Opening the can of worms

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

just a little wider...

Mass SJC on Gay Marriage (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/index.html)

[Redhot_man]

[ QUOTE ]
just a little wider...

Mass SJC on Gay Marriage (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/index.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something very funny about the hipocracy of the United States. We put these big restrictions on alcohol and drugs and sex, because we insist on keeping our christian morals. However, all of those immoral European countries that have loose drug laws, allow 14 year olds to drink, and permit prostitution seem to have quite a bit less crime than we do, and overall are considered by most to be more civilized.

How can this be?

[bigpooch]

One factor must be the right to bear arms; another factor
must be that Americans are often exposed to much less than
perfect role models!

[pretender2k]

My wife who is democrat asked me tonight what I thought of gay marriage. About the only thing we fight about anymore is politics because I am a capitalist. I said I have no problem with civil unions just because I have the feeling that if we don't give somewhat we will loose. She said she couldn't sgree. I asked her one question "If two sisters are living together in a completely monogamous relationship should they be able to get married so one can get the health benefits of a married couple at the ones job?" She said "No" I asked isn't that discrimination also?" Then the fight begins because like most democrats if they can't win they will just slander the other side!

[Redhot_man]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife who is democrat asked me tonight what I thought of gay marriage. About the only thing we fight about anymore is politics because I am a capitalist. I said I have no problem with civil unions just because I have the feeling that if we don't give somewhat we will loose. She said she couldn't sgree. I asked her one question "If two sisters are living together in a completely monogamous relationship should they be able to get married so one can get the health benefits of a married couple at the ones job?" She said "No" I asked isn't that discrimination also?" Then the fight begins because like most democrats if they can't win they will just slander the other side!

[/ QUOTE ]
Your democrat wife is against gay marriage? Are you sure you know the difference between the two parties? And what does being a capitalist have to do with politics? Is this to say that democrats cant be capitalists?

[scotnt73]

How do you guys decide if you are republican or democrat? Do your parents tell you or does it depend on how much you make /images/graemlins/wink.gif? I grew up being told that i should be a democrat because we were poor and republicans were for rich and democrats for the poor. Now im 30 and when i graduated from college i got a pretty good job in the computer field working for a huge company that sells military equiptment to the us govt. Now everyone i work with says i should be republican because i make good money and work for a defense contractor. Are you suppose to switch sides depending on who represents you at that stage of your life? I try to listen to issues and be open minded without claiming a side.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Your democrat wife is against gay marriage?

Last I checked *all* of the Democratic Presidential candidates opposed gay marriage.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The US culture is a very strange amalgam of freedom and puritanism.

[Redhot_man]

[ QUOTE ]
Your democrat wife is against gay marriage?

Last I checked *all* of the Democratic Presidential candidates opposed gay marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. But in his original post he was stereotyping himself as a republican and his wife as a democrat, and then he said that she was the one against gay marriage, which doesnt make any sense.

[Utah]

I am pretty pro gay marriage, although I believe that we should ease into it (no pun intended) as I believe that any major shift in cultural norms should be phased in.

However, I absolutely hate what what those Ba$%$%^ on the Mass. supreme court did. We are are a self governing people and the people decide what laws they want. If people want gay marriage then then the people of a state should vote it in. 4 People on a court should not oppose their will upon the people. When they do this, they violate the bedrock principle of our country.

Even if you are pro gay marriage you should be disgusted with this ruling. Because, next time it might be some Christian Nutjobs (e.g., Moore in Alabama) imposing the their will upon the people.

[ThaSaltCracka]

There is something very funny about the hipocracy of the United States. We put these big restrictions on alcohol and drugs and sex, because we insist on keeping our christian morals. However, all of those immoral European countries that have loose drug laws, allow 14 year olds to drink, and permit prostitution seem to have quite a bit less crime than we do, and overall are considered by most to be more civilized.

who considers them to be more civilized? Europeans??

People want some moral controls in this country, society isn't enforcing them, so why shouldn't the government.
Now the hard part about this is America is comprised of many different types of people. I am not saying different based upon morals, simply different based upon their race, background, culture, and religion.
I don't think other "civilized" european countries have to deal with this on the large scale that America does.

Some people may say this an issue that boils down to civil rights, and there right, everyone deserves the same legal and civil rights, however why does it have to be called marriage. Civil unions solve the problem.

