Official 2008 Presidential Election thread - Discuss/Defend/Debate

[MaddLlama]

You can't give two seperate things the same name. This is confusing, and it can lead to huge legal problems down the road. Have you ever read the text for any laws? They're exceptionally wordy. That's because they have to find different words for different things, and if such a word doesn't exist they have to call it by a phrase instead of just a word. This isn't just because law makers like to feel superior, either. It's necessary for different things to have different names in law, government, etc.

So, then everyone who has received a marriage license from their state, and didn't participate in a religious ceremony for the same purpose, shouldn't be considered "married", and instead should call themselves "Civil-Unioned"?

Inside the government, marriage is one thing. However, the only reason it's confusing is because the non-government related area of religion also uses the same word. And, I'm sure this wasn't a conicidence either. So, there is no legal problem. Marriage is defined in a very specific way by the government, and imparts specific benefits, which are different from the relationship benefits of a civil union, and a domestic partnership. The issue isn't that "the government shouldn't interfere with marriage", the real issue that's being brought up is "the government is using our word, and we want it back". And, frankly, I find it a silly position.

I also find it strange that nobody complained about "the government regulating marriage" until the gay marriage thing popped up. Why is that?

 

[Green Gaia]

......and this is why simply extending existing civil marriage rights to same gender couples is the most appropriate and fair thing to do.

I don't disagree with those who wish to see marriage removed from the government and everyone have civil unions, but that would be an even bigger fight than simply being fair to same gender couples and treating them equally under the laws we already have.




But we really should get back on topic of the thread.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

If you want everyone to be covered under a regular secular law, then why do they need to change what it's called? Really, all you're arguing is semantics

Yes. It is semantics, but in this case the language is important. What's wrong with allowing marriage to be strictly religious... if all rights are equally provided under domestic, secular law?

 

[MaddLlama]

Yes. It is semantics, but in this case the language is important. What's wrong with allowing marriage to be strictly religious... if all rights are equally provided under domestic, secular law?

Because there's no reason to change it. It's been working fine, and nobody complained. Why does marriage have to be strictly religious? Why do you hang on to, and feel such a deep sense of entitlement to a word?

Also, to change it would require so much legal work, it would never happen, not to mention the fact that the general public, and most, if not every politician, wouldn't support the idea. So, your idea of "getting the government out of marriage" is an unattainable pipe-dream.

 

[jonny]

Yes. It is semantics, but in this case the language is important. What's wrong with allowing marriage to be strictly religious... if all rights are equally provided under domestic, secular law?

Liberals always want seperation of church and state until it goes against what they want. Marriage, for many people, is a religious institution. Religious leaders are given authority by the government to sign religious documents. Is this really what we want?

Leave marriage in the churches and allow civil unions in the courthouses. That's my opinion on the matter.

 

[jonny]

Because there's no reason to change it. It's been working fine, and nobody complained.

Are you serious? People are complaining about marriage law all the time on these forums.

 

[MaddLlama]

Are you serious? People are complaining about marriage law all the time on these forums.

Complaining about marriage law. I've seen no huge movement to keep the word "marriage" in one religious institution and keep everyone else from using it. Personally, I didn't want a religious ceremony, and I rather enjoy calling my relationship a marriage. I don't really see any practical reason to start saying "I am Civil-Unioned".

And, frankly, just because some people complain about something here doesn't mean that it's an iossue or opinion with national support. This forum is not exactly an accurate cross-section, or any sort of fair representation of any country.

 

[MaddLlama]

Liberals always want seperation of church and state until it goes against what they want. Marriage, for many people, is a religious institution. Religious leaders are given authority by the government to sign religious documents. Is this really what we want?

Leave marriage in the churches and allow civil unions in the courthouses. That's my opinion on the matter.

There's a problem with that though. Within the law, civil unions are not the same thing as a marriage. As far as the government is concerned, Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships are three very different things. Evem if you just want to change the word and keep all the benefits, how do you propose the government make that happen? Do away with one of the three above options, and move everything up one? Legally, I don't think that's possible.

Besides, marriage law isn't a breach of the idea of seperation of church and state. It's a gross misunderstanding, or purposeful misrepresentation to say so. Legal, government sanctioned marriage and religious marriage ceremonies can exist completely seperate from each other. You don't have to have a cleric sign the paper, you can have a judge do it. The only place they overlap is if you want a religious ceremony, a cleric of some sort has the legal authority to sign the paper. If you didn't want him to, you could have a religious ceremony and hire a justice of the peace to sign the paper for you. You could even just have a religious ceremony, and not do any of the legal paperwork. You'd still be married "in the eyes of God", but you wouldn't be married in the eyes of the government. Can you explain to me how that equates to the church interfering in the government, or the other way around?

