If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Despite being slathered in parsley butter and accompanied by a bloomin' onion, New Jersey marriage equality bill is still vetoed by Governor Chris Christie   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 202
    More: Stupid, New Jersey, parsley, same-sex marriages, butter  
•       •       •

3014 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Feb 2012 at 2:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-18 03:11:58 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: peterquince:
The government doesn't have the option to NOT handle marriage, because marriage affects a person's legal rights. Just a silly little example: if a man is accused of a crime, his wife has the right to refuse to give privileged information on the stand. The court (the government) HAS to have a decision whether a person is a spouse for the purpose of trial procedure. Same for income tax, etc. Gov't has to have a rule for who it will consider a spouse.

There's nothing there that a civil union couldn't solve. That way ANYBODY could have those rights, if they choose. Teh_Gheys, senior citizens, roommates, etc. Let the churches decide who they want to marry or not marry. The government can handle legal partnerships.


You know there are many legal differences between civil unions and marriages, right? The two are not "separate but equal." Here are a few ways:


Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate and Unequal-Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.
 
2012-02-18 03:12:50 PM  

peterquince: STRYPERSWINE: peterquince:
The government doesn't have the option to NOT handle marriage, because marriage affects a person's legal rights. Just a silly little example: if a man is accused of a crime, his wife has the right to refuse to give privileged information on the stand. The court (the government) HAS to have a decision whether a person is a spouse for the purpose of trial procedure. Same for income tax, etc. Gov't has to have a rule for who it will consider a spouse.

There's nothing there that a civil union couldn't solve. That way ANYBODY could have those rights, if they choose. Teh_Gheys, senior citizens, roommates, etc. Let the churches decide who they want to marry or not marry. The government can handle legal partnerships.

I like that you compare gays who are in loving and committed till-death-do-us-part relationships to roommates. That's awesome.

My biggest response here is that adding a separate designation of "civil union" causes lots and lots of extra work for the government. Consider this: a person's marital status affects his rights under 1,046 separate statutes at last review. In order to add "civil union" into the legal code of this country, Congress would have to re-write every single one of those laws. That's lots and lots of hours that you'd have to pay the gov't lawyers who do the actual drafting. HUGE waste of money.

I'll also add that governments have been in the business of regulating marriage MUCH longer than religious groups have (particularly Christianity). So if someone wants to change a term so that civil and religious marriages have different names, that's fine with me. But the churches should change theirs.

Bottom line is this: The government has a legal/social program that it calls marriage. I am effectively barred from this legal program solely because of my sexual orientation. That is unconstitutional and flat-out immoral. And changing the term so that I still can't have access to it doesn't solve that problem.


If you're an lawyer and practiced in my state, I'd hire you in a new york minute.

/ Which seems to take forever for gay rights ;)
// and that is if I ever had a need for a lawyer.
 
2012-02-18 03:14:40 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: peterquince:
The government doesn't have the option to NOT handle marriage, because marriage affects a person's legal rights. Just a silly little example: if a man is accused of a crime, his wife has the right to refuse to give privileged information on the stand. The court (the government) HAS to have a decision whether a person is a spouse for the purpose of trial procedure. Same for income tax, etc. Gov't has to have a rule for who it will consider a spouse.

There's nothing there that a civil union couldn't solve. That way ANYBODY could have those rights, if they choose. Teh_Gheys, senior citizens, roommates, etc. Let the churches decide who they want to marry or not marry. The government can handle legal partnerships.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-18 03:15:14 PM  
Isn't he supposed to give, like, a reason for when he vetoes shiat?
 
2012-02-18 03:15:28 PM  

Oznog: peterquince: ctt1: Referendums are one way that government can work. But, this being a republic with duly elected representatives, the far more common (and far more appropriate, here) process is for elected officials to pass laws. Surely you're familiar with the process?

I saw a bit about California's structure of doing far too much- just about anything- by referendum. It's democratic, yes, in fact technically a pure form of DIRECT democracy, but absurdly chaotic form of government decision-making. The unfunded mandates exist independent of any overall strategy. And you may think that representatives are corrupt because they can be bought, but direct-democracy can be bought even easier. And it's basically a surprise answer. Nobody thought Prop 8 (banning gay marriage in California) was going to pass, so it was considered unnecessary to spend a lot of money fighting against it because it was just stupid trolling. But someone (Utah) spent a lot of money promoting it anyways, and "surprise!" suddenly it's law.


As a resident of CA for my whole life (working on 51 years), I have seen first hand how this is NOT the best way to get laws passed. I believe that often the people who are coming out to vote really don't know or understand what is best for them and the population at large. The means by which our last Governor came into office should be evidence enough of this hypothesis.

