US Presidential Elections 2

[Morgoth]

Good. I hoped Obama would win. However, now he needs to revert the mess that Bush caused in the last 8 years. I feel already pity for him...

[Guard Dog]

However, I would be more willing to accept SCOTUS involvement on the issue. I would much rather the scenario play out at the state level because I think it would be better for the gay and lesbian community.

Nothing can supersede the US constitution but I was lead to believe that if the federal government had a law about thus and such then the States HAD to follow that law. I'm wondering because Prop 8 is a state constitutional amendment, and I was wondering if the Feds had the power to override the legislation with their own legislation.

 

Absent a federal law the 10th Amendment requires the SCOTUS to defer to the California State Supreme Court. They in turn are required to defer to the California Constitution. If prop 8 passes it is the law of the land and the California SC must up hold it and the SCOTUS has no standing to rule on it. If Congress were to pass a law permitting gay marriage then the state law banning it would be overridden. So if prop 8 passes then the only choices are to try to repeal it via ballot initiative in 2010 or call you congressman. Obviously the former would have a far more likely chance of success. About the only way I see to bring it to the SCOTUS would be if a couple married in a state where it is legal is residing in California and is denied the benefits of that marriage by the state THEY would have standing to challenge the California law under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution. This has been tried before and it has failed and the current SCOTUS is far less activist than even under Rehnquist. I doubt they would rule on the case even if it were tried.

 

Incidentally, I noticed Florida also passed a similar ban:

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/...0,6683922.story

[Guard Dog]

I'm a little hung over this morning but I am cheered by one thing. The democrats failed to achieve a super-majority in the Senate. So although last night was a huge win all around for the left, they did not seize total power. That is a good thing.

 

I'm very curious how Obama will proceed now. Will he attempt to stay centered or will he immediately veer hard to the left? The powers that be in Congress will be pushing him left. It will be interesting to see. I suspect he is prudent enough to govern as a moderate. The last time the Dems held all the cards they went absolutely hog wild taxing and spending and two years later they were swept out of power in dramatic fashion. That could easily happen in 2010.

 

Prediction: The first thing the 111th Congress does once sworn in in Jan 2009 will be to vote itself a pay raise.

[Calax]

actually I'm happy the dems didn't get a supermajority because generally when a party has a supermajority they tend to get fat heads and do all sorts of stupid stuff.

 

So a gay couple couldn't challenge the amendment under the precedent of "Brown v Board of Education"?

Edited November 5, 2008 by Calax

[Hildegard]

Good. I hoped Obama would win. However, now he needs to revert the mess that Bush caused in the last 8 years. I feel already pity for him...

 

Yeah, they gave the toughest job in the country to a black man, what a bunch of racists

[Hurlshort]

Oh, I was going to take J.E.'s bait on prop 8. Two things stop me from doing so. First of all, it looks like it's going to pass, which would make pretty much any response I made seem like gloating, which I don't want to do. The other thing is, I really think, if it's as close as it looks that there is a chance, going forward, to overturn this. My beef has honestly never been with gay marriage. I just don't care about it. I would go to a gay marriage if invited. I would be best man. I would speak at it. I would support it. I would do anything short of engaging in one, since that would make me a polygamist and I'm more interested in marrying women at any rate. I don't care. I will gladly vote for an initiative that allows gay marriage, which will now require a constitutional ammendment.

 

But you said earlier that you voted for Prop 8? That wasn't a vote against the CA supreme court, that was a vote AGAINST gay marriage. You are insane.

 

I'm very upset. I'm just surprised that there are 5 million people in this state that would actively discriminate. I think those 5 million people should have to go to the houses of already married gay couples and explain to them why their relationship isn't legitimate, but I'm starting to think that wouldn't be a problem for many.

 

Fear mongering and outright lying served the prop 8 supporters pretty well in this election.

[Enoch]

actually I'm happy the dems didn't get a supermajority because generally when a party has a supermajority they tend to get fat heads and do all sorts of stupid stuff.

 

So a gay couple couldn't challenge the amendment under the precedent of "Brown v Board of Education"?

