Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
democracy isn't a panacea.

Democracy + a substantial proportion of the population being in the middle class* is a panacea.

*middle class being relative to the lower class and upper class for that particular region of the world.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The opposition to him (Pryor) is based on, e.g., what he has done as Attorney General.

I've seen this sentiment many times, but, like your post, it always stops there, like we all KNOW, of course, what he did as AG that was so bad. I don't. I do know that he submitted a brief in one case that was horribly, hatefully homophobic, (and I've also seen evidence suggesting that that was his specific assignment), but that's about all I know. And I know I've had to submit briefs that do not exactly mirror my own philosophies in the past, so I can't just automaticaly buy into the idea that he submitted his own beliefs in that brief. Is that the main problem? What exactly has he done that has been so terrible, aside from that?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Please explain what the legitimate reasons are if you include same sex marriage as your definition of marriage. And also explain why that legitimate reason cannot also be used to support plural marriage.

You've got to stop confusing me with other posters. I am the polygamist, remember? I agree with you on that, but that does not mean that marriage (standard, same sex otherwise) isn't a legitimate pursuit.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've seen this sentiment many times, but, like your post, it always stops there, like we all KNOW, of course, what he did as AG that was so bad. I don't. I do know that he submitted a brief in one case that was horribly, hatefully homophobic, (and I've also seen evidence suggesting that that was his specific assignment), but that's about all I know. And I know I've had to submit briefs that do not exactly mirror my own philosophies in the past, so I can't just automaticaly buy into the idea that he submitted his own beliefs in that brief. Is that the main problem? What exactly has he done that has been so terrible, aside from that?

You can look at speeches and his exercise of prosecutorial discretion. IT's one thing to submit a brief in a case your AAG's are handling. It's another to bring a case yourself or act as an amicus to another state. Or speak publicly. Others have looked at this, and I do not, by posting it, mean to suggest anything other than it was the first thing handy to come up while googling the question. Draw your own conclusions as to his views and whether they concern you.

national women's law center analysis

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've seen this sentiment many times, but, like your post, it always stops there, like we all KNOW, of course, what he did as AG that was so bad. I don't. I do know that he submitted a brief in one case that was horribly, hatefully homophobic, (and I've also seen evidence suggesting that that was his specific assignment), but that's about all I know. And I know I've had to submit briefs that do not exactly mirror my own philosophies in the past, so I can't just automaticaly buy into the idea that he submitted his own beliefs in that brief. Is that the main problem? What exactly has he done that has been so terrible, aside from that?

The Ignatz blog to which I referred, lately in stasis, is here. (If you want to find it in the future, you can search Google for "Ignatz".) Some of his posts on Pryor are here, referring to a quote from one of his briefs to the effect that it is rational for a state to decide that orgasms achieved with the help of a device are contrary to the public good; here, concerning an amicus brief trying to exempt municipalities from federal legislation (he lost 9-0, with Scalia writing for the majority); here, concerning a case in which Pryor argued that the Constitution permits prison guards to handcuff a prisoner to a "hitching post" with his arms raised above his shoulders for hours (the Court found not only a constitutional violation but no qualified immunity, suggesting he was not just wrong but really wrong); here, relating a speech in which Pryor criticized Rehnquist for being politically correct; here; here; here; and here (linking to some earlier posts).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If heterosexuals are allowed to marry each other in a civil ceremony, what's to prevent polygamy?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with you on that, but that does not mean that marriage (standard, same sex otherwise) isn't a legitimate pursuit.

But why as opposed to say people staying single and living together or serial monogamy. Why is marriage, standard or same sex, something that that the government should get involved with?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If heterosexuals are allowed to marry each other in a civil ceremony, what's to prevent polygamy?

Why is the government involved at all? The purported reason that government promotes marriage by conferring special benefits and rights on married people was because of biological and historical reasons as well as this thought that children are best raised by both a mother and a father.

I still maintain that children are best raised by both a mother and a father. Now plenty of single mothers do a good job raising their kids and there are gay couples that do a good job raising their kids. But just because they do a good job doesn't mean that the children would not have been better off with both a mother and a father.

Of course, good single parent households and good gay households are preferable to bad heterosexual married people raising kids. But if all else is equal, given the choice between a mother and a father raising a child together vs. two mothers or two fathers or one mother or one father raising a child, the mother/father duo is the best for the child.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Why is the government involved at all? The purported reason that government promotes marriage by conferring special benefits and rights on married people was because of biological and historical reasons as well as this thought that children are best raised by both a mother and a father.

I still maintain that children are best raised by both a mother and a father. Now plenty of single mothers do a good job raising their kids and there are gay couples that do a good job raising their kids. But just because they do a good job doesn't mean that the children would not have been better off with both a mother and a father.

Of course, good single parent households and good gay households are preferable to bad heterosexual married people raising kids. But if all else is equal, given the choice between a mother and a father raising a child together vs. two mothers or two fathers or one mother or one father raising a child, the mother/father duo is the best for the child.

