Main Restorations Software Audio/Jukebox/MP3 Everything Else Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements Monitor/Video GroovyMAME Merit/JVL Touchscreen Meet Up Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing Woodworking Software Support Forums Consoles Project Arcade Reviews
Automated Projects Artwork Frontend Support Forums Pinball Forum Discussion Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board controls.dat Linux Miscellaneous Arcade Wiki Discussion Old Archives
Lightguns Arcade1Up --- Bug Reports --- Site News

Unread posts | New Replies | Recent posts | Rules | Chatroom | Wiki | File Repository | RSS | Submit news

  

Author Topic: 1 reason not to vote for John Kerry  (Read 9598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2004, 02:59:26 pm »
No, I was referring to the Marriage Protection Act, which snuck through the House while the fervor over the FMA's failure was still in the news.  

You mean this year?   Never heard of it.
Did it pass the Senate?  Bush sign it?

This year, passed House in July.  You never heard of it because it was snuck in while everybody was focused on the FMA.  It's in the Senate now.

If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

Dartful Dodger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3488
  • Last login:July 23, 2012, 11:21:39 pm
  • Newer isn't always better.
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2004, 03:22:03 pm »
It doesn't matter, either way, Bush is going to win.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2004, 03:25:04 pm »
Okay.  How would you describe it, out of curiousity?

"Neo" conservativism is activist conervativism.   Its the usual conservative principles, bit firward leaning in its approach.  



I disagree.  It's the new emphasis on religion, and the corresponding de-emphasis on the other boundaries that make the definition.  

Hmm.   The religious right has been said to be disappointed with the administration, and its been claimed that the gay marriage amendment was a bone thrown to them to keep them happy.



I disagree that the war is only a small part of it.  The cost of rebuilding Iraq (estimated at between $80 and $500 billion), Military payrolls (including hazard pay), supplies, medical expenses for the wounded, fuel, etc are all part of the costs incurred.

Yes...   but compared to the growth of the rest of government and the large losses of revenue from the recession, the cost of the war is small.

Just the growth of entitlement spending FY2001-2002 is 1/3 the entire defense budget; just the growth of entitlement spending during the war ($184B) has exceeded the cost of the war.





Yes, there is a lot more to ideology than the war, but Iraq is the most obvious example of the ideology.

OK...  but the war is a product of policies from the 2 previous administrations.  Unless you want to argue that both Bush41 and Clinton were neoconervatives, you wont get anywhere with that.



If spending does not decrease when revenue decreases, that's due to ideology, IMO.

Really.
And what ideology do you suppose would have cut the budget sufficiently to keep the budget balanced over tht e last three years?  You'd have to cut almost $500B from FY2004 to balance the budget - who would do this?  Where woud it be cut from?

You would have had to cut ~$1T in spending since FY2001 to keep the budget in balance through the recession.

Had there been no war, and the defense spending did not go up, you'd still have to cut ~$800B from the budget to kill the deficit through the recession.



And in actuality, spending increased while revenue decreased

Yes.  But spending always increases.  It didnt increase much more than it had over any other year - and the difference in the ioncrease in speding was FAR less than the difference in the increase in revenue (as the increase in revenue was negative).

Had revenue increased modestly - just 5%/yr, less than the avgerage through the 90s - there would have been a ~185B surplus at the end of FY2003.



That's what I offer up as validity.

And its invalid.
 


 

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #43 on: September 28, 2004, 03:41:36 pm »
Thats amazingly funny
-The DoMA and the amendment affect marriage and the states in the same way

Wrong. The proposed amendment would define marriage throughout the United States, at every level: national, state and local. It completely eliminates individual states' alternative solutions, like civil unions or domestic partnership. It's an amendment to take away civil rights. Completely. It's a morally repugnant and people should be ashamed of themselves for supporting it. There are more than likely other, more ethical loopholes that states could use to avoid the FF&C clause, such as "a state may not have to give full faith and credit to a law that violates its "public policy." I'm not a lawyer, so I can't get into it much further.

The bottom-line is that the amendment is wrong-headed and hateful. History will look back on those who supported it as unkindly as it looks back on slave owners and civil rights (women/blacks) opponents. Only those blinded by their won hatred fail to see this.

I don't support either the DoMA or the proposed Amendment. Gay people don't frighten me and their marriages don't affect me. It's just that when dealing with bigotted fear-mongers, it's always good to explore options that could involve compromise.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #44 on: September 28, 2004, 03:51:46 pm »
Okay.  How would you describe it, out of curiousity?