It could be challeneged under the federal 14th Amendment (Loving v. Virginia is actually a better precedent than Brown for this point), but the Supreme Court as currently composed would not be particularly likely to agree with the plaintiffs. (This is why all the court decisions on gay marriage over the past few years have been grounded in state law only-- even where the state Equal Protection Clauses and Due Process Clauses are identical in language to the federal one, the SCOTUS can't overturn a state supreme court that is interpreting only the law of that state.) State constitutions may grant rights that the federal Contstitution does not, but to the extent that they deny rights that are guaranteed by the federal Constitution, they are not valid.

 

Personally, I think that Loving is directly on-point, and that, 50 years from now, bans on gay marriage will be viewed in much the same way that bans on interracial marriage are viewed today. But, with the notable exception of the Warren Court in the 1950s-1970s, the judiciary is usually one of the last institutions to adapt to societal changes. (For the bulk of U.S. history, the federal courts have effectively been "activist" in favor of conservative ideologies.)

Edited November 5, 2008 by Enoch

[Aristes]

Okay, Hurlshot, I'm insane. I'm hoping that the personal animosity over the issue dwindles, but I'm not going to regret my personal decision. Even if the issue had been closer, I wouldn't regret it. If I had cast the deciding vote, I wouldn't regret it. You might believe I'm insane, but I had my reasons for making it. ...And, yes, I would go to the house of a married homosexual couple and explain to them why I made my decision. I wouldn't be happy about it, and I sure as hell wouldn't gloat, but I would do it. How about this, I'm always willing to discuss my political beliefs with people, and rarely in a heated or hostile manner, and I have discussed my views with gay friends.

 

Maybe Enoch is right. We might look back in half a century and look at bans on homosexual marriages as the 20th century equivalent of racism. I don't believe that they are the same, but I also don't believe that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry. I'm positive we won't have to wait 50 years before homosexuals are granted the right.

 

At least I'm an equal opportunity offender, having voted against the previous measure, and angering a lot more people since that one passed by a margin in excess of 60%. The way I see it, I made a lot fewer of my friends angry this time around. If folks want to hate me for voting my conscience, then that's their problem. I don't like losing friends, but I've only got my own conscience as guide.

 

I won't lose a moment's sleep over it.

[Aram]

The people on the gun forums I browse all have their panties in a bunch, like the end of the world is nigh. I don't think it'll be so bad.

[Enoch]

The people on the gun forums I browse all have their panties in a bunch, like the end of the world is nigh. I don't think it'll be so bad.

I suspect that you're correct. Many of the gains that the Democrats have gotten in Congress are in areas where gun rights are a big deal to the voters. The party leadership doesn't have much of an incentive to put all those new representatives at risk by forcing them to decide between voting their party and voting their district. I doubt that gun issues will be on their agenda at all.

 

As for the Supreme Court, the most likely appointments in the next 4 years would all be replacements for Justices who were in the minority in Heller anyway. I'm sure the Court will be asked to deal with the consequences of that decision at some during the Obama administration, but it's unlikely that any Obama appointees wouldn't affect the outcome of those cases.

[Hildegard]

The people on the gun forums I browse all have their panties in a bunch, like the end of the world is nigh. I don't think it'll be so bad.

 

To many of them their guns are like their babies. And now that Obama is elected they fear he'll take their babies away from them.

[Hurlshort]

Okay, Hurlshot, I'm insane. I'm hoping that the personal animosity over the issue dwindles, but I'm not going to regret my personal decision. Even if the issue had been closer, I wouldn't regret it. If I had cast the deciding vote, I wouldn't regret it. You might believe I'm insane, but I had my reasons for making it. ...And, yes, I would go to the house of a married homosexual couple and explain to them why I made my decision. I wouldn't be happy about it, and I sure as hell wouldn't gloat, but I would do it. How about this, I'm always willing to discuss my political beliefs with people, and rarely in a heated or hostile manner, and I have discussed my views with gay friends.

 

Maybe Enoch is right. We might look back in half a century and look at bans on homosexual marriages as the 20th century equivalent of racism. I don't believe that they are the same, but I also don't believe that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry. I'm positive we won't have to wait 50 years before homosexuals are granted the right.

 

At least I'm an equal opportunity offender, having voted against the previous measure, and angering a lot more people since that one passed by a margin in excess of 60%. The way I see it, I made a lot fewer of my friends angry this time around. If folks want to hate me for voting my conscience, then that's their problem. I don't like losing friends, but I've only got my own conscience as guide.

