As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

GO VOTE - 1st Tues in November (not as big as last year)[Elections]

11719212223

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Septus wrote: »
    I'm morbidly curious about the existence of people who find homosexuality to be an objectively deviant lifestyle who are not religious.

    Like, I'd really really like to read about one.

    Cognitive dissonance and bigotry aren't something that's exactly new.

    Fencingsax on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    this isn't like segregation, as no Constitutional rights are violated if a State decides not to allow gay marriage or it decides to discriminate based on the basis of sexual orientation.
    Where are the constitutional provisions saying women are a protected class that won't equally apply to gays?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_University_for_Women_v._Hogan
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren

    Couscous on
  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Obama hasn't raised taxes and hasn't been fighting very hard for a public insurance option.

    You obviously have no idea what you're talking about so I'm just going to ignore you now.

    Well, he didn't veto the tobacco tax... though that doesn't really apply to "punishing rich people" so much...

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • AlejandroDaJAlejandroDaJ Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Every time Jezo posts, I die a bit more inside. I'm starting to agree with him on gun control, though. We need far more readily available access to guns and ammunition. A nice little ideological civil war would solve this problem pretty quick, I think.

    Haha, seriously, Civil War 2: Eclectic Boogaloo. Where do I sign up?

    AlejandroDaJ on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Lord Jezo wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Lord Jezo wrote: »
    Samoris wrote: »
    Cuccinelli, our new attorney general, is anti EVERYTHING, and as wikipedia has to say about him "During his time in the Senate Cuccinelli has spearheaded the opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, taxes, eminent domain, and gun control."

    Virginia is fucked.

    Sounds like he is the kind of person I would want in NJ and is the kind of person who makes me want to move to the south.

    If anything this is good news for VA, they are returning to their roots and getting away from the Obama style liberalism that so many people got swept up in last year.

    I wish we had more people like this Cuccinelli in office, this country would be a much better place.

    Now if only they would relax the draconian gun laws they have here in NJ maybe we can get somewhere.

    Since your post was extremely vague (what exactly is "Obama style liberalism"?), I am going to take the least charitable interpretation of it possible.

    Fuck you for opposing gay marriage.

    At this point you need to say fuck you to a very large portion of many states as well because it seems like when it comes up for a vote most of the people in this country seem to oppose it as well. They have their civil unions, they are trying to force themselves onto the word marriage. They have everything everyone else has except a tiny little word. Even the precious California and their left wing lunacy shot down gay marriage. At this point in time it's not something the people want.

    Obama style liberalism is hating on the rich, taxing everything, the bullshit government take over of the private sector, bail outs, socialized health care and the destruction of the private insurance companies, global warming nonsense with that cap and trade bullshit, and not caring about our troops in Afghanistan.

    Hey, now we have a pro-lifer in office in NJ. Things are looking up.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Just repeat to yourself that he's a troll and try to forget that you know of small-minded bigots who actually believe that stupid stuff.

    No troll here, just an outspoken right wing conservative Christian who despises liberalism and the direction it's trying to force this country. Like I said, most of us don't post on message boards, we're too busy out making money and being stuffy old rich people to bother with whiny lefties who like to rally and make lots of noise.

    Yup, nothing about what you just said screams troll. If you're serious...god help you, you're going to hate the next few decades. What's it like being a Christian that proudly flaunts his intention to not live up to the teachings of Christ? Or are they teaching you guys that Jesus was a believer in trickle down economics and advocated elevating the rich at the expense of the poor? In my lifetime "conservatism" has done more to fuck shit up than to fix anything. I'm glad to have never subscribed to that flawed philosophy or the party that pretends to care about it.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The SC doesn't have the final ruling on right and wrong any more than the majority does.
    SCOTUS doesn't deal with right and wrong. It deals with Constitutional versus Unconstitutional.
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    SCOTUS doesn't deal with right and wrong. It deals with Constitutional versus Unconstitutional.
    and what is constitutional and unconstitutional can change without even addinga ny amendments.

