What about third party politics?

Is it wrong to vote green if that means a republican will win? And vice versa for other third parties?

Can we ever have a third party in the system?

I'm of the opinion that a viable third party will never take off until they start winning more state seats and local positions such as mayor, governors, etc. Kind of a "from-the-ground-up" approach.

I also believe that until the big two parties start losing elections because people are voting for third parties, they will never pay attention to their issues. The mass media didn't care about the Greens until Florida in 2000, for instance. So I guess I would disagree with people that say you should still vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of the candidate you actually agree with.

Let's debate why this thread isn't good for debating.

thorndyke

Didn't mean to pick on you (I actually brought up what you said when I Boobiesed in this forum) but I just thought that was funny.

Calmamity

Are there individual forums on totalfark? My problem is that there are already too many articles on the main page, and my other obvious dilemma of being a dirt poor second-year law student who is already $80,000 in debt. (And my work is all public interest, and no one pays public interest interns. If they do pay it's pittance. I don't really understand how anyone gets into public interest work after passing the bar unless they are already wealthy, which doesn't seem right to me.)

Maybe it's also the principal that I don't want to pay $5 a month for something I know is going to be a huge time suck and take my attention away from my work. Free Fark already does a good enough job of that.

Anyways....

Gay marriage? Yay or nay? I say yay.

Federal ID card? Nay

Legalization of marijuana? State issue, no fed usurpation of state police powers. So yay I guess.

Gun control? State issue, individual right even though 2nd amendment seems to be about militias, we are a democracy and I am in favor of the government keeping out of the business of dictating personal responsibility.

Well, there. I just vomited some sticky political points onto the internet. I hope I didn't get any of that on anyone's shoes.

Cleveland-Steamer: I actually brought up what you said when I Boobiesed in this forum

Ya you just can't make that stuff up.


/need to get owned by the filter at least once a year
//keeps you honest

Ziso6881

Religion in schools, at least before college when people start to choose their focus, should be the study of comparative religion, i.e. different religions presented in a single class with the focus on comparing and contrasting them all. In college this is also a great area of study but by then it becomes easier to justify allowing entire classes to be devoted to studying one religion, as you're dealing with more responsible and autonomous students. (Usually)

I think high school is the right time to start teaching this. I've been public schooled all of my life, and I enjoyed the comparative religious study I received in high school and college. Neither of my parents are religious so I really didn't have any exposure to the bible or anything else, but I'm grateful that I read and studied parts of the Bible, Koran, Torah, (as well as the Hindu, Buddhist and Zen texts which I can't remember the names of now) in high school and college. From an educational standpoint, reading and critically analyzing these texts is a great tool and is very useful. Also just from a common sense perspective, people are less likely to harbor prejudice or delusional fear about another religion when they've learned a little bit about it. (Hint hint).

Also, do you want some crackpot nut on TV telling your kids about the bible? Or do you want a respected religious studies professor who has been studying the bible for 50 years?

dottedmint: In each and every other Amendment where the term "people" is used it is refering to individual people and not any type of group or "militia".

I think you can take a non-originalist approach to the 2nd amendment and come out with the same result (i.e. individual right to bear arms) without being intellectually dishonest and saying the first clause has no bearing on the second. I just cannot read that sentence without thinking that the first clause is prefatory to the second.

Before every Farker lynches me for saying that, I just think it's more honest to say the constitution was written a long time ago and some of the intents of the founding fathers are incongruous with modern society, and we should be comfortable interpreting the document to fit modern America as long as we don't go too far astray from what it says. And, in modern America personal gun ownership is a highly valued right and a part of our culture of individuality and it should therefore be respected. What's wrong with that? It's the same result, individual right to bear arms, without arguing about grammar which is silly anyways.

dottedmint:

I think that is a very dangerous stance to take.

IF we feel something in The Constitution no longer fits modern time we can amend it. We shouldn't simply try to adjust it to fit todays world.

Non-originalism is a widely accepted and well known model of constitutional interpretation. I think a mixture between originalism and non-originalism is possible as well as necessary - you simply would not have many of the rights we enjoy today without non-originalism. In fact, the Constitution kind of implies it: the 9th amendment specifically says that just because a right isn't mentioned, doesn't mean you don't enjoy it.

In fact, to a large extent originalism is dead when we are talking about the SCOTUS' injection of "fundamental rights" into the constitution. Here's the short list of rights you officially enjoy thanks to non-originalism:

Private protection of Civil Rights (first applied via the commerce clause interestingly enough)
Right to privacy
Womens right to vote
Freedom of association with your desired political party
Right to work where you wish
Right to own property regardless of your race
Rights of family autonomy
Right to marry who you want (except gays, so far)
Right to married couples to have custody of their children
Right of parents to control upbringing of children
Rights of reproductive autonomy
Protection for medical decision making
Protection for sexual orientation and sexual activity

None of those rights are in the constitution. Thanks to non-originalism, the government is now restricted from impinging on all of these rights. Just to take an example, less than 60 years ago some states were sterilizing repeat felons. STERILIZING them. People who were "feeble minded" (whatever that meant) were also being sterilized until the late 20's. [Insert obligatory Godwin here]. The constitution didn't have a right to procreation in it, but thankfully the court found one.

