Scott Betts seems to have something against my wanting to act like I'm above everybody else. >:(
So you find the group whose interests best align with your own, and you throw your weight behind them because you know that's how you have the best chance to accomplish something.
From my standpoint, my 0.01% alignment with the Democrats isn't significantly different from my 0.001% alignment with the Republicans -- statistically, they might as well both be zero (even if the Democrat number is, technically-speaking, 10x higher than the Republican one).
From my standpoint, my 0.01% alignment with the Democrats isn't significantly different from my 0.001% alignment with the Republicans -- statistically, they might as well both be zero (even if the Democrat number is, technically-speaking, 10x higher than the Republican one).
Are you sure the numbers are so low?
I know it's a lot to flip through, but here is the Democratic Party Platform, and here is the Republican Party Platform (unfortunately, they're the 2008 platforms because I couldn't find updated 2012 platforms in my brief search, but they should be very similar to what they are now; let me know if you find a newer version of either). If you have a few minutes, browse through them and ask yourself a) how much of each of these platforms do I agree with, and b) which one of these platforms do I agree with more?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand where you are coming from, Scott, but I mostly see political parties as an excuse to label the other party and throw up strawmen with this labels instead of abating the issues. Then we have the way congress always seems to stand on party lines instead of cooperating. That's why Obama can't get anything done. The system fosters competition instead of cooperation.
Again, I see where you are coming from. I don't agree, but I see.
I understand where you are coming from, Scott, but I mostly see political parties as an excuse to label the other party and throw up strawmen with this labels instead of abating the issues. Then we have the way congress always seems to stand on party lines instead of cooperating. That's why Obama can't get anything done. The system fosters competition instead of cooperation.
Again, I see where you are coming from. I don't agree, but I see.
Yeah, Congress is pretty awful, on the whole. But a lot of people see Congress and the Presidency and sort of think, "Hey, that's the party." There's a lot more to it than that, and a lot of parts that are much, much more efficacious.
Again, just food for thought.
|
It doesn't MATTER if it's a federally protected right. You cannot discriminate with the handing out of privleges.
Actually it does matter, that is the whole point of this discussion. States rights vs. Federal rights.
So, if I am single I should get the same tax breaks as a married couple? Or as a gay couple? What if by being a single male, living in Cali - I feel like my rights are being squashed via unfair privilege allocation?
I doesn't fly – the Constitution is not based on privileges, it’s based on rights – marriage is not a right (at least not under the Constitution). This has always been a State issue.
I want to stress something here Kelsey, when I pose an opposition view or state a fact I am not trying to attack you. You may see it that way, but I am just presenting an opposition view with reasons and facts as I know them.
That wasn't a workable method. Legally, a second ballot measure is NOT an option, because a ballot measure cannot remove the statement that was added to the constitution. It's far easier to add something than it is to change it or take it away altogether. A ballot measure can put something into the constitution, but it cannot change or remove it once it is there.
Disagree 100%. It is very workable, and doable. I think your fear (which you are not conveying) is that a movement to do such wouldn't have the votes.
The strong aspect for those against 8 isn't the "rights were already given so they cannot be rescinded" point. That is actually flimsy; the best point for invalidating 8 would be if the CA Constitution was properly amended via the 2008 vote, which I don't think it was. If it wasn't (which is how I think the Fed SC will rule) then the whole thing gets tossed out as if it didn't exist.
In any case there is always a fight, one of my points here is I rather have the people make it vs. some men/women in robes. You may not always get the judges you want, that is why I (personally) am against decree by court and would rather suffer under a vote.
@the jeff -No, BO did not come out against prop 8 when he was out here several times because he felt it would hurt his vote with the Latino community, that is why many people in the gay community here were very upset and felt betrayed by him after he won the election. So the president to-be doesn't come out against prop 8, and last time I checked Cali is a democrat stronghold controlled by democrats, stop making silly excuses for them. They sacrificed gay marriage at the altar of the BO bid for presidency - just to get their guy in office.
There are no ways around it, hell - even our Repub governor didn't go to court to defend 8, so no - this was let in by the Democrats in Cali and to say otherwise is dishonest.
Betts, you really need to cut out the rhetoric and violent jargon. That kind of garbage will do nothing but get you in trouble.
You also need to get off your partisan high horse, I think the air up there is affecting you ability to think rationally and preventing you from looking at things outside of an enemy/non-enemy paradigm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't MATTER if it's a federally protected right. You cannot discriminate with the handing out of privleges.Actually it does matter, that is the whole point of this discussion. States rights vs. Federal rights.
So, if I am single I should get the same tax breaks as a married couple? Or as a gay couple? What if by being a single male, living in Cali - I feel like my rights are being squashed via unfair privilege allocation?