"Neo" conservativism is activist conervativism.   Its the usual conservative principles, bit firward leaning in its approach.  

Firward?  Toward a tree?  Sorry, bad spelling joke, and cheap shot.

Quote
I disagree.  It's the new emphasis on religion, and the corresponding de-emphasis on the other boundaries that make the definition.  

Hmm.   The religious right has been said to be disappointed with the administration, and its been claimed that the gay marriage amendment was a bone thrown to them to keep them happy.
Just 'cause they're not happy does not mean that the administration isn't trying to woo them.  

Quote
And in actuality, spending increased while revenue decreased

Yes.  But spending always increases.  It didnt increase much more than it had over any other year


Really?  Let's look at the numbers (percentage increase over previous year's budget)

1993: 1.2%
1994: 3.46%
1995: 3.77%
1996: 2.64%
1997: 2.46%
1998: 3.51%
1999: 3.37%
2000: 5.56%  
2001: 4.04%
2002: 9.12%
2003: 8.41%
2004: 8.03%


If you want I'll run the numbers for revenue increase as well.


Quote
That's what I offer up as validity.

And its invalid.

As are your arguments.
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2004, 03:56:12 pm »
Wrong. The proposed amendment would define marriage throughout the United States, at every level: national, state and local.

Federal law already does this.



It completely eliminates individual states' alternative solutions, like civil unions or domestic partnership. It's an amendment to take away civil rights. Completely. It's a morally repugnant and people should be ashamed of themselves for supporting it.

And so you'd support it if it only allowed states to make the determination for themselves and not have to recognize marriages that they themselves do not allow?


I'm not a lawyer, so I can't get into it much further.

I can.

Marriage is a social contract between 2 people, a contract that imposed certain legal rights and obligations on its participants. It has a number of historic justifications, many of which have been rendered obselete by other changes in the law.

For instance, one of the key rights it confers is that of inheritance. This was important because way back when, only married women could OWN PROPERTY. It also imposed a duty on the husband to support his wife (keeping in mind that way back when, women couldn't work and were wards of their fathers until they married). Obviously, these restrictions on women no longer apply, so these justifications ceased to be relevant.

THe other major justification for marriage was the promotion of children. Remember, way back when a women's body belonged to her husband (e.g., under common law it was impossible for a man to rape his wife). And a marriage was not "legal" unless the woman was a virgin (in fact, the man would have a civil claim for damages against the woman's father if she wasn't, on a "fraud" theory). THus, in a society where a woman was expected to be a virgin until marriage, marriage became basically a condition precedent to children). This promotion of children was one of the reasons why congress first permitted the concept of joint tax returns, the thinking being the married couple should pay less money in order to have more money to have and raise children).

Under constitutional law, the right to marry is a "fundamental right", up there with freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc.

Now, in order for a gay couple to demonstrate that the law is discriminatory, they would need to demonstrate that they are being denied access to that fundamental right on the basis of their sexual orientation, and that the state has no compelling/rational reason for denying them that right.

The real question is which standard, if its "compelling" then gay marriage will likely prevail, if its "rational" then gay marriage will likely fail.

The reason is that the government can clearly meet the "rational reason" test. To wit, the only tangible benefits denied to gay by virtue of their being unable to marry are (1) inheritance, (2) right to make medical decisions and (3) right to certain tax benefits.

With respect to inheritance, they can simply execute a will. With respect to medical decisions, they can get a power of attorney. These may be additional hoops to jump through, but neither is "so oppressive or onerous" to convince a court in my opinion.

So that leaves us with tax benefits. Its undeniable that me and my wife get certain tax benefits that my gay neighbors do not. However, if the government can demonstrate that it has a "rational" reason for making this distinction, its consitutional. And, in my opinion, that rational reason is the promotion and rearing of children. Fair or not, me and my wife CAN POSSIBLY have a child of our own, whereas my gay neighbors cannot. Yes, they can adopt, but thats not the issue, the issue is the CREATION of children. Certainly the promotion of children comes within the general police powers of the state, hence it has the right to regulate, and if it has the right to regulate, the policy of offering these tax benefits to heterosexual, married couples is rational. It may be UNFAIR, but that is not the same thing as unconstitutional (take affirmative action...its clearly unfair to someone, but its currently considered constitutional in most forms).

