US Politics 3

[awesome possum]

And, if the overall composition of the new Congress is much more into limited government and fiscal sanity, he seems quite likely to play along.

And what, exactly, besides campaign promises makes you think the new Congress would much more into limited government and fiscal sanity? What country have you been living in for the past 30 years?

[DanteGabriel]

NPR has a segment about this ruling today, some highlights:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128994525

Funnily enough, that fact-finding process was the chief item held against Walker in the National Review column that Tempra posted.

[Tempra]

Pax,

Thanks! Looks to me like there certainly isn't overwhelming public opposition to gay marriage and the trend is towards increased support. Seems to me that the Supreme Court could quite safely rule in favour of gay marriage then, especially if, as Tempra insists, public opinion is but one factor to be considered among many. In fact, there seems to be a very real chance that if the Supreme Court rules against gay marriage, it may find itself on the wrong side of public opinion about 10 years down the road!

All of which really makes you wonder why pro-gay marriage Tempra is absolutely, positively 100 percent convinced that the SCOTUS will rule against gay marriage? :unsure:

I don't think anyone can be positive of how the decision will come out when Kennedy will be the deciding vote. However, the arguments Kennedy used in finding a Texas sodomy statute unconstitutional are not applicable here. In fact, they point in the opposite direction.

Tempra,

And what exactly are you basing that on?

In retrospect, I am not certain on what standard of review will be used. Generally, strict scrutiny review is used for race and alienage. Mid-tier review is used for gender and legitimacy. Everything else gets rational basis review. However, the court also uses strict scrutiny for fundamental rights, which marriage would fall under. The Court could thus decide to use either rational basis or strict scrutiny, depending on whether it plans to knock the amendment down or not.

[Tempra]

Funnily enough, that fact-finding process was the chief item held against Walker in the National Review column that Tempra posted.

SCOTUS has already bench slapped Walker once during this case:

“The district court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district,” the majority wrote. “Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/supreme-court-bars-cameras-in-gay-marriage-trial/

[Tempra]

People have already brought up how SCOTUS decisions on school desegregation and interracial marriage proved that this assumption is incorrect.

For reasons already stated, no it doesn't.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

Again, can we please get some data to support this claim?

It has already been provided. In short, 60% of the states have bans on Gay marriage. Only 10% of states permit gay marriage.

[LindaElane]

Just a note that I miss these discussions but that I still have so much trouble keeping up with a single thread which is likely to discuss many things and change its focus. I don't stop during the day re-open my browser and find the place where I left off reading, then catch up. And even if I did, heaven help me if I did not look at the board for a couple of days...its just too much hassle to write down the thread name and post number I was on every time I stop reading. I do wish more of you would start threads about major US political stuff off this thread. I thought the agreement was that minor stuff might be discussed over here but that major stuff could still have a thread. Was I wrong?

On the current discussion, I just cannot see what is wrong with allowing gay marriage on compassionate grounds. Yes, I know the difference between compassion and the law. I should probably go read the whole 138 page decision to even begin to understand the legal technicalities of why it might or might not be legally allowable to forbid one sort of marriage or another. But goodness, even if it turns out to be legally allowable to forbid gay marriage, that does not mean it should be done.

Let me ask this another way: Lets say you are a heterosexual looking forward to marrying your finance in Kansas. Suddenly, the Kansas state legislature passes a law that people may not marry a person of the opposite sex. Do they have the right to do that?

And the answer is not, I think: "The right to heterosexual marriage is established by case law and common law." It seems to me that it is actually the right to marriage that is established by that, and the excerpts from Judge Walker make me think that is what he was saying. We now have to show interest in preventing bigamy and the marriage of close relatives, or good reasons why people can be forbidden to marry.

The specific right to marriage of any sort is not in the constitution...does that mean it does not exist? (Vis common law and case law for you strict constructionists...are there any real strict constructionists out there, anyway?)

[Ser Reptitious]

Tempra,

60% of the states have bans on Gay marriage. Only 10% of states permit gay marriage.

...which says absolutely nothing about current popular opinion.