I see this more as an attempt by the gay community to further legitamize their lifestyle, one which many people in America do not agree with.

Now some of you might say that I am a bigot for not accepting their lifestyle, thats fine if you think that, I know that I am not, I know and am friends with many people who are gay. Why? because I would never dislike someone for being different than me, that is wrong, I just don't see why I should be forced to accept a lifestyle that I feel strongly is morally wrong.

[MMMMMM]

"People want some moral controls in this country, society isn't enforcing them, so why shouldn't the government."

Lots of reasons. To begin with, whose morals?

Giving government rein to enforce morals is a slippery slope. Look what goes on in Saudi Arabia, where religious morality police patrol the streets armed with sticks--not to prevent crime, but to send you to the mosque at prayer-time and to sometimes beat immorally dressed women.

I can think of lots of things the government should be doing, but enforcing morals is not one of them.

As for gay marriage or straight marriage, I think it should be the business of two people, not everyone else's. However that doesn't necessarily mean courts should issue decrees to solve the matter. My guess is it is most appropriately left to state legislatures to decide. I don't think whether you or anyone else approves of it really matters in the moral sense. You don't have to accept their lifestyle just like they don't have to accept yours. Do your own thing as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

[Vehn]

[ QUOTE ]
I am pretty pro gay marriage, although I believe that we should ease into it (no pun intended)

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm totally missing it but I don't see how this could be a pun at all?

[ThaSaltCracka]

Do your own thing as long as you're not hurting anyone else.
this is a slippery slope as well.....

I don't know hoe you can compare Saudi Arabia to America. Saudi Arabia forces a strict view of a religion on its people, one which has little leway or freedom.

If society does not promote good morals, and the government does not promote good morals, whatever they may be in either case, then who will?

I agree with you completely with the court ruling, for a while now Judges have been making decisions that they shouldn't be making. They are imposing their opinions on America in a huge way. There is definitely need for reform in Judicial system in America.

[andyfox]

"If society does not promote good morals, and the government does not promote good morals, whatever they may be in either case, then who will?"

M's point was that your definition of good morals may be completely different than mine. The Saudis think we're completely immoral.

I may think gay marriage is immoral; you may think it's not. Who's to decide whether it's moral or not?

[ThaSaltCracka]

A stalemate on the situation is simply not an answer

Pun ease into it.... penis easing into..... please dont make me explain it nay more

[Utah]

ease into it. No penetration joke intended.

The reason you missed it is that it wasnt very funny

[Vehn]

Ah I see - I've never been pentrated, so I guess I wouldn't get the joke. Thanks for clearing it up though.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Even if you are pro gay marriage you should be disgusted with this ruling. Because, next time it might be some Christian Nutjobs (e.g., Moore in Alabama) imposing the their will upon the people.

I agree 100%

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If society does not promote good morals, and the government does not promote good morals, whatever they may be in either case, then who will?

Hold on. There is no such animal as "society." Society is a concept. It refers to the people and culture(s) taken as a whole. In the US specifically, we do not have a single, historic ethnic culture as do most other countries. We're a nation based upon a government/economuc concept.

As for morals, there are many who believe that opposition to gay marriage is "immoral." There are those who believe homosexuality itself is "immoral". Which side should the government take? In a free society, should morals, being the gray area they are, even be subject to a vote?

The government is the servent of the people, not our master. If our nation cannot agree on what constitutes morality, the government has precisely zero authority to step in and make that decision for us.

Freedom is by nature a bit unruly. I'd rather live in a free, unruly society, than an orderly one full of external constraints. IMO, in too much of the world, and Europe is a prime example, the people have ceded far too much of their sovereignity to the government.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
We are are a self governing people and the people decide what laws they want. If people want gay marriage then then the people of a state should vote it in. 4 People on a court should not oppose their will upon the people. When they do this, they violate the bedrock principle of our country.


[/ QUOTE ]
If it isn't for the state's highest court to decide when something violates the state Constitution, whose job is it? Another "bedrock principle" of this country is that the judiciary performs a check on the legislature in such a way that they can strike down unconstitutional laws.

How would your argument be any different from any other time a court has held a law to be unconstitutional? There's a whole laundry list of laws that have been held unconstititional (some supported by the left, some supported by the right), what makes this one any different?

