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.

(Washington Post)   Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 270
    More: Interesting, Republican, Tim Huelskamp, same-sex marriages, organizations, Jerrold Nadler, Defense of Marriage Act, Lisa Murkowski  
•       •       •

3990 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 01:50:06 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp. "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann said. "What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

I know it won't make any difference, but can SOMEone sit her down and explain that we are talking about the LEGAL Institution of Matrimony, not the Religious Institution of Marriage? I'm pretty sure that estate tax law was not created by hand of God, and I know for a fact that any legislative session can undo it, since it was NOT what a holy God instituted.


And I'm pretty sure that they purposefully confuse the two (legal versus religious) for political gain.
 
2013-06-27 01:53:00 PM

Serious Black: palelizard: Serious Black: I'm currently engaged in a little bit of a debate/argument with a guy who basically is the living personification of a Christian Tea Party supporter. He outright said "Dignity is earned, not conferred," and he intimated that there is no difference between scorning an act of rape and scorning a rapist. I barely resisted calling him a hateful bigot.

That dignity thing doesn't sound particularly Christian, but aside from that, I'm confused.  What's wrong with hating both rapists and acts of rape in general?

I think it violates the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing that I hear very frequently wrt Christians and how we should treat gay people.


Ah.  Yeah, I can see how that would violate the principle.
 
2013-06-27 01:57:35 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order. The ironic thing is that you libertarians are supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action.


Depends on how you see it. (Probably also on what you mean by 'libertarian'.) A constitutional amendment is the appropriate and designated venue, because it assures a consensus of the public on the issue, and requires that each state ratify it.. (As opposed to a cadre of motivated individuals (judges or congress) or an executive arbitrarily edicting it).

Keep in mind that libertarians are not opposed to government, only that it be minimal and restrained. They also tend to have a healthy respect for the democratically expressed will of the people, and structurally, and amendment certainly meets those requirements. It's nearly impossible to do and requires overwhelming consensus.

Lastly, it is exceedingly unlikely it will ever happen, so allowing someone to try is perfectly acceptable. If they are wrong, and cannot convince nearly everyone, it will fail anyway. If it were to somehow succeed, it would be an unequivocal expression of democracy in action. Libertarians also like the rules to be the rules.
 
2013-06-27 02:00:34 PM

lockers: flondrix: Three Crooked Squirrels: I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.

Some of the more conservative states have tried that angle as well...

You do realize that no-fault divorce was only enacted in 2010 in the well known conservative bastion of New York, well after the rest of the country did.


But at least they allowed you to get divorced.  Google "covenant marriage".
 
2013-06-27 02:04:01 PM

Pincy: BojanglesPaladin: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp. "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann said. "What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

I know it won't make any difference, but can SOMEone sit her down and explain that we are talking about the LEGAL Institution of Matrimony, not the Religious Institution of Marriage? I'm pretty sure that estate tax law was not created by hand of God, and I know for a fact that any legislative session can undo it, since it was NOT what a holy God instituted.

And I'm pretty sure that they purposefully confuse the two (legal versus religious) for political gain.


No doubt. I think both sides do it, but the religious right (mistakenly) cast the defense of marriage as a matter of religion. This plays directly into the intentional confusion of the other side who argue that people are foisting a religion on them.

Both are utterly wrong. The Legal Institution has long, long, long been completely *ahem* divorced from the Religious Institution. They really have nothing in common. A church can marry anyone they want, regardless of the legal marriage definition, and regardless of the legal marriage definition, a church cannot be compelled to marry anyone.
 
2013-06-27 02:09:13 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.


You've got some anger issues, I think.  I'm not sure which interests of the powerful you think I was defending, or how you misinterpreted the part where I said "They're evil and we have to stop them" to mean I wasn't decrying the Republicans.

I also didn't say anything about anyone being an anarchist.  However, your statement:

But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

could be construed that you felt working within the system was inappropriate aka not "perfectly okay", and that maybe they didn't have a right to try to change things because they're bad people.  If you meant it was okay within the system but morally reprehensible, no problem, I misunderstood you and thought you were implying the former rationale over the latter.
 
2013-06-27 02:12:51 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.


Dayum. Most eloquent analysis of the faux-Lbertarians on Fark I've ever seen.
 
2013-06-27 03:08:46 PM

palelizard: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Oh please. Nobody but nobody is suggesting that they don't have the legal right to propose an amendment, so let's stop pretending that this is what you're defending. What people are saying is that they are in the moral wrong to do so. That it's wrong, stupid and, in fact, evil to try to repress the rights of others, which is what this proposed amendment is about, and that the just course of action would be to defeat any such amendment proposed (again, through the legislative process).  Stop trying to suggest that we're anarchists.

But here we have a libertarian jumping in the thread to remind us all about Robert's Rules of Order.  The ironic thing is that you libertarians are  supposed to beall about trying to check government power when it's being used to restrict freedoms, and here's a perfect example of that in action. If you guys really took that notion seriously, you should be joining us in decrying the republicans for doing this and should be doing everything you can to shame them into doing the right thing.

