U.S. Politics - a conservative, a conservative, my kingdom for a conservative

[Kalbear]

I'm saying that if it's a dealbreaker then it's a dealbreaker. Raidne and others can rationalize it how they like, but the danger of doing this sort of nonbelieving of actually stated values is that you start approving politicians who are willing to campaign on something but might hint (or not) at something else - and you make that acceptable to do.

For me, if it's important enough to be a dealbreaker it's important enough to take that candidate at face value.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm saying that if it's a dealbreaker then it's a dealbreaker. Raidne and others can rationalize it how they like, but the danger of doing this sort of nonbelieving of actually stated values is that you start approving politicians who are willing to campaign on something but might hint (or not) at something else - and you make that acceptable to do.

For me, if it's important enough to be a dealbreaker it's important enough to take that candidate at face value.

And I'm saying that context matters. Always. Sometimes you take a politician at his/her word, and sometimes you look a bit more deeply for the truth. I can't think of a situation in which context does not matter, dealbreaker or no.

[Guest Raidne]

I don't ever take politicians at face value.

[Commodore]

four Americans were killed by a terrorist attack on American soil today

Obama answered no questions and left for a fundraiser in Vegas

[Guest Raidne]

I actually make a lot of decisions of what I think about politicians based on stuff like this, from Michael Lewis' article:

also need to remove from your life the day-to-day problems that absorb most people for meaningful parts of their day. “You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” he said. “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.” He mentioned research that shows the simple act of making decisions degrades one’s ability to make further decisions. It’s why shopping is so exhausting. “You need to focus your decision-making energy. You need to routinize yourself. You can’t be going through the day distracted by trivia.”

Did Barack Obama just give me really useful life advice? Yes, yes he did. So, you can see that the guy is really thoughtful - not only on issues, but has a sense of his own fallibility and thinks about how to reduce it. The article likes to describe how Obama plays basketball with guys who can really kick his ass on the court and people who take it easy on him are not asked back. But he's still really competitive and wants his team to win, and if you fuck up he screams at you. That says a lot too - no pride or ego issues, but very competitive. Just like his campaigns. That's good - ego makes Presidents do stupid, stupid things. That kind of thing. Then I apply that to what they say about policy. On gay marriage - Obama's not the kind of guy to just say "I think states should be able to make gay marriage illegal." His views would be complex, because of his religious background and the nature of the issue with the black community. I think Obama was really worried about losing some of the support of the religious part of the black community if he came out fully in favor. And he did come out fully in favor of granting the same rights - but he said he was okay with civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. I'm not really okay with that, but it's an uncomfortable subject, but until recently, the black community, so far as there is such a thing, was not really cool with homosexuality. Now, the President has more juice, and they changed their minds with his public stance. And he supported the repeal of DOMA in 2008.

I'm not sure if the "civil unions are okay, but let's not call it marriage" thing is a deal-breaker or no, because it won't stand up before the Court - separate but equal is inherently unequal, etc. Best idea is for the state to not grant "marriage" at all, and only civil unions and let people themselves decide whether they want to consider themselves married and use words like wife and/or husband instead of partner.

[Commodore]

Best idea is for the state to not grant "marriage" at all, and only civil unions and let people themselves decide whether they want to consider themselves married and use words like wife and/or husband instead of partner.

Don't even need a special classification for it. Just draw up a contract between the two (or more parties) with whatever you want in it (shared assets, power of attorney, etc.)

Get the state out of the marriage business.

[TerraPrime]

Except, it's a whole hell of a lot easier to just get married, since all that stuff is already implied in the marriage contract.

Not to mention, it's impossible to get rid of legal marriage. So you want equality? Sure, let me work on dismantling the one social-legal construct that has no chance of being dismantled. Then, once I accomplished this, you'll be treated as equal!

[Guest Raidne]

Don't even need a special classification for it. Just draw up a contract between the two (or more parties) with whatever you want in it (shared assets, power of attorney, etc.)

Dear gods. There aren't even close to enough free legal services to cover the contracts already out there that everybody already signs. Now we're going to add in domestic partnerships?

Would you enact an expensive government program to provide representation for the parties, or just throw people out to wolves? How would you pay for the extra court time, when the court has adjudicate divorce based on all these different contract terms? Even businesses use the UCC to provide some interpretative guidance. It's just a judicial and bureaucratic nightmare. I'll stick with the cheaper, more efficient process. You can always still have prenuptial agreements, so you can modify terms if you need to.

[Commodore]

Except, it's a whole hell of a lot easier to just get married, since all that stuff is already implied in the marriage contract.

Nah, better to go to LegalZoom.com and select from a choice of contracts, or get your own custom made.

Why limit yourself to the state definition?

[Seli]

...

I'm not sure if the "civil unions are okay, but let's not call it marriage" thing is a deal-breaker or no, because it won't stand up before the Court - separate but equal is inherently unequal, etc. Best idea is for the state to not grant "marriage" at all, and only civil unions and let people themselves decide whether they want to consider themselves married and use words like wife and/or husband instead of partner.

Or just take the solution that is actually working in other nations, give the state a monopoly on marriage, and limit other groups to bless those marriages as they see fit.

[Guest Raidne]

Not to mention, it's impossible to get rid of legal marriage. So you want equality? Sure, let me work on dismantling the one social-legal construct that has no chance of being dismantled. Then, once I accomplished this, you'll be treated as equal!

Yeah, apologies to libertarians, but you are annoying this way. It's like "should we extend the Bush tax cuts?" And the answer is "no, we shouldn't have federal taxes!!!" I mean, great, maybe everyone should have a pony and a farting pink dragon, but let's worth within the realm of the possible.