[MMMMMM]

M: "Do your own thing as long as you're not hurting anyone else."

Saltcracka: "this is a slippery slope as well....."

How is it a slippery slope? Not doing harm to others is the most essential aspect of morality. Of course, some can and do choose to actually help others, which can be even better (provided the help is not misguided and inappropriate). The most essential aspect of the Golden Rule, however, is to not do unto others that which you would not have done unto yourself. If people would just follow that most basic dictum, society would be a far better place. If some take it further and actually help others so much the better. But not transgressing against others is even more basic and essential.

"I don't know hoe you can compare Saudi Arabia to America. Saudi Arabia forces a strict view of a religion on its people, one which has little leway or freedom."

I'm not comparing Saudi Arabia to America; rather I'm just using an example to demonstrate the dangers of relying on government to enforce morality. Granted it's an extreme example but it demonstrates the dangers of that slippery slope rather well.

"If society does not promote good morals, and the government does not promote good morals, whatever they may be in either case, then who will?"

The individual, the family, etc. Moreover now you are saying "promote" good morals rather than "enforce" good morals, as you originally did. There is a world of difference between promoting and enforcing, especially when government gets involved.

[MMMMMM]

"How would your argument be any different from any other time a court has held a law to be unconstitutional? "

You may have a point here, elwood.

Isn't there, though, a difference between striking down a law as unconstitutional, and decreeing the creation of a new law?

Was there a law in Massachusetts prohibiting gays from getting married, which the court has now struck down as unconstitutional, or has the court actually issued a decree that lawmakers must make a new law (or expand an old law)?

Seems to me this difference might have more significance (and legal implications) than appears at first glance. I don't have a problem with judges correctly striking down existing laws as unconstitutional. However I do have questions about, and likely problems with, judges ordering the legislature to make specific laws. If the judiciary can simply instruct the legislature to make whatever laws the judges demand, why even have a legislature?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there, though, a difference between striking down a law as unconstitutional, and decreeing the creation of a new law?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my understanding (I haven't yet read the case) the Mass Supreme Court held the law that only allowed Heterosexual couples to marry. They then instructed the legislature that the only way to remedy that problem that would pass constitutional muster would be to allow gay marriage (I suppose another way would be to disallow all marriage) not just pass a civil union statute as "civil unions" are inherently different from "marriages."

[ThaSaltCracka]

M: "Do your own thing as long as you're not hurting anyone else."

I think this is a slippery slope because if people are able to what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I think it will eventually spill over to affecting others.
Drugs for example, you could argue that a herion addict who uses herion in their home isn't hurting anyone, true, he isn't exposing anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to drugs. However, what happens when this herion addict runs out of money and gets kicked out of his house. More than likely he goes on street, welfare, treatment, etc... that is how someones destructive behavior can affect others, that is why letting people do whatever they want is a slippery slope.

Now as for courts in America. The main problem with them is the Judges that essentially rule over them. One has only to look at how diificult it is for Pres. Bush to get his judicial nominees through. Democrats don't like his nominees because they don't want them making decisions based on their own personal feelings, which is more than likely what happened in Mass. If you don't think this happens in the courts of America, you are very naive.
One only has to look at the 9th district court in the Bay Area to see how extreme our courts have gotten. I realize that it am only listing liberal examples, but I am sure conservatives have made there fair shair of controversial decisions as well.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Now as for courts in America. The main problem with them is the Judges that essentially rule over them. One has only to look at how diificult it is for Pres. Bush to get his judicial nominees through.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does President Bush not getting a handful of nominations through have to do with the Judges ruling over the courts in America? That's Congress' issue, not the judiciary.

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats don't like his nominees because they don't want them making decisions based on their own personal feelings, which is more than likely what happened in Mass

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you assume that the Mass. court made a decision based on their feelings and not based on logic?

The text of the relevant portion of the Mass. constitution reads as follows:

ART. I. All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

It seems like a reasonable interpretation of that language that a law which denies gay couples the right to marry would deny them "equality under the law" because of sex.