But no, that's not what motivated you to post. You, a member of a supposedly anti-authoritarian philosophy, decided that what was going to get you worked up enough to share your thoughts was your fear that we weren't being respectful of Congress's authority to try and squelch the rights of others.

And this is precisely the sort of attitude that we encounter again and again from libertarians. They are quick to defend the interests of the powerful, all in the name of "freedom", but whenever it comes to defending those who lack power, the very same folks seem to consistently come down on the side of those holding it.  And that is why so very few people in this group respect libertarians. We know your schtick and we aren't impressed by your notions of what respecting freedom actually means.

You've got some anger issues, I think.


Close. I've got hypocrisy issues, actually. I don't like it.

I'm not sure which interests of the powerful you think I was defending

Then why did you even bother to respond?  Again, no one was trying to say that the GOP didn't have the legal authority to do this. People are condemning them for the content of their speech and actions, not for their right to speak and act.   The entire thread has been about how they arein the wrong to do this, which is a moral argument, not a legal one.

It's the fact that you felt compelled to jump in and instruct us that they have the authority to do so that's standing out against your supposed libertarianism. You are going out of your way to defend their right to suppress the rights of others, even though no one is, in fact, actually trying to say that they should prevented from raising an Amendment or from saying whatever they like to say.

But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

could be construed that you felt working within the system was inappropriate aka not "perfectly okay", and that maybe they didn't have a right to try to change things because they're bad people.  If you meant it was okay within the system but morally reprehensible, no problem, I misunderstood you and thought you were implying the former rationale over the latter.


Because it is NOT perfectly okay. It's legal, but it's wrong.  I would question your own reading comprehension if you "construe" the phrase "perfectly okay" to be in any sense synonymous with the concept of legal but wrong which is neither perfect nor okay.

If you are really and truly opposed to what they are trying to do, then stop trying to act like the people in this group are attempting to suppress their rights and join us in condemning what libertarians are supposed to be against: actual attempts to suppress the rights of others.
 
2013-06-27 03:22:50 PM

jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?


This.  When my crazy father-in-law starts talking about secession and revolution, I tell him that in civilized societies we attempt to change the laws with which we disagree.  When something is found to be unconstitutional, proposing to change that constitution is the next reasonable step.
 
2013-06-27 03:23:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Lastly, it is exceedingly unlikely it will ever happen, so allowing someone to try is perfectly acceptable. If they are wrong, and cannot convince nearly everyone, it will fail anyway. If it were to somehow succeed, it would be an unequivocal expression of democracy in action. Libertarians also like the rules to be the rules.


I find it puzzling that you guys keep focusing on rule of law when no one is suggesting a violation of that. But if the libertarian philosophy is to be meaningful, it can't just be, "Hey, whatever majorities vote for is cool with us!"

Libertarians always try to drum up support by insisting that they support the expansion of civil liberties as a principle. It's why we constantly hear about libertarians arguing for the legalization of drugs, prostitution, and firearms and and why they consistently condemn efforts -- including perfectly democratic efforts -- to restrict any of those things.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that if the topic were a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment that we wouldn't have droves upon droves of libertarians insisting that such an effort was tantamount to tyranny by the majority? Do you expect me to further believe that would would be any libertarians around going out of their way to remind everyone that Congress has a legal right to raise such an Amendment?

Of course not, and we all know it.

The subject of gay rights is a  perfect opportunity for libertarians to make a case for the rights of individuals to marry and even I, a critic of libertarianism, think that I could construct an argument that would be consistent with libertarian beliefs, but it just seems hard to find those libertarian voices when they are so desperately needed.

Instead, we get digressions into Constitutional procedures and statements suggesting that it's more important to respect the rights of a majority to restrict the civil rights of a minority as long as it's done democraticallythan it is to say that such restrictions are fundamentally wrong and should be opposed on principle.

As is often the case, libertarianism in practice just doesn't seem to measure up to how good it looks on paper.
 
2013-06-27 03:23:28 PM

EyeballKid: "Stop waving the Constitution in my face! It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
  --- the last president all the "libertarians" on Fark voted for


Dude. Be careful.
/or, ya know, dudess.

That's an alleged quote that hasn't been conclusively attributed beyond a reasonable doubt.

I had cause to examine it myself at one time.
 
2013-06-27 03:32:44 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I find it puzzling that you guys keep focusing on rule of law when no one is suggesting a violation of that.


Yeah. I stopped reading after "you guys". Apparently I was not explicit enough with my use of "they".

I get you have a mad-on here. I don't know why and I can't bring myself to care all that much. I'm sorry I made an observation that a constitutional amendment was consistent with libertarian thought as I understand it. You want to argue about how eeeevil everyone who doesn't fully support any means in a full-throated effort to get gay marriage everywhere is, and how libertarians are hypocrites and probably dumb too.

So carry on. I'm sure you will change minds everywhere with your polemic screeds.
 
2013-06-27 03:33:39 PM

Flab: bdub77: "Marriage was created by the hand of God Allah. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy GodAllah has instituted," Bachmann said.

I'm misquoting the crazy b*tch here to make a point.


Same word, and same person, different language.

What point were you trying ot make?