 

I won't lose a moment's sleep over it.

 

I'm just not getting your perspective. At all. I see it as simple discrimination. But I'm not trying to single you out, Aristes, and I'm not going to hold a grudge with you about it. My parents very likely voted Yes on 8 despite my very emotional plea to them.

 

I don't care much about the politicians that were elected. I'm happy that Obama won and broke down a barrier for minorities, but he's a politician and so was McCain. Big whoop. I see prop 8 as 5 million people choosing to withhold rights from a minority, and it's emotionally disturbing for me. As a teacher, I have to remain an unbiased source of information for the students, and so these forums are one of the few places I can vent my frustrations.

[Aristes]

I actually wrote this long post, but I figure you deserve to get in the last word. I know how it feels to be vexed about these things.

[Humodour]

So is Aristes one of those bigots who are against homosexual rights and then try to find elaborate ways to justify it to their socially liberal friends?

 

"Obama was a protest vote. With Bush's low rating and the economic crisis, McCain didn't have any business getting even as close as he did. Is the fact that the race wasn't a complete blowout a function of racism? I don't know."

 

L0L I like how this nimplies that racism is some sort of white person's disease. I mean, this suggests that 100% of those who voted for Obama didn't do so simply ebcause he was black. I bleieve Obama got 96% of the black vote. I ahve no doubt a decent percentage of those did so simply ebcause he was black.

 

Racism/bigotry is a disease shared by all races. Not just whites.

 

Yep. Almost all blacks are Democrats anyway, and Kerry and Gore shared that 90% level of support with Obama, so while I don't doubt Obama being half-black was a bonus, it's very hard to try and paint his black supporters as racist.

 

And, yes, Gallup showed that 6% of whites were voting for Obama mainly because he was black - a similar number showed 6% were voting against him because he was black. It evens out.

[Hurlshort]

So is Aristes one of those bigots who are against homosexual rights and then try to find elaborate ways to justify it to their socially liberal friends?

 

Well, you had 5 million people vote against homosexual rights in California. I imagine a good chunk of those people are really bigots, but that number seems a bit high. I know some are just religious and they believe marriage is a religious issue. I'm not sure if that's bigotry. I just don't know.

 

My principal is gay and we were discussing it at lunch today. He's been with his partner for about 20 years. I was really surprised how nonchalant he was about the issue, but then I realized he's probably been facing discrimination his entire life. He's in his 50's, and just the fact that he can bring his partner to staff parties is probably a huge step forward over the last 30 years. Marriage is probably pretty far down the list on his basic rights. That makes me a little less upset, but it's still a frustrating civil rights issue.

[Aristes]

You're making the bigot charge meaningless by leveling it at everyone who doesn't share you perspective, Krezack. I generally don't get riled at political discussions, but personal attacks aren't political discussions. Of course, looking at the level of your discourse so far, I frankly find most of your statements laughable and reactionary.

 

However, if you'd been reading anything of the conversation, rather than jumping in here and there diminishing exchange, you would have known that I voted against virtually the exact same measure the first time it came up for a vote in California. I have one exact reason for voting for the measure this time. I will gladly vote to allow same sex marriages when it comes to a vote in my state, which is undoubtedly destined for the not so distant future. Now, I suppose I could be lying somewhere along the line, but why say anything at all? If I'm going to lie about either time, why not lie about both? Why lie about what I would vote? Why not simply say I voted against both measures? Or simply be happy that we enjoy a secret ballot in this country and I can vote whatever I damned well please without telling you anything at all?

 

I tell you what, though. Why not help the homosexual cause by calling everyone who engages in the discussion a bigot. That will certainly bring people to your view.

 

At some point, we should really accept that there are alternate views. I'll make this perfectly clear, I'll engage in a discussion, but if my liberal friends are angry with me for switching my vote between last election and this one, I don't care. I don't authorize my vote with anyone before I make it and I don't feel compelled to defend it in the least. I will do the same thing next time I did this time. I'll vote my conscience. If folks can't accept that, they can go to hell.

 

EDIT: I was responding to Krezack when Hurlshot posted.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Aristes

[Humodour]

A question: Can Muslims marry in America? Hindus? Buddhists? I always hear about marriage being a sacred Christian sacrament, so I'm curious to know if they ban other religions, or do they just single out gay people?

