Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
While you're at it, could you ask them to articulate how "gay marriage", much less civil unions, will damage the Institution of Marriage? I hear that it's all about protecting marriage, but I've never heard a convincing argument about what marriage is being protected from.

Also, as a follow up, could they explain why they are not equally keen to protect marriage from the institution of divorce, since the rate of divorce in red states is higher than in blue states? They seem to have embraced divorce with enthusiasm - how is that consistent with protecting marriage?

Thanks. There'll be a little extra in your paycheck this week.

You are right, the "protecting marriage" argument is not defendible.

However, what I've realized is this election was not about gay marriage. It was about not wanting "Blue State Values" being shoved down Red States' Throats via the judiciary. Gay marriage was just the manifestation, but there was a history leading up to this - See e.g., the 10 commandment case with judge moore.

So when these people talk about defending marriage, I believe they are really talking about something much bigger.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by LessinSF
That's right, American Coastopia. The states of Washington, Oregon and California are joining us on one coast, and we will provide all of New England. In the middle of the country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are fabulous.

The other dot is New Orleans, which you don't deserve. American
Coastopia needs a place to gamble, and the locals want nothing to do with you.

We don't get Vegas too? We should take Vegas. The Jesus States can send their young stripper daughters but keep their fatties at home.

(Maybe we can partition Vegas -- we get the OG, they get the Excalibur)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Not likely. Texas has gone Republican every election since 1976, even when Clinton was running and Perot was in the race.

You mean Texas went Democrat for Carter?

Holy shit. I thought Dems would have to disinter LBJ to ever have a hope of taking Texas again.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
We don't get Vegas too? We should take Vegas. The Jesus States can send their young stripper daughters but keep their fatties at home.

(Maybe we can partition Vegas -- we get the OG, they get the Excalibur)

[confidential to Sidd]OG is not the spot any longer[confidential to Sidd]

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
We don't get Vegas too? We should take Vegas. The Jesus States can send their young stripper daughters but keep their fatties at home.

(Maybe we can partition Vegas -- we get the OG, they get the Excalibur)

Vegas = sin. Jesusists will pay us to take it.

I can't wait. Another King George fucked by a revolution!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[confidential to Sidd]OG is not the spot any longer[confidential to Sidd]

Shhhh -- I don't want to out myself.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, four years from now, what happens in Texas?

Can the Dems win Texas if there's not a Texan in the race? Is there a Texan Dem. who could be a realistic candidate?

No, and no. Dems do not have a single elected official in statewide office in Texas. We did get one seat back in the state legislature, which is good, and I think that the tide might be turning despite the losses of the House Seats. Obviously, that deck was stacked against us. But we're not in a position that we can send anyone for nomination (unless they come from the private sector).

Still, Chet Edwards is a good sign. As are Bill White (mayor of Houston) and Lloyd Dogget (targeted Dem who kept his seat that now runs from Austin all the way down to Loredo), and Lupe Valdez (new Dallas sheriff) and Annise Parker (Houston Controller and probable candidate for mayor when White is term limted out) are lesbians elected to city-wide populations. I think that recently defeated Charlie Stenholm could be a very viable candidate for Agriculture Commissioner, as he was a ranking member of the Ag Committee in the House for years.

This next election will be interesting, because Gov. Goodhair is not exactly beloved by the Republican Party. He did not come out looking pretty after the redistricting mess. One hopes he can get a better control over this legislature when it meets in January, though he, like all Southern governors, doesn't have much real power. There are rumors that State Comptroller Carole Keaton (McClellen (yes, Scott's mom) Rylander, woo hoo family values!) Strayhorn will fight for the nomination against him. Kay Bailey Hutchenson, whose seat will be up for re-election in 2006, also is rumored to be interested in the position.

As for that Senate seat, I've heard rumors also that Ken Bensten (Lloyd's nephew) may consider running for it. He left the House in 2002 to run for the Senate, but lost in the primary two years ago to former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk. I'd prefer it if he stuck around and tried for Culbertson's seat in the House, but that's because I got redistricted to Culbertson... A partner at Vinson Elkins, Barbara Radnofsky, has put an exploratory committee together to see about running for the Senate. She's been pretty cool the few times I've met her.

A realistic candidate out of Texas would have to be a non-political one. I can't think of any that aren't trial lawyers.

ET fix order of our Comptroller's last names.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You mean Texas went Democrat for Carter?

Holy shit. I thought Dems would have to disinter LBJ to ever have a hope of taking Texas again.

They apparently learned their lesson... I would put a smiley here but I am intolerant of them.

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What about sex between straight people who aren't married? Do you think it's OK for Texas to criminalize that?

This question never got answered.