And as the link provided by Pax shows, while currently a slight majority of people opposes gay marriage, the trend is clearly moving towards increased approval. It seems to be a matter of time before a majority of U.S. citizens approve of gay marriage.

[Swordfish]

Just a note that I miss these discussions but that I still have so much trouble keeping up with a single thread which is likely to discuss many things and change its focus. I don't stop during the day re-open my browser and find the place where I left off reading, then catch up. And even if I did, heaven help me if I did not look at the board for a couple of days...its just too much hassle to write down the thread name and post number I was on every time I stop reading.

Why don't you use the 'Go to first unread post' feature?

[LindaElane]

Why don't you use the 'Go to first unread post' feature?

What an interesting option. That just shows I have not visited often, and am not familiar with new features. I checked for a link but did not find it. Rather than continue to hunt, I will humbly ask: How do I use that feature?

[Swordfish]

What an interesting option. That just shows I have not visited often, and am not familiar with new features. I checked for a link but did not find it. Rather than continue to hunt, I will humbly ask: How do I use that feature?

No problem. When you look at the list of threads, there is a little orange box with an arrow in it in fornt of any threads that have posts in them you haven't read.

You just have to click on the little orange box.

[LindaElane]

Oh, yes, I know how to determine whether I have read any of the posts in a thread. I do not have trouble remember whether I have read any of the posts in a certain thread and particularly this thread. What I need in order to participate regularly is a way to find where I left off, easily and quickly.

For example, I can easily remember whether I read any of "US Politics 388: The Return of Everett Dirckson". What I can't remember is whether I was on post 76, or 16, or 183...or what?

Nothing to be done about that, right?

My computer must be rebooted at least every 48 hours, often more often. Thats just the way every computer I have ever had is...so I can't just leave the browser window open.

I really wish the major topics had their own threads even if they do relate to politics. Politics is one miscellaneous thing people might want to discuss. Again, I was told this "US Politics thread:" idea, which started after being required to have one election thread, was optional, and that people thought they would only use it for more minor stuff that did not need its own thread. Did that change officially, or are people just doing that? I do not come around often enough to know.

[awesome possum]

The Consequences of Gay Marriage - Be warned, it's horrific!

[Ser Reptitious]

The Economist has a good article on the issue of the Islamic centre being built close to Ground Zero.

From the article:

America is plainly safer if its Muslims feel part of “us” and not, like Mohammad Sidique Khan, part of “them”. And that means reminding Americans of the difference—a real one, by the way, not one fabricated for the purposes of political correctness—between Islam, a religion with a billion adherents, and al-Qaeda, a terrorist outfit that claims to speak in Islam’s name but has absolutely no right or mandate to do so.

Every single argument put forward for blocking this project leans in some way on the misconceived notion that all Muslims, and Islam itself, share the responsibility for, or are tainted by, the atrocities of 9/11.

To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is a Muslim first and an American second. Al-Qaeda would doubtless concur.

And this one in particular addresses the argument repeatedly stressed by FLOW:

True, some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general were perpetrators of the crime.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Oh, yes, I know how to determine whether I have read any of the posts in a thread. I do not have trouble remember whether I have read any of the posts in a certain thread and particularly this thread. What I need in order to participate regularly is a way to find where I left off, easily and quickly.

For example, I can easily remember whether I read any of "US Politics 388: The Return of Everett Dirckson". What I can't remember is whether I was on post 76, or 16, or 183...or what?

Nothing to be done about that, right?

My computer must be rebooted at least every 48 hours, often more often. Thats just the way every computer I have ever had is...so I can't just leave the browser window open.

I really wish the major topics had their own threads even if they do relate to politics. Politics is one miscellaneous thing people might want to discuss. Again, I was told this "US Politics thread:" idea, which started after being required to have one election thread, was optional, and that people thought they would only use it for more minor stuff that did not need its own thread. Did that change officially, or are people just doing that? I do not come around often enough to know.

You´re now talking about the "new posts" feature that looks like a folder.

The very small orange box just before the thread title takes you to first unread* post in the thread.

