This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Current Events

1246739

Comments

  • edited May 2012
    I'm not too certain of the legal logistics myself, but I believe it has something to do with the general idea/belief that the states should be testing grounds for future federal laws. If the states kept getting smacked upside the head whenever they tried to do something new and different, then potentially awesome laws would not have the opportunity to be tested out to see if they actually are awesome, or are a bag full of puss and urine.
    Post edited by Banta on
  • edited May 2012
    How cute. You think that what the Constitution says it what it says.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • I'm pretty sure that there are some state constitutions which declare that public office can only be entrusted to christians, which is of course nullified by the fact that the U.S. constitution states that this can not be done.
    I've never heard this, can you provide a source?
  • I've never heard this, can you provide a source?
    Random website since I'm too lazy to directly quote the primary sources myself, but it should suffice.
  • Shouldn't these marriage amendments be automatically voided by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
    There is no such thing as automatically voided. States can put anything they want in their Constitutions. It only gets struck down if someone challenges it in court. In order to do that, you have to have standing. Which means you have to show that you have been injured by the law. So the law has to come into force, be applied against you, and then you have to bring a lawsuit alleging the injury from the unconstitutional law.

    So yeah, they can put whatever the hell they want in their laws. They can't be struck down until someone gets hurt.
  • By "automatically void" I meant that it would be impossible to be upheld in a court case. Of course I am aware that there is a process that has to take place first. To me that marriage law appears to be just as unenforceable as those religious restriction laws I mentioned.
  • I think a key difference here might be the fact that this is an amendment to a state's Constitution. Granted, I have very little idea of what that practically means in terms of enforcement and appeal, but I'm assuming that that is a bit more difficult to overturn.

    Plus, NC already had a "No Homo" clause for marriage on the books anyway.
  • NC basically said to the world "we're not changing until the federal courts or a national constitutional amendment force us to."

  • I keep reading "NC" as "Nostalgia Critic" instead of "North Carolina." This is a much more interesting conversation than the one actually happening.
  • NC basically said to the world "we're not changing until the federal courts or a national constitutional amendment force us to."
    Actually NC did change. They changed for the worse. Even though gay marriage was already illegal, they used to recognize some legal domestic partnerships other than official marriage. Now they don't. This pertains to hetero partnerships as well as homo partnerships. Any government service or legal right dependent upon a legal domestic connection is now unavailable to anyone who is not officially married to their partner. Including things like domestic violence assistance and hospital visitation.
  • I wonder if NC had voted to reject the amendment whether he would have come out to support gay marriage like he did today.
  • Obama officially stated today that he supports gay marriage.
  • Whoopty fucking shit. We're going to give the head of the Democratic Party some kudos for publicly stating he favors a Democratic plank that's been around for more than a decade? We should be criticizing him for waiting until after the NC vote to weigh in.
  • edited May 2012
    Well, that just adds NC to my shit list. Shame that my wife actually would like to live there one day (albeit not for this reason).
    Post edited by Dragonmaster Lou on
  • Whoopty fucking shit. We're going to give the head of the Democratic Party some kudos for publicly stating he favors a Democratic plank that's been around for more than a decade? We should be criticizing him for waiting until after the NC vote to weigh in.
    Sounds like he was originally going to announce this right before the convention but Biden's remarks sped things up.

    As for not deserving kudos, this could conceivably cost him a close state and then the election. Let's just hope this motivates the base more than it costs him.
  • Whoopty fucking shit. We're going to give the head of the Democratic Party some kudos for publicly stating he favors a Democratic plank that's been around for more than a decade? We should be criticizing him for waiting until after the NC vote to weigh in.
    Sounds like he was originally going to announce this right before the convention but Biden's remarks sped things up.

    As for not deserving kudos, this could conceivably cost him a close state and then the election. Let's just hope this motivates the base more than it costs him.
    Most of the political analysis I've seen so far from non-partisan sources seems to indicate that at worst it has no impact at all and at best it helps him a lot in fundraising. This is due to polls indicating that swing voters in general are either in favor of gay marriage or don't particularly care one way or the other:
    It is just as safe for the president because few voters are likely to cross over to the Republican side in November simply because he has now endorsed same-sex marriage and it will be a fundraising boon for him.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage say that Obama’s decision will hurt him in battleground states, most of whom have laws against such unions, but polls tell a different story. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that a plurality of swing voters favors same-sex marriage, 47 percent to 39 percent, and outside the South the margin widens to a majority of 53 percent in favor and 35 percent opposed.
  • Also, if you are someone who refuses to publicly speak in favor of civil rights because it might be unpopular, then I don't want you to be president anyway.
  • Also, if you are someone who refuses to publicly speak in favor of civil rights because it might be unpopular, then I don't want you to be president anyway.
    Careful. All politicians play the game, and there is literally no way to be successful without doing so.