If, however, the court decides that the tax benefits are "fundamental" to the institution of marriage, it will likely apply the "compelling" standard, in which case, the current policy most likely fails, since its not narrowly tailored to the promotion of children since its offered to ALL married couples (even those that are medically infertile).



History will look back on those who supported it as unkindly as it looks back on slave owners and civil rights (women/blacks) opponents. Only those blinded by their won hatred fail to see this.

But the fact remains:
The state has the right to define marriage as it pleases.
You dont like it.  Talk to your state rep/senator.


TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #46 on: September 28, 2004, 04:08:39 pm »
Just 'cause they're not happy does not mean that the administration isn't trying to woo them.  

If the administration is "neoconservative" and part of "neoconservativism" is religious fundamentalism, then there'd be no nee for 'wooing'


Really?  Let's look at the numbers (percentage increase over previous year's budget)

Your numbers are wrong.  
 FY     $ in billiosn  % increase
1991 1,324.40   5.68
1992 1,381.70   4.33
1993 1,409.50   2.01
1994 1,461.90   3.72
1995 1,515.80   3.69
1996 1,560.50   2.95
1997 1,601.30   2.61
1998 1,652.60   3.20
1999 1,701.90   2.98
2000 1,788.80   5.11
2001 1,863.80   4.19
2002 2,011.00   7.90
2003 2,157.60   7.29

So, while spending did go up, it wasnt by a lot.

And even if FY2003/2003 was limited to the 4% growth in FY2001, you'd still only cut ~210B from the ~1T total deficit.

Adding in the cuts from defense spending, you;re STILL looking at a ~$600B deficit.




As are your arguments.

But, you see, I demonstrated yours to be invalid.
Youhaven't

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2004, 04:12:51 pm »

The reason is that the government can clearly meet the "rational reason" test. To wit, the only tangible benefits denied to gay by virtue of their being unable to marry are (1) inheritance, (2) right to make medical decisions and (3) right to certain tax benefits.


---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.  There are 1049 FEDERAL laws in which martial status grants certain rights to an individual.  That does not even address state laws:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2004, 04:17:12 pm »


There are 1049 FEDERAL laws in which martial status grants certain rights to an individual.  That does not even address state laws:

Perhaps.
But that doesnt change the argument.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2004, 04:20:06 pm »

Your numbers are wrong.  
 FY     $ in billiosn  % increase
1991 1,324.40   5.68
1992 1,381.70   4.33
1993 1,409.50   2.01
1994 1,461.90   3.72
1995 1,515.80   3.69
1996 1,560.50   2.95
1997 1,601.30   2.61
1998 1,652.60   3.20
1999 1,701.90   2.98
2000 1,788.80   5.11
2001 1,863.80   4.19
2002 2,011.00   7.90
2003 2,157.60   7.29

So, while spending did go up, it wasnt by a lot.

I pulled my numbers from the document I posted the link to earlier, published by the White House and the OMB.  Where did you get your numbers?

And an increase of 7.9% year to year *is* a lot.  It's way out of line with inflation or revenue.


Quote
But, you see, I demonstrated yours to be invalid.
Youhaven't

You proved my point, you didn't invalidate it.  


If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

abrannan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
  • Last login:July 25, 2012, 11:32:14 am
  • Building a cabinet in perpetuity since 2002
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #50 on: September 28, 2004, 04:21:52 pm »


There are 1049 FEDERAL laws in which martial status grants certain rights to an individual.  That does not even address state laws:

Perhaps.
But that doesnt change the argument.


It changes the argument that it's not onerous or burdensome to obtain the same rights.  Two legal forms versus 1000+ is one heck of a burden, provided there is even the ability to get those rights outside of marriage.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2004, 04:22:53 pm by abrannan »
If no one feeds the trolls, we're just going to keep eating your goats.

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #51 on: September 28, 2004, 04:27:00 pm »
Where did you get your numbers?

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0&from=7#t5
Table 1.



And an increase of 7.9% year to year *is* a lot.  It's way out of line with inflation or revenue.

But it adds a mere $200B to the total.
That means $600B of a $1T total deficit that didnt come from spending increases above the levels of the prior administration.

Given that, its impossible to argue that 'neoconservativism' holds deficit spending for any reason as part of its ideology - unless you want to argue that the prior administration was neoconservative as well.



You proved my point, you didn't invalidate it.

Only if your point was that the deficits didnt have anything to do  'neoconservative ideology'.





TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #52 on: September 28, 2004, 04:31:36 pm »
It changes the argument that it's not onerous or burdensome to obtain the same rights.  Two legal forms versus 1000+ is one heck of a burden, provided there is even the ability to get those rights outside of marriage.

Read the rest of my post:

"It may be UNFAIR, but that is not the same thing as unconstitutional (take affirmative action...its clearly unfair to someone, but its currently considered constitutional in most forms)...If, however, the court decides that the tax benefits are "fundamental" to the institution of marriage, it will likely apply the "compelling" standard, in which case, the current policy most likely fails..."

Now, tell me how those 1049 things are "fundamental" to the institution of marriage.

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2004, 03:26:42 am »
It amazes me that in all these discussions and dissections of marriage that noboby ever brings up religion.  Clearly marriage is an instution of religion, and the state and federal governments have chosen to incorporate this "religious ideology" into our laws.

Now, before you start ranting about separation of church and state, let me challenge you.  Try and prove that the laws we have in effect today (no killing, stealing, etc.) are not founded on religion.  Why did the pilgrims leave Europe in the first place?  Religious freedom.  When the continental congress closed for a "day of fasting and prayer" what do you think they were doing?

You can't separate religion from marriage.  Gay marriages go against the religious part of what defines a marriage.  Why are people so insistent on gay "marriages"?  TA Pilot defines a civil union, but it does not constitute a marriage because there is no basis in any religion.

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6069
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:14:52 am
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2004, 08:42:29 am »
Wow, I don't know where to begin picking this apart. Yes, religious freedom was one of the motivating forces that led people to America. Freedom from a state defined, state enforced religion. Freedom to worship as you choose. Freedom to not have a king tell you how to think and feel.

Your argument here appears to be predicated on a Judeo-Christian theology.  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

Yes, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are fine religious principles to have influenced the laws in our country... I am fairly certain however that they pre-date Christianity and likely Judaism as well.

Yes, there was a tremendous Christian influence amongst the founding fathers of our country - thank God they had the wisdom and compassion to outline a set of guiding principles for our country designed to protect the rights of all American citizens to worship as they choose and to prevent the state from dictating that worship. America is not a Christian government. America is a government where citizens are allowed choice. Do not confuse a common set of shared morals (that Christianity/Judaism share with our Constitution, Declaration, and laws) with being a mandate from our founding fathers that we be a Judaic/Christian state. They very cleary made great efforts to ensure that would not be so.

--- saint




It amazes me that in all these discussions and dissections of marriage that noboby ever brings up religion.  Clearly marriage is an instution of religion, and the state and federal governments have chosen to incorporate this "religious ideology" into our laws.

Now, before you start ranting about separation of church and state, let me challenge you.  Try and prove that the laws we have in effect today (no killing, stealing, etc.) are not founded on religion.  Why did the pilgrims leave Europe in the first place?  Religious freedom.  When the continental congress closed for a "day of fasting and prayer" what do you think they were doing?

You can't separate religion from marriage.  Gay marriages go against the religious part of what defines a marriage.  Why are people so insistent on gay "marriages"?  TA Pilot defines a civil union, but it does not constitute a marriage because there is no basis in any religion.
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2004, 08:52:31 am »
TA Pilot defines a civil union, but it does not constitute a marriage because there is no basis in any religion.  

You'll find that I rarely base an argument on morality or religion, because these things are subjective.

Under our form of government, the states have the right to defnine marriage as a legal entity.  Such a definition is necessary because of the all of other things in society - kids, property, gvmnt benefits, etc.

My argument is based on this idea - that each state has the right to define marriage as it chooses, and its defnition isnt affected by that of other states.  Unfortunately, recent developments threaten to change this, which is unacceptable.

I dont care how state X defines marriage.  That said definition will be imposed on state Y against its will, I care about.

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6069
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:14:52 am
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #56 on: September 29, 2004, 09:24:16 am »
How could our country possibly function without this? Say California goes off the deep end and defines marriage as being between two same-sexed people only (as a ludicrous example), or that another state declares that marriage is only valid between consenting adults aged 21 and over, or another state declares that marriage is legal at 16 while another state declares that marriage is only possible at 18+.  Say one state declares first cousins can marry while other states say they cannot.  Here's a web site (whose validity I cannot vouch for, but suitable for the sake of argument since I am speaking of "what if's" here) who says that Alabama and South Carolina allow a female to marry at age 12(!) with parental consent (insert own jokes here). In Nebraska the legal marriage age is 19, and in Mississippi it's 21. What if Utah declared bigamy was legal again? (Bigamy should be legal. Who the hell am I to declare that 3 people can't form a loving and stable union as well as 2? -- But that's another argument and isn't a torch I bear, just an idle thought...)