It seems like you are assuming that because the decision was one with which you (presumably) disagree it was based on personal feelings not based on reasoned opinion. Of course personal feelings come into almost every decision (from both Conservative and Liberal judges); however, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are somehow bad decisions or devoid of reasoned opinion. Some judge's "meta-ethics" are for equality, some for justice, some for freedom...these are all personal feelings that shape opinions. If the judges had decided that a ban on gay marriage does not deny equality under the law, would you say that the judges were obviously using their personal feelings because the language of the Mass. constitution is clear? Why not, it would be obvious, would it not, that the judges were personally against gay marriage (maybe they believed it to be immoral) when faced with the language of the Constitution???

[ThaSaltCracka]

ART. I. All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

a civil union solves this problem, marriage is unnecesasry.

What does President Bush not getting a handful of nominations through have to do with the Judges ruling over the courts in America? That's Congress' issue, not the judiciary.
you are serious??? Each party wants judges that reflect their points of view. They want judges in there who will use their own political beliefs to change and address laws. Maybe it isn't obvious enough, but the senators and representatives in congress come from political parties which have distinct views and opinions. The fact that the democrats in congress have been filabustering for months instead of voting on Bush's candidates shows they don't agree with the candidates past decisions, i.e. against their politcal agenda or beliefs. Now personally I don't like some of his candidates either, some of their decisions scare me. Some have voiced their opinions on banning abortion and other controversial topics. However it is obvious that members of congress are worried about what kind of decisions the judges would make if they were given federal posistions.

Some judge's "meta-ethics" are for equality, some for justice, some for freedom...these are all personal feelings that shape opinions.
I agree with this, I am sure this affects judges opinions and decisions. However the point of being a judge is to interpret and enforce the laws of his or her county, state, country. Judges were never intended to have the power to change laws or suggest that a law should be changed. This is the essence of the checks and balance system of government in America.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Judges were never intended to have the power to change laws or suggest that a law should be changed. This is the essence of the checks and balance system of government in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that isn't what the Mass. supreme court did...They told the legislature that they needed to create a law that was constitutional and that Civil Unions would not be a Constitutional option.

[ QUOTE ]
a civil union solves this problem, marriage is unnecesasry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The judges addressed this issue noting that we have a history that teaches us that separate but equal is not equal and what the Mass. Constitution requires is "Equality under the law."

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Judges were never intended to have the power to change laws or suggest that a law should be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the Mass. Supreme court, instead of giving the legislature 180 days to enact a statute consistent with its previous ruling (i.e. allowing gay marriage), instead they should have just struck down as unconstitutional the state's marriage laws? That would have been the alternative the approach they took...nobody can get married in the state because the law has been struck down as unconstitutional. What they did instead was give the legislature time to act and informed the legislature what would (and would not be) a constitutionally permissible solution.

[adios]

They seem almost the same to me. I haven't read that much on what the real differences are if any. Maybe a better question is what's the difference between a marriage license and a civil union license? Apparently Gays can't get a marriage license and heteros (pardan the crudeness) can't get a civil union license. Is that right?

[detox]

Don't you get the feeling that the Democrat Party has left you in the dust? I mean literally gone "left."
It is not the same party that people like my dear (deceased) mother was so loyal to--or even the same that it was in John Kennedy's days.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Direct quote from CNN article
The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then, the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.

what the Supreme Court did was give an opinion on the matter,
The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion
thus because of this opinion anyone could take a case to court allowing gay marriage. The court basically created a temporary law. If I lived in Mass. I wouldn;t be happy that the court was creating laws that no one voted for.

[elwoodblues]

I don't know what the real differences are either...The two are obviously intended to parallel one another. What the court said was:

Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. The holding in Goodridge, by which we are bound, is that group classifications based on unsupportable distinctions, such as that embodied in the proposed bill, are invalid under the Massachusetts Constitution. The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.

The court goes on to say:
"[m]any people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors." The court stated then, and we reaffirm, that the State may not interfere with these convictions, or with the decision of any religion to refuse to perform religious marriages of same-sex couples. These matters of belief and conviction are properly outside the reach of judicial review or government interference. But neither may the government, under the guise of protecting "traditional" values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our Constitution, "as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach," forbids.

...
For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits. It would deny to same-sex "spouses" only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages. The Massachusetts Constitution, as was explained in the Goodridge opinion, does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well intentioned.