    If you choose not to play along, you basically guarantee the worst outcome instead of the mediocre outcome.

  • In this case, I hate the players just as much as the game. They enable the game.
  • In this case, I hate the players just as much as the game. They enable the game.
    But choosing not to play guarantees the other side wins unconditionally. Is it really worth letting everything burn?
  • Also, if you are someone who refuses to publicly speak in favor of civil rights because it might be unpopular, then I don't want you to be president anyway.
    Careful. All politicians play the game, and there is literally no way to be successful without doing so.

    If you choose not to play along, you basically guarantee the worst outcome instead of the mediocre outcome.

    Yeah, I get annoyed when people want a politician to behave in a way that will cause them to lose and not really help the cause. It's one thing if your a congressmen in a +20 D reg advantage district makes a stand, but for someone in a toss up district and you don't have the votes to pass it anyway, your just throwing away that vote by expecting them to declare and put their job on the line with no benefit.

    To play the game properly, you keep a couple of people who are pro but not actively talking about it or avoiding the issue up your sleeve and work on shoring up your base. When you just enough votes to almost do it, you then go to ask the fence sitters or secret yes votes to come out suddenly. You reward them by giving them the spotlight and making them vital for the passage of the bill and you get what you want and they turn a weakness into a potential strength.

    The president had nothing to gain and everything to lose in 2008 when running for president by backing same sex marriage, he was courting the white evangelical voters who were starting to behave like swing voters and had to ensure he didn't lose Hispanics (and a lesser extent blacks) who have a history of not approving of gay marriage. Meanwhile the groups that would have been more favorable to him for coming out for gay marriage were already in his camp for the most part. Now the President can present himself as someone who has thought about an issue and progressed, while Mitt Romney, has regressed on this issue. The President is able to attack freely Romney illustrating moderates have moved to being pro on this issue while Romney is now firmly on the right side while the right will still be anxious as to what Romney's real opinion is. It's not like people are going to doubt Obama is for gay marriage. People are going to doubt that Romney is against it and it helps beat him up on his weakness.
  • In this case, I hate the players just as much as the game. They enable the game.
    But choosing not to play guarantees the other side wins unconditionally. Is it really worth letting everything burn?
    Because I do not have millions to donate, and because Congress is entirely purchased by lobbyists, and because campaign finance reform will never happen, and because the class divide is only widening, and because there seems to be no relief in partisan entrenchment, and because there is no effective system in place for holding politicians accountable for their campaign promises, and because movements such as Occupy Wall Street have been utterly ignored or suppressed...

    ... for all these reasons, I suggest it has already burned. Everything else is public opinion theater.
  • I started replying to this thread, and it got long. I posted it on my blog instead!

    http://www.apreche.net/summer-camp-politics/
  • I started replying to this thread, and it got long. I posted it on my blog instead!

    http://www.apreche.net/summer-camp-politics/
    I'm impressed; very well written. Probably the closest we'll ever see Scott engage in a political discussion. Although, I couldn't help notice the story included Scott being king, even if only for a little while.
  • edited May 2012
    2000 seems like a long time ago. I did some searching and found a better one, even though it's not that different.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf

    Edit: I combined them both for easier viewing and comparison.

    image
    Post edited by Rochelle on
  • edited May 2012
    yeaaap.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • What is the proper derogatory term to describe people who come out and say, "yeah, blacks don't like gay marriage but they'll still vote for Obama because he's black" ???
  • Not a racist; but rather, a person who has said something racist. Here's a really helpful guide towards reeducating the masses, and discovering whether a person has just said something ig'nant, or is actually a racist.

  • What is the proper derogatory term to describe people who come out and say, "yeah, blacks don't like gay marriage but they'll still vote for Obama because he's black" ???
    Mouth-breathing dipshit?
Sign In or Register to comment.