Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There is nothing between my post and the post I was responding to that would have provided enlightenment. But that's a technicality. I didn't scroll back up to check because I'm lazy.

What's STP? Sickly terrifying putrefecation?

uh, stp=scroll then post. it was an answer not an admonition.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Redraft the amendment so that it accomplishes what it purportedly intended to do (by public statements). To wit: 1) Ban marriage other than between a man and a woman; 2) prohibit any state or federal court from requiring a state to offer a marriage equivalent to gay couples; 3) allow state legislatures to enact civil union laws providing the same (or similar) "incidents" of marriage to gay couples, so long as their doing so is not under compulsion of a court ruling.

How's about:

Marriage shall be limited to a man and a woman. The incidents of marriage shall not be extended to non-married couples except by specific action of a legislature subsequent to the enactment of this amendment.

[bilmore]

Here's a worthy sentiment by one of our more progressive corporate leaders:

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/shopp...ProductID=3740

Hope they sell a lot of them.

eta:

[Mr. Polygamist]

Originally posted by Not Me
And you are also in favor of polygamous marriages, true?

Oh yeah!

[Atticus Grinch]

The announcement was timed so that people wouldn't notice Greenspan grabbing the third rail with both hands, shuddering as the voltage ripped through his withered flesh, and slumping to the concrete, a smoking, twitching mess.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
How's about:

Marriage shall be limited to a man and a woman. The incidents of marriage shall not be extended to non-married couples except by specific action of a legislature subsequent to the enactment of this amendment.

Can a court order a legislature to take specific action?

(I'm thinking, New Mexico (or was it Arizona?) school funding.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here's a worthy sentiment by one of our more progressive corporate leaders:

http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/shopp...ProductID=3740

Hope they sell a lot of them.

Re this, Gawker and Wonkette suggest that Drudge's ironydar is out of order.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


(b) That would be a whole different ball of wax, and it will not happen.

S_A_M

The point wasn't to come up with a substitute that won't happen. It was to see whether one can smoke out the true intent.

One of three things is going on:

1) The proponents have evil, nefarious intent beyond what they say

2) The proponents are ham-handed drafters

3) The proponents struggled mightily to come up with language to achieve their stated aims, and believe this is the best way possible.

We can't independently prove 1 one way or the other, but we can decide whether 2 or 3 is what's happening, and use it to shed light on whether 1 is the actual explanation.

So, propose an alternative that proves 2 is what's happening, rather than 3.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The announcement was timed so that people wouldn't notice Greenspan grabbing the third rail with both hands, shuddering as the voltage ripped through his withered flesh, and slumping to the concrete, a smoking, twitching mess.

Naw, he just wants Kerry to keep him on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Can a court order a legislature to take specific action?

(I'm thinking, New Mexico (or was it Arizona?) school funding.)

I thought about addressing that, but I decided that a court would conclude that the obvious intent of what I drafted would prevent a state court from ordering a legislature to do this.

eta: Nevada

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
How's about:

Marriage shall be limited to a man and a woman. The incidents of marriage shall not be extended to non-married couples except by specific action of a legislature subsequent to the enactment of this amendment.

I thought of the timing one too, but it doesn't solve the problem of a legislature forced to do so (create civil unions) by a court after ratification.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Re this, Gawker and Wonkette suggest that Drudge's ironydar is out of order.

I'm still gonna get some for the kids.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The announcement was timed so that people wouldn't notice Greenspan grabbing the third rail with both hands, shuddering as the voltage ripped through his withered flesh, and slumping to the concrete, a smoking, twitching mess.

Nice imagry. W made it clear that benefits won't be cut to pay for the deficit on HIS watch. It would be unfair to disappoint people who are expecting benefits in the near future. Maybe he'll do something new and put out some legislation that cuts benefits in five years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The point wasn't to come up with a substitute that won't happen. It was to see whether one can smoke out the true intent.

One of three things is going on:

1) The proponents have evil, nefarious intent beyond what they say

2) The proponents are ham-handed drafters

3) The proponents struggled mightily to come up with language to achieve their stated aims, and believe this is the best way possible.

We can't independently prove 1 one way or the other, but we can decide whether 2 or 3 is what's happening, and use it to shed light on whether 1 is the actual explanation.

So, propose an alternative that proves 2 is what's happening, rather than 3.

Almost surely, the drafters differ in their views. I don't doubt that some would like to outlaw civil unions. Maybe Allard doesn't feel this way.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I thought of the timing one too, but it doesn't solve the problem of a legislature forced to do so (create civil unions) by a court after ratification.

Doesn't it come down to, where is it that "construing" takes place? Only in courts, right?