    Couscous on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The SC doesn't have the final ruling on right and wrong any more than the majority does.
    SCOTUS doesn't deal with right and wrong. It deals with Constitutional versus Unconstitutional.
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    That's equivocating bullshit. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. It's like I'm arguing with a five year old. :x

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    So I just listened to yesterday's White House press briefing, and there were questions about what people were thinking the elections would mean in regard to the president. One of the questions was about Michael Steele saying that if the dems lost the seats, it'd go to show that the president is over exposed.

    This makes Steele's attitudes today much more insane.

    Henroid on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The SC doesn't have the final ruling on right and wrong any more than the majority does.
    SCOTUS doesn't deal with right and wrong. It deals with Constitutional versus Unconstitutional.
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    This isn't the first time you've shown trouble distinguishing between what is legal and what is just.

    Hachface on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The SC doesn't have the final ruling on right and wrong any more than the majority does.
    SCOTUS doesn't deal with right and wrong. It deals with Constitutional versus Unconstitutional.
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    This isn't the first time you've shown trouble distinguishing between what is legal and what is just.

    I think what he's trying to say is, "It's okay for me to defend denying a certain class of people equal rights because the Supreme Court didn't force me to agree they should have them".

    MIRITE?

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The SC doesn't have the final ruling on right and wrong any more than the majority does.
    SCOTUS doesn't deal with right and wrong. It deals with Constitutional versus Unconstitutional.
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    That's equivocating bullshit. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. It's like I'm arguing with a five year old. :x
    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of a law or government action. Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether they decided correctly in a given case.

    But, unless you can get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court to overturn what you consider an incorrect ruling, your opinion isn't relevant.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Random note: Whats with the word "shrug" used so much for Democratic response to this? "Obama shrugs off party losses", "Dems shrug off losses" etc? Kinda strange.


    House of Representatives one year ago : 235 Dems, 198 Reps
    House of Representatives five months ago: 255 Dems, 178 Reps.
    House of Representatives in the near future: 257 Dems, 177 Reps.

    ed Also: -1 DLC, +1 Progressive Caucus in CA-10. Owens will likely be a DLCer, which is still more liberal than a moderate Republican.

    Senate one year ago : 51 D 49 R
    Senate 7 months ago: 58D 41 R
    Senate 5 months ago: 59 D 40 R
    Senate today: 60 D 40 R

    On No! Look at the Dems in full retreat!

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Lord Jezo wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Lord Jezo wrote: »
    Samoris wrote: »
    Cuccinelli, our new attorney general, is anti EVERYTHING, and as wikipedia has to say about him "During his time in the Senate Cuccinelli has spearheaded the opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, taxes, eminent domain, and gun control."

    Virginia is fucked.

    Sounds like he is the kind of person I would want in NJ and is the kind of person who makes me want to move to the south.

    If anything this is good news for VA, they are returning to their roots and getting away from the Obama style liberalism that so many people got swept up in last year.

    I wish we had more people like this Cuccinelli in office, this country would be a much better place.

    Now if only they would relax the draconian gun laws they have here in NJ maybe we can get somewhere.

    Since your post was extremely vague (what exactly is "Obama style liberalism"?), I am going to take the least charitable interpretation of it possible.

    Fuck you for opposing gay marriage.

    At this point you need to say fuck you to a very large portion of many states as well because it seems like when it comes up for a vote most of the people in this country seem to oppose it as well. They have their civil unions, they are trying to force themselves onto the word marriage. They have everything everyone else has except a tiny little word. Even the precious California and their left wing lunacy shot down gay marriage. At this point in time it's not something the people want.

    Obama style liberalism is hating on the rich, taxing everything, the bullshit government take over of the private sector, bail outs, socialized health care and the destruction of the private insurance companies, global warming nonsense with that cap and trade bullshit, and not caring about our troops in Afghanistan.

    Hey, now we have a pro-lifer in office in NJ. Things are looking up.