[Aristes]

I don't think marriage should be protected as a civil right at all. I think everyone who wants to have "married" status should enter a civil union as defined by the state and then religous ceremonies should be conducted seperately. Much like Gorth said earlier.

[Aram]

The people on the gun forums I browse all have their panties in a bunch, like the end of the world is nigh. I don't think it'll be so bad.

 

To many of them their guns are like their babies. And now that Obama is elected they fear he'll take their babies away from them.

Well I would be too but I don't think he's very likely to.

[Guard Dog]

The state does not recognize marriage as a religious practice at all. In fact there are well documented divisions between the government and religion in this country that prevent that very thing. Marriage is viewed as a civil contract between two adults (although states are beginning to add the verbage "man and woman" like FL and CA for example). So I would not call it a sacred christian practice at all.

 

In Aristes defense here (against Krezacks sophmoric argument that he is a bigot because he did not vote a certain way) I could make a compelling argument that a state constitution being the supreme law of the land (beneath the US Constitution) it is not appropriate/ or is appropriate depending on you view of government to use that to define terms of a specific civil contract between individuals. That would be a libertarian argument (to argue that it is not) even though the immediate libertarian response to gay marriage is "who cares" and "let them do what they please" as a matter of individual freedom.

 

 

edit: This sounded right in my head but i'm not doing well getting my point accross my keyboard here. But I think you see what I'm getting at.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

The people on the gun forums I browse all have their panties in a bunch, like the end of the world is nigh. I don't think it'll be so bad.

 

To many of them their guns are like their babies. And now that Obama is elected they fear he'll take their babies away from them.

 

It's not the gun itself it's the fact that the government would be attempting to supress/eliminate a god given constitutionally guaranteed right. It is real easy to see how the elimination of one right sets precedent for the elimination of others if the government decides it wishes to do so.

[Killian Kalthorne]

God given? When did God give man the gun?

[Trenitay]

The people on the gun forums I browse all have their panties in a bunch, like the end of the world is nigh. I don't think it'll be so bad.

 

To many of them their guns are like their babies. And now that Obama is elected they fear he'll take their babies away from them.

 

It's not the gun itself it's the fact that the government would be attempting to supress/eliminate a god given constitutionally guaranteed right. It is real easy to see how the elimination of one right sets precedent for the elimination of others if the government decides it wishes to do so.

 

No its just the guns. I live about 60 miles south of Seattle and down here there are probably 10 small hick towns in a 10 mile radius. All these rednecks are afraid of the dems taking away their guns. I am a democrat. I also go to shooting ranges every week and shoot, but the difference between me and them is that I do not think they are trying to take them away, they are just trying to make sure there are rules. They want background checks and things like that so that a criminal cant just walk in and buy a gun. The rednecks dont even want that and i think its ridiculous.

Edited November 6, 2008 by awsomeness

[Guard Dog]

God given? When did God give man the gun?

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Someday Sand you are going to wake up and realize that that vast majority of your fellow citizens do believe in God in some form or another. Including the founding fathers of your country who had the wisdom and foresight to spell out that unalienable right DO come from God and not from man. If rights came from man then man could take them away. So if you value your freedom it actually behooves you to be at least a little religious.

 

But I was just using a phrase for emphasis the post in question.

[Calax]

God given? When did God give man the gun?

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Someday Sand you are going to wake up and realize that that vast majority of your fellow citizens do believe in God in some form or another. Including the founding fathers of your country who had the wisdom and foresight to spell out that unalienable right DO come from God and not from man. If rights came from man then man could take them away. So if you value your freedom it actually behooves you to be at least a little religious.

 

But I was just using a phrase for emphasis the post in question.

Is our creator really God? Not Allah? or Buddha? Or Shakti?

 

Its a turn of phrase I know but it's a man given right to run around with weapons. After all God certainly didn't come down and use his infinite power to create the first gun.

 

To vote to deny a right to somebody because the supporters of that right gloated a little bit is akin to saying the african americans shouldn't have rights because radical members of the black community killed people. Hell even when they were still slaves African-Americans could still wed.

 

It should be pointed out that gay couples that enter into a civil union as they would have to now, would not be recognized by the federal government as being partners. and that's going to lead to one heck of a bundle of problems when a "unionized(?)" couple tries to move to another state.