(1) There is no purported reason. It's just always been done that way.

(2) Cite, please.

(3) We let, e.g., single fathers raise kids, even if it might be for the best in some abstract, academic way for the kid to have a mother. Thus, we don't force couples to stay together for the good of the children, because sometimes it would be worse. I can say this from personal experience.

(4) During WWII, when we were mobilizing the country to fight Hitler and Tojo, there was a government program that forced single parents to marry government-provided spouses of the opposite sex. In the euphoria after VJ Day, the program was abandoned. It is now widely acknowledged to have been a failure.

(5) Love is best for kids. And, as the Beatles noted, all you need is love. Yeah. Love, love. Although love was formerly believed to be exclusively available only to traditional (tm) couples, The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name now dares to speak its name.

(6) Why is the government involved at all? A fine question. You and the five other people who believe that there is any chance that the government will get out of the business of legislating morality should get together in the lobby of the Radisson at the next libertarian (tm) convention and discuss this. Perhaps the six of you should pick a state to move to where you can vote to change the laws so you can all marry each other.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
((4) During WWII, when we were mobilizing the country to fight Hitler and Tojo, there was a government program that forced single parents to marry government-provided spouses of the opposite sex. In the euphoria after VJ Day, the program was abandoned. It is now widely acknowledged to have been a failure.

maybe so, but this would have at least given Shape Shifter a chance to get a "date."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe so, but this would have at least given Shape Shifter a chance to get a "date."

Explaining the impetus to end the program as we all reached dating age.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
But why as opposed to say people staying single and living together or serial monogamy. Why is marriage, standard or same sex, something that that the government should get involved with?

For the same reason the government gives property holders a tax break on their interest payments. Net/net, it is good public policy.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(6) Why is the government involved at all? A fine question. You and the five other people who believe that there is any chance that the government will get out of the business of legislating morality should get together in the lobby of the Radisson at the next libertarian (tm) convention and discuss this. Perhaps the six of you should pick a state to move to where you can vote to change the laws so you can all marry each other.

There are legitimate non-morality reasons for the G to be involved, though I think we all know they aren't the primary ones.

First, there is the idea that marriage promotes household stability - and I mean in an economic sense, not a moral or "think of the children!" sense. In a two (yes, or more) parent household, if one parent gets fired, is disabled, or works too many hours to make it to the school play, the other adult head-of-household can pick up the slack. (Actually, this argument also tends to mitigate against having two-earner households, because if both parents work full time already there is no one with the ability to enter the workforce to pick up the economic slack if something goes wrong, given that many or most two-earner households tend to budget around and spend both incomes, not one.)

On this note, I'd bring to your attention the current admin's weird policy of promoting marriage among the poor. The idea is that, if two poor people get hitched and run their households together, they can support each other through the trials of being poor and all get through it with more stability and success than they would on their own, in that the various bumps in the road that would derail them entirely and send them spiraling into [insert random hole in the social safety net here] may be mitigated by having another person around to share the burden. While that is a more interesting idea than it superficially appears (in that it is an economic idea disguised as a moralistic bible-banger idea), it doesn't appear to have had any effect in practice. Which calls into question, frankly, the assumption that marriage increases economic stability, or if stability leads to marriage, or if they are both side effects of something else.

Second, there are some real household benefit issues that are of interest to the G. In a multi-parent household, if one parent is the primary earner and the other primarily does unpaid work to make the family function (the "traditional" arrangement, if by traditional you mean "middle-class after about 1800"), if something happens to the earner there are serious harms suffered by the other household members far beyond the loss of income - primarily the lost benefits (SS, pension, healthcare, etc.). It is the old "widows and orphans" problem. It makes sense for the gov't to say that, if people arrange their lives in this manner of divided labor, as many/most do, then it makes sense for the gov't to ensure that all those benefits won't be lost to the household as a whole because of the unfortunately demise of one member, and so to pay some benefits over to the surviving adult head of household - let's call them "spouse." And, if so, it makes sense for the gov't to have some interest in who qualifies as a spouse, if simply to figure out who needs to get paid and/or to avoid fraud.

It also means that polygamy potentially raises different issues than single sex marriage - how many households/dependents can make a claim on one person's benefits, etc.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For the same reason the government gives property holders a tax break on their interest payments. Net/net, it is good public policy.

What exactly is a net/net? I've never understood the expression.

That said, it's easy to win the heterosexual-marriage-only argument if you narrowly define the purposes of recognizing marriage to be purely procreative. Last time I checked, the rights and obligations of married persons to each other went well beyond that and, given rape laws, perhaps even are expressly not that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic


First, there is the idea that marriage promotes household stability - and I mean in an economic sense, not a moral or "think of the children!" sense. In a two (yes, or more) parent household, if one parent gets fired, is disabled, or works too many hours to make it to the school play, the other adult head-of-household can pick up the slack.

Uh, oh. Not me is off to the races now.