*If you haven´t read to the end of the thread last time you´ll still have troubles.

[Piper]

I get that. But I think what he's doing is selectively identifying those restrictions, and deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room. I mean, if you want a great example of that, look at Utah. They weren't permitted to enter the union until they eliminated bigamy, and his listing of "restrictions" doesn't address who you marry at all. Just sort of the "why". Which is why I think he's being unjustifiably selective in identifying the core principles of marriage in this country.

Well, one would think that the "why" would inform the "who". If you take 'what has been' as being absolutely demonstrative, then the idea of judicial review seems rather impotent.

Judge Walker seems to be advocating a more nuanced approached. If its uncontested that marriage is a fundamental right, one would have to consider if gay marriage would fall under that. He looks at the involving nature of marriage and considers for what purpose we have marriage, what rights are involved, etc, and concludes that there is no substantive difference between what marriage would mean for same sex couples versus what it means for different sex couples.

Its obviously contentions; that's why we're all trying to predict what Justice Kennedy will think.

In retrospect, I am not certain on what standard of review will be used. Generally, strict scrutiny review is used for race and alienage. Mid-tier review is used for gender and legitimacy. Everything else gets rational basis review. However, the court also uses strict scrutiny for fundamental rights, which marriage would fall under. The Court could thus decide to use either rational basis or strict scrutiny, depending on whether it plans to knock the amendment down or not.

I think this is pretty accurate; I'll add that Walker seems to consider this a gender discrimination case for the purposes of the equal protection argument. So it could be rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny, depending on how they (again, probably Kennedy) want to play it.

[TrackerNeil]

That's just false. One absolute part of the historical core of the institution has been that it has been between a man and woman. If there is any one single core to the institution of marriage, identifiable throughout our history, it's that. Everything else has changed or morphed over time, but not that. So to claim it's not part of the "historical core" is just odd, particularly where he later acknowledges that "marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples."

Except of course when marriage was one man and many women. Or one man and one woman of the same race. Or one man and one woman of the same religion.

I recommend to you, "Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage" by author and historian Stephanie Coontz. Seriously.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

...which says absolutely nothing about current popular opinion.

And as the link provided by Pax shows, while currently a slight majority of people opposes gay marriage, the trend is clearly moving towards increased approval. It seems to be a matter of time before a majority of U.S. citizens approve of gay marriage.

Honestly? You can't make that claim in good faith. And I have no doubt that both sides will marshal the facts to make their claim that they have the will of the people on their side. But to say the fact that 30 states ban gay marriage, many of which were voted on directly by the people, "says absolutely nothing about current popular opinion" is disingenuous.

[DanteGabriel]

Honestly? You can't make that claim in good faith. And I have no doubt that both sides will marshal the facts to make their claim that they have the will of the people on their side. But to say the fact that 30 states ban gay marriage, many of which were voted on directly by the people, "says absolutely nothing about current popular opinion" is disingenuous.

You're bandying about this 30 states factoid like someone who knows it's a trumped-up figure that's more the product of the crazy political environment than a real barometer of support for gay marriage in this country. I think your own use of that figure is disingenuous.

Proposition 8 was voted on directly, but I don't call that the will of the people. I call that the Will of the Churches.

[Ser Reptitious]

Tempra,

But to say the fact that 30 states ban gay marriage, many of which were voted on directly by the people, "says absolutely nothing about current popular opinion" is disingenuous.

Not at all. First of all, my recollection (but feel free to point out if I'm wrong on this) is that all these bans only required 50%+1 to pass, so it's not like you have 30 states whose populations unanimously oppose gay marriage.

Second of all, how much of the overall population do these states represent? I'm sure Texas is in there to inflate the number, but smaller states such as Idaho, Utah, Kansas and Oklahoma are unlikely to be very helpful in determining the overall support for gay marriage among the U.S. population as a whole.

And third (and probably most importantly) most of these amendments were passed in 2004, at the height of the anti-gay marriage frenzy (whipped up by Karl Rove et al for their own cynical reasons). That was six years ago. Opinions change, and polls seem to reflect that trend.