Non-originalism definitely has its dangers. When it comes to EXPANDING government power, I am more of an originalist. The abuse of the commerce clause is a problem for instance, but I fault congress for that more than the Court. Our President also has a rather expansive idea of the power of the executive branch, but that was an old topic and we shouldn't rehash all of that.

Nonetheless, the track record of the Court has, IMHO, been pretty good as the above list shows.

dottedmint:
A gay person is ALSO able to marry anyone of the opposite gender.

The law is applied equally.

That's actually the opposite; the law's purpose and effect is the restriction of same sex marriages, which is discriminatory because it restricts who gays can marry, but not who straight people can marry. It treats people differently based on an inherent characteristic which has classically been the subject of prejudice and discrimination. You're not saying that people should stop being gay, are you?

The above discussion about interpretation is relevant here too. IF (and this is a big if) the SCOTUS finds same sex marriage to be a fundamental right, then it gets the same rigorous protection that other fundamental rights get, such as the right to inter-racial marriage or the right to privacy in the bedroom. If they don't, the court implies basically a rubber stamp test to whatever the state law is, and it is usually upheld.

That's what it boils down to really; is same sex marriage a fundamental right? I think so. For many people, being gay is as much a choice for them as being black is a choice for black people. It's who they are. Should we discriminate against them because of this? Is the structure and maintenance of our democracy maintained by restricting gay marriage? Is there even a rational government purpose or is it simply because many people are "uncomfortable" with it morally?

dottedmint:

The law ONLY says that ONE MAN can "MARRY" ONE WOMAN.

In NO WAY does this violate The Constitution.

You keep saying that the law must be applied "EQUALLY".

Yeah they tried that, it was called "separate but equal" and it didn't work. Remember white and colored bathrooms? White and colored water fountains? Schools?

Hey, the white guy can't go in the black guy's bathroom right? So the law is applied equally right?

No. Equal protection means you don't get treated differently than the next person because of an inherent quality. You keep saying "but they gay guy can marry a woman." This is ridiculous not to mention offensive. This law has no effect on a straight person. The only person it effects is the gay person. This is worse than separate but equal: one class of people aren't even effected by the law. Why would I care that a law says I can only marry a woman? I'm straight. It has no effect on me. If I am gay, the law does effect me because I cannot marry another man. The law effects the gay guy but not me, because I am straight. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Read the Loving case which whidbey linked for you. Just because a black guy was free to only marry a black woman, and a white man was only free to marry a white woman, doesn't make it equal. It was still a violation of the 14th amendment. "Equal" does not mean the law can equally discriminate.

dottedmint

All I can say is you are misunderstanding the definition of equal protection under the 14th amendment. A law defining marriage as between a man and a woman DOES NOT EFFECT PEOPLE the same way. Your sexual orientation defines the laws effect upon you. It has no effect on a straight person. By definition this is a per se equal protection issue. Your argument simply has no weight and would be laughed out of court.

The reason I mentioned separate but equal is because its foundation was the same twisted logic you seem to be spinning here: equal discrimination of two different classes of people. The problem with it is also the same problem with your argument: the law effects one group negatively but not the other. It's just way more obvious here why gays are affected unequally because on its face the law discriminates. Separate but equal cases needed actual evidence of why blacks were negatively affected by their separation from the more privileged white class.

This assumes there is a "right to MARRY". The States already regulate marriage.

First of all: if the SCOTUS defines something as a constitutional right and applies it to the states via the 14th amendment, the states are constricted by the constitution in their regulation of whatever that right may be. The fundamental rights of marriage is one of those things: states cannot outlaw marriage between two people of different races, for instance. States can regulate marriage but they are limited by the bounds of the constitution and SCOTUS precedent. So saying states can do whatever they want with it is incorrect.

Secondly, whether there is a fundamental right to same sex marriage is a DIFFERENT question as to whether a law defining marriage between a man and a woman offends equal protection. There is a QUESTION of equal application under the law when two classes of people are affected differently by a discriminatory law. This is undeniable.

dottedmint:

As I have pointed out many times IF a law says that anyone can legally do "X" the "rights" of those who want to do "Y" are not violated by that law because the law only applies to "X".

Your analogy is faulty because it is missing critical variables: people. All you are talking about is law X and law Y; how does the law "apply" to itself?

X in your analogy is "marriage between a man and a woman" correct? So X is the law. The end of your analogy says "the law only applies to X." So what you just said was that the law only applies to the law.

That doesn't make any sense.

The law doesn't apply to the rule it makes, the law applies to the people who are supposed to follow that rule.

A better analogy would be this: A wants to do X. B wants to do Y. B never does X, B does not want to do X, B never will do X. A law is passed that says anyone can only do X. The law doesn't affect A but it affects B, because B cannot do Y anymore. A and B are treated differently. That is an equal protection question, plain and simple.


You're arguing against gay marriage backwards: no one who is against gay marriage disputes whether a law restricting it is discriminatory. That's the point of passing the law. The dispute is whether there is a right to gay marriage at all, such that the government can restrict it and discriminate without running afoul of the constitution.