/obvious?
 
2012-02-18 03:16:04 PM  

missingpluto: The two are not "separate but equal."


Even if they were, we all know how completely retarded that scam was.
 
2012-02-18 03:17:03 PM  

TheBigJerk: Isn't he supposed to give, like, a reason for when he vetoes shiat?


It doesn't need to be a valid one. But I'm pretty sure it can be overridden.
 
2012-02-18 03:18:52 PM  
OH, AND WHITNEY HOUSTON! WHY AREN'T YOU PAYING ATTENTION TO THE HOUSTON FLAG FIASCO??? I SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED THAT TO THROUGH YOU ALL OFF WHILE I VETOED THIS. DOES NOBODY CARE ABOUT THE HOUSTONS?
 
2012-02-18 03:20:25 PM  
Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.
 
2012-02-18 03:21:02 PM  
Oh FFS already, just let gays marry already. I want to see the inevitable reality show "Gay Divorce Court". That shiat will be a riot.
 
2012-02-18 03:21:53 PM  

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?


If true, that would be a smart political move for him.
 
2012-02-18 03:22:06 PM  
The easiest way around it would be to let the people of New Jersey vote on it. When it gets turned down, like in Kaliphorniastan, a federal judge would overturn it and it'd become law. Simple.
 
2012-02-18 03:22:19 PM  
How such a socially backwards nation got to be one of the richest and most advanced I will never know.
 
2012-02-18 03:23:14 PM  

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


Of course that's the point. Is that a problem?
 
2012-02-18 03:23:22 PM  
Christie thinks that instead of the legislator, the entire citizenry should decided whether to legalize gay marriage. So his solution is to leave the decision to veto it to one single man.

How come it takes 51% of adult New Jerseyites to allow gays to marry, but it only takes 1 to keep that right from them?
 
2012-02-18 03:25:32 PM  

rickycal78: Oh FFS already, just let gays marry already. I want to see the inevitable reality show "Gay Divorce Court". That shiat will be a riot.


There was an episode of cheaters that dealt with a gay couple, and yes, it was a hoot.
 
2012-02-18 03:26:17 PM  
Fat ass christy! come get yur pork!!!!!

/christy is a lazy deadbeat who cares about no one but himself and should be indicted. Just for the fun of it.
 
2012-02-18 03:26:19 PM  

Karac: How come it takes 51% of adult New Jerseyites to allow gays to marry, but it only takes 1 to keep that right from them?


At least he cannot veto a referendum.

As far as I know, that is.
 
2012-02-18 03:27:44 PM  

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


You're not entirely wrong. Though I would change "be accepted as normal" to "be normal." Sure, I want people to stop beating people like me up, or making the lives of 14-year-olds so terrible that they kill themselves. But you know what? Even more than that, I want people like me to be encouraged to live fulfilling, upstanding lives - lives that aren't about truck-stops and pride parades, but about raising children and taking on responsibility. About paying taxes and redecorating the living room. Wouldn't we all like to see the gays focus on sending out cute little Christmas photos with our asian babies than having syphilitic oral sex of Route 9?

Societal expectations have a self-fulfilling outcome. If we tell gays they're perverted and do nothing but go to bathhouses, we/they will. If we tell gays that we expect them to be just as morally upright as heterosexuals, we/they will be. Shouldn't we, as a group, want to grow up a little bit?
 
2012-02-18 03:28:11 PM  

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


WTF do you know. Admiral?
 
2012-02-18 03:29:21 PM  

ctt1wbw: Did the people vote for it? I heard he vetoed it because he wants it to be up to the people to decide and not the legislature. Which, iirc, is the way the government should work. Right?


not really. The representatives elected by the people are supposed to be capable of making correct decisions, including ones that may be unpopular with a number of citizens, in order to prevent mob rule and protect minority rights.
 
2012-02-18 03:29:42 PM  

TwowheelinTim: Oznog: peterquince: ctt1: Referendums are one way that government can work. But, this being a republic with duly elected representatives, the far more common (and far more appropriate, here) process is for elected officials to pass laws. Surely you're familiar with the process?

I saw a bit about California's structure of doing far too much- just about anything- by referendum. It's democratic, yes, in fact technically a pure form of DIRECT democracy, but absurdly chaotic form of government decision-making. The unfunded mandates exist independent of any overall strategy. And you may think that representatives are corrupt because they can be bought, but direct-democracy can be bought even easier. And it's basically a surprise answer. Nobody thought Prop 8 (banning gay marriage in California) was going to pass, so it was considered unnecessary to spend a lot of money fighting against it because it was just stupid trolling. But someone (Utah) spent a lot of money promoting it anyways, and "surprise!" suddenly it's law.