As a single, heterosexual male, you are afforded the opportunity to marry your significant other.
As a single, homosexual male, you are not afforded the opportunity to marry your significant other.
The only difference between those two sentences is the hetero- or homo- root. You are denying homosexuals the same opportunities afforded heterosexuals. The equal protection clause prevents you from denying those opportunities, and also handily kills your states rights vs. Federal rights claim, since the equal protection clause explicitly applies to the states.
It doesn't MATTER if it's a federally protected right. You cannot discriminate with the handing out of privleges.Actually it does matter, that is the whole point of this discussion. States rights vs. Federal rights.
So, if I am single I should get the same tax breaks as a married couple? Or as a gay couple? What if by being a single male, living in Cali - I feel like my rights are being squashed via unfair privilege allocation?
I doesn't fly – the Constitution is not based on privileges, it’s based on rights – marriage is not a right (at least not under the Constitution). This has always been a State issue.I want to stress something here Kelsey, when I pose an opposition view or state a fact I am not trying to attack you. You may see it that way, but I am just presenting an opposition view with reasons and facts as I know them.
I'm not trying to attack you, either. That said, I stand by my statement that the government cannot legally hand out privileges in a discriminatory manner. The constitution forbids that.
That wasn't a workable method. Legally, a second ballot measure is NOT an option, because a ballot measure cannot remove the statement that was added to the constitution. It's far easier to add something than it is to change it or take it away altogether. A ballot measure can put something into the constitution, but it cannot change or remove it once it is there.Disagree 100%. It is very workable, and doable. I think your fear (which you are not conveying) is that a movement to do such wouldn't have the votes.
No, it isn't doable. A ballot measure can add a statement to the constitution, but it cannot change or remove a statement already in the constitution. It's not legal.
The strong aspect for those against 8 isn't the "rights were already given so they cannot be rescinded" point. That is actually flimsy; the best point for invalidating 8 would be if the CA Constitution was properly amended via the 2008 vote, which I don't think it was. If it wasn't (which is how I think the Fed SC will rule) then the whole thing gets tossed out as if it didn't exist.
I do agree that the initial amendment was illegal, seeing as how it bypassed the two-thirds majority. Still, I do like the idea of a law stating that a something that was given can't be taken away without a good reason.
In any case there is always a fight, one of my points here is I rather have the people make it vs. some men/women in robes. You may not always get the judges you want, that is why I (personally) am against decree by court and would rather suffer under a vote.
I wouldn't. This isn't a democracy, and never was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that the initial amendment was illegal, seeing as how it bypassed the two-thirds majority.
The whole proposition/referendum system is pretty terrible, and probably never should have come about.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I rather have the people make it vs. some men/women in robes.
WHY WON'T PEOPLE JUST LEAVE THE CULTISTS ALONE?! THEY HAVE RITES JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!
I removed a few posts that threatened to drive this thread off the rails. Keep it civil, everyone.
I removed a few posts that threatened to drive this thread off the rails. Keep it civil, everyone.
Were any of the posts that went too far mine? If so, I apologize. I should have considered the fact that this is a hot issue before I posted the thread.
|
That wasn't a workable method. Legally, a second ballot measure is NOT an option, because a ballot measure cannot remove the statement that was added to the constitution. It's far easier to add something than it is to change it or take it away altogether. A ballot measure can put something into the constitution, but it cannot change or remove it once it is there.
Strictly speaking.... actually, passing another constitutional amendment to explicitly nullify the previously inserted text is something we can do. It's the same way we the people used Amendment 21 to the U.S. Constitution to strike down Amendment 18 (Prohibition), and we've passed several other amendments nationally that have altered other parts of the Constitution. Pretty sure we've already done that in California at least a few times already too. So, it's possible.
But it shouldn't be necessary, because even if the amendment to the State Constitution was enacted properly, as far as the necessary vote thresh-hold goes-- State Constitutions cannot be in conflict with the Federal Constitution and Federal Law. Sections that are are supposed to be struck down.
I wouldn't. This isn't a democracy, and never was.
That is both 'true'-- from a very narrow definition and certain point of view; and untrue from most other definitions. The form of Government of the United States is a Constitutionally limited Representative Democracy (at least in theory-- to the extent that our elected representatives actually represent us in Government), but it is a form of democracy nonetheless. The only way to justify and make that claim that the United States does not have a democratic form of government is to insist that "Democracy" can only mean a Direct(or "Athenian") Democracy; and/or that "Democracy" cannot be applied to states where Governments are Constitutionally limited, rather than completely unfettered, with everything open to change by majority vote (such as many 'parliamentary democracies', also a form of representative democracy, are).