I guess I shouldn't be frustrated that people don't understand this. I can't tell you how many people I've met that don't know that a Green Card doesn't actually grant citizenship in the US.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

So, your idea of "getting the government out of marriage" is an unattainable pipe-dream.

So is gay marriage in America. The point is trying to find the best solution.

 

[Comprehend]

Is it "on" between Obama and Clinton?

Democrats rumble in Hollywood jungle (MSNBC article)

WASHINGTON - If you were worried that the World Wrestling Federation had lost its edge, there is good news: the first cat fight of the 2008 campaign has erupted – a tag-team Democratic fur-flier pitting the Mighty Clintons against Upstart Sen. Barack Obama and Hollywood Mogul David Geffen. As in the WWF, it is easy to guess who the winners will be. In this match, it is the Republican Party and John Edwards.

As is often the case, the fight promoter was Maureen Dowd, whose many gifts include an ability to lure public figures into saying nasty things about each other.

 

[jeffrey]

What's wrong with America? Let me put my 2 cents worth in. 1st off, to stop terrorism, keep our nose out of other countries' business! Let them govern themselves. Let them revolt, like we did back in 1776, if they do not like their government.
Iraq.
Saddam was killing innocent people, soooo we put our nose in their business, and decided we would make Iraq a safer place, installing a Government we liked. So, now the people of Iraq do not have to fear Saddam. They only have to fear suicide bombers, insurgents, car bombings, etc, etc, in which more people are getting killed every day then Saddam could have dreamed of killing. Clue. Get our nose out of other countries business.
Look at the money we pump into Iraq. Look at the money we pour into other countries to keep installed Governments we want. (Do you remember the Shaw of Iraq?) And we wonder why they hate us. Why not take care of America 1st?



If we had taken just a tenth of the money we spend on Iraq on the victims of Hurricane Katrina... If we would take the money we give to foreign governments that hate us and feed and clothe our poor.. If we would stay out of other countries business and let them decide their own fate....
Think about it. Why do other countries hate us? Jealousy? Bull pucky. It's because we throw our money around to get what we want. Bullying other countries. Paying for friendship.
Take care of our own 1st. help feed others. Do not try to install our ideologies and religion on others. (Religion is the 2nd cause of death of mankind next to disease.)
Any debate is welcome.
_________________

 

[Ody]

 

[Ody]

Rudolf Rocker wrote in Anarcho-Syndicalism:

Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace.
​

.... .

 

[Flappycat]

Look, my leftist brethren, you need to drop the anarchist ideals and face the reality that you're not going to get your way unless you become politicians. Take power in the government, and rally a body of political activists around you. You wouldn't even have to get into Congress or get elected governor. The power of the federal and state government is entirely dependent upon mayors who believe in it. Get yourself elected to school board or mayor or something. It's easy. Even I could do it. Just get started on it, sheesh. If people follow your lead in other cities, form a council to coordinate your efforts to siphon power away from the federal government. You can do it. You just need to get a generation of young people to think that politics is just the hippest and coolest thing ever. Get them to realize it's not just about boring meetings and red tape. Get them to realize that they have not only a right but an obligation to take themselves seriously as members of society and leaders of their communities. It's just going to take tons of grass roots organizing. Power to the people, down with the nation-state, death to plutocracy, yada-yada-yada, great ideas, so do it, already.

 

[Mathematician]

Our just pitch together in true utopian brotherhood and buy an island in the Pacific. They're cheap.

 

[Comprehend]

Snapshot of the Election polls today.



Republican Presidential Nomination
RCP Average

Giuliani35.3%
McCain20.5%
Romney7.5%
Gingrich10.8%


Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average

Clinton37.6%
Obama19.4%
Edwards10.2%
Gore11.2%

 

[Comprehend]

Vilsak is out.

STORY

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Snapshot of the Election polls today.



Republican Presidential Nomination
RCP Average

Giuliani35.3%
McCain20.5%
Romney7.5%
Gingrich10.8%


Democratic Presidential Nomination
RCP Average

Clinton37.6%
Obama19.4%
Edwards10.2%
Gore11.2%

I think it will come down to Hillary and Giuliani as long as neither of them say anything before they go up against each other. They can both ride their reputations to their parties nomination. Anything they say can be used against them, so I doubt we'll hear too much coming from either of them until the debates. (which I look forward to. Giuliani will crush the other, weaker, more calculating candidates).

 

[klubbhead024]

phillies2008.org

 

[Comprehend]

I think it will come down to Hillary and Giuliani as long as neither of them say anything before they go up against each other. They can both ride their reputations to their parties nomination. Anything they say can be used against them, so I doubt we'll hear too much coming from either of them until the debates. (which I look forward to. Giuliani will crush the other, weaker, more calculating candidates).

I cannot wait for the debates. I think I will buy TV service to watch.

There is a looooong time before the conventions, anything could happen. I wouldn't put the crown on those two yet.