As a resident of CA for my whole life (working on 51 years), I have seen first hand how this is NOT the best way to get laws passed. I believe that often the people who are coming out to vote really don't know or understand what is best for them and the population at large. The means by which our last Governor came into office should be evidence enough of this hypothesis.

/obvious?


The flaws are pretty clear, I think. It's interesting because many DO bemoan the concept of representative democracy, that corruption and detachment from the will of the people, tit-for-tat dealmaking, are all symptoms of a horrible mistake, and propose that direct-democracy in any and all things is the superior system. The California direct-democracy example needs to be more well-known in lay classes about politics and US government- it's fundamentally flawed, demonstrated time and time again. It's fickle, VERY easily swayed by money and press so much that it's unpredictable, it's nontransparent in that no one knows what's going on at all until the final vote comes out, and lacks any overall strategy, taking the form of mandates which are not part of a structured package of law and budget- because any such structure would be far too difficult to explain to the public.
 
2012-02-18 03:29:57 PM  

Karac: Christie thinks that instead of the legislator, the entire citizenry should decided whether to legalize gay marriage. So his solution is to leave the decision to veto it to one single man.

How come it takes 51% of adult New Jerseyites to allow gays to marry, but it only takes 1 to keep that right from them?


If it goes to a vote by the public and wins the majority, he can wash his hands of it and say, "I did what I could do, but the people of NJ want it", and still keep the republican support.

/after all, he did oppose it
//if ya know what I mean
 
2012-02-18 03:30:04 PM  

thamike: TheBigJerk: Isn't he supposed to give, like, a reason for when he vetoes shiat?

It doesn't need to be a valid one. But I'm pretty sure it can be overridden.


Yeah, I was just wondering what the ill-logic of his reason is. What excuse he came up with.

Though apparently it's the old, "only certain churches are allowed to have their marriages recognized even though gays have been getting church-married for decades."
 
2012-02-18 03:30:11 PM  

rikkidoxx: The easiest way around it would be to let the people of New Jersey vote on it. When it gets turned down, like in Kaliphorniastan, a federal judge would overturn it and it'd become law. Simple.


Marriage equality is polling at 52% in New Jersey, or was last week anyway.
 
2012-02-18 03:30:13 PM  
letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end.

Serious Black: Of course that's the point. Is that a problem?


No problem at all. I find your disingenuous response to be refreshing.
 
2012-02-18 03:30:42 PM  

peterquince: You're not entirely wrong. Though I would change "be accepted as normal" to "be normal." Sure, I want people to stop beating people like me up, or making the lives of 14-year-olds so terrible that they kill themselves. But you know what? Even more than that, I want people like me to be encouraged to live fulfilling, upstanding lives - lives that aren't about truck-stops and pride parades, but about raising children and taking on responsibility. About paying taxes and redecorating the living room. Wouldn't we all like to see the gays focus on sending out cute little Christmas photos with our asian babies than having syphilitic oral sex of Route 9?

Societal expectations have a self-fulfilling outcome. If we tell gays they're perverted and do nothing but go to bathhouses, we/they will. If we tell gays that we expect them to be just as morally upright as heterosexuals, we/they will be. Shouldn't we, as a group, want to grow up a little bit?


You suck.
 
2012-02-18 03:34:34 PM  

thamike: peterquince: You're not entirely wrong. Though I would change "be accepted as normal" to "be normal." Sure, I want people to stop beating people like me up, or making the lives of 14-year-olds so terrible that they kill themselves. But you know what? Even more than that, I want people like me to be encouraged to live fulfilling, upstanding lives - lives that aren't about truck-stops and pride parades, but about raising children and taking on responsibility. About paying taxes and redecorating the living room. Wouldn't we all like to see the gays focus on sending out cute little Christmas photos with our asian babies than having syphilitic oral sex of Route 9?

Societal expectations have a self-fulfilling outcome. If we tell gays they're perverted and do nothing but go to bathhouses, we/they will. If we tell gays that we expect them to be just as morally upright as heterosexuals, we/they will be. Shouldn't we, as a group, want to grow up a little bit?

You suck.


Bit of a dry spell for me, to tell the truth. But generally I'll take the opportunity.

/Once gave a seminar to some college girls on the finer points, actually. Just doing my civic duty to help out the straight guys.
 
2012-02-18 03:35:52 PM  

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


You say that like it is a bad thing.
 
2012-02-18 03:37:57 PM  

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


Oh, and... where did you get that from? The only homosexuals that I know (three lesbian couples) all would very much like to get married.