If you're going to say "This (the United States) isn't a democracy" one must be very careful about how you define that term... you should also realize that usually the only time I hear this claim is from the mouth of fairly extreme members of the 'Republican' party, used to justify oppressing various segments of the people with government support or at least without government interference. Kind of interesting to hear it from someone on the other side of that divide, but equally wrong no matter who says it.
|
|
It doesn't MATTER if it's a federally protected right. You cannot discriminate with the handing out of privleges.Actually it does matter, that is the whole point of this discussion. States rights vs. Federal rights.
So, if I am single I should get the same tax breaks as a married couple? Or as a gay couple? What if by being a single male, living in Cali - I feel like my rights are being squashed via unfair privilege allocation?
As a single, heterosexual male, you are afforded the opportunity to marry your significant other.
As a single, homosexual male, you are not afforded the opportunity to marry your significant other.
BS and you are missing the point. There are several groups and categories of people who are offered privileges and breaks that others do not get.
The tax structure as it currently stands affords breaks and bonuses based on marital status, poverty level and in gender (WIC). These are not protected or enumerated under any constitution yet they exist. Gay married couples are just another group who do not have access to these privileges - but there are several other groups/categories who do not. And again, none of this is empowered or detailed by the constitution.
Marriage should be part of religious ceremony and practice, while civil unions should be the law. If you want to get married in a church (that you are part of) then do so - you get no legal recognition. But I would also add that civil unions should not be afforded any extra breaks when it comes to taxes - that goes for everyone (straight or gay unions).
No, it isn't doable. A ballot measure can add a statement to the constitution, but it cannot change or remove a statement already in the constitution. It's not legal.
I've been looking through the California Constitution trying to find something to support this and I can't. If the language is good there is nothing to stop a ballot measure from amending the Constitution yet again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the core, it is very simple to scrutinize and pass judgement upon every law. They are meant to protect us from one another, and that's pretty much it.
Therefore, any law which serves any function at all other than prohibiting people from doing even the slightest bit of harm to other people is a bad law.
There is no logical reason at all whatsoever for any other type of law. People have the right to make all of their own decisions which affect only themselves, even if those choices are not good for them in some others' eyes.
Democracy is when people vote on everything that happens, IMO. If the majority does not rule 100% of the time, it's not a democracy. I do not feel that a representative democracy is in fact democratic. This is good. I don't like the idea of majority rule. It's basically two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. I'd much rather live in a republic.
No, it isn't doable. A ballot measure can add a statement to the constitution, but it cannot change or remove a statement already in the constitution. It's not legal.I've been looking through the California Constitution trying to find something to support this and I can't. If the language is good there is nothing to stop a ballot measure from amending the Constitution yet again.
An amendment would be required for this action, and that requires a 2/3 majority and legislative action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it does matter, that is the whole point of this discussion. States rights vs. Federal rights.
From the Constitution of the United States of America:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."So-- From the very beginning (Civil War notwithstanding), there are NO States Rights where state law or state constitutions conflict with Federal Law, so long as the Federal Law is Constitutional. There can be no conflicts between State laws and State Constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution-- the U.S. Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land, which means State laws and constitutions that conflict with it are null and void. The protection of "States' Rights" such as they are is in the U.S. Constitution itself, which limits the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government (Federal gov't isn't allowed to do anything that goes against the Constitution either, including usurping powers not granted by the Constitution).
the Constitution is not based on privileges, it’s based on rights – marriage is not a right (at least not under the Constitution). This has always been a State issue.
Actually the Constitution is based on much more than just rights, since it establishes the structure and powers of the Federal Government (among many other things), and includes many guarantees of specific rights belonging to the people. This is not a State issue, for a particular reason: the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law, and equal protection before the law, to all of the people of the United States (pretty sure I covered this in this thread before, but you seem to have missed that). In addition, the 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion; and the 14th Amendment, in addition to everything else it does to guarantee our rights, makes the guarantees in the 1st Amendment (which originally were only binding on Congress) binding on the States as well.
So long as you (and everyone else) arguing against allowing 'gay marriage' keep defending that narrow "only between a man and a woman" definition based on religious views, you are blatantly in violation of the U.S. Constitution ("no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), and no other argument justifying unequal treatment for heterosexual and homosexual couples holds up under the "equal treatment/equal protection" clauses. Get your religion out of civil law. Marriage as a civil right/privilege/whatever-- can either be denied to everyone, or cannot be denied to minority groups on an unequal basis from the majority.
Marriage as a religious sacrament, belongs in Church (or whatever other description you want to apply for where your faith-group gathers)-- but there are churches that accept/approve of gay marriage, and telling them they cannot do that is interfering with their freedom of religion, just as telling your church that you have to perform marriages for gay couples would be wrong, because that is interfering with your freedom of religion.
