Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Of course, that is our secret agenda -- "we" being the polygamists -- and we are in bed with the gays to bring this plan to fruition. (We fund our secret movement by selling porno flicks.) Once we bring an end to marriage, we intend to target charity, basic human decency, and hydroelectric power, in that order.

Nothing of the sort was alleged by me. My point is that it is hypocritical of people to argue that gays should be allowed to marry each other on the basis that it is wrong to discriminate but yet feel it is OK to discriminate against a person whose religion teaches them polygamy is necessary to achieve godhood.

I think the fundamentalist mormons are freaky wierd (actually, I think all mormons are freaky wierd), but I also think that gay marriage is not about being against discrimination it is about getting to choose who you discriminate against. You don't approve of the freaky wierd fundamentalist mormons and you approve of gays so you think it is OK to discriminate against those you don't approve of but not OK to discriminate against those you do approve of.

That is my point.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes. Ty is confusing "fiscal conservatives" with people who are opposed to running half-trillion dollar deficits, spending like drunken sailors, and ensuring massive tax increases in the future.

The latter are called "the Clinton administration", I think.

You guys are laying it on a bit thickly, I think.

Its hard for me to see how the Kerry or Edwards plans would actually do much to shrink the budget deficit. God knows the Bush campaign was just as disingenuous in 2000, though.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or, someone should set out how, based on teh argument used to justify gay marriage--namely an equal protection one--it inherently extends to polygamy. You conveniently ignored my response to your non-answer yesterday.

I didn't ignore you. I don't spend 24 hours a day on this board and sometimes I miss posts.

I did answer your question the first time, though. Just substitute in the word "polygamist" for "homosexual" in the MA supreme court decision and you have your reasons.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The "necessity" of an action does not purify it the way it does in the law. Jesus was fulfilling his telos, but that doesn't mean the instrumentalities of his death are equally deserving of thanks. Christian doctrine frowns on doing good things with bad intentions.

I'm not sure I have any idea what you're talking about. I'll get back to you once I see the new Mel Gibson movie.

But anyway, I was asking whether that was the "right" thing to do in the sense of winning elections. I already have a fairly good idea of what the "right" thing to do would be in a WWJD sense. Let us join hands and lament that the answers to the two questions are not the same, for either party.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Once we bring an end to marriage, we intend to target charity, basic human decency, and hydroelectric power, in that order.

I'd start with hydroelectric power first. Oh, and the flouride!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you think that the "right" thing for the candidate(s) to do is to proclaim that they are preserving the word marriage for oppo-sex couples? I personally would prefer they remain silent on that, because I think it would hurt them more than it would help them with the true believers in this polarized election year. This may be related to the fact that I'm one of the few people that thinks SF has a decent legal argument that will allow for recognition of its same sex marriages, so I am aware that this may not be the most dispassionate advice...

I'm getting a vibe --- even in the Bay Area* --- that many, many people who support civil unions as a matter of fundamental fairness are still feeling squicky about the term "gay marriage." So I think the Dem candidate will distance himself from that term by paying lip service to the institution of "marriage" and talking instead about the lack of an adequate substitute providing the same social, governmental, and economic benefits to same-sex couples.

I think the gay activists who say "marriage or nothing" are looking at the potential for a plate full of nothing. They should grow the fuck up and realize that you sometimes have to (1) plan for incremental change of hearts and minds, and not just count on court victories; and (2) convince a majority by softening your rally-speech arguments about how you have a right to this and a right to that. This issue is easier to win on fairness grounds than on Con Law grounds.

*I don't live within CCSF city limits. YMMV.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
My point is that it is hypocritical of people to argue that gays should be allowed to marry each other on the basis that it is wrong to discriminate but yet feel it is OK to discriminate against a person whose religion teaches them polygamy is necessary to achieve godhood.

Oh, okay. No need to articulate further. I now understand the basis for your argument. And I'll buy it when the first homosexual seeking marriage justifies it on the ground of religion.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The "necessity" of an action does not purify it the way it does in the law. Jesus was fulfilling his telos, but that doesn't mean the instrumentalities of his death are equally deserving of thanks. Christian doctrine frowns on doing good things with bad intentions.

It's a funny thing. I understand each of the individual words, even the hard ones. I think I understand each sentence taken individually. It's when we get to the paragraph level that I'm missing your point.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I didn't ignore you. I don't spend 24 hours a day on this board and sometimes I miss posts.

I did answer your question the first time, though. Just substitute in the word "polygamist" for "homosexual" in the MA supreme court decision and you have your reasons.

Yes, that was the one you didn't answer my response to. But I'm happy to drop it. SEe above.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When, in preparing for the debates, the press finally realizes that the actual wording of the House bill would not only prevent states from permitting gay marriage, but also creating civil unions that bear all or perhaps even any of the hallmarks of marriage, Kerry and Edwards will do the right thing and say they oppose the amendment, period, because they only want to preserve the word "marriage" for oppo-sex couples but have nothing against states creating unions. Will Bush?

That's not my understanding of the bill re civil unions - quite the opposite, but I haven't actually read it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
My point is that it is hypocritical of people to argue that gays should be allowed to marry each other on the basis that it is wrong too discriminate but yet feel it is OK to discriminate against a person whose religion teaches them polygamy is necessary to achieve godhood.

Point of information: Which religions say that polygamy is necessary to achieve godhood? How do they deal with the fact that there are only so many women to go around? Have they developed full-contact courting rituals?

You don't approve of the freaky wierd fundamentalist mormons and you approve of gays so you think it is OK to discriminate against those you don't approve of but not OK to discriminate against those you do approve of.

Hate the game, not the playa. I just can't abide peyote, but I luuuurv the Native American Church, or whatever it's called. If your religion holds that human sacrifice is a sacrament, the murder laws are not discriminating against you.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I strongly agree with your description of this issue, but I just don't see how this is going to keep anyone from voting for Bush in the fall

Bush gets a lot of mileage (and many votes) out of the perception that he is of good character. (No, not here, but this board didn't win the last couple of elections, either.) I think that popular perception will suffer when he's seen as affirmatively trying to deny marriage to gays, for the same reasons that I think the amendment will die, and that gay marriage will progress rapidly now.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Have they developed full-contact courting rituals?

Ahhh, high school.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not my understanding of the bill re civil unions - quite the opposite, but I haven't actually read it.

Read it, and cogitate about the reference to the "incidents" of marriage in the second sentence. And if you think that sentence is unclear, ask yourself why someone drafting an amendment to the Constitution would purposefully make it ambiguous.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not my understanding of the bill re civil unions - quite the opposite, but I haven't actually read it.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

I assume Atticus's point is that any court decision by a state requiring civil unions in lieu of marriage (e.g., Vermont) would be barred by this amendment, as it would be a decision construing a state constition or law to require the "legal incidents" of marriage to be conferred on gays (who can't, through its definition, be married).

I have to say its a stunning encroachment, regardless of subject matter, into the methods by which states may self-govern.