/Yes, I know, anecdotes are not data
//do you even have anecdotes?
 
2012-02-18 03:43:38 PM  
letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

theknuckler_33 You say that like it is a bad thing.


And your clever response does nothing but reinforce the opposing argument, that homosexual marriage is being advocated as way of tearing existing social conventions.
 
2012-02-18 03:43:49 PM  

theknuckler_33: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

Oh, and... where did you get that from? The only homosexuals that I know (three lesbian couples) all would very much like to get married.

/Yes, I know, anecdotes are not data
//do you even have anecdotes?


Well, if you look at how many homosexuals there are in this country, and compare that to the number of them that are married, you'd see that it's really a very small fraction. I mean, how many gay couples filed joint IRS returns last year?
 
2012-02-18 03:50:31 PM  

letrole: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

theknuckler_33 You say that like it is a bad thing.


And your clever response does nothing but reinforce the opposing argument, that homosexual marriage is being advocated as way of tearing existing social conventions.


Again. This is the difference between gay people wanting to be respected and gay people wanting to be respectable.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this. The US Constitution says that all people must be provided the equal protection under the law. Lack of marriage equality violates Constitutional right. Whether we want social respect is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Constitution gives us that right.

/just discovered formatting buttons.
 
2012-02-18 03:50:41 PM  

Karac: Well, if you look at how many homosexuals there are in this country, and compare that to the number of them that are married, you'd see that it's really a very small fraction. I mean, how many gay couples filed joint IRS returns last year?


HA!

This requires them to (drumrolls) have legalized marriage!


The IRS is well known for screwing people over and it's the norm to double check the returns twice or three times - it's not OCD, it's to prevent the long dick of the law finding your ass to screw good.

Thus, to gay couples that are legally unionized, filing taxes as joint/married are an ambiguous area. One could argue that the gay couples that DID do joint filing committed a legal fraud.

This is why I don't think your premise might have any major merit, due to the the current gray area that civil unions are in right now.

/ Unionized is a dumb substitute word for married - Seriously, legalize the goddamn marriages already!
 
2012-02-18 03:51:21 PM  

dweigert: //straight Democratic ticket
/// could vote for a sane, non fundie, willing to compromise Republican if one could be found


Both of these things. /quiet sobbing/

peterquince: Shouldn't we, as a group, want to grow up a little bit?


Let's not go too far with this plan.
 
2012-02-18 03:51:28 PM  
I found it curious that NO ONE cares about the legality of sex changes. In fact, in MOST US states, a person can get their gender legally changed WITHOUT surgical modification of their genitals (bottom surgery). That surgery is still controversial, male-to-female genitals may have an externally convincing appearance but there's no guarantee they'll actually function as sex organs- the pelvis bone can be in the wrong place for penetration, and the person may never get the sensation they're looking for. Female-to-male phalloplasty has never been very practical.

So that's been the case for a long time, a male can change their gender on paper and legally marry another man, and AFAIK it's legally recognized by other states and the Fed. It has never been controversial AFAIK, either.

I think the bottom line here is that this is a manufactured outrage and it will simply die out. Demographics show the younger generations have no problem with gay marriage, and I doubt that changes as they get older, it's a social direction, and the % for it only increases with time. Eventually it will be such an overriding majority that politics must cater to it.
 
2012-02-18 03:54:02 PM  

Braindeath: dweigert: //straight Democratic ticket
/// could vote for a sane, non fundie, willing to compromise Republican if one could be found

Both of these things. /quiet sobbing/

peterquince: Shouldn't we, as a group, want to grow up a little bit?

Let's not go too far with this plan.


Nah, it's cool. We still get pride parades and Fire Island.
 
2012-02-18 03:58:10 PM  

letrole: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

theknuckler_33 You say that like it is a bad thing.


And your clever response does nothing but reinforce the opposing argument, that homosexual marriage is being advocated as way of tearing existing social conventions.


When the existing social convention is bigoted, it should be torn. Homosexual marriage is both a means AND an end.
 
2012-02-18 04:00:04 PM  
peterquince: At the end of the day, it comes down to this. The US Constitution says that all people must be provided the equal protection under the law. Lack of marriage equality violates Constitutional right. Whether we want social respect is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Constitution gives us that right.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, just like voting.

The American Constitution does not give you any rights. It only enumerates rights that someone has seen fit to specify. Your rights are endless and endowed by your Creator.
 
2012-02-18 04:00:54 PM  

CrispFlows: Karac: Well, if you look at how many homosexuals there are in this country, and compare that to the number of them that are married, you'd see that it's really a very small fraction. I mean, how many gay couples filed joint IRS returns last year?

