Um, what part of my statement was incorrect?
I pointed out that what it is about is requiring OTHERS to act or respond differently. Rather than being a matter of allowing or not allowing any couple in question to interrelate with each other however they like.
How am I wrong in stating that?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Um, what part of my statement was incorrect?
I pointed out that what it is about is requiring OTHERS to act or respond differently. Rather than being a matter of allowing or not allowing any couple in question to interrelate with each other however they like.
How am I wrong in stating that?[/quote]
Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Seemed to me that you were saying, there is no real reason to fight because they can consider their private relationship whatever they want it to be. When in fact, I guess you were just acknowledging this fact.
Seems obvious to me too. Maybe that’s why I misinterpreted.
But certainly, the important issue is the impact legal recognition of their relationship by others would have for them.
[quote]BSrunner wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority just voted down a measure that would be necessary to save California’s economy, and now the federal government is likely going to have to intervene.
If it is not okay for the courts to overturn the prop 8 majority vote, why will it be okay (by the citizens of Ca) for the federal government to intervene and do what the majority vote in California would not
I am not sure what to think about the decision, I just wanted to pose this question[/quote]
It’s a damn good question.
If I’m reading you right, you are saying:
Should the Voters of California be forced to “live” with their decision?
The problem is that we get into that HIGHLY contested and controversial area of being “too big to fail”.
I personally think that if the Feds stayed out (which is HIGHLY unlikely)…California could be a great harbinger for a lot of things…from States Rights to the role of the Federal Government in “propping up” an economy.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
BSrunner wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority just voted down a measure that would be necessary to save California’s economy, and now the federal government is likely going to have to intervene.
If it is not okay for the courts to overturn the prop 8 majority vote, why will it be okay (by the citizens of Ca) for the federal government to intervene and do what the majority vote in California would not
I am not sure what to think about the decision, I just wanted to pose this question
It’s a damn good question.
If I’m reading you right, you are saying:
Should the Voters of California be forced to “live” with their decision?
The problem is that we get into that HIGHLY contested and controversial area of being “too big to fail”.
I personally think that if the Feds stayed out (which is HIGHLY unlikely)…California could be a great harbinger for a lot of things…from States Rights to the role of the Federal Government in “propping up” an economy.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I agree, it would certainly turn the tides.
An extension on States Rights- If the federal government funded the Californian economy, they could essentially overturn Prop 8 by granting rights to same sex couples. It would be similar to how they forced Universities during the civil rights movements to desegregate on the basis of the schools accepting federal funding.
The direct effect is the law requiring OTHERS to do differently than they may choose. Indeed it is only others that will be required to do anything different.
Somehow this aspect, which clearly is a key aspect – how can the matter of who is required to do differently under a law not a key aspect? – gets neglected, it seems to me, or even entirely overlooked most of the time.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Um, what part of my statement was incorrect?
I pointed out that what it is about is requiring OTHERS to act or respond differently. Rather than being a matter of allowing or not allowing any couple in question to interrelate with each other however they like.
How am I wrong in stating that?
Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Seemed to me that you were saying, there is no real reason to fight because they can consider their private relationship whatever they want it to be. When in fact, I guess you were just acknowledging this fact.
Seems obvious to me too. Maybe that’s why I misinterpreted.
But certainly, the important issue is the impact legal recognition of their relationship by others would have for them. [/quote]
I am very shocked (in a good way) about how Prop 8 turned out here in California. There are protests already scheduled in West Hollywood (Gay HQ). I thought we were pretty liberal here, or liberal enough to let gay marriage pass.
The White House will not bail out California for shit, because they know if they do, states in trouble will line up with their hands out as well. The people of Cali finally grew some balls and shot down proposed tax increases (by a 2 to 1 margin) and are forcing the Governator to cut govt programs rather than milk the tax payers. California is not too big too big to fail, it already has failed. The people here don’t care anymore, and the scare tactics didn’t work. Arnold bluffed and we called him on it.
(Note: For the more intellectually curious…if you ever want to read some amazing Constitutional Arguments…for and against…read those related to “Separate but Equal”…)
The Federal Government most definitely has a history of tying Federal Funding to certain “hot button” issues:
Perhaps the most famous is Title Nine:
“…No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”
In theory…yes…the Feds can (and have) linked certain issues to Federal Funding.
Would they do so if it meant going against a States Constitution?
Interesting legal questions that we may be seeing over the next few years.