[daryn]

i think i mentioned this before.. but i will mention it again.

civil unions are the perfect solution, they give gay couples equal rights. what else do you want? you can't have marriage.. you just can't! when blacks fought for civil rights in this country, they fought for the RIGHTS themselves.. they didn't fight to become white.

[elwoodblues]

I don't think bringing up the civil rights movement really benefits your position...

When interracial marriage was illegal, the argument was that blacks had the same rights as whites (to marry within their own race).

When segregated schools were legal, the argument was made that they had the same rights as whites (to attend school, and to attend a school consisting only of people of your own race).

[ QUOTE ]
civil unions are the perfect solution

[/ QUOTE ]

My idea (okay, it isn't my idea, but it is one with which I agree) of the perfect solution would be to disallow all "marriages" by the state and reserve that title to religious institutions (who can do what they want with it). Have a parallel "civil union" for everyone so that they become legally recognized (this would be done in conjunction with the religious marriages as well as with individuals who decided to only become civilly united).

[ThaSaltCracka]

My idea (okay, it isn't my idea, but it is one with which I agree) of the perfect solution would be to disallow all "marriages" by the state and reserve that title to religious institutions (who can do what they want with it). Have a parallel "civil union" for everyone so that they become legally recognized (this would be done in conjunction with the religious marriages as well as with individuals who decided to only become civilly united).
now your getting somewhere, hopefully congress will make something like this a federal mandate or hopefully states get to choose for themselves if they want this, not a court.
Now I see why the court choose the way they did, most of the fault for thir decision probably could go back to the original writers of the proposed bill for using such vauge languague.
Now that being said, I still think it is ridiculous how much power the courts have. They made a bad situation and essentially made it worse, IMHO.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Have a parallel "civil union" for everyone so that they become legally recognized

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this needed? Seems to me the system can work without it. For example, why couldn't I cover you under my health plan if I wanted to, if I was willing to pay the premimum for two people? I can designate anyone I like as a beneficiary to my life insurance, no? And do away with different tax categories, everyone should pay as if single.

A frequent problem I see that people are always looking to make rules for everything. But it's hard to do this without conflict. We pride ourselves over things like "all men were created equal" but don't fully understand what this means. It didn't include blacks, native americans and women at first. Now some would say that it doesn't include gays. Actually, no two people are created equal, so why pretend? All people should have certain rights regardless of their heritage, preferences or beliefs. But try and define those rights and proplems start to pop up, especially if cultural ideas are included.

The problem with gay marriages is that two cultual ideas are colliding--marriage and sexual preference. Neither one should be recognized for any special rights by governments. But once we recognized marriage, we had conlficts with race, proper age, and now same sex.

Leave marriages to the churches.

[daryn]

ok, i like "your" idea.

[adios]

Your explanation of the reasoning behind the Massachusettes Supreme Court ruling is very helpful. It cuts through all the media crap IMO. Thanks.

[adios]

"Why is this needed?"

My take is that it's needed to resolve issues of community property and even child custody if the partners desire to dissolve their relationship. A gay couple lives together for say 25 years, builds a life together shares the same househild, acquires assets together, invests for the future together similar to a married couple that is married for 25 years. What about if this couple decides to dissolve their "union" and go their separate ways? How are any issues regarding dividing community property resolved? Or put another way, community property disputes may not be able to be resolved through mediation and negotation for gay couples and thus they need to be resolved by a court of law.

[adios]

I think it's fair to say that the party's appeal to different constituencies. The remainder is my opinion. A basic difference is that Democrats believe in higher taxation and more government spending on social programs (bring it on /images/graemlins/smile.gif). Republicans basically feel that many of these social programs are wasteful and ineffective. Many Republicans feel that jobs created in the private sector are a far better remedy to poverty and that the social programs advovated by the Democrats are designed to keep the disenfranchised on Uncle Sam's plantation.

[Taxman]

Not to start a whole new economics discussion /images/graemlins/grin.gif, but this is too simplistic and not entirely true. In a very general sense, what you say is more or less correct, but there are things (re: the military) that Republicans spend a lot of money in what democrats consider a wasteful manner. Repbulicans don't advocate the complete elimination of all social programs either, they just don't like the idea of spending a lot of government money on them. Furthermore, Democrats aren't trying to "solve" poverty through welfare. They do have economic policies of their own aimed at creating jobs in the private sector, as you put it. Welfare is intended (abuse of the system notwithstanding) to give the less advantaged a chance to build a better life rather than being thrown out on the streets. Also you should know as well as anyone that the whole "two sides of the same coin" thing isn't that far off. The American people wouldn't have it any other way. I do find it interesting however that the more extreme conservatives tend to be more marketable than the extreme liberals. Of course our current president did run on a fairly moderate platform before he was elected. It's not like the Democratic party is trying to create a socialist state. Hell, Clinton himself was known to "steal" some Republican ideas before they could push them through.