HA!

This requires them to (drumrolls) have legalized marriage!


I think your sarcasm meter needs new batteries. :D
 
2012-02-18 04:05:14 PM  
peterquince/Once gave a seminar to some college girls on the finer points, actually. Just doing my civic duty to help out the straight guys.


I think I owe you a beer.
 
2012-02-18 04:05:29 PM  

letrole: peterquince: At the end of the day, it comes down to this. The US Constitution says that all people must be provided the equal protection under the law. Lack of marriage equality violates Constitutional right. Whether we want social respect is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Constitution gives us that right.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, just like voting.


Other than minors, who generally cannot marry, who exactly do we deny voting privileges to? That wasn't the best analogy.
 
2012-02-18 04:10:09 PM  

FlashHarry: WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?


www.hotflick.net

Prepare for a Superbad administration.

/don't tell me you don't see the resemblance
 
2012-02-18 04:12:32 PM  

letrole: peterquince: At the end of the day, it comes down to this. The US Constitution says that all people must be provided the equal protection under the law. Lack of marriage equality violates Constitutional right. Whether we want social respect is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Constitution gives us that right.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, just like voting.

The American Constitution does not give you any rights. It only enumerates rights that someone has seen fit to specify. Your rights are endless and endowed by your Creator.


The constitution does say something about equal protections of the laws. For example, gay couples can't depend on spousal privelege to keep most states and the federal government from locking one spouse up for not testifying against the other. That's a decent response if you weren't trolling, but since you are, I'll add these, from 9 separate amendments:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ...
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ...
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, ...
But when the right to vote at any election ...
The right of citizens of the United States to vote ...
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied ...
The right of citizens of the United States to vote ...
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote ...
 
2012-02-18 04:17:53 PM  
Putting minority rights up to a popular vote? That's good thinkin'!
 
2012-02-18 04:27:01 PM  
letrole: Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, just like voting.

theknuckler_33: Other than minors, who generally cannot marry, who exactly do we deny voting privileges to? That wasn't the best analogy.


A right is not defined by what you choose to allow or deny.

You have the right to do whatever you can conceive and execute on your own. Marriage requires cooperation with another person. If another person must be convinced or compelled to give you assistance in your pursuit, if that assistance is absolutely necessary for your pursuit to be completed, then it is simply not a right -- it is a Privilege.

Should the law protect or guarantee something? That depends on consensus of the governor or the governed. No rights can ever be created by law. Do you have a RIGHT to vote? Of course not. An election, by definition, requires cooperation amongst all involved. Go hold an election, go cast a vote, count the vote, etc etc, and do this without compelling others to assist.
 
2012-02-18 04:27:50 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: Putting minority rights up to a popular vote? That's good thinkin'!


Just shows that people don't really value equality; just the opposite, actually.

Why fight human nature?

Because of some notion of morality? That's the church's job.

As a middle class white male, I say we embrace our nature. Sure, some people are richer than me, and thus can look down on me. I accept that! Because I can to look down on every other race, creed, nationality, sexual orientation, and even gender. Plus poor people.

Seems fair enough to me.
 
2012-02-18 04:28:45 PM  
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE RESPONDING TO LETROLE?

He posts the same copypasted shiat in every gay thread. His name is french for "The troll". Stop giving him the time of day.
 
2012-02-18 04:30:26 PM  

peterquince: Societal expectations have a self-fulfilling outcome. If we tell gays they're perverted and do nothing but go to bathhouses, we/they will. If we tell gays that we expect them to be just as morally upright as heterosexuals, we/they will be. Shouldn't we, as a group, want to grow up a little bit?


Yeah well plenty of people have been telling gays to fark off and die for a long time and they refuse to do that, so perhaps your logic isn't so sound huh?
 
2012-02-18 04:31:30 PM  

FlashHarry: WTF is his problem? does he really think he's going to be vice president?


I'm not sure if Gov. Chris Christie is religious or not, but if he is (and maybe even if he isn't) he sees it as "doing the right thing" and "fighting the good fight." From that point of view, whether or not you'll succeed isn't really the issue. You think you side will win in the end, even if the end is when Jesus and the Rapture come. (For liberals, "the end" is usually more like "what history books will say about us 200 years from now," though of course there are plenty of religious liberals.)

Then again, he is a politician with presidential ambitions, so he could be using his sociopolitical and religious values as a tool to further his political aims.

In the end, of course, it doesn't matter whether he thinks he's serving God or serving himself. His job is to serve the people of New Jersey, and that he is failing to do.
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report