Disagree 100%. It is very workable, and doable. I think your fear (which you are not conveying) is that a movement to do such wouldn't have the votes.The strong aspect for those against 8 isn't the "rights were already given so they cannot be rescinded" point. That is actually flimsy; the best point for invalidating 8 would be if the CA Constitution was properly amended via the 2008 vote, which I don't think it was. If it wasn't (which is how I think the Fed SC will rule) then the whole thing gets tossed out as if it didn't exist.
I did already point out to Kelsey that you are correct on point, the State Constitution can be amended in such a way that it undoes prior amendments. However, although the Supreme Court may disagree (and if it does, it won't be the first or the last time in U.S. History that the court has been wrong), shouldn't be necessary to vote Prop 8 down-- the Constitutional argument given above is IMO the strongest argument against it, and create a mandate that is both sufficient and necessarily requires the removal of Prop 8 from law.
Oh, and speaking as someone in California-- "Prop 8" wasn't a product of Democrats or Republicans-- it was a product of religious fanatics, stirred up by out-of-state money, largely Republican supported, and pushed through due to the fact that there was a very lackluster voter turn-out in that election in spite of the issues at hand. Didn't even get half of the State's population. However, yeah, Schwarzenegger didn't defend Prop 8-- I recall that's one of many reasons why the "party faithful" were calling him a RINO (Republican In Name Only)-- though my view on it is Schwarzenegger was simply a moderate, rather than extremist, Republican. 17 million voters, in a state of over 37 million eligible citizens? Yeah, that really got a majority of the populace, didn't it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The founding fathers actually declared the US to be a Republic NOT a Democracy. Also look to the Pledge of Allegiance
And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands... etc, etc, etc...
Do be honest Scott, I tend to vote more Democrat than Republican. BUT I also vote for the BEST person for the job and for the LESSER of two Evils. It all falls to who will do the best that causes the least Harm.
I admit I voted for GW Bush 1 the 1st time. Did not make the mistake a 2nd time.
I also believe in Separation of Church and state and not just freedom of Religion, but freedom FROM Religion. And with all of the "Evangelical" rhetoric that is being spun about all the Republican candidates makes me sick. What religion a person has should NEVER be brought into the political view or laws and sorry... that is a lot of what is transpiring.
Also the fact the customs and ways of marriage are not just Jewish or any other one belief. The wedding ring... Norse. In Norse rule women had a voice and ownership as they did in Celtic and many others. it wasn't until "Christianity was pushed on them that this changed for the worse of them.
Also in Roman society Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and yes even transgendered where accepted as a way of life and once again when "Christianity" Took over, they said this was an evil act.
The main problem of the USA today is if one person is sensitive to it, it hurts and harms and affects 100 others who it does not. Same Sex Marriage is just part of this.
And funny as Cali DID pass same sex marriage and then some Yo-Yo decided it infringed on his "Christian" Beliefs of what he viewed marriage as and took it away.
You cannot compare civil rights and womans suffrage to same gender marriage b/c homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and the other issues are not.
I'm going to say it again, in case you haven't gotten it the first several times:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
What don't you understand about that?
Now, since maybe you're not familiar with the United States Constitution, including Amendments, here are the two that matter in this particular discussion:
the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."I've bolded a section above. No law respecting an establishment of religion = if marriage is a religious sacrament, then every marriage ever conducted in the United States is legally void, because the law authorizing it is, by definition, a law respecting an establishment of religion. No law prohibiting the free exercise thereof-- means you are not allowed to tell other religions that they cannot conduct their religious sacraments, including their sacrament of marriage, as they see fit. So, the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" is Unconstitutional, because it is explicitly a law "respecting an establishment of religion". And, the marriage laws we are talking about, so long as they are Constitutional at all, must be talking about a civil status, called "marriage", not the religious sacrament called "marriage"-- I realize it's confusing that we use the same word to mean two entirely different things. One of those is up to your faith to define for you (and for other people's faiths to define for them), the other (the civil status called "marriage") is part of civil law-- it's not up to your church or any other religious group to try to enforce a religious definition for it.
Now, you might be...
Looks like I have a homework assignment. Since I'm working full time and graduated a long time ago give me a day to get back to your comments.
Many of which should be flagged bc your labeling ALL people who don't agree w you as bigoted, hateful blah,blah.See you soon!
|
|
Democracy is when people vote on everything that happens, IMO. If the majority does not rule 100% of the time, it's not a democracy. I do not feel that a representative democracy is in fact democratic. This is good. I don't like the idea of majority rule. It's basically two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. I'd much rather live in a republic.
So... your view is that it's a "democracy" only if it's a "direct democracy". So long as we're clear on that.
However, to say you'd rather live in a "republic" is rather short-sighted. "Republic" is such a vague term that it is almost meaningless in defining what type of government a country has-- that's why it's such utter bulls*** to toss that around in U.S. politics, no matter who's doing it.