[MMMMMM]

The relative spending issues between parties are not so clear-cut as are the tax differences. The Dems clearly prefer more taxation than do the Republicans.

"It's not like the Democratic party is trying to create a socialist state.

Not too far off though.

The Democrats have become socialists, and the Republicans have become Democrats. /images/graemlins/grin.gif That's a lot closer to the truth than might appear at first glance, as I think both parties have slid leftwards over much of the 20th century.

I like Clint Eastwood's description of what the Libertarian Party believes in: "Everybody leaves everybody else the hell alone." (From his lips to God's ears, all over the world).

Live and let live is the most important bedrock principle of any truly moral society, organization, or religion, IMO. In other words leaving people alone is fine, and helping them is fine too; but seeking to forcibly impose your views on others is not fine. IMO that pretty much goes for everything, basically.

[George Rice]

My point is basically that marriage isn't needed. If it isn't recognized by the government then other ways will be devised to deal with those problems, and others, that you mentioned.

[pretender2k]

Is this to say that democrats cant be capitalists?

Not in the true definition of the word. I used to be democrat. I thought that people deserved to be free. I thought that people deserved to have things like a car, a home, food. People deserve the right to choose theese things yes but not to have it given to them at the expense of others. Robin Hood is a fairy tale. I choose to give to certain charities to make myself feel better, I do not feel better paying more taxes for a a program that sucks 35% of what I give just for administrative costs.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, Democrats aren't trying to "solve" poverty through welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right! We agree again. This is what I wrote too,

The remainder is my opinion. A basic difference is that Democrats believe in higher taxation and more government spending on social programs (bring it on ). Republicans basically feel that many of these social programs are wasteful and ineffective. Many Republicans feel that jobs created in the private sector are a far better remedy to poverty and that the social programs advovated by the Democrats are designed to keep the disenfranchised on Uncle Sam's plantation.

Particularly of note:

that the social programs advovated by the Democrats are designed to keep the disenfranchised on Uncle Sam's plantation.


What I meant was that the most liberal Democrats use social programs to maintain and control their hard core constituencies. They don't want to see the number of people in poverty significantly reduced. If they did they would advocate something far different than maintaining and expanding these programs.

There's a book I'm not quite finished with yet by a former welfare queen, Star Parker, called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I like it because it shares many of my beliefs about the effect of welfare on the disenfranchised. From the book:

As Robert Rector pointed out in a study for the Heritage Foundation in 2001 welfare spending in America exceeded $400 billion. That is a whopping 14 percent of the federal budget. That's more than a billion dollars per day being spent on various poverty programs, yet Rector's data shows that less than twenty cents of each dollar actually gets into the hands of the people society is trying to help. Social concepts such as "permanent underclass" and "at-risk youth" have become pretexts for entire federal departments with multimillion-dollar budgets. Yet those classifed into these categories are still in considerable social chaos. Out-of-wedlock birth rates have escalated to 30 percent nationally, 70 percent among African-Americans, according to the Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Numbers from the National Center for Juvenile Justice show that seven out of ten youths in our criminal justice system come from single-parent households.

Since there is clear evidence that family breakdown contributes to low academic and employment achievement, propensity for crime, drug use, and sexual promiscuity, perhaps we should be asking if the money spent to alleviate poverty has discouraged traditional family formation. If so, does the fact that taxpayer investments in poverty programs have actually hurt the poor justify congressional hearings to investigate at least gross mismanagement, if not outright government corruption or political fraud? There's never an independent counsel around when you need one.