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The White House will not bail out California for shit, because they know if they do, states in trouble will line up with their hands out as well. The people of Cali finally grew some balls and shot down proposed tax increases (by a 2 to 1 margin) and are forcing the Governator to cut govt programs rather than milk the tax payers. California is not too big too big to fail, it already has failed. The people here don’t care anymore, and the scare tactics didn’t work. Arnold bluffed and we called him on it. [/quote]
True…California absolutely has no money to continue to fund a very bloated bureaucracy.
The only thing I “sort” of disagree with, Max, is that Arnold was using scare tactics. In reality, the cuts that California is facing are enormous and far-reaching.
No one is going to be left untouched.
Mufasa
OTHERS already have to do differently than they may choose by virtue of the thousands of state and federal benefits and requirements that state and federal law apply to a married couple.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The direct effect is the law requiring OTHERS to do differently than they may choose. Indeed it is only others that will be required to do anything different.
Somehow this aspect, which clearly is a key aspect – how can the matter of who is required to do differently under a law not a key aspect? – gets neglected, it seems to me, or even entirely overlooked most of the time.
jsbrook wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Um, what part of my statement was incorrect?
I pointed out that what it is about is requiring OTHERS to act or respond differently. Rather than being a matter of allowing or not allowing any couple in question to interrelate with each other however they like.
How am I wrong in stating that?
Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Seemed to me that you were saying, there is no real reason to fight because they can consider their private relationship whatever they want it to be. When in fact, I guess you were just acknowledging this fact.
Seems obvious to me too. Maybe that’s why I misinterpreted.
But certainly, the important issue is the impact legal recognition of their relationship by others would have for them.
[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Among other ironies is that while “gay marriage” is styled as the new “Civil Rights movements”, the original Civil Rights warriors - Black Americans - are are the demographic bloc most solidly against it.[/quote]
I’m probably gonna catch hell for this but, homosexuality is a behavior not a race. So in my eyes gay marriage isn’t the same as civil rights.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
OTHERS already have to do differently than they may choose by virtue of the thousands of state and federal benefits and requirements that state and federal law apply to a married couple.
Bill Roberts wrote:
The direct effect is the law requiring OTHERS to do differently than they may choose. Indeed it is only others that will be required to do anything different.
Somehow this aspect, which clearly is a key aspect – how can the matter of who is required to do differently under a law not a key aspect? – gets neglected, it seems to me, or even entirely overlooked most of the time.
jsbrook wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Um, what part of my statement was incorrect?
I pointed out that what it is about is requiring OTHERS to act or respond differently. Rather than being a matter of allowing or not allowing any couple in question to interrelate with each other however they like.
How am I wrong in stating that?
Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Seemed to me that you were saying, there is no real reason to fight because they can consider their private relationship whatever they want it to be. When in fact, I guess you were just acknowledging this fact.
Seems obvious to me too. Maybe that’s why I misinterpreted.
But certainly, the important issue is the impact legal recognition of their relationship by others would have for them.
[/quote]
Does that change the accuracy or relevance of what I said? No.
Let me add some detail so this is not just in the abstract.
Now, let’s say I am an employer. There are various ways in which I can choose to give benefits to some employees and not others. It’s my money.
For example, let’s say I choose to have a policy that I will give a bonus of such-and-such-per-month to all employees who have or earn bachelor’s degrees, above and beyond what they otherwise would get.
And I choose not to give this to those that don’t have bachelor’s degrees and don’t get them.
That’s my business, right?
Now some group decides that in their view technical school degrees are just as good, and demand a law that no employer can differentiate between bachelor’s degrees and technical school degrees with regard to pay or benefits. In fact now degrees from technical schools are going to, by law, be CALLED “bachelor’s degrees” though that has never meant that before.
Hey, these people have their degrees without the law. They are free to get salaries from anyone who wants to hire them at pay mutually agreed to.
I don’t feel like paying a bonus for those of my employees that have degrees from technical schools. Just not what I want to do.
What this law really is about is not allowing people to have technical school degrees: any technical school and any person can, if mutually agreeing, grant and receive the degree. That’s already the case.
And any person who wants to reward or otherwise respond to that technical degree is already free to do so.
No, that’s not what the law would be about.
What such a law would in fact be about is forcing other people to accept and treat the technical degree differently than what they are willing to do.
Similarly with laws of the sort in question. People are already free to have any relationship between them that they want. Other people are already free to recognize it however they want.
However, some people and entities have chosen such things as to, for example, at their option confer benefits such, as say, health care to spouses of their employees who are married according to what they understand to be marriage, and what has long been understood to be such. Which the employer means, to a person of the opposite sex, as that was the meaning when the contract or policy was established. All employees are free to do that. Or not to. Their choice.
