U.S. Politics - Rand Paul is our Savior

[Oblique]

A clumsy attempt to break down Church/State separation in Alabama(devious by Alabama standards, I guess):

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3326111/alabama-house-advances-devious-plan-break-separation-church-state/

[Sci-2]

@Ormond: I think I'm just going to start saving your posts.

Ormond for President 2016!

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I'm sure something similar is percolating in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. We may be a Northeastern state, but when it comes to bigotry, we can compete with the best the South has to offer!

I had an English professor describe Pennsylvania as "Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in the middle" :lol: Always loved that quote

[Maithanet]

Both sides really wanted to win Florida. But Romney pretty much could not win the election without it whereas Obama easily could. Both sides really wanted Ohio, but Romney probably could not win the election without it whereas Obama could.

And this is getting worse. As Chait points out here, Florida is becoming a state that Republicans are going to have a hard time winning, and there is virtually no path to electoral wins in POTUS years without it. The Democrats are not facing a similar problem.

I would even go further and say it is difficult to see a Republican White House without winning Florida, Ohio and Virginia. All three are big population states that Bush and Obama narrowly swept (ok 2012 wasn't that narrow).

HOWEVER, I think that it is easy to take the way that races have gone in 2008 and 2012 as proscriptive of the way that voters will always act. It wouldn't take that much for a Republican to take all three of those states. If the political climate nationally is generally favoring the Republicans, there's no reason to think that Florida, Ohio or Virginia won't have similar ideas.

[TrackerNeil]

I would even go further and say it is difficult to see a Republican White House without winning Florida, Ohio and Virginia. All three are big population states that Bush and Obama narrowly swept (ok 2012 wasn't that narrow).

HOWEVER, I think that it is easy to take the way that races have gone in 2008 and 2012 as proscriptive of the way that voters will always act. It wouldn't take that much for a Republican to take all three of those states. If the political climate nationally is generally favoring the Republicans, there's no reason to think that Florida, Ohio or Virginia won't have similar ideas.

Agreed. It's interesting to note, though, that a Republican candidate could take all three of those states and still lose, as long as Democrats take NV, CO, and IA.

[Maithanet]

Agreed. It's interesting to note, though, that a Republican candidate could take all three of those states and still lose, as long as Democrats take NV, CO, and IA.

And NM, NH, WI, MI, yes. If Romney had won Ohio, Florida and Virginia, Obama would still be president right now.

In spite of all the press Ohio receives, Colorado was actually the tipping point state for Obama in both elections.

[Castel]

And why does any of this make it okay that people giving money get a tax deduction for it vs. people giving money to a club? Not all churches engage solely in charitable work.

If you tax them like clubs aren't you just taxing churches at the other end?

[TrackerNeil]

In spite of all the press Ohio receives, Colorado was actually the tipping point state for Obama in both elections.

It's a kicker, isn't it? Election Night 2012 I had a gathering at my house, and although we all cheered when Ohio was called for Obama, I remember thinking, "He really didn't need it." Once WI and NH went blue (which was reported pre-Ohio), Romney's options had shrunk to winning FL, OH, VA, plus one of IA, CO, or NV. It wasn't going to happen.

[SkynJay]

In spite of all the press Ohio receives, Colorado was actually the tipping point state for Obama in both elections.

Y'all are very welcome.

[Ormond]

@Ormond: I think I'm just going to start saving your posts.

Ormond for President 2016!

Oh, please! I've spent my academic career successfully avoiding even becoming chair of a small psychology department. :) I really don't want to actualize the Peter Principle!

(But thanks for the compliment.)

[Tempra]

Texas' ban on same-sex marriage is struck down...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/texas-same-sex/index.html?c=homepage-t

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm for same sex marriage but under the rational employed by this court "there is no rational relation to a legitimate government porpose" how can any marriage be regulated by law in the US? I'm not complaining about the result but the rational for it seems like it could really open the door pretty wide for other claims about marriage.

[Seli]

I'm for same sex marriage but under the rational employed by this court "there is no rational relation to a legitimate government porpose" how can any marriage be regulated by law in the US? I'm not complaining about the result but the rational for it seems like it could really open the door pretty wide for other claims about marriage.

So?

And I don't think you can see that sentence without the context, as quoted in the next few paragraphs.

"One of the court's main responsibilities is to ensure that individuals are treated equally under the law," said Garcia. "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

"Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals, has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently," he said.

I assume the mentioned lack of rational purpose has to be seen in that framework.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

Do not misunderstand I support this result what I don't understand is why it wasn't limited to equal protection grounds? It seems clear to me that laws banning same sex marriage do violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is saying that a State Constitutional Amendment must be tied to a "legitimate government interest" that gives me pause. Isn't that a determination for the people of the State in question to make, then if the amendment so enacted violated equal protection it can be struck down on that basis.

The Judge seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Poorly reasoned legal decisons that get the right reault can spawn problems in other areas not anticipated by the Court.

[Gneisenau]

I'm for same sex marriage but under the rational employed by this court "there is no rational relation to a legitimate government porpose" how can any marriage be regulated by law in the US? I'm not complaining about the result but the rational for it seems like it could really open the door pretty wide for other claims about marriage.

Is that a problem, why can't we have polygamy/other marriage customs ?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gnei,

Polygamy would be a nightmare for a divorce court to adjudicate. Take all the existing problems of a normal two party marriage and amplify it to include multipul parties or even factions given the open scope of the sizemof a plural marriage. That's my only pratical argument against poligamy. Otherwise the same equal protection logic applied to homosexual marriages could be applied to poligamous unions as well.

[Gneisenau]

Gnei,

Polygamy would be a nightmare for a divorce court to adjudicate. Take all the existing problems of a normal two party marriage and amplify it to include multipul parties or even factions given the open scope of the sizemof a plural marriage. That's my only pratical argument against poligamy. Otherwise the same equal protection logic applied to homosexual marriages could be applied to poligamous unions as well.

Correct me if I am wrong but there are business partnerships that have multiple partners, and they always have one or multiple partners leaving at a time, so surely it wouldn't be that much of a nightmare for the courts ?

[Castel]

Gnei,

Polygamy would be a nightmare for a divorce court to adjudicate. Take all the existing problems of a normal two party marriage and amplify it to include multipul parties or even factions given the open scope of the sizemof a plural marriage. That's my only pratical argument against poligamy. Otherwise the same equal protection logic applied to homosexual marriages could be applied to poligamous unions as well.

This seems like a suspiciously rational reason for the government Scot.

[aceluby]

Correct me if I am wrong but there are business partnerships that have multiple partners, and they always have one or multiple partners leaving at a time, so surely it wouldn't be that much of a nightmare for the courts ?

Plus you always have the option of allowing one person to have multiple two person contracts. For the same reason it's not like I can't have two different businesses with two different partners.

[Tempra]

Gnei,

Polygamy would be a nightmare for a divorce court to adjudicate. Take all the existing problems of a normal two party marriage and amplify it to include multipul parties or even factions given the open scope of the sizemof a plural marriage. That's my only pratical argument against poligamy. Otherwise the same equal protection logic applied to homosexual marriages could be applied to poligamous unions as well.

We have courts that unwind corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets. I am sure our courts can handle splitting up a few cars and pieces of property between 3 or more people. Besides, more work for lawyers. Whose side are you on anyways?!?