Inside-the-Beltway types have argued about government welfare programs since the Gret Society began in the 1960s. Think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation have contended that liberal social engineers created (some say deliberately) an entitlement culture for illegitimacy and poverty to skyrocket. A burgeoning lower class of people dependent on the government will likely continue voting for the party that keeps the handouts coming, and the fundamental motivation of many politicians is to remain in power. Despite growing evidence to the contrary, organizations such as the Center for Urban Policy Research continue to claim that racism, sexism, and capitalism are fundamentally responsible for the problems of the poor, but if true solutions ae developed, these organizations could be obsolete. Actually solve those problems and half the liberal campaign platform evaporates. Self-interest will always be the driving force behind the machinery of politics. We need to admit that and move on.

I'll be posting about it soon.

[Taxman]

Ok, I misread your post a little, though I would still argue that Republicans have little more desire to improve the condition of the impoverished than the Democrats. From what I gather, their dominant focus is on overall economic growth, with the assumtion made that the poor will benefit as a direct result of this. The idea is true of course, though it's not necessarily that close to the best method for combating poverty (on a selective and short term basis, socialism probably is the best answer to that particular question /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). I am inclined to agree with you however that many of the programs in the so called "war on poverty" are a sham, intentionally or not. I just think it seems a little too much like conspiracy theory to claim that the moguls at the top of the Democratic part are trying to keep people poor just to get their votes. After all, it's not like the majority of Americans are on welfare. Many of those that are, probably are also less inclined to vote than the slightly better off (this is conjecture). On a somewhat related topic, there of course has to be an underclass in any successful economic system (unless someone actually creates a perfect communist society). Also, I'm still waiting for the proof that democrats and republicans are actually two distinct parties and not two extremes of the same one. Maybe Bush is the real Repbulican (though we had to wait until he gained office to reveal his true colors) and Dean the real Democrat, but where does that leave everyone else?

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
The relative spending issues between parties are not so clear-cut as are the tax differences. The Dems clearly prefer more taxation than do the Republicans.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, though I think the actual difference in tax levels is not super huge between a Republican and Democratic administration (this is probably mostly a result of comprimises to get things through congress).

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats have become socialists, and the Republicans have become Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think not. This sounds like neo-con (or libertarian /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) rhetoric to me. The fact is the U.S. is more liberal than it was, but this is mostly a social, not economic, phenomenon. The majority of people these days are moderates who may lean one way or the other on any given issue. Plus it seems to me (this is unsubstantiated) that more people are inclined to oppose high taxes than support them (why else would tax cut promises figure so prominently in Republican campaigns?) Do you really think a "socialist" could get anywhere trying to run for a major office? Let me define socialism for you: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." I don't think too many democrats are advocating that the government own and operate major businesses (or any businesses). Nor do I know any who support the government having such domineering control over the economy. Such people would get nowhere in their political aspirations, barring the rare fluke. The United States really isn't a land of extreme views (at least not when electing officials is concerned).

[ QUOTE ]
leaving people alone is fine, and helping them is fine too; but seeking to forcibly impose your views on others is not fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, though I am uncertain who you think is trying to forcibly impose their views on others. I might argue that being called a traitor or America hater for opposing the war in Iraq qualifies pretty well. Such thoughts were at least implied by multiple officials in the Bush administration. We should never impose our views on others. This is of course, one of the foundations of American freedom. In the same vein I will tell everyone who will listen why my views are better than theirs /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[MMMMMM]

The Democrats have become socialists, and the Republicans have become Democrats.

It was half-a-joke and I think half-true;-)

As for imposing views on others, telling someone that they are a traitor or America-hater is not imposing a view on anyone; it is expressing a view, regardless of whether whether the opinion is merited or not.

[Taxman]

But it is imposing a view (if not directly) and here's why: Say I am a musician and a fairly popular one, but I dislike the President's policies in Iraq and I say as much. Suddenly I am branded a traitor. Radio stations and consumers are encouraged to stop buying/listening to my music and my livlihood suffers as a result. Suddenly I have huge pressure to recant my statements and stick with something more agreable to the administration. At the very least I am given a lesson that it might be better if I just kept my mouth shut. My views are being opressed by the views of others. I may not have to believe the same thing, but I sure as hell better not express my disagreement. By your argument, nobody could every really "impose their views" on others as everybody has free will and thus could chose to ignore what their told (regardless of the consequences). Therefore, saying it is wrong to impose your views on others becomes a meaningless statement.