    Actually the people of Utah shot down californias legislation by donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a campaign which told simple flat out lies about the consequences of the law. They just did the same in Maine. Did you know that passing this law will mean your children are obliged to be gay? And thay gay teachers will expose themselves to your children in the classroom? Because the commercials said that it did. In many states gay people DONT have civil unions. I used to think a little like you, that why focus on the word marriage if civil unions give the same rights. Then I learned that they quite simply do not, and that the only argument of the opposition as to why they shouldn't get the word was either ...

    i) I'm a bigot who, if it were the 1970s would have been outside the schools beating up black children trying to stop desegregation
    or the rarer
    ii) I'm a vocab nazi, who actually has no knowledge of word history

    The only respectable stance other than allowing gay marriage is to say the government should recognise no marriages, and only civil unions no matter who is involved.

    So far Obama hasn't raised your taxes in any way, has prevented the complete meltdown of our economy to which the free market was gamely careening. Oh, and Bush actually had the biggest 'takeover' and his takeover had no reasonable oversight. Global warming is real, quite simply 100% real, if you disbelieve it you are a buffoon and are saying something as stupid as 'The neutron doesn't exist'.

    edit - Oh, and in response to your 'We're out making money' edit about conservatives, you'll actually find that wealth is strongly correlated with a college education, which is also HUGELY correlated with liberalism. So in fact, your out taking government hand outs, and whining about us raising taxes on ourselves to pay for better services for you. Red states take federal funds, Blue states give federal funds.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The SC doesn't have the final ruling on right and wrong any more than the majority does.
    SCOTUS doesn't deal with right and wrong. It deals with Constitutional versus Unconstitutional.
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    That's equivocating bullshit. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. It's like I'm arguing with a five year old. :x
    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of a law or government action. Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether they decided correctly in a given case.

    But, unless you can get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court to overturn what you consider an incorrect ruling, your opinion isn't relevant.

    That doesn't mean the Supreme Court can't arrive at an incorrect decision. Know how I know? The Supreme Court says so. Stare Decisis is not all powerful.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the Constitutionality of a law or government action. Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether they decided correctly in a given case.

    But, unless you can get yourself appointed to the Supreme Court to overturn what you consider an incorrect ruling, your opinion isn't relevant.

    We are all perfectly aware that Maine's referendum was perfectly legal, according to the case law as it stands.

    Everyone except you, however, has been making moral arguments on what ought to be the law, not what the law is. Most of what you say is therefore irrelevant to the points others are making.

    Hachface on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Preacher wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?
    Nothing. But Plessy v. Ferguson was right until it was overturned. The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision or a Constitutional amendment.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision
    Which is quite possible. At best you can say that the Supreme Court currently agrees with you. The wind is moving in an obvious direction in this situation and the court will eventually have to respond.

    Couscous on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?
    Nothing. But Plessy v. Ferguson was right until it was overturned. The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision or a Constitutional amendment.

    Modern Man, do you deny the existence of extra-legal moral reasoning? Or are you just refusing to engage with the moral argument for gay marriage because you don't have a decent rebuttal?

    Hachface on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Random note: Whats with the word "shrug" used so much for Democratic response to this? "Obama shrugs off party losses", "Dems shrug off losses" etc? Kinda strange.


    House of Representatives one year ago : 235 Dems, 198 Reps
    House of Representatives five months ago: 255 Dems, 178 Reps.
    House of Representatives in the near future: 257 Dems, 177 Reps.

    ed Also: -1 DLC, +1 Progressive Caucus in CA-10. Owens will likely be a DLCer, which is still more liberal than a moderate Republican.

    Senate one year ago : 51 D 49 R
    Senate 7 months ago: 58D 41 R
    Senate 5 months ago: 59 D 40 R
    Senate today: 60 D 40 R

    On No! Look at the Dems in full retreat!

    Hmm, thats true. Just goes to show how the liberal media always favors the democratic agenda! Damn that liberal media!

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?
    Nothing. But Plessy v. Ferguson was right until it was overturned. The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision or a Constitutional amendment.

    Fuck you. It wasn't right. It may have been legal, but it wasn't right.

    Fencingsax on
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?
    Nothing. But Plessy v. Ferguson was right until it was overturned. The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision or a Constitutional amendment.