The only thing being a "Republic" means, is that the government (theoretically) is of and belongs to the people, and represents the whole people-- and that we don't have a monarchy or hereditary aristocracy. That's it.
Which means "Republic" applies to everything from Rome before the Emperors took over, to the United States, to the Soviet Union, to post-Soviet Russia, to the People's Republic of China. Yes, the PRC is a 'Republic' because (again, theoretically) it is "of the people" even if it doesn't represent them terribly well. 'Republics' have included some of the most open and free nations on Earth, and some of the most tyrannical and oppressive nations.
When determining what the Government is, saying the U.S. is a "republic" tells you nothing-- telling you that the United States is a Constitutionally-limited Representative Democracy, with an elected Head of State, an elected two-chamber Legislature, and a separate Judiciary nominated by the Executive and approved by the Upper House of the Legislature, tells you what you need to know (at least the most basic points) to understand what kind of Government the United States has.
|
|
An amendment would be required for this action, and that requires a 2/3 majority and legislative action.
How so, if the whole affair stands on a ballot initiative, then that cuts both ways.
The difference here is that once it's in place (as in actively giving out those rights to gay couples) then it can never be reversed. That is where the true enumerated power comes from - the Constitution. So once its in place and political winds change (as they often do) it can't be undone with another amendment/revision/et al if the new amendment actually provided a right at any point.See, Gavin Newsom can't give it out - he isn't a source of that right, but if the Constitution is changed to provide that right then it becomes ironclad, no matter what happens thereafter.
stuff
Wow, fact based rational arguments stripped of attacks to support your view.
I don't know what to say....er, "thank you"?
|
Democracy is when people vote on everything that happens, IMO. If the majority does not rule 100% of the time, it's not a democracy. I do not feel that a representative democracy is in fact democratic. This is good. I don't like the idea of majority rule. It's basically two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. I'd much rather live in a republic.
There are other political theories out there like consensus democracy. Democracies are really only majority rule systems in their simplest realization. Besides, does representative democracy really handle this any better when the representatives are fighting to win the votes of the majority?
Democracy is when people vote on everything that happens, IMO. If the majority does not rule 100% of the time, it's not a democracy. I do not feel that a representative democracy is in fact democratic. This is good. I don't like the idea of majority rule. It's basically two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. I'd much rather live in a republic.So... your view is that it's a "democracy" only if it's a "direct democracy". So long as we're clear on that.
However, to say you'd rather live in a "republic" is rather short-sighted. "Republic" is such a vague term that it is almost meaningless in defining what type of government a country has-- that's why it's such utter bulls*** to toss that around in U.S. politics, no matter who's doing it.
The only thing being a "Republic" means, is that the government (theoretically) is of and belongs to the people, and represents the whole people-- and that we don't have a monarchy or hereditary aristocracy. That's it.
Which means "Republic" applies to everything from Rome before the Emperors took over, to the United States, to the Soviet Union, to post-Soviet Russia, to the People's Republic of China. Yes, the PRC is a 'Republic' because (again, theoretically) it is "of the people" even if it doesn't represent them terribly well. 'Republics' have included some of the most open and free nations on Earth, and some of the most tyrannical and oppressive nations.
When determining what the Government is, saying the U.S. is a "republic" tells you nothing-- telling you that the United States is a Constitutionally-limited Representative Democracy, with an elected Head of State, an elected two-chamber Legislature, and a separate Judiciary nominated by the Executive and approved by the Upper House of the Legislature, tells you what you need to know (at least the most basic points) to understand what kind of Government the United States has.
Point taken.
|
|
OH and the way this country rules is thus If your City makes a law and your country passes on that opposes it, County wins. If your county pass a law and your state passes opposite of it, State wins. If the state passes a law and the Federal Government passes one that opposes that one, Federal wins out.The Civil War was fought to put Federal rights over states rights.
While mostly excellent points-- the Civil War should not have been necessary for settling the Federal vs States' rights question: the Constitution, from the very beginning, established that Federal Law is Supreme over State Laws so long as the Federal Laws are in accordance with the Constitution, and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the U.S., over all others in the civil sphere. What the Civil War did, more directly, is settle the issue of whether States can legally secede from the Union on their own volition (they can't).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The founding fathers actually declared the US to be a Republic NOT a Democracy. Also look to the Pledge of Allegiance
And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands... etc, etc, etc...
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy.
While mostly excellent points-- the Civil War should not have been necessary for settling the Federal vs States' rights question: the Constitution, from the very beginning, established that Federal Law is Supreme over State Laws so long as the Federal Laws are in accordance with the Constitution, and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the U.S., over all others in the civil sphere. What the Civil War did, more directly, is settle the issue of whether States can legally secede from the Union on their own volition (they can't).
