, it may only be struck down in part; the part that, as you said, "carved out the exception allowing states to not recognize gay marriage licenses issued by other states", may yet remain.
On the whole, an argument solely based on states' rights doesn't really do the job here.
No, I don't live in the U.S., and quite frankly, I wouldn't want to. I really much rather live here in austria, where we enjoy pretty much all of the same legal and civil rights, sometimes even more, than the U.S. and I can get pretty much all the same pop culture exports, the only thing the U.S. really produces anymore, via the internet. But in addition to that I see several perks here, because for example the kids of my sister (I don't currently plant to have any of my own) will have accessible and good healthcare throughout their lives, and they will be able to go to college based on their grades, and not have to bury themselves under massive debt to do so. Also, here they don't have to fear that some nut with a gun will attempt to murder them at every turn. No, it does not suck to be somewhere else.
*sigh* Aside from that last bit about being afraid of unstable gun nuts (they are really not that common), I can't disagree with any of your points. It is eternally frustrating to me that the US doesn't provide basic things like healthcare and adequate education to its citizens. I want to punch the people who labor under the delusion that the US is the greatest and best country in the world. I love my country, but it has some work to do.
I don't understand the concept of loving a country. I simply don't. I love people, certain philosophical outlooks, etc. Maybe it is because I am a US citizen and the US is not a self consistent thing. It appears differently to each person. Further, in its current state, our Nation is at the mercy of major corporations, religious fanatics, and ignorance (often willful). More importantly, the majority of people have decreasing access to the resources of this land while a few have more ever increasing access to resources so far beyond there need as to make the Sun King uncomfortable.
While I would never advocate any bloody uprising, we desperately need a true revolution-and a constant one at that. Tradition means nothing in and of itself. It is broken, fix it. If it cannot be fixed, discard it. Our system is so bogged down in its own constipated dogma that protections built into our laws that would allow us to make changes to our most basic and fundamental laws went from being difficult to being down right impossible.
I honestly don't give a single turdlette for the US as a concept. If we can make it better by changing borders, changing laws, spitting on symbols, and calling it something else, than we should. I have no real feelings of patriotism. I love certain philosophical aspects that were adopted (and some largely discarded) by the US throughout its short existence, but I feel no fealty, love, or loyalty to it as a whole. To me patriotism seems almost as irrational as religious faith. This does not mean that I inherently disrespect anyone that express either, simply that I cannot approach that mindset.
To me patriotism seems almost as irrational as religious faith.
It's not rational for the individual, but it is very useful for those in power to cultivate it, especially when it comes to war (n.b. this applies equally to religious faith).
To me patriotism seems almost as irrational as religious faith.
It's not rational for the individual, but it is very useful for those in power to cultivate it, especially when it comes to war (n.b. this applies equally to religious faith).
Perhaps the same could be said of all religions...
Ugh. I used the wrong there/their. I hate when others do that, and I feel like a dolt. My apologies forum. I would edit it if I could, but Nazi-Jew says no. ;-p
Extreme nationalism can become very close to religion. That isn't anything new really. Most obvious example is North Korea, where nationalism is a religion and the form of government is a theocracy as Their Great Leader guides the country from beyond the grave through his descendents.
Of course that's not to say I would accuse Jack of being of the sort. Jack simply likes his home country (I presume) and would like to see it do better and be again the best country in the world. Unfortunately, despite all its resources it is not.
Of course that's not to say I would accuse Jack of being of the sort. Jack simply likes his home country (I presume) and would like to see it do better and be again the best country in the world. Unfortunately, despite all its resources it is not.
I don't understand the concept of loving a country. I simply don't. I love people, certain philosophical outlooks, etc. Maybe it is because I am a US citizen and the US is not a self consistent thing. It appears differently to each person. Further, in its current state, our Nation is at the mercy of major corporations, religious fanatics, and ignorance (often willful). More importantly, the majority of people have decreasing access to the resources of this land while a few have more ever increasing access to resources so far beyond there need as to make the Sun King uncomfortable.
While I would never advocate any bloody uprising, we desperately need a true revolution-and a constant one at that. Tradition means nothing in and of itself. It is broken, fix it. If it cannot be fixed, discard it. Our system is so bogged down in its own constipated dogma that protections built into our laws that would allow us to make changes to our most basic and fundamental laws went from being difficult to being down right impossible.
I honestly don't give a single turdlette for the US as a concept. If we can make it better by changing borders, changing laws, spitting on symbols, and calling it something else, than we should. I have no real feelings of patriotism. I love certain philosophical aspects that were adopted (and some largely discarded) by the US throughout its short existence, but I feel no fealty, love, or loyalty to it as a whole. To me patriotism seems almost as irrational as religious faith. This does not mean that I inherently disrespect anyone that express either, simply that I cannot approach that mindset.
Loving something doesn't mean you don't want it to change for the better. In my experience,you have to care about something to try to fix it rather than just walking away from it. If I didn't have an affinity for this country, I would move to Europe as soon as I could find a legal way to do so. And yet I do feel an attachment to this country; I want to help it get better to better serve all of my fellow citizens rather than walking away from it.