    Modern Man, do you deny the existence of extra-legal moral reasoning? Or are you just refusing to engage with the moral argument for gay marriage because you don't have a decent rebuttal?

    Isn't this guy a lawyer for reals IRC?

    VeritasVR on
    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?
    Nothing. But Plessy v. Ferguson was right until it was overturned. The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision or a Constitutional amendment.

    Actually, it was 'legal' until it was overturned. Would you argue that the parts of the constitution which allowed slavery were right? Or that the laws opposing interracial marriage were right? They were of course, wrong, but what they were were legal. The supreme court simply sets down what it believes should be legal at the time, it is fully within the rights of the future to decide those decisions were wrong. The same will happen to all the anti-gay legislation, and to all the anti-abortion legislation.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man, do you deny the existence of extra-legal moral reasoning?
    Of course not.
    Or are you just refusing to engage with the moral argument for gay marriage because you don't have a decent rebuttal?
    I've never lived in a place where I've been given the chance to vote on the issue of gay marriage, so the moral arguments pro and con are largely academic to me.

    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?
    Nothing. But Plessy v. Ferguson was right until it was overturned. The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision or a Constitutional amendment.

    Modern Man, do you deny the existence of extra-legal moral reasoning? Or are you just refusing to engage with the moral argument for gay marriage because you don't have a decent rebuttal?

    Isn't this guy a lawyer for reals IRC?

    Yeah but that's no excuse. Every lawyer I know is completely aware of the difference between "legal" and "just."

    Hachface on
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's perfectly capable of rendering a wrong decision.
    Legally? No, it isn't.

    Ok constitutional scholar what changed in the constitution that struck down plessy vs ferguson when brown vs the board of education came around? Other than of course prevailing attitude and the justices?
    Nothing. But Plessy v. Ferguson was right until it was overturned. The only way things that can make a SCOTUS decision wrong is a subsequent decision or a Constitutional amendment.

    Modern Man, do you deny the existence of extra-legal moral reasoning? Or are you just refusing to engage with the moral argument for gay marriage because you don't have a decent rebuttal?

    Isn't this guy a lawyer for reals IRC?

    Yeah but that's no excuse. Every lawyer I know is completely aware of the difference between "legal" and "just."

    That's what I'm getting at. D:

    VeritasVR on
    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.
    Why doesn't this apply to things like sex discrimination?

    Couscous on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man, do you deny the existence of extra-legal moral reasoning?
    Of course not.
    Or are you just refusing to engage with the moral argument for gay marriage because you don't have a decent rebuttal?
    I've never lived in a place where I've been given the chance to vote on the issue of gay marriage, so the moral arguments pro and con are largely academic to me.

    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.

    Modern Man we all know this. So choose: are you actually arguing against gay marriage, or are you merely insisting on repeatedly pointing out the obvious?

    Hachface on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.
    Why doesn't this apply to things like sex discrimination?
    Because gender is a protected class under the Constitution. Sexual orientation isn't.

    You can't discriminate against people based on race or gender. But you can discriminate based on sexual orientation and a number of other characteristics.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.
    Why doesn't this apply to things like sex discrimination?
    Because gender is a protected class under the Constitution. Sexual orientation isn't.

    You can't discriminate against people based on race or gender. But you can discriminate based on sexual orientation and a number of other characteristics.

    You can't academically say why sexual orientation shouldn't be a protected class but sex is a protected class under the constitution, can you? If sex can be a constitutionally protected class, sexual orientation can easily be considered a constitutionally protected class. The fact that the current crop of Supreme Court judges disagrees doesn't actually mean anything except that it currently isn't true now.

    Couscous on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Random note: Whats with the word "shrug" used so much for Democratic response to this? "Obama shrugs off party losses", "Dems shrug off losses" etc? Kinda strange.


    House of Representatives one year ago : 235 Dems, 198 Reps
    House of Representatives five months ago: 255 Dems, 178 Reps.
    House of Representatives in the near future: 257 Dems, 177 Reps.

    ed Also: -1 DLC, +1 Progressive Caucus in CA-10. Owens will likely be a DLCer, which is still more liberal than a moderate Republican.