Um, some unedumacated folks think those are two completely different gods.
Not only that, but the usual tea party foaming at the mouth fear of teh mooslim.

Thus, teh point.

Hammered rather neatly too.
 
2013-06-27 03:48:56 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: The subject of gay rights is a  perfect opportunity for libertarians to make a case for the rights of individuals to marry and even I, a critic of libertarianism, think that I could construct an argument that would be consistent with libertarian beliefs, but it just seems hard to find those libertarian voices when they are so desperately needed.


I thought the usual libertarian position on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't recognize marriages at all.
 
2013-06-27 03:58:07 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: I thought the usual libertarian position on gay marriage is that the government shouldn't recognize marriages at all.


In the extreme, I believe so. At a minimum, it is a matter for the states.

This seems to be their default position on pretty much EVERY issue :)
 
2013-06-27 04:00:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Some 'Splainin' To Do: I find it puzzling that you guys keep focusing on rule of law when no one is suggesting a violation of that.

Yeah. I stopped reading after "you guys". Apparently I was not explicit enough with my use of "they".

I get you have a mad-on here. I don't know why and I can't bring myself to care all that much. I'm sorry I made an observation that a constitutional amendment was consistent with libertarian thought as I understand it. You want to argue about how eeeevil everyone who doesn't fully support any means in a full-throated effort to get gay marriage everywhere is, and how libertarians are hypocrites and probably dumb too.

So carry on. I'm sure you will change minds everywhere with your polemic screeds.


There's a difference between supporting the means and supporting the ends. Amending the Constitution is a perfectly legitimate tactic to achieve policy goals that I'm not sure any American would oppose. Using a legitimate tactic to semi-permanently strip one class of people of their dignity and freedom is not a supportable end for any libertarian I know of.
 
2013-06-27 04:17:35 PM

Serious Black: Using a legitimate tactic to semi-permanently strip one class of people of their dignity and freedom is not a supportable end for any libertarian I know of.


Thank you for sharing your opinion.
 
2013-06-27 05:53:36 PM

EvilEgg: Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.


Are they going to show pictures of straight families that were ruined by gay marriage? Seriously, no state or country that's allowed it has had horror stories. If anything, the spread of gay marriage will cause gay people to seem less scary to the average person who never really runs into leather daddies and glittered twinks.
 
2013-06-27 11:30:11 PM

Car_Ramrod: Empty Matchbook: Car_Ramrod: In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children. Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

Wait, is he insinuating that people will turn gay just because of this ruling? That happily married straight couples will be torn asunder with cries of "Thanks for enabling me, Kennedy!" That if same-sex marriage was illegal, then all the gay people out there will be like, "Damnit. I really love this one person, but oh well. The law is the law. I'll enter into some loveless marriage because Scalia told me so." This doesn't make any sense.

Of course, no opposition to same-sex marriage makes sense, so there's that.

No, he's saying that children's near-infinite capacity to learn and accept stops EXACTLY at "Mom/Mommy" or "Dad/Daddy"??? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!! And then their heads explode.

THEIR TINY CHILDREN HEADS!!

It's like when people worry, "But HOW am I going to EXPLAIN this to my CHILDREN?!"

Just tell them, "Some boys like girls, some like boys. Some girls like boys, some like girls." PROBLEM SOLVED. How hard is that? Do these people get flustered when explaining why not every person is the same color?


That was LITERALLY how my parents explained it to me when I was little: THE SAME WAY MARGE TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT TO HOMER (which made that joke SO much funnier to me). "Some men prefer the company of other men, and some women prefer the company of other women. And there's nothing wrong with it." Made TOTAL sense to me at the time! And oh, it STILL DOES.
 
2013-06-28 01:06:26 AM

BMulligan: Much as I might personally wish otherwise, I don't think Congress has any constitutional authority to drag places like Utah, Alabama, or Kansas into modernity.


Dragging them would more be requiring that those states themselves register gay marriages... which they won't have to (for a while yet); this is "merely" requiring that they cross-recognize... which will, I admit, have about the same effect once Nevada shifts stance a little. Meanwhile, marriage tourism diverts to Niagra Falls.

Contrariwise, there's the question of how the Public Policy exception would interact with such a law; Pacific Employers Insurance v Industrial Accident may be one of the major overview cases.

Nohow, I don't have a law degree.

Serious Black: A number of Republicans have proposed and voted for legislation that would require all states to recognize concealed carry permits regardless of what state issued them. There's a LOT more variance in who can get a CCH and what training they have to go through to get it than there is in getting a marriage license.


Or for that matter, a driver's license... though I'm not sure what the basis is on those.

BMulligan: Except that there is substantial precedent to the contrary. Consider that no court ever required a state to recognize the validity of interracial marriage (prior to Loving).

DarwiOdrade: The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.


However, so far as I can turn up, Congress had not legislated to mandate such recognition, either.

DarwiOdrade: I was just pointing out that FFC might not be the remedy.


By itself alone, the FF+C section is clearly insufficient, especially with DOMA section 2 still around and acting in the exact opposite direction (prescribing an "effect thereof" of "bupkis"). However, given (hypothetical) particular legislation from Congress, the combination might be a remedy.
 
Displayed 20 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report