[MMMMMM]

The consumer exercising freedom of choice, in purchasing from whomever they like, is not imposing their views on anyone. The musician has no inherent right that people will necessarily buy his or her music. If the musician's works were outlawed, that would be a different thing. A consumer boycott is much different than a law or edict forbidding purchases or sales of his music, or than censorship.

If some religious group gets a law passed that you cannot drink on Sundays, you might well argue that they are imposing their views on others. But if they boycott a restaurant because it serves alcohol on Sundays, they are just using their power of choice as consumers.

[elwoodblues]

Agree wholeheartedly...that's how the marketplace of ideas is supposed to work. I think there are problems when the government starts stepping in to decide what are good ideas and what are bad ideas --- language like "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" coming from government officials leads to irrational decisions in the marketplace of ideas that take a lot of time to overcome.

[Taxman]

Elwood was a little closer to my point than you when he said "language like "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" coming from government officials leads to irrational decisions in the marketplace of ideas."

I can understand why you might think you found a hole in my logic, but I knew very well your exact argument when I was posting. I did not say that the act of boycotting was opressive, I said that ecouraging people to boycott is opressive, especially when said encouragement is coming from those with political authority. It's a fine line I'll agree, but there is a huge difference in my mind between expressing your disagreement with someone (politely) and suggesting a boycott as opposed to calling publicly for a widespread movement. Besides, damaging a person's livlihood is a lot different than disagreeing with them. This is why slander is illegal.

Let me give you some quotes I found on Rush Limbaugh's website:

"These people in the music industry are really thick-heads. They're having all sorts of trouble, and then some idiot handler tells an even stupider "artist" who could never come up with this on her own, to mouth off."

"So here come the Dixie Chicks, demonstrating their wizardry for the whole world. Don't buy their junk. Choose a CD from The Limbaugh Library." (derogatory words along with a sales pitch /images/graemlins/grin.gif brilliant, Rush)

Of course following their fiasco, the Dixie Chicks very publically apologized for the words. Did this give them any relief? NO! They said they don't like the best president we ever had!? No forgiveness for them! That attitude more than anything, I found to be in poor taste. I also found it to be very indicative of the feelings of the times. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't feel that I come off as an ultra liberal or as an unabashed bush hater who does nothing but insult him. I am quite careful (usually /images/graemlins/blush.gif) to avoid making extremely inflammatory statements about Bush when I discuss him. I at least criticize matters of policy rather than matters of person. Nevertheless, I have often been called an America hater, or even a traitor, ludicrous accusations, both. I respect those people's rights to make those comments of course, but if they say, called my prospective employer and told him not to hire me because I hate America, I would object very much.

Similarly, if the leaders of congress can't express their thoughts for fear of being branded as traitors then they are being opressed. It doesn't matter if a law has been passed concerning it or not. I am not speaking about the letter of the law (something I assumed you were also ignoring in your original statement). Obviously people have a right to do a lot of things, but that doesn't make all of the things they choose to do morally acceptable IMO.

Exercising you own personal power of choice as a consumer is a lot different than creating an organized movement to destroy someone (overdramatic I'll admit). Do you really think it would be fair (or legal) if your boss cut your salary because you were of a different political party than him/her? Entertainers are different of course, but it's still a questionable ethical decision to punnish them for expressing their views, especially after they apologize for any offense. They didn't hurt anybody (except themselves) with their words. Obviously this is all personal opinion, but I am suprised by your argument because you seem in favor of a person's right to express himself without undue harassment.

[bdypdx]

What difference does it make if 2 guys, or 2 women can get married? (Only talking about legal age people here)

So what? Why not? 2 blocks N of me is a lesbian couple with 3 kids and have the most stable, committed relationship of anyone I know. They can't get married.

Meanwhile, an acquaintance and his ex-wife are in continual battle over the kids and money and whatever. Why were they ever allowed to get married? Actually, it's because, somehow, his sperm, somehow, managed to meet her egg....

[MMMMMM]

Of course I am very much in favor of a person's right to express himself without any undue harassment. I am also very much in favor of people deciding what they wish to buy or not, for whatever reasons they choose.

Also, if someone expresses an opinion and another expresses the opinion that he doesn't like the first's opinion, that is not undue harassment: it's just expressing another opinion.

[bigpooch]

Is that just your opinion? /images/graemlins/smile.gif