OH and the way this country rules is thus If your City makes a law and your country passes on that opposes it, County wins. If your county pass a law and your state passes opposite of it, State wins. If the state passes a law and the Federal Government passes one that opposes that one, Federal wins out.The Civil War was fought to put Federal rights over states rights.
The funny part is that secession was illegal under the Confederate constitution.
|
|
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy.The founding fathers actually declared the US to be a Republic NOT a Democracy. Also look to the Pledge of Allegiance
And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands... etc, etc, etc...
All I was saying was look to it and what it says. Not that the founding fathers said that. Sorry if I confused. I was just referring to the line
|
|
Looks like I have a homework assignment. Since I'm working full time and graduated a long time ago give me a day to get back to your comments.
I'll look forward to seeing it. Likewise if I go silent for a while-- it's cause I'm back in college after many years away, and there are essays due for my classes, but I'll get back to it.
And, yeah, sometimes I get a little angry at things when I'm posting-- I've noticed that happens to most people around here. I do, for the moment, stand by my opinion that the opposition to 'gay marriage' is a prejudiced and/or ignorant position to hold-- that is (as I think I've said before) not meant to imply, let alone state, that a person who holds one position that I question on those grounds must be a bigoted, or hateful, or prejudiced person in general. So-- apologies if you're perceiving personal attacks in my posts-- however, since I am opposing your position, I don't think apologies are necessary for attacking your arguments in defense of your position (just as no apologies needed from you for attacking my arguments in support of my side).
Wow, fact based rational arguments stripped of attacks to support your view.
I don't know what to say....er, "thank you"?
I try. :)
Sometimes my temper gets the better of me a bit, but I'm trying to stick to rational discussion and ensuring that the arguments I launch are legitimately against your arguments, not 'ad-hominem' attacks against you as a person. Same goes for my efforts arguing/discussing things with anyone on these boards-- just, I'm human too, so if occasionally I snap and get a bit personal, you have my apologies for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that. I'm in the same boat. But as an independent (I'm assuming you're an independent here, let me know if you're registered with a third party), you have very little power. Your voice does not count for much, and you lack the institutional tools to amplify it. As a member of a party, you have the backing of the entire party on the issues that make up its platform (some of which you clearly care about), and you have the ability to influence that platform from within if you want to change it to encompass more of the issues you care about. There's really no downside to party affiliation, and there are a lot of upsides if your goal is to improve the things you want to see improved.
Your comment wasn't directed to me, but I'm going to respond to it because I am the target voting class you're addressing.
I'm a registered Independent, but it's no secret that I follow a social liberal policy. But I also tend to side with fiscal conservatism. Some may say that makes me a moderate or a centrist, but I don't necessarily follow that spectrum either.
I tend to abhor demagoguery in essentially most party platforms and I tend to be somewhat of an iconoclast in the pacifist stance (I have no agenda to deliberately attack or destroy cherished dogmas, established conventions, or (in)tangible symbols; it's more of a philosophical position). Sometimes social constructs create a divide that otherwise should make no sense to ever exist. But I'm human; sometimes I pander to it (like my continual public ridicule of all things Nickelback even though in all honesty, they really deserve none of my ire).
I remember recovering at home following an in-hospitalization for a gastric surgery in the Spring of 2008. The gentleman who stayed with me the first week happened to be a UCC minister who's gay. Myself? I'm an atheist who's a heterosexual and completely secure with my own sexuality. He even hand-bathed me from the kitchen sink because I was too incapacitated to mobilize myself to take a shower.
Some people are uncomfortable with such contrasting juxtaposition. That's their issue. I'm not going to deny that there are some (a)social groups that are a bit daft to me, but as long as it's consensual and they refrain from doing unto others that they don't want done unto themselves, then who am I to break up their community?
Some folks would be better off with tossing aside their shield of inflexible dogma +5 into the pile with their Sword of Killing Hitler and see that there's more than one way than an exegesis that conveniently mirrors their own.
I removed another 'popcorn' type post.
The founding fathers actually declared the US to be a Republic NOT a Democracy. Also look to the Pledge of Allegiance
And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands... etc, etc, etc...
Do be honest Scott, I tend to vote more Democrat than Republican. BUT I also vote for the BEST person for the job and for the LESSER of two Evils. It all falls to who will do the best that causes the least Harm.
I admit I voted for GW Bush 1 the 1st time. Did not make the mistake a 2nd time.
Hell, I voted him into office for his second term!
In my defense, I was 19 and an idiot.
Belonging to a party doesn't prevent you from voting for anyone. In fact, it actually enables you to vote in primaries you otherwise might not be able to (depending on local party rules). You can belong to the Democratic party and vote for the Republican nominee, if you want. But belonging to a party is really the first step in becoming a politically engaged individual.
|
|
Wow, fact based rational arguments stripped of attacks to support your view.