[Guest Raidne]

Nah, better to go to LegalZoom.com and select from a choice of contracts, or get your own custom made.

Why limit yourself to the state definition?

Okay, you go pick one and post it here and I'll tell you how you're going to get fucked by it.

[Commodore]

Would you enact an expensive government program to provide representation for the parties, or just throw people out to wolves?

Subsidize it then, even a marriage voucher would be preferable to letting the state define it.

I imagine there are plenty of nonprofits interested in promoting marriage (of all types) that would provide such service for free (or cheap). And not interested in fucking you over (not sure why anyone would purchase a prewritten marriage contract from a company known for fucking people over, customer is king).

[TerraPrime]

Subsidize it then, even a marriage voucher would be preferable to letting the state define it.

I imagine there are plenty of nonprofits interested in promoting marriage (of all types) that would provide such service for free (or cheap).

It's like, in your world, there are no such things as, say, spousal immigration, social security benefits, or pension pay out to surviving spouses, that are regulated by government, where private contracts will have as much effect as none and nil.

[TrackerNeil]

Except, it's a whole hell of a lot easier to just get married, since all that stuff is already implied in the marriage contract.

And cheaper, too. My partner and I had to shell out legal fees for living wills and durable power of attorney documentation, some of which won't be honored in certain states anyway. The gay tax, we call it.

[Guest Raidne]

And not interested in fucking you over (not sure why anyone would purchase a prewritten marriage contract from a company known for fucking people over, customer is king).

I don't know, possibly because the rational actor model doesn't work? It's an empirical fact, people buy contracts that fuck them over all the time. Several of my landlords have had really stupid form contracts. Most of the time, nobody ever sues for breach and it's no big deal. It's also possible that for something like marriage, legal ethics rules would render a form marriage contract into unlicensed practice of law, as we're dealing with fundamental rights stuff. I've rarely read a contract that didn't say at least one stupid thing. Most people can't even tell which parts are good for them are which aren't - you'd have to know what the other options for those clauses are and what they look like, and all the terms of art.

I know what I'm putting on my Christmas list for this year!!

A copy of Anathem?

[Inigima]

Subsidize it then, even a marriage voucher would be preferable to letting the state define it.

I imagine there are plenty of nonprofits interested in promoting marriage (of all types) that would provide such service for free (or cheap). And not interested in fucking you over (not sure why anyone would purchase a prewritten marriage contract from a company known for fucking people over, customer is king).

I assume the same people who have a problem with gay marriage now would also have a problem with subsidizing marriage vouchers for gay couples, wouldn't they?

[Ser Greguh]

I assume the same people who have a problem with gay marriage now would also have a problem with subsidizing marriage vouchers for gay couples, wouldn't they?

Hard to say. On one hand, you're no longer polluting the sacred institution that allowed Newt Gingrich his three wives. On the other hand you've still got two dudes kissing.

[Shryke]

I actually make a lot of decisions of what I think about politicians based on stuff like this, from Michael Lewis' article:

Did Barack Obama just give me really useful life advice? Yes, yes he did. So, you can see that the guy is really thoughtful - not only on issues, but has a sense of his own fallibility and thinks about how to reduce it. The article likes to describe how Obama plays basketball with guys who can really kick his ass on the court and people who take it easy on him are not asked back. But he's still really competitive and wants his team to win, and if you fuck up he screams at you. That says a lot too - no pride or ego issues, but very competitive. Just like his campaigns. That's good - ego makes Presidents do stupid, stupid things. That kind of thing. Then I apply that to what they say about policy. On gay marriage - Obama's not the kind of guy to just say "I think states should be able to make gay marriage illegal." His views would be complex, because of his religious background and the nature of the issue with the black community. I think Obama was really worried about losing some of the support of the religious part of the black community if he came out fully in favor. And he did come out fully in favor of granting the same rights - but he said he was okay with civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. I'm not really okay with that, but it's an uncomfortable subject, but until recently, the black community, so far as there is such a thing, was not really cool with homosexuality. Now, the President has more juice, and they changed their minds with his public stance. And he supported the repeal of DOMA in 2008.

I'm not sure if the "civil unions are okay, but let's not call it marriage" thing is a deal-breaker or no, because it won't stand up before the Court - separate but equal is inherently unequal, etc. Best idea is for the state to not grant "marriage" at all, and only civil unions and let people themselves decide whether they want to consider themselves married and use words like wife and/or husband instead of partner.

There's also the fact that he previously supported gay marriage back in the 90s.

I didn't have a huge issue with his view at first, cause it was about as mild a stance on gay marriage as I'd expect from a viable US Presidential candidate, but someone linked me to his answers back in 1996 at which point it became obvious, imo, that his half-assed answer in 2008 was a political calculation.

[Guest Raidne]

I assume the same people who have a problem with gay marriage now would also have a problem with subsidizing marriage vouchers for gay couples, wouldn't they?

If you called them "domestic union vouchers"? Doubt it. 66% of Americans favor civil unions, only 47% favor gay marriage. That data is from 2010 though, can't find any from 2012 that looks reliable. If you called them "marriage vouchers" probably so, IMO, because it's the state support of gay "marriage" that 20% of people object to.

Strategically, if I were an activist in this area, I'd go for legal civil unions and then take that equal protection argument to the Courts once that right was established. Specifically, I'd do this by pushing for an amendment of DOMA that put the "one man one woman" thing in a severable clause and amended the rest to say that federal benefits apply to any state-sanctioned legal partnership that created a domestic union, including, but not limited to, marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. A clear majority of Americans would be in favor. Then I'd file an equal protection challenge to the severable clause.