Interestingly enough, it's probably easier to find a compelling state interest in prohibiting nonmarital straight sex (e.g. minimizing the number of children born out of wedlock) than it is in prohibiting gay sex, at least in the privacy of one's home.

Whether it's compelling *enough* is another matter altogether, and much like gay sex and minor traffic offenses, such a ban would probably not be prosecuted 99.98% of the time.

Yours,
Ow My Brain Hurts

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
While you're at it, could you ask them to articulate how "gay marriage", much less civil unions, will damage the Institution of Marriage? I hear that it's all about protecting marriage, but I've never heard a convincing argument about what marriage is being protected from.

I won't pretend to speak for the Friends of Fugee, but it seems to me that the institution of marriage being defended is the religious concept of marriage. The objectors may believe that if the government endorses gay marriage, that may provide an entry for perversion of what they believe is fundamental -- that "marriage" is a committed relationship between a man and a woman.

I'm speculating here, but I can see this being the argument, particularly given that the people making it also tend to posit that this is a Christian nation and that public morality is the same as or should closely track the teachings of the church.

Civil unions probably aren't objectionable on these grounds (or if they are, I haven't heard the argument), though. They're different -- they're not "marriage".

Some of us find them objectionable, however, for the same reasons as government-sponsored marriage -- it'd be the subsidy of a group that ain't us.

Also, as a follow up, could they explain why they are not equally keen to protect marriage from the institution of divorce, since the rate of divorce in red states is higher than in blue states? They seem to have embraced divorce with enthusiasm - how is that consistent with protecting marriage?

Cite please. Especially about the embracing with enthusiasm.

Every family law practictioner I know in the increasingly reddish blue state I live in bitches constantly about how the wingnuts in the Legislature are trying to make divorces more difficult by lengthening waiting periods, requiring lots of counseling, etc, etc.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
We don't get Vegas too? We should take Vegas. The Jesus States can send their young stripper daughters but keep their fatties at home.

Sorry Sid. I have extra cyanide though.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by ilikenewsocks
I won't pretend to speak for the Friends of Fugee, but it seems to me that the institution of marriage being defended is the religious concept of marriage. The objectors may believe that if the government endorses gay marriage, that may provide an entry for perversion of what they believe is fundamental -- that "marriage" is a committed relationship between a man and a woman.

I'm speculating here, but I can see this being the argument, particularly given that the people making it also tend to posit that this is a Christian nation and that public morality is the same as or should closely track the teachings of the church.

Civil unions probably aren't objectionable on these grounds (or if they are, I haven't heard the argument), though. They're different -- they're not "marriage".

Some of us find them objectionable, however, for the same reasons as government-sponsored marriage -- it'd be the subsidy of a group that ain't us.

Not sure what you mean by a "subsidy", unless you're objecting to the provision of governmental benefits to a new class. If so...not much I'll say to that.

Cite please. Especially about the embracing with enthusiasm.

Every family law practictioner I know in the increasingly reddish blue state I live in bitches constantly about how the wingnuts in the Legislature are trying to make divorces more difficult by lengthening waiting periods, requiring lots of counseling, etc, etc.

here ya go...
Scroll down to No. 126. Look for the states that have higher than 5 divorces/1000 population, and those with lower than say 3.5 divorces/1000.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not taking the side of Texas, as I've said several times now. ANd I'm not talking about neutrality with this particular case. Rather, I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too, right result in this case but still protecting me from the tryranny of the judiciary.

That's why I said "if." I wasn't attributing either view to you. I'm just saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

And since when is restricting government power fairly described as "the tyranny of the judiciary"? We're talking about a case where a judge is ordering the police out of the bedroom.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Oops, I guess I am wrong about the "Say Hello maintaining civility" thing. I suppose I may be reading this out of context, but he actually seems to be somewhat of a jackass. As the kids like to say these days: My bad.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...647#post133647

And so soon after the civility pledge, too! How disappointing.

Hello pretty kitty, long time reader, first time caller! You should post here more often. FWIW, despite appearances, I don't think I'm so much a jackass as easily provoked. Did you have brothers growing up? Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, you have a great weekend, and please don't let my posts discourage you. Happy Friday!!!

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Hello pretty kitty, long time reader, first time caller! You should post here more often. FWIW, despite appearances, I don't think I'm so much a jackass as easily provoked. Did you have brothers growing up? Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, you have a great weekend, and please don't let my posts discourage you. Happy Friday!!!

Hi! Not discouraged. Just realizing that I maybe spoke too soon with the whole "Say Hello maintains civility" thing when I came across the whole "substanceless bimbo" thing. I did not want to come off as a clueless rube prone to deception. Anyhoo, good luck with the civility pledge. I would suggest working on not being so easily provoked, but I know how that goes on anonymous chat boards. But good luck anyway!