I don't know what to say....er, "thank you"?
I try. :)
Sometimes my temper gets the better of me a bit, but I'm trying to stick to rational discussion and ensuring that the arguments I launch are legitimately against your arguments, not 'ad-hominem' attacks against you as a person. Same goes for my efforts arguing/discussing things with anyone on these boards-- just, I'm human too, so if occasionally I snap and get a bit personal, you have my apologies for that.
Well, the rational discourse is appreciated, and yes - this is a very charged an emotional issue (for both sides) so it's easy to get caught up in that sort of energy.
Just to make a point - you lumped me in with others (and it may have just been due to a flurry of responses you were putting out) motivated by religion who voted for this. My vote in this regard was misplaced due to frustration of an oncoming political tide and seeing a movement/power I didn't like (dems, not gays). I admitted that mistake and got dogpiled for it here - my fault for being honest - and I won't make that mistake again (the being honest part).
All that being said it's nice to see a rational exchange and to discuss possible hurdles/solutions to the issue on realistic legal grounds vs. those motivated by emotion.
I think if the "red meat" aspects are removed from the topic both sides might be able to find a workable solution - ultimately this is an individual rights issue that needs to be resolved.
@jeff - Well, numbers vs. percentages would be more accurate since California is not a 50/50 split (or even close to) of democrat/republican composition. And it isn’t "in my mind", nothing gets voted on or passed in California unless some Independents (generally left leaning here) or Democrats vote on it. You are blowing smoke to cover up a large embarrassment - Prop 8 would not have passed without Democrat voter support.
Also you forgot to include the Liberal/Moderate combined vote of (64%) who voted yes. That's 22% of of liberals (1 in 5 ) and 51% of California moderates (1/2 who voted) voting yes on Prop 8.
Here is a corrected link (yours was crapsky):
link
Also, BO didn't help defuse the issue by having Rick Warren (a proponent of prop 8) give the invocation (not evocation) at his inauguration. You are dancing around this trying to blame the right for voting on this when the right do not hold any kind of majority in CA. I'm not talking about the sponsorship of the bill but the people who actually came out and voted for it. The numbers do not lie - a majority of the votes came from Democrats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@jeff - Well, numbers vs. percentages would be more accurate since California is not a 50/50 split (or even close to) of democrat/republican composition. And it isn’t "in my mind", nothing gets voted on or passed in California unless some Independents (generally left leaning here) or Democrats vote on it. You are blowing smoke to cover up a large embarrassment - Prop 8 would not have passed without Democrat voter support.
Your argument is crap, and you know it.
30 PERCENT of Democrats voted for Prop 8.
81 PERCENT of Republicans voted for Prop 8.
Trying to portray the two parties as having equal (or anything close to equal) responsibility for its passage is f@*~ing absurd.
The Republican party deserves the blame, and they've rightly received it.
That does mean that, as you said, it wouldn't have passed without Democratic support. In any close vote that's going to be true of pretty much any significant group. I've never claimed Democrats were perfect on this or any other issue. They're just the best we've got.
Speaking as someone who was literally in the room with most of the Orange County Dems staff when networks began calling the Prop 8 decision, it really took the air out of the celebration for everyone there. No one there wanted to see that pass.
I don't quite get the logic of this ruling.
I can't see how something can be a right because you allowed it and then tried to take it away, but it is not a right if you had never allowed it. Does this also mean that California can never decide to outlaw medical marijuana now that they have made it legal? Can't take away a right once you give it, isn't that what this ruling says?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to make a point - you lumped me in with others (and it may have just been due to a flurry of responses you were putting out) motivated by religion who voted for this.
Well, again, my apologies for lumping you into a class you didn't belong with (part of it is, yes, it's an emotional issue that leads to rising tempers, part of it's not precise enough use of language).
I presume at least in part, you're referring to my calling Prop 8 a "product of religious fanatics"-- Regarding specifically that point, I view Prop. 8, I believe legitimately, as a "product of Religious fanatics"-- that does not mean that everyone who voted for it (or even most of the people who voted for it) were religious fanatics, and in fact, it doesn't even mean that all of the people who signed the petition to get it on the ballot were religious fanatics. What I mean by still calling it a product of religious fanatics is, that most of the money supporting the Prop 8 campaign, and most of the organization and support for signature collectors for getting the petitions done to put on the ballot, were driven by groups and organizations motivated by religion-- as best as I can tell, religion taken to the point of fanaticism (and here I do say "most", not "all").
Now, it's possible that I'm mischaracterizing even those specific groups that drove the Prop. 8 campaign anyway-- I've been wrong before, but that's evidence and information I've seen so far.
I don't quite get the logic of this ruling.