Here's a good one for you. What about proxy marriages? I believe Gov. Schwartzenegger (spelling?) signed a law allowing marriage by proxy (ex: A soldier in Iraq can marry his sweetheart in California by having a stand-in groom. I don't know the full details but that's the gist). In Utah, that appears to be illegal.

Pick any plausible variation in marriage laws that makes two different states interpretation of marriage incompatible.

Now take a legally married couple from state A, and have them take a vacation in state B. Have some tragic accident where one partner ends up in the hospital, and the life-support or no-life-support questions comes up. If state B doesn't accept the validity of the couple's marriage, then the unharmed partner has no legal say in the medical care decisions made despite both partners' wishes. Organ donation questions. Child custody questions. Scary.

Should you have to get re-married any time you move to another state?

For our country to be a collection of united states, you have to honor certain laws from other states. My driver's license is good when I travel to another state (yes, after a period of time if I've moved I need to get a new license, but the state will honor my out-of-state license if I'm visiting, or for a period of time if I'm moving).

Some things are not critical - gun permits, medical licenses. Certainly important to the people who hold them, but life does not stop functioning if one state does not honor another state's laws in those regards. I can apply for a gun license in another state - I can apply for a medical license in another state.

How scary of a society, however, if I can't travel from one state to another because of fear that my family unit will not be valid and the wishes of 2 consenting adults will be ignored if I cross the state border.

--- saint


I dont care how state X defines marriage.  That said definition will be imposed on state Y against its will, I care about.

« Last Edit: September 29, 2004, 09:38:49 am by saint »
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2004, 09:34:48 am »
Pick any plausible variation in marriage laws that makes two different states interpretation of marriage incompatible.

No.   Its FAR more than 'incompatability'.
Its a matter of something being legal in state X and then being unconstitution in state Y - state Y is forced, by the FF&C clause, to honor the marriage from state X.

That is, state Xs laws carry more weight in state Y than state Ys constitution.  How can that be?

Note that while your driver's license is valid in other states, you are obliged to follow the traffic laws of the state you;re in, not the state you;re licensed from.  


[b/]For our country to be a collection of united states, you have to honor certain laws from other states[/b]

I agree.  And thats why there is a FF&C clause.  And thats the problem.
And that's why there's and amendment brewing - states do not want their constitutions to be overridden by a MA state court decision.





saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6069
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:14:52 am
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #58 on: September 29, 2004, 09:43:42 am »
I understand the objection, but you haven't answered my question.  How can we possibly function as a set of united states if we don't have it this way? If I move from state A to state B, and they have incompatible marriage laws/state constitutional definitions of marriage, should my marriage become nullified?

Pick any plausible variation in marriage laws that makes two different states interpretation of marriage incompatible.

No.   Its FAR more than 'incompatability'.
Its a matter of something being legal in state X and then being unconstitution in state Y - state Y is forced, by the FF&C clause, to honor the marriage from state X.

That is, state Xs laws carry more weight in state Y than state Ys constitution.  How can that be?

Note that while your driver's license is valid in other states, you are obliged to follow the traffic laws of the state you;re in, not the state you;re licensed from.  


[b/]For our country to be a collection of united states, you have to honor certain laws from other states[/b]

I agree.  And thats why there is a FF&C clause.  And thats the problem.
And that's why there's and amendment brewing - states do not want their constitutions to be overridden by a MA state court decision.





--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #59 on: September 29, 2004, 09:59:59 am »
I understand the objection, but you haven't answered my question.  How can we possibly function as a set of united states if we don't have it this way? If I move from state A to state B, and they have incompatible marriage laws/state constitutional definitions of marriage, should my marriage become nullified?

Nullified within that state, yes.   If the laws of a state do not allow for the existence of a legal construct (marriage, etc) within that state, then it cannot matter what the laws of other states say - it cannot exist.  

How can MA law have more power in Ohio than the Ohio Constitution?


As for 'how can we function as a set of United States'...

Remember that the problem here comes from an extreme minority applying pressure to a set well-established laws.  They might not like the way the laws interact, but thats because they're trying to change the law into something it was never intended to be.




ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #60 on: September 29, 2004, 10:33:16 am »
Just to put this back on topic:

VOTE FOR KERRY -> KICK TO GENITALS

mr.Curmudgeon

  • It's going to hurt your brain. A lot.
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3855
  • Last login:June 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm
  • Huzzah!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #61 on: September 29, 2004, 10:44:30 am »
Genitals is such a gross word.

saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6069
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:14:52 am
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #62 on: September 29, 2004, 11:38:00 am »
Wow. What a frightening response. You did not directly answer my questions of "how can we function as a set of united states" but it seems clear to me that we simply cannot function as a set of united states under the course of events you advocate. Homosexual marriage aside, although it is acknowledged as the catalyst for this debate, we have on the books conflicting laws on what defines a marriage in this country per state.  Based on your thoughts here these marriages become questionable at best.



I understand the objection, but you haven't answered my question.  How can we possibly function as a set of united states if we don't have it this way? If I move from state A to state B, and they have incompatible marriage laws/state constitutional definitions of marriage, should my marriage become nullified?

Nullified within that state, yes.   If the laws of a state do not allow for the existence of a legal construct (marriage, etc) within that state, then it cannot matter what the laws of other states say - it cannot exist.  

How can MA law have more power in Ohio than the Ohio Constitution?


As for 'how can we function as a set of United States'...

Remember that the problem here comes from an extreme minority applying pressure to a set well-established laws.  They might not like the way the laws interact, but thats because they're trying to change the law into something it was never intended to be.




--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #63 on: September 29, 2004, 11:54:50 am »
You did not directly answer my questions of "how can we function as a set of united states"

And you didnt explain to me how, under our form of government, a court decision in MA has more legal force in OH than the OH constitution.



but it seems clear to me that we simply cannot function as a set of united states under the course of events you advocate

Thats entirely possible.  Nothing says the United States, as a concept, is invoilable.

Dont forget that the states are sovereign entities, not administrative subdivisions of the centra government.   Should the states be forced to accept laws contrary to their constitution by a clause in the federal constitution, its is well within their power to amend the constitution - and given the support the defitnion of traditional marriage carries, I would not in any way expect such an amendment to fail, should the states be pushed.



Based on your thoughts here these marriages become questionable at best.

Yes - and I suppose the marriages, like for minors, would not be valid until they meet the requireents of the state in question.



« Last Edit: September 29, 2004, 02:51:58 pm by TA Pilot »

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:May 22, 2020, 05:02:29 am
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #64 on: September 29, 2004, 08:53:04 pm »
Genitals is such a gross word.
how about....Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Gentiles...less gross?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #65 on: September 29, 2004, 10:46:24 pm »
TA,  the States are not sovereign.  A state can't be kind of sovereign.  It either is or is not sovereign.  Even if the sovereignty question wasn't decided by court rulings such as McCulloch v. Maryland and Cohens v. Virginia (it really was, though) it certainly WAS definitively decided by the Civil War.  Step out of fantasy land.  Countries don't fight civil wars over nothing.  I'm sure you are aware that our civil war was not fought over slavery, per se.  It was fought over the question of state sovereignty.  Winning/losing a war matters.  It means the winners get their way.

Consider the definition of sovereignty as it applies to nations:

1- Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2- Complete independence and self-government
3- A territory existing as an independent state.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #66 on: September 30, 2004, 12:46:28 am »
Wow, I don't know where to begin picking this apart. Yes, religious freedom was one of the motivating forces that led people to America. Freedom from a state defined, state enforced religion. Freedom to worship as you choose. Freedom to not have a king tell you how to think and feel.

Your argument here appears to be predicated on a Judeo-Christian theology.  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

Yes, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are fine religious principles to have influenced the laws in our country... I am fairly certain however that they pre-date Christianity and likely Judaism as well.

Yes, there was a tremendous Christian influence amongst the founding fathers of our country - thank God they had the wisdom and compassion to outline a set of guiding principles for our country designed to protect the rights of all American citizens to worship as they choose and to prevent the state from dictating that worship. America is not a Christian government. America is a government where citizens are allowed choice. Do not confuse a common set of shared morals (that Christianity/Judaism share with our Constitution, Declaration, and laws) with being a mandate from our founding fathers that we be a Judaic/Christian state. They very cleary made great efforts to ensure that would not be so.

--- saint


WOW!! Didn't expect you to reply, Saint!!

I was really stretching things with my post, but the idea was to open up some discussion into the moral aspects of "marriage".  Oh, Well.