What the type of law in question (or legislation from the bench) is about is trying to now force this employer to grant a benefit that he did not intend to give – if he intended to do it, he already can without the law. And of course not just this employer, but countless employers and other persons and entities to do what they did not and do not wish to do and never agreed to.
It is not about permitting consenting people to do things that now they can’t. Not a single such thing can be named, other than word usage.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
The White House will not bail out California for shit, because they know if they do, states in trouble will line up with their hands out as well. The people of Cali finally grew some balls and shot down proposed tax increases (by a 2 to 1 margin) and are forcing the Governator to cut govt programs rather than milk the tax payers. California is not too big too big to fail, it already has failed. The people here don’t care anymore, and the scare tactics didn’t work. Arnold bluffed and we called him on it.
True…California absolutely has no money to continue to fund a very bloated bureaucracy.
The only thing I “sort” of disagree with, Max, is that Arnold was using scare tactics. In reality, the cuts that California is facing are enormous and far-reaching.
No one is going to be left untouched.
Mufasa
[/quote]
And the problem with that is ??? Listen, Arnold increased government by 40% since he was elected, and the state certainly isn’t 40% better. He bent over for all the unions who wanted increased wages and benefits, and rather than tell them no because we cannot fiscally afford it, he approved it at the expense of the tax payer. Well, last week here in Cali, we had a special election for increasing taxes (yet again) and it failed. Had they passed, the extra money would have gone to the teacher unions and other state worker unions. The problem is that Cali has the highest paid teachers in the US, with the one of the worst competence ratings. How can you ask for a raise when you perform like shit?
People get raises and promotions when they perform well at their job. Nothing new there right? Well California has one of the highest drop out and failure rate of students in the country, why should they get a raise? No one is telling them to take a pay cut, just to make the same money they did last year. Which BTW, is not a horrible idea in the midst of a recession and risk of state bankruptcy. There are people who work here doing nothing making 80k a year, with a 90% retirement pension that kicks in at the age of 50. Are you kidding me? Who do you think pays for it? Yep, me and everyone else I know. Fuck that, off with their heads.
[quote]jawara wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Among other ironies is that while “gay marriage” is styled as the new “Civil Rights movements”, the original Civil Rights warriors - Black Americans - are are the demographic bloc most solidly against it.
I’m probably gonna catch hell for this but, homosexuality is a behavior not a race. So in my eyes gay marriage isn’t the same as civil rights.[/quote]
I could not agree with you more.
[quote]jawara wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Among other ironies is that while “gay marriage” is styled as the new “Civil Rights movements”, the original Civil Rights warriors - Black Americans - are are the demographic bloc most solidly against it.
I’m probably gonna catch hell for this but, homosexuality is a behavior not a race. So in my eyes gay marriage isn’t the same as civil rights.[/quote]
Incorrect. the original civil rights warriors were American colonists.
civil rights =/= race. In our history the two have directly linked yes, but also not directly linked. See woman’s rights movement.
a “civil rights movement” is a political movement for equality before law.
civil rights and race are not conditional.
homosexuality is an orientation. Its a noun not a verb. And there have been many non-race oriented movements in every country through out history, womens, students, religious, ethnic, ect.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Among other ironies is that while “gay marriage” is styled as the new “Civil Rights movements”, the original Civil Rights warriors - Black Americans - are are the demographic bloc most solidly against it.[/quote]
see American colonists.
it wouldn’t also be the first time free’d groups of peoples have turned their backs on others.
[quote]jawara wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Among other ironies is that while “gay marriage” is styled as the new “Civil Rights movements”, the original Civil Rights warriors - Black Americans - are are the demographic bloc most solidly against it.
I’m probably gonna catch hell for this but, homosexuality is a behavior not a race. So in my eyes gay marriage isn’t the same as civil rights.[/quote]
Yep…you better duck, J!
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
The White House will not bail out California for shit, because they know if they do, states in trouble will line up with their hands out as well. The people of Cali finally grew some balls and shot down proposed tax increases (by a 2 to 1 margin) and are forcing the Governator to cut govt programs rather than milk the tax payers. California is not too big too big to fail, it already has failed. The people here don’t care anymore, and the scare tactics didn’t work. Arnold bluffed and we called him on it.
True…California absolutely has no money to continue to fund a very bloated bureaucracy.
The only thing I “sort” of disagree with, Max, is that Arnold was using scare tactics. In reality, the cuts that California is facing are enormous and far-reaching.
