Election Thread 2016

[Yoshi]

You went on some kind of tangent about churches, as if the religious aspect was what we're talking about. Leave religion out of this, we're talking about law. Religion just muddies the waters.

Which was the exact point I was making with my "tangent."

[Cheebs]

Where does it say that?

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.


Something that did not exist (The Fed) cannot possibly give power to something that does exist (the states). The already in-place states gave power to the Fed. It is a logical impossibility for it to happen any other way. The Fed exists because the states allow it to.

[James]

Fair enough.

Now take this "marriage isn't a right" viewpoint and run it past anybody, see where it gets you. Just because I can, on a purely intellectual basis, agree that marriage isn't a right, that doesn't mean it isn't treated as such. It's not mentioned as a right granted by government, but the idea is firmly set in societal bedrock. It's got all the power and privileges of a right despite not specifically being one. Short version- you're stuck with it, it's not going away, and it's an issue that functions on a national rather than state level.

So, dealing with things as they are and not as some form of intellectual extrapolation- why should gay people be discriminated against on a state level? Who does it help? How does filing taxes as a legally-recognized couple on a federal level and as two individuals on state level make life better for anyone?

James

[Yoshi]

Fair enough.

Now take this "marriage isn't a right" viewpoint and run it past anybody, see where it gets you. Just because I can, on a purely intellectual basis, agree that marriage isn't a right, that doesn't mean it isn't treated as such. It's not mentioned as a right granted by government, but the idea is firmly set in societal bedrock. It's got all the power and privileges of a right despite not specifically being one. Short version- you're stuck with it, it's not going away, and it's an issue that functions on a national rather than state level.

So, dealing with things as they are and not as some form of intellectual extrapolation- why should gay people be discriminated against on a state level? Who does it help? How does filing taxes as a legally-recognized couple on a federal level and as two individuals on state level make life better for anyone?

There's a world of difference between saying it shouldn't be done at a federal level and saying that it shouldn't be done at a state level. I already said that it's insane that someone would have to file two different tax returns and that the federal tax code should allow the marital status of the state of primary residency.

[James]

Yes, I saw that. I was trying to reconcile the two viewpoints and coming up blank. That's the point of the question. We've got an institution that functions on both state and federal levels, and regulating it differently across the two is a giant pain in the ass at best. The legally-recognized union of its citizens isn't like driving, where you can have different requirements state-to-state, because the definition of what constitutes a family has a direct impact at the federal level. Also, and this is on significantly less intellectual grounds, fuck the states if they want to institutionalize discrimination.

Marriage exists. A system where you can be recognized as married nationally but just really good friends locally is retarded. The federal government absolutely should recognize same-sex unions in the same way as opposite-sex unions.

That's pretty much it.

James

[dave is ok]

Taibbi doing what he does best

[Diff-chan]

I like Taibbi's blog post about the convention speeches too. Especially salient was the point about Mitt's weird point about high-paying jobs being replaced with low-paying ones. Is there anything in any of Mitt's speeches since, oh, 2006 or so that would show he considers that anything but a feature of his brand of 'capitalism' and his policies?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-bush-20120831

[Andrew]

I understand the argument for more state's rights; that there are particular needs to each state and than these things are better handled by the state... I get that argument.

But you are full of shit if you think marriage is one of them; that the needs of marriage are different in Alabama than in Connecticut. That's just bullshit. Marriage is one of those things that should be recognized equally everywhere. The same way if I have a driver's license in NJ then I can drive in Ohio.

People say that should be a state's rights issue as a means to stall and combat it, but no one really believes that for reasons other than opposing gay marriage. To such an extent that I've never even heard anyone elaborate on WHY it should be a state's issue.

So marriage certificates should bear full faith and credit across state lines, just like driver's licenses. How about gun permits? You know, a right that's actually defined in the Constitution. Something that marriage and driving are not.

I have no problem whatsoever with full marriage equality, everywhere. But at the same time, let's make a concealed carry permit issued in Texas valid in New York. Since we're civil rights crusaders and all.

[Diff-chan]

If it's gonna be like that, then the federal government should set the guidelines for concealed carry permits. So, you know, the entire country gets a say in the matter. Crossing state lines and all.

[Doc Holliday]

Taibbi doing what he does best

That article is five pages long and he immediately lays out accusations without any examples. Are there specific companies and debt amounts attributed to Romney and Bain Capital in here or is this some middle school level paper bullshit?