Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
It strikes me that, in our society, or at least in the society we're supposed to be, if you are in doubt of where truth and beauty and light come down in an argument, you are always safer taking the position that MORE people should get equal protection and due process rather than FEWER. Finding yourself on that FEWER side should be cause for concern, right away.

Knee-jerk, I know, but it seems to work.

That only works if you are talking about immutable characteristics. Which I agree that being gay is. At the end of the day, that is the only difference between being homosexual and being a polygamist. Too bad that despite my numerous pleas to articulate your reasons, I could never get any of you to focus on that.

I still think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people obligate themselves via contract. The only reason that contract is a worse option than a goverment license is because most people are too fucking stupid to even understand how to enter into a contract properly. If the government gives out a license, that is simpler for the average human vermin that is overruning this earth to understand. But do we really want to encourage the stupid people to breed by making it easier for them to get married?

I say no, but then that contradicts my position on anal, now doesn't it?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
That only works if you are talking about immutable characteristics. Which I agree that being gay is. At the end of the day, that is the only difference between being homosexual and being a polygamist. Too bad that despite my numerous pleas to articulate your reasons, I could never get any of you to focus on that.

I feel like we've reached the end of an era.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Uh, more like blackmail.

McCain and Leibermen took a highway funds bill hostage, and, if they didn't get their way, 5000 federal workers would be fired in about a week.

So much for their concern for the American worker, hey?

That's how our Congress works, every day, on every issue many people care about.

They'd have been rehired.

Also, that pretty much destroys the idea that giving the Commission the time it wants is a partisan ploy designed to destroy Bush.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Aristide leaves, US Marines enter.

Hmmmm.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I feel like we've reached the end of an era.

The problem with making the immutable characteristic argument is that this immutable characteristic is not one that can be seen with the eyes like gender or race. Unfortunately, the scientific proof is lacking to show that it is immutable at this point in time. Someday I am sure the proof will be there. But the science isn't advanced enough yet.

There does appear to be a tendancy to run in families. However, even that is hard to show because many homosexuals from prior generations either entered into marriages with someone of the opposite gender or just didn't get married. I am sure the unmarried spinsters of our great grandparents generation were gay women who just had no interest in having sex with a man.

Does anyone have any doubt that Emily Dickenson was gay?

Even today, you see many gay men married to women. They cheat on these women with men by and large (which can be very dangerous for the woman from an STD standpoint), but they cannot bring themselves to hold themselves out to the world as gay.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Aristide leaves, US Marines enter.

Hmmmm.

And Kerry says of Bush "He's late, as usual".

Boy, I hope he tries to make an even bigger deal out of what he thinks should have been done. It could be the new "Bush lies!"

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And Kerry says of Bush "He's late, as usual".

Boy, I hope he tries to make an even bigger deal out of what he thinks should have been done. It could be the new "Bush lies!"

Aristide was a democratically elected leader who eventually became corrupted by the power of his office. Still, it is a very hard case to make to remove a democratically elected leader especially since you have to install someone else. Who do you pick?

I don't know what will happen and don't necessarily have great ideas on what to do with Haiti. It is a disaster that won't be fixed anytime soon. But it is very close to Florida and all the people I know who live in Florida are worried about the possibility of a mass exodus. Florida will not be able to absorb a large number of illiterate unskilled indigent people washing up on its shores. It is not like they would be dispersed all over the US. They would stay in Florida and increase the size of an underclass that is already too large for that state to handle.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Aristide was a democratically elected leader who eventually became corrupted by the power of his office. Still, it is a very hard case to make to remove a democratically elected leader especially since you have to install someone else. Who do you pick?

I don't know what will happen and don't necessarily have great ideas on what to do with Haiti. It is a disaster that won't be fixed anytime soon. But it is very close to Florida and all the people I know who live in Florida are worried about the possibility of a mass exodus. Florida will not be able to absorb a large number of illiterate unskilled indigent people washing up on its shores. It is not like they would be dispersed all over the US. They would stay in Florida and increase the size of an underclass that is already too large for that state to handle.

Does Kerry think we should intervene in countries that threaten to send us their populations as illegal immigrants? Will his new campaign slogan be Remember the Alamo?

Or maybe he thinks we could've just sent them a bundle of hundreds and hoped they'd do something good with it

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
That only works if you are talking about immutable characteristics.

I don't understand what immutable characterisics has to do with anything. Your argument that it does suggests that there is some sort of culpability involved in homosexuality that is diminished if they were just made that way. The focus of this debate should not be the causes of homosexuality. Bilmore thanks you for the herring, red though it may be.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

The focus of this debate should not be the causes of homosexuality. Bilmore thanks you for the herring, red though it may be.

Damn straight the focus should be on why marriage should entitle anyone to benefits of any kind. The married folks and the wannabees are all looking for a hand out. They want social security survivorship benefits and whatever. The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing a lifestyle choice, man on woman, man on man, or whatever.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't understand what immutable characterisics has to do with anything.

Then you need to review constitutional law 101 to learn what role immutable charateristics play in an equal protection analysis. The case law is clear that discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristics is more likely to be suspect.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Then you need to review constitutional law 101 to learn what role immutable charateristics play in an equal protection analysis. The case law is clear that discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristics is more likely to be suspect.

Then Someone needs to tell Ty he can't ignore just because I'm a dickhead.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Then Someone needs to tell Ty he can't ignore just because I'm a dickhead.

It depends on what you mean by dickhead. If you mean your head is shaped like a dick, that is an immutable characteristic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Then you need to review constitutional law 101 to learn what role immutable charateristics play in an equal protection analysis. The case law is clear that discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristics is more likely to be suspect.

It's that famous footnote in United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Oddly, Justice Stone said nothing specifically about dickheads, but we love you anyway, Hank.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"Yesterday, the South Dakota legislature passed — and the governor is expected to sign — a bill that essentially outlaws abortion. It is quite clearly in defiance of settled constitutional law, something its authors pretty much admit. Conservatives, oddly enough, have not risen up in wrath at this act of legislative civil disobedience."

Kevin Drum