No one is going to be left untouched.
Mufasa
And the problem with that is ??? Listen, Arnold increased government by 40% since he was elected, and the state certainly isn’t 40% better. He bent over for all the unions who wanted increased wages and benefits, and rather than tell them no because we cannot fiscally afford it, he approved it at the expense of the tax payer. Well, last week here in Cali, we had a special election for increasing taxes (yet again) and it failed. Had they passed, the extra money would have gone to the teacher unions and other state worker unions. The problem is that Cali has the highest paid teachers in the US, with the one of the worst competence ratings. How can you ask for a raise when you perform like shit?
People get raises and promotions when they perform well at their job. Nothing new there right? Well California has one of the highest drop out and failure rate of students in the country, why should they get a raise? No one is telling them to take a pay cut, just to make the same money they did last year. Which BTW, is not a horrible idea in the midst of a recession and risk of state bankruptcy. There are people who work here doing nothing making 80k a year, with a 90% retirement pension that kicks in at the age of 50. Are you kidding me? Who do you think pays for it? Yep, me and everyone else I know. Fuck that, off with their heads. [/quote]
Hey, Max…I said “sort” of disagree!
The cutting of bloated bureacracies…artificially inflated salaries and benefits…jobs for doing next to nothing…salaries and benefits “extorted” by Unions…those are the LESSER of the evils to cut, and the ones people will find extremely hard to argue with a State that is now broke.
It is when you start talking about the cutting of essential services (Medical/Emergency/Fire/Legal/Law Enforcement/Social/Food…etc)…and services that people take for granted because they are so interwoven into their lives, that things get REAL difficult.
Mufasa
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
OTHERS already have to do differently than they may choose by virtue of the thousands of state and federal benefits and requirements that state and federal law apply to a married couple.
[/quote]
We’ve already been through this. There aren’t thousands of state and federal benefits and requirements that state and federal law apply ONLY to a married couple. If you want to get married get married. Forcing others to recognize your marriage is not a right.
If you don’t want to get legally married, just get married without the state sponsored part.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
The White House will not bail out California for shit, because they know if they do, states in trouble will line up with their hands out as well. The people of Cali finally grew some balls and shot down proposed tax increases (by a 2 to 1 margin) and are forcing the Governator to cut govt programs rather than milk the tax payers. California is not too big too big to fail, it already has failed. The people here don’t care anymore, and the scare tactics didn’t work. Arnold bluffed and we called him on it.
True…California absolutely has no money to continue to fund a very bloated bureaucracy.
The only thing I “sort” of disagree with, Max, is that Arnold was using scare tactics. In reality, the cuts that California is facing are enormous and far-reaching.
No one is going to be left untouched.
Mufasa
And the problem with that is ??? Listen, Arnold increased government by 40% since he was elected, and the state certainly isn’t 40% better. He bent over for all the unions who wanted increased wages and benefits, and rather than tell them no because we cannot fiscally afford it, he approved it at the expense of the tax payer. Well, last week here in Cali, we had a special election for increasing taxes (yet again) and it failed. Had they passed, the extra money would have gone to the teacher unions and other state worker unions. The problem is that Cali has the highest paid teachers in the US, with the one of the worst competence ratings. How can you ask for a raise when you perform like shit?
People get raises and promotions when they perform well at their job. Nothing new there right? Well California has one of the highest drop out and failure rate of students in the country, why should they get a raise? No one is telling them to take a pay cut, just to make the same money they did last year. Which BTW, is not a horrible idea in the midst of a recession and risk of state bankruptcy. There are people who work here doing nothing making 80k a year, with a 90% retirement pension that kicks in at the age of 50. Are you kidding me? Who do you think pays for it? Yep, me and everyone else I know. Fuck that, off with their heads.
Hey, Max…I said “sort” of disagree!
The cutting of bloated bureacracies…artificially inflated salaries and benefits…jobs for doing next to nothing…salaries and benefits “extorted” by Unions…those are the LESSER of the evils to cut, and the ones people will find extremely hard to argue with a State that is now broke.
It is when you start talking about the cutting of essential services (Medical/Emergency/Fire/Legal/Law Enforcement/Social/Food…etc)…and services that people take for granted because they are so interwoven into their lives, that things get REAL difficult.
Mufasa
[/quote]
There is so much waste that can be cut. If they really wanted to right the ship, they could. The problem is it costing them votes from special interests that may not like particular cuts. Do they still subsidize water for irragating crops in the desert?