Mameotron

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #67 on: September 30, 2004, 12:47:33 am »
Genitals is such a gross word.
how about....Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Gentiles...less gross?

Or...Vote for Kerry = Kick to the Genitals...tastes great!!

danny_galaga

  • Grand high prophet of the holy noodle.
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8505
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:20:43 pm
  • because the mail never stops
    • dans cocktail lounge
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #68 on: September 30, 2004, 01:09:38 am »
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

the world needs you, honest Abe.


ROUGHING UP THE SUSPECT SINCE 1981

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #69 on: September 30, 2004, 06:42:45 am »
TA,  the States are not sovereign.  A state can't be kind of sovereign.  

Sure they are.

The states, at any time, through the amendment process, can dissolve the federal government.  The federal government cannot stop them, and the federal government cannot dissolve the states.

The federal government exists at the whim of the states.
Therefore, the states are sovereign; the 'sovereignty' of the federal government exists because thet states allow it.

At present, the states give up some of their sovereignty to work in league with one another, but they can get this sovereignty back at any time.




saint

  • turned to the Dark Side
  • Supreme Chancellor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6069
  • Last login:Yesterday at 10:14:52 am
  • I only work in cyberspace...
    • Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #70 on: September 30, 2004, 09:00:54 am »
Heh, occasionally I emerge from my shell...  As host of this site I try to stay out of religious/political/philisophical debates but occasionally I can't help myself!

--- saint

Wow, I don't know where to begin picking this apart. Yes, religious freedom was one of the motivating forces that led people to America. Freedom from a state defined, state enforced religion. Freedom to worship as you choose. Freedom to not have a king tell you how to think and feel.

Your argument here appears to be predicated on a Judeo-Christian theology.  It is presumptious at best to assume that all religions forbid homosexual marriages. Gay marriage may go against the Judeo-Christian part of what defines a marriage, but what about Wicca, Buddism, insert-religion-of-choice-here?

Yes, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are fine religious principles to have influenced the laws in our country... I am fairly certain however that they pre-date Christianity and likely Judaism as well.

Yes, there was a tremendous Christian influence amongst the founding fathers of our country - thank God they had the wisdom and compassion to outline a set of guiding principles for our country designed to protect the rights of all American citizens to worship as they choose and to prevent the state from dictating that worship. America is not a Christian government. America is a government where citizens are allowed choice. Do not confuse a common set of shared morals (that Christianity/Judaism share with our Constitution, Declaration, and laws) with being a mandate from our founding fathers that we be a Judaic/Christian state. They very cleary made great efforts to ensure that would not be so.

--- saint


WOW!! Didn't expect you to reply, Saint!!

I was really stretching things with my post, but the idea was to open up some discussion into the moral aspects of "marriage".  Oh, Well.
--- John St.Clair
     Build Your Own Arcade Controls FAQ
     http://www.arcadecontrols.com/
     Project Arcade 2!
     http://www.projectarcade2.com/
     saint@arcadecontrols.com

shmokes

  • Just think of all the suffering in this world that could have been avoided had I just been a little better informed. :)
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10471
  • Last login:September 24, 2016, 06:50:42 pm
  • Don't tread on me.
    • Jake Moses
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #71 on: September 30, 2004, 11:39:46 am »
The states, at any time, through the amendment process, can dissolve the federal government.  

That's absurd.  Look more closely at your statement, TA Pilot.  I'd say that, "through the amendment process," is a pretty damn big qualification to "at any time".  The amendment process is a federal process.  How can you suggest that Texas has the sovereign right to "disolve" it's association with the federal government if that "sovereign" right is dependant upon whether 3/4 of the rest of the states are willing to allow Texas to make that decision.  

On the contrary, the states may only dissolve their federal arrangement at the whim of the federal government and the only time this has been tested the question was answered with the Civil War.  Therefore, the states are not sovereign.
Check out my website for in-depth reviews of children's books, games, and educational apps for the iPad:

Best Kid iPad Apps

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:May 22, 2020, 05:02:29 am
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #72 on: September 30, 2004, 12:01:03 pm »
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

the world needs you, honest Abe.
danny, I think we all see where you're angling with this post.  The problem is, Ol' Abe's process is the way we went about it.  So if you feel the world needs him back, then you are saying you agree with the process and where it's led us to currently, right?
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #73 on: September 30, 2004, 12:12:34 pm »
Look more closely at your statement, TA Pilot.  I'd say that, "through the amendment process," is a pretty damn big qualification to "at any time".