    Senate one year ago : 51 D 49 R
    Senate 7 months ago: 58D 41 R
    Senate 5 months ago: 59 D 40 R
    Senate today: 60 D 40 R

    On No! Look at the Dems in full retreat!

    Owens has said he's for the health reform bill before the House, which is nice. So Pelosi has two more votes to work with and can lose 40 Blue Dogs.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man we all know this. So choose: are you actually arguing against gay marriage, or are you merely insisting on repeatedly pointing out the obvious?
    I'm opposed to gay marriage because it fundamentally re-defines the institution of marriage in a radical manner for which there is simply no historical or cultural basis.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.
    Why doesn't this apply to things like sex discrimination?

    Because of the Civil Rights Act and some Supreme Court decisions that decided that the Civil Rights Act didn't violate the Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause jurisprudence has changed quite a bit in the intervening years and Congress would have an uphill battle trying to show that gay marriage affects interstate commerce sufficiently to allow the Federal government to regulate it. So you're basically talking constitutional amendment time.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.
    Why doesn't this apply to things like sex discrimination?

    Because of the Civil Rights Act and some Supreme Court decisions that decided that the Civil Rights Act didn't violate the Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause jurisprudence has changed quite a bit in the intervening years and Congress would have an uphill battle trying to show that gay marriage affects interstate commerce sufficiently to allow the Federal government to regulate it. So you're basically talking constitutional amendment time.

    So why shouldn't Utah be able to decide women should where burqas?

    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach on the rights of women, and vice versa.

    Couscous on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man we all know this. So choose: are you actually arguing against gay marriage, or are you merely insisting on repeatedly pointing out the obvious?
    I'm opposed to gay marriage because it fundamentally re-defines the institution of marriage in a radical manner for which there is simply no historical or cultural basis.

    Why is historical or cultural basis more important than a utilitarian basis? That is, it makes a significant number of people happy while doing no harm.

    Hachface on
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man we all know this. So choose: are you actually arguing against gay marriage, or are you merely insisting on repeatedly pointing out the obvious?
    I'm opposed to gay marriage because it fundamentally re-defines the institution of marriage in a radical manner for which there is simply no historical or cultural basis.

    Just like it was redefined for couples of mixed race.

    Just like it was redefined to give women rights within their marriage.

    Suriko on
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man we all know this. So choose: are you actually arguing against gay marriage, or are you merely insisting on repeatedly pointing out the obvious?
    I'm opposed to gay marriage because it fundamentally re-defines the institution of marriage in a radical manner for which there is simply no historical or cultural basis.

    Absurd. There's been precedence ever since people first married for love instead of bloodlines and property.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.
    Why doesn't this apply to things like sex discrimination?

    Because of the Civil Rights Act and some Supreme Court decisions that decided that the Civil Rights Act didn't violate the Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause jurisprudence has changed quite a bit in the intervening years and Congress would have an uphill battle trying to show that gay marriage affects interstate commerce sufficiently to allow the Federal government to regulate it. So you're basically talking constitutional amendment time.

    So why shouldn't Utah be able to decide women should where burqas?

    The Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment, etc, etc.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    My point is that the people of individual States have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process. That approach seems to be working pretty well, as it is letting different States take different approaches. Washington shouldn't be forced to take Utah's approach to this issue, and vice versa.
    Why doesn't this apply to things like sex discrimination?

    Because of the Civil Rights Act and some Supreme Court decisions that decided that the Civil Rights Act didn't violate the Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause jurisprudence has changed quite a bit in the intervening years and Congress would have an uphill battle trying to show that gay marriage affects interstate commerce sufficiently to allow the Federal government to regulate it. So you're basically talking constitutional amendment time.

    So why shouldn't Utah be able to decide women should where burqas?

    The Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment, etc, etc.

    All of which are national laws that go against "the people of individual State have the legal right to decide on this issue through the democratic process."

    Edit: There is no difference between arguing that states should be able to decide whether to give women rights instead of making them a constitutionally protected class or imposing legislation on them is the same shit as this.

    Couscous on
Sign In or Register to comment.