I love my Dad, but I wish he wouldn't be so much of a dick. I love my Mom, but I wish she would do things differently around the house. Loving something or someone does not mean you approve of everything about it/them and have fanatical devotion to it.
To me patriotism seems almost as irrational as religious faith.
It's not rational for the individual, but it is very useful for those in power to cultivate it, especially when it comes to war (n.b. this applies equally to religious faith).
Perhaps the same could be said of all religions...
Your words are as empty as your soul, mankind ill need a savior such as you.
I actually don't hate patriotism. It's healthy in wartime (meaning real war like WWII and Civil, not this bullshit where war has become perifiral in the cultural psyche), and when the country is doing well it can encourage that. Right now it is uncalled for, but it's not dangerous, it's just stupid.
Patriotism is healthy in wartime only in that you (arguably) need it to counter the patriotism of the other side. The greatest counter to your suggestion that (U.S.) patriotism in WWII was a good thing is Japanese patriotism in that same war, or for that matter the German patriotism that was crucial in starting the war. Or is patriotism only a good thing when you were going to win the war anyway?
If there was less patriotism all round, there would be less war.
One of the biggest issues with patriotism is that it's vulnerable to positive feedback loop situations - very much of the Cold War is, I think, an excellent example of this.
The issue is exacerbated when people live in a bubble *cough* Republicans *cough*.
Actually, I was thinking of Russian patriotism in WWII, but your thing works too. I don't think the victor of either WWII or the American Civil War was clear entering the war. This is clear by the fact that the generals (McClellan and Eichman both) said that the troops would be home by Christmas. Had Lincoln not found Grant and Stalin not held out in Stalingrad (or not done a number of other things leading up to that), the outcome could have been drastically different.
Yeah, if there was less patriotism there would be less war, but it's not that simple. Patriotism is teh same force that keeps policies that work in place. It's what elected and reelected Ike, brought Churchill to the foreground of British politics (IDK why I'm in WWII mode today) and reelected Teddy Roosevelt (a slightly more questionable move, but one with good results overall.)
And, yeah, bwcause Democrats never live in a bubble, especially not since Google tweaks its search results for your browsing/search history.
Actually, I was thinking of Russian patriotism in WWII, but your thing works too. I don't think the victor of either WWII or the American Civil War was clear entering the war. This is clear by the fact that the generals (McClellan and Eichman both) said that the troops would be home by Christmas. Had Lincoln not found Grant and Stalin not held out in Stalingrad (or not done a number of other things leading up to that), the outcome could have been drastically different.
That's an interesting discussion, but I don't really know enough to continue it. Of course, counterfactual questions are always problematic, though often interesting.
Yeah, if there was less patriotism there would be less war, but it's not that simple. Patriotism is teh same force that keeps policies that work in place. It's what elected and reelected Ike, brought Churchill to the foreground of British politics (IDK why I'm in WWII mode today) and reelected Teddy Roosevelt (a slightly more questionable move, but one with good results overall.)
The problem is that patriotism does not differentiate between good policies and bad ones, and between good leaders and bad ones. Such things should be chosen and upheld on their actual merits rather than by viewing them through the warped lens of patriotism.
And, yeah, bwcause Democrats never live in a bubble, especially not since Google tweaks its search results for your browsing/search history.
I never said that they never do, and I've expressed concern over the effects of Google's tweaking before. However, I think the parallel universe of the hard right in the U.S. is the foremost example of such a bubble.
Your words are as empty as your soul, mankind ill need a savior such as you.
What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets. But enough talk... Have at you!
It is important to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is devotion to one's country, pure and simple. It can take the form of unquestioning devotion to the policies of one's leaders, or a devotion to changing those policies for the better. Nationalism is the exultation of one nation over every other, and the principle of imposing that nation's ideals and motivations on everyone else. Variations on nationalism, not patriotism, were used to justify imperialism, many a holy war, and Hitler's invasion of Poland.
It is important to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is devotion to one's country, pure and simple. It can take the form of unquestioning devotion to the policies of one's leaders, or a devotion to changing those policies for the better. Nationalism is the exultation of one nation over every other, and the principle of imposing that nation's ideals and motivations on everyone else. Variations on nationalism, not patriotism, were used to justify imperialism, many a holy war, and Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Or as I like to oversimplify: Patriotism is cheering for your country's team in the Olympics. Nationalism is bombing the country that beat your country's team in the Olympics.
Not to be that guy, but the difference between patriotism and nationalism is more then just the amount of fervor. I think this quote says it best: "The goal of nationalist movements everywhere is to create territorially bounded political units (states) out of homogenous cultural communities (nations)."
The problem with American nationalism is that it's primarily (impoverished) white people wishing this country was built only for them. This is a primitive and unacceptable stance in a multicultural, modern state.
So... the Supreme Court will be telling us pretty soon if they are going to tackle any of the marriage equality cases that are petitioning for cert. I haz an excite.