I can't see how something can be a right because you allowed it and then tried to take it away, but it is not a right if you had never allowed it. Does this also mean that California can never decide to outlaw medical marijuana now that they have made it legal? Can't take away a right once you give it, isn't that what this ruling says?
Not quite.
The court found a couple things.
First, that Proposition 8 had a single purpose: "It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right - the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships." It found that the State had no compelling interest in enacting the law at all, and that the only thing it accomplished was to marginalize a group of people. Because precedence dictates that the Constitution simply does not allow for that kind of law to be enacted - those that harm a group and serve no compelling State interest - the court found it unconstitutional.
Second, the court found that, because same-sex marriage had already been granted within the State of California, and because Prop 8 simply took that distinction away, they were compelled merely to rule on the proposition's constitutionality rather than rule on the broader question of the constitutionality of denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
The medical marijuana question you pose doesn't involve 14th Amendment considerations, and thus isn't really a matter of constitutionality to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't quite get the logic of this ruling.
I can't see how something can be a right because you allowed it and then tried to take it away, but it is not a right if you had never allowed it. Does this also mean that California can never decide to outlaw medical marijuana now that they have made it legal? Can't take away a right once you give it, isn't that what this ruling says?
No, the court decided that creating separate and unequal classes of citizens is unconstitutional.
Due to California law, couples married prior to prop 8 were grandfathered in. They were previously married and the state is required to acknowledge those marriages, even if future marriages are not allowed.
This means there are two classes of citizens, gay couples who are married (prior to prop 8) and gay couples that cannot marry. Two classes of citizens cannot have access to different rights and be considered equal.
...the Orange County...You were in Orange County? Still in Orange County?
dude-- you're a lot closer to home than I thought. :)
Irvine, specifically. And yes, still here.
|
|
I don't quite get the logic of this ruling.
I can't see how something can be a right because you allowed it and then tried to take it away, but it is not a right if you had never allowed it. Does this also mean that California can never decide to outlaw medical marijuana now that they have made it legal? Can't take away a right once you give it, isn't that what this ruling says?
Scott already brought up the point that it doesn't involve 14th Amendment protections (so long as the law is applied equally regarding access to or non-access to Marijuana-- there's no "equal treatment" question).
Also, since 'Medical Marijuana' is not a religious issue, it doesn't involve 1st Amendment issues.
And-- Marijuana was and is still illegal under Federal Law. So long as those laws are Constitutional, marijuana is not, and hasn't been, legal in California since the Feds made it illegal in the '40s. State law cannot over-ride Federal law, so the State's "legalization" of marijuana doesn't count.
I prefer the State's attitude on Marijuana... but it doesn't change the issue of supremacy of Federal law.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why we can't just legalize it across the board already. The whole war on drugs is an expensive failure, and without it we could spend the money in much more worthy places. Can anybody say socialized healthcare? Or how about the funding to pull us out of this damn recession?
I'm from San Jose, myself, but I was born in Los Gatos. I wish I were back in California.
I don't quite get the logic of this ruling.
I can't see how something can be a right because you allowed it and then tried to take it away, but it is not a right if you had never allowed it. Does this also mean that California can never decide to outlaw medical marijuana now that they have made it legal? Can't take away a right once you give it, isn't that what this ruling says?
Not quite.
The court found a couple things.
First, that Proposition 8 had a single purpose: "It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right - the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships." It found that the State had no compelling interest in enacting the law at all, and that the only thing it accomplished was to marginalize a group of people. Because precedence dictates that the Constitution simply does not allow for that kind of law to be enacted - those that harm a group and serve no compelling State interest - the court found it unconstitutional.
And how is that different if they had passed the amendment before the marriages had ever been deemed legal? Wouldn't an amendment, like what several other states already have, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman be doing exactly this already? So how can they rule that this situation is unconstitutional but the other situations are not?
|
|
And how is that different if they had passed the amendment before the marriages had ever been deemed legal? Wouldn't an amendment, like what several other states already have, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman be doing exactly this already? So how can they rule that this situation is unconstitutional but the other situations are not?
Well... I can't speak for the 9th Circuit's issued opinion on this. However, I believe my argument against the legality of Prop. 8, based on 1st and 14th Amendment principles, still stands-- because it doesn't rely on a "right that was granted and then taken away again" type of premise, it relies on the premise that the underlying discrimination, on religious grounds and discriminatory to one sub-category of people (violating equal treatment) was illegal, regardless of whether Prop 8 had been passed before or after any gay marriages had been deemed legal.
I think the other State's rulings are illegal, just as the Federal 'Defense of Marriage' act is illegal, because all of them violate the United States Constitution (specifically, the previously mentioned 1st and 14th Amendments), which takes precedence over all other laws, Federal and State.