The states can pass an amendment at any time.  Right?



The amendment process is a federal process.

In as much as the procedure is specified in the Constitution, yes - but the process requires no action by the fed Gvmnt and canoot be stopped by the Fed gvmnt.



How can you suggest that Texas has the sovereign right to "disolve" it's association with the federal government if that "sovereign" right is dependant upon whether 3/4 of the rest of the states are willing to allow Texas to make that decision.

The argument here is that the -states- have sovereign power over the fed gvmnt.  That the states can dissolve the fed gvmnt makes this case very strong.

One individual state making a decision to seceede is another argument entirely.  If I were to make this argument, I'd say that the right to seceede is guaranteed by the 10th amendment, as secession isnt prohibited in the Constitution.

 

On the contrary, the states may only dissolve their federal arrangement at the whim of the federal government

Except that the states -can- dissolve the union w/o any sort of consent whatesoever from the fed Gvmnt, and the fed gvmnt cannot (legally) do anything to stop them.

Thus: Sovereign.


DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:May 22, 2020, 05:02:29 am
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #74 on: September 30, 2004, 12:36:18 pm »
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

the world needs you, honest Abe.
danny, I think we all see where you're angling with this post.  The problem is, Ol' Abe's process is the way we went about it.  So if you feel the world needs him back, then you are saying you agree with the process and where it's led us to currently, right?


(danny, this cut and paste stuff is getting hard!  ;))
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

ChadTower

  • Chief Kicker - Nobody's perfect, including me. Fantastic body.
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38216
  • Last login:January 20, 2020, 10:27:05 am
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #75 on: September 30, 2004, 12:41:45 pm »
A repetition of the key message:

Vote for Kerry -> Kick to Genitals

DrewKaree

  • - AHOTW - Pompous revolving door windbag *YOINKER*
  • Wiki Master
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9819
  • Last login:May 22, 2020, 05:02:29 am
  • HAH! Nice one!
    • A lifelong project
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #76 on: September 30, 2004, 01:25:25 pm »
I like your platform Chad....any chance of you running for office on this forum?  Perhaps "Chief Kicker"?  Dunno if Saint has a need for it, but I'd think it hilarious to see that under your name!

I'd run for the "Pompous Windbag" position...don't see anyone stealing that away from me  ;D

TA could be "Gun Control Czar"

DD could be "Where can I buy a folding stock for this Undersecretary"

Floyd could be "Dis-Information Minister"

Shmokes could be "The Hulk" (but only if he smears that green stuff over more of his scrawny body ;D )

MrC could be "Sandwich Admiral"

fredster could be....crap, I'm all outta ideas....fredster can be Republican Committee Head
Youíre always in control of your behavior. Sometimes you just control yourself
in ways that you later wish you hadnít

fredster

  • Grand Prophet of Arcadeology
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2311
  • Last login:February 16, 2019, 04:28:53 pm
  • It's all good!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #77 on: September 30, 2004, 01:51:45 pm »
Drew,

I wanna be Secretary of State.

I want to talk to the UN!!!  
King of the Flying Monkeys from the Dark Side

TA Pilot

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
  • Last login:November 06, 2004, 10:35:02 pm
  • 403 drivers have bigger pistons
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #78 on: September 30, 2004, 01:53:26 pm »
I want to be SECDEF.

Right arm of the Free World.

fogman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
  • Last login:June 09, 2007, 03:56:32 pm
  • A Tale of Nocturnal Terror!!!
Re:1 reason not to vote for John Kerry
« Reply #79 on: September 30, 2004, 01:54:41 pm »
This is actually a very interesting thread with a lot of well written points on all sides of the many issues.  Having said that, let me ruin it with this:

One of the big problems that I think exists in a lot of politicians minds is the impact on Social Security and of course, on pensions and every other survivor benefit.  The survivor benefits would cost billions that were not taken into account when these systems were introduced.

As far as my stand on the issue (not that anyone cares) is that I don't think it is the government's business if the Hooper triplets and I want to settle down to a blissful 4 way marriage.  The problem is that if I work and they don't,  what happens when I die?  Is my company going to have to pay each one 1/2 of my pension?  What about social security?  What if one of them divorces the rest of us?  How do we split everything up?  If I die, are they still legally in a three way same sex marriage?  hhhhmmmmm....Triplets....... Oh sorry, what was I saying?