That wasn't so hard now was it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220 Seeing if it gets through the house of lords will be interesting, but it will probably be quickly re-submitted.
And had the best conversation with my brother about it:
However, they recently came back with this:
Let me address your 1st point. I do believe in our taxes going to help those that Can't not won't help themselves. Also I don't want to pay for people that have entered this country illegally. Sad thing is more money goes to taking care of illegal immigrants than to our war heros and their families. While we offer housing to illegals soldiers are be foreclosured On. Gotta get back to work but I will break down the rest of your points.
Rochelle, I still don't support the Democrats or their lack of care for us Veterans. The Democrats have had over 4 years in office to make things better (w/ a Democratic Senate even longer). It is not better. We're still at war, We're still struggling to pay our Mortgages, debts, loans, people are still un-employed, & we're still in a recession. To continue blame the Bush administration excuse gets old real fast. Even in the Military you can't blame your predecessor about the current failures in the job you have taken. You get 90 days in the job to improve upon the job or you get relieved from it. Sen Feinstein & Pelosi are some of the biggest dimwits in Congress. Feinstein tried to pass her gun bill but it was shot down (as it should be). Congress continues to keep their pay during this "fiscal cliff" but threaten to cut the Soldier's & other Government workers. I don't support "sponsoring" (which is feeding) a Congressional staffer, they make $61-$75 thousand a year. Not while they cut Various Veterans programs & Soldier education benefits. Yes, SCOTUS job is to interpret the law. Gay Marriage is not important to me nor many Americans. We must focus on other issues besides this.
I think I'm just going to give up on this conversation.
Comments
That's why it's important to know what the specific grounds are for the scenario Steve proposes.
I'm not sure how this would go if two states go to court arguing for two different definitions of marriage. I do know that many states have different minimum ages for marriage but if underage people go out of state to get married the home state will honor that otherwise legal marriage.
I do think that if states are required to honor the "public acts" of other states than DOMA is the only thing standing in the way of gay couples marrying out of state (less than optimal solution) and having their home state honor that union. Further all it takes is a few good examples of the positive impact of such unions to garner support for change.
After all, in the case of interracial marriage, there was quite a long time during which some states recognized it and others did not, and yet I can't find a notable case of this being successfully challenged on the basis of that clause.
Moreover, if (as you propose) DOMA is struck down on the basis of a states' rights argument, it may only be struck down in part; the part that, as you said, "carved out the exception allowing states to not recognize gay marriage licenses issued by other states", may yet remain.
On the whole, an argument solely based on states' rights doesn't really do the job here.
While I would never advocate any bloody uprising, we desperately need a true revolution-and a constant one at that. Tradition means nothing in and of itself. It is broken, fix it. If it cannot be fixed, discard it. Our system is so bogged down in its own constipated dogma that protections built into our laws that would allow us to make changes to our most basic and fundamental laws went from being difficult to being down right impossible.
I honestly don't give a single turdlette for the US as a concept. If we can make it better by changing borders, changing laws, spitting on symbols, and calling it something else, than we should. I have no real feelings of patriotism. I love certain philosophical aspects that were adopted (and some largely discarded) by the US throughout its short existence, but I feel no fealty, love, or loyalty to it as a whole. To me patriotism seems almost as irrational as religious faith. This does not mean that I inherently disrespect anyone that express either, simply that I cannot approach that mindset.
Love you, Scott!
Of course that's not to say I would accuse Jack of being of the sort. Jack simply likes his home country (I presume) and would like to see it do better and be again the best country in the world. Unfortunately, despite all its resources it is not.
I love my Dad, but I wish he wouldn't be so much of a dick. I love my Mom, but I wish she would do things differently around the house. Loving something or someone does not mean you approve of everything about it/them and have fanatical devotion to it.
I actually don't hate patriotism. It's healthy in wartime (meaning real war like WWII and Civil, not this bullshit where war has become perifiral in the cultural psyche), and when the country is doing well it can encourage that. Right now it is uncalled for, but it's not dangerous, it's just stupid.
If there was less patriotism all round, there would be less war.
One of the biggest issues with patriotism is that it's vulnerable to positive feedback loop situations - very much of the Cold War is, I think, an excellent example of this.
The issue is exacerbated when people live in a bubble *cough* Republicans *cough*.
Yeah, if there was less patriotism there would be less war, but it's not that simple. Patriotism is teh same force that keeps policies that work in place. It's what elected and reelected Ike, brought Churchill to the foreground of British politics (IDK why I'm in WWII mode today) and reelected Teddy Roosevelt (a slightly more questionable move, but one with good results overall.)
And, yeah, bwcause Democrats never live in a bubble, especially not since Google tweaks its search results for your browsing/search history.
The problem with American nationalism is that it's primarily (impoverished) white people wishing this country was built only for them. This is a primitive and unacceptable stance in a multicultural, modern state.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220
Seeing if it gets through the house of lords will be interesting, but it will probably be quickly re-submitted.
However, they recently came back with this: I think I'm just going to give up on this conversation.