Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CortJstr]

part of the precipitate, not part of the solution.

Hey, a Steven Wright reference. Neat.

[V-Adore]

part of the precipitate, not part of the solution.

Hey, a Steven Wright reference. Neat.

I was about to give Jough mad props for that, too. MAD PROPS.

[AlohaDawg]

Geez A-Dawg, you sure don't talk like a Republican.

Well, it's a funny thing: I think government has to and should provide these services...I don't think most of them should be FEDERAL. I think the Federal government should be as small as possible and that States should take a bigger role both in regulating as they see necessary and also in providing necessary services; and that these services should come more from the coffers of the State than the Federal government.

Aspects of interstate commerce and travel should be somewhat regulated and standards should be set for interstate businesses by the Federal Government but I think the Federal Government and particulary Federal Courts spend far too much time micromanaging.

Contrary to most everyone in my profession, I think the Federal Government does way too much. I think State Governments in many ways have become wholly dependent on Federal Government, especially in the Labor, Health and Education arenas. The funding amounts are astronomical and the expectations are pretty low.

I'm for private ownership of guns
I would support a plebiscite to decide the 'marriage' issue on a state-by-state basis (I'm not sure a constitutional amendment is the answer here)
I think a powerful offense is an important aspect of the defensive strategy
I'm for a flat tax
I'm for personal accountability and against litigation as a panacea
I haven't heard candidate Kerry yet lay out the 'Plan' he keeps referring to and until he actually makes a speech saying exactly what he intends to do, (including how this health plan which his wife says I'm an idiot for disagreeing with her on will be funded) I'm still 99% for President Bush. This is more because I have not been given a viable option than partisanship.

[V-Adore]

Okay, AD, I've got a question on the "marriage determined on state-by-state basis" thing. It's not meant as an argument-starter, just an honest question of policy, because you're one of the smartest people I know who advocates this idea.

How would this interact with the bit in the Constitution that forces states to recognize each other's legal agreements and arrangements and such? For example -- let's say a couple or family moves from a state in which their marriage is legal to one in which it is not. Are they still considered legally married (for the purposes of taxes and such)? Is their marriage permanently annulled, or is it somehow "dormant" and will resume if they return to a state in which it is legal?

[AlohaDawg]

My understanding of that issue is that the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (US Constitution, Article 4) would be in effect unless a State has a specific proscription against the activity, agreement, etc.


What this means, I think is that if a gay couple got married while on vacation in Massachusetts, their home state would also have to consider them married - unless their state has a so-called defense of marriage act, which explicitly defines marriage as only being between a man and a woman.

Thirty-seven states have such laws, meaning they would not be bound to honor a same-sex marriage.

AugustWest could undoubtedly put this better. Or more correctly.
Am I doing OK, Counselor?

[TALKYdude]

V-Adore (to butt in, and this thread sure got better when I was gone), I imagine it would work the same way it did when Nevada was the only place you could get a no-fault divorce. Back in the day every state made you prove cruelty or adultery or etc to get divorced. So people who just plain wanted to get a divorce would get it in Nevada and their home state would be forced to accept that. Likewise, I imagine gaily-wedded couples would find their weddings recognized in the other states. The Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton) says that no state can be forced to accept it, so about half the states or so might take advantage of that and pass a law saying that the legal benefits of marriage are not conferred upon people who gaily-wedded in a different state. The rest would not have to actively pass a law that says the opposite thing, because existing customs of marriage being the same thing in every state would compensate. As for states that introduce their own versions of gay marriage like civil unions, that might be more complicated. I think that those will only be legit in the state where the ceremony took place, just like your license to sell alcohol in Illinois is only valid in Illinois, to make a bad analogy.
EDIT: As Aloha-Dawg points out, there's already 37 states that took advantage of the chance under DOMA to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.

[TALKYdude]

What A-D said, he said mine but much better.

[CortJstr]

I would support a plebiscite to decide the 'marriage' issue on a state-by-state basis (I'm not sure a constitutional amendment is the answer here)

I think a Constitutional Amendment definitely is the answer. And it should state that all sentient beings have exactly the same rights as all other sentient beings and that any gender specifications in existing laws are void.

[AlohaDawg]

The Federal government should not regulate behavior to that degree; if a State chooses to amend their constitution with the assent of the appropriate percentage of the voting electorate, it will be so.

[V-Adore]

I don't see how it's regulating behavior to universalize rights regardless of genders. Yes, it might result in changes of behavior -- but so do most constitutional amendments that guarantee universal rights to individuals who did not previously possess them.

[AugustWest]

It's fascinating, AlohaDawg, how we can agree on so many things yet still approach politics from a fundamentally different place.  I suppose much of it has to do with how you are raised -- I'm a lifelong Democrat in a family of Democrats.  My guess is that you have always been a Republican.  It's very encouraging to me, given those assumptions, that we end up approaching the very same positions with only slight differences.

If I won the Powerball, I think I would devote a big chunk of money toward starting a new party.  I'd call it the Moderate party.  We would value pragmatism over dogmatism.  You'd have to pass a test on civics and current events to become a member of the party.  Candidates for office would be chosen by lot and could only serve a maximum of two terms in any office.  We would not accept donations over $500 and would actively seek donations under $50.

I have been around state government and state government politics all my life.  I enjoy it, I'll probably spend the rest of my career around it.  I write statutes and regulations and get them passed.  I'm on a first name basis with a couple dozen legislators, Cabinet Secretaries and Governor's aides.  I'm not bragging.  Really.  Hanging around government is a lot like hanging around a racetrack or a neighborhood tavern.  The cast of characters is just as colorful and if you hang around long enough, well, you become colorful too.

I'm rambling.

I guess my point is the problem with government is mostly the politicians.  There are others, no question.  But as long as we elect our leaders we've got two major built in problems:

1.  Doing the popular thing is more important than doing the correct thing.

2.  The people who get you elected (i.e. give you money) get heard.

I don't think there's anyway to change that and retain an elective system.  It also disturbs me that people who are utterly ignorant about what's going on in the word get to cast the same vote as you and I do.  Citizens have a duty not to be ignorant about candidates and issues.  Thus a free and active media is vital.  Our mass media isn't -- it suffers from issues virtually identical to 1. and 2. above.

Enough.

Re: Full Faith and Credit.  You got it right.  States are obligated to recognize the laws and judgments of sister states.  I don't think you realize the full implication of that, however.  It has a very homogenizing effect on how states treat issues.  TalkyDude hit on it when he brought up no-fault divorce.  Essentially, every state now has no-fault divorce.  If a state is going to have to recognize a legal status someone has obtained by taking a 4 hour flight to Vegas anyway, they might as well make the legal status official in their own state.

RE: Federal vs. State jurisdiction.  I think this is a very interesting question.  More discretion probably should reside with the states.  This is definitely not the trend, however.  I would suggest the Feds should set ceilings and floors for State regulated areas, then get out of the way.  The problem is 50 different regulatory systems can be inefficient and expensive for the regulated parties.  Some things are better suited to a single, uniform system of regulation.

I'll STFU now.

[TALKYdude]

I suppose your "solution" would be to suggest moving to a country that has a higher standard of living than the U.S. does, like any Scandinavian country

I couldn't let this pass uncommented as Swedes are poorer than the poorest state in the Union, Mississippi, and have higher crime than the US average to boot. My Swedish source is a very interesting study, you should read that pdf, jough.