USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama 7 - now what?
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
BoomGoestheDynamite
Registered User
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Its rather sad, but every year brings the inevitable closer. Looks like Maine will lose by about the same margin as California did in November. I fully expect this referendum to exhibit the usual gulf in opinion between the elderly and younger voters.
Gotta love progress!
Its rather sad, but every year brings the inevitable closer. Looks like Maine will lose by about the same margin as California did in November. I fully expect this referendum to exhibit the usual gulf in opinion between the elderly and younger voters.
BoomGoestheDynamite
Registered User
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Give me your public policy rationale behind making gay marriage illegal. Two consenting adults want the bundle of property rights government has seen fit to bestow on those with this particular slip of paper.You and your ilk are likely the same crowd that thought the world was ending in June, 1967.
Give me your public policy rationale behind making gay marriage illegal. Two consenting adults want the bundle of property rights government has seen fit to bestow on those with this particular slip of paper.You and your ilk are likely the same crowd that thought the world was ending in June, 1967.
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Yep. And that wouldn't be really worth mentioning except for all the crowing that Democrat fanboys (not actual Democrats, mind you) did about how the 2008 election represented the "end of history" for US politics. One year later, it's pretty obvious that this is all just business as usual. That pendulum, she just keeps on a-swinging...
Yep. And that wouldn't be really worth mentioning except for all the crowing that Democrat fanboys (not actual Democrats, mind you) did about how the 2008 election represented the "end of history" for US politics. One year later, it's pretty obvious that this is all just business as usual. That pendulum, she just keeps on a-swinging...
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Except nobody ever did that. What the fan boys said was the country is moving left relative to an absolute referent. That doesn't mean the Dems will pick up any more seats, because the parties float like bubbles in a carpenter's level. It does mean that the radical right of the GOP is more and more neutered in national politics as both parties drift left. When the GOP does nominate a teabagger, they lose.
Please feel free to test this theory by nominating Palin.
Except nobody ever did that. What the fan boys said was the country is moving left relative to an absolute referent. That doesn't mean the Dems will pick up any more seats, because the parties float like bubbles in a carpenter's level. It does mean that the radical right of the GOP is more and more neutered in national politics as both parties drift left. When the GOP does nominate a teabagger, they lose.
Please feel free to test this theory by nominating Palin.
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Since when is marriage a right?
*If one wants to make the argument that this is covered under equal rights, there is nothing stopping gay people from getting married. They just can't do it with someone of the same sex.
And before you label me as a bigot (since you seem to like to do that to people), I don't think the State should be in the business of granting "marriages" to straight couples either.
*edit for clarification
Since when is marriage a right?
*If one wants to make the argument that this is covered under equal rights, there is nothing stopping gay people from getting married. They just can't do it with someone of the same sex.
And before you label me as a bigot (since you seem to like to do that to people), I don't think the State should be in the business of granting "marriages" to straight couples either.
*edit for clarification
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Saw some funny commentary summing up the Maine vote, as the state voted for the pot referendum, against a anti-tax one, and against gay marriage. It said something like, Maine voters like getting stoned and paying taxes - gay marriages not so much.
The only thing more I'll say about this is that an off year election is a bad time to have this vote if you wanted the law to remain, because this will only tend to bring out the hard core activists. Lets face it, for people who really care about this issue, the anti crowd outnumbers the pro crowd. What supporters should do is put another referendum on the ballot in 2010, where a larger # of voters will turn out, and its possible more of them will vote in favor of gay marriage even though its not the #1 issue on their minds.
Regarding election night, I'm having trouble figuring out how Dems lost NJ but won NY-23. That's the difference between a good night and a great night for the Republicans. I'm real curious what this means for Teabaggers and the GOP. In New Jersey, the party successfully recruited someone who could appeal to the middle. In NY, they (eventually) went hard right and lost a winnable race. I've heard talk now of taking out Charlie Crist in the primary in Florida. That's a BIG mistake IMHO. Clearly the Palin crowd couldn't deliver the goods in rural upstate New York. Not sure if they'll continue to stress ideological purity next year.
Lastly, really surprised by close Bloomberg race. By all accounts I've seen people like him and he's done a good job.
Saw some funny commentary summing up the Maine vote, as the state voted for the pot referendum, against a anti-tax one, and against gay marriage. It said something like, Maine voters like getting stoned and paying taxes - gay marriages not so much.
The only thing more I'll say about this is that an off year election is a bad time to have this vote if you wanted the law to remain, because this will only tend to bring out the hard core activists. Lets face it, for people who really care about this issue, the anti crowd outnumbers the pro crowd. What supporters should do is put another referendum on the ballot in 2010, where a larger # of voters will turn out, and its possible more of them will vote in favor of gay marriage even though its not the #1 issue on their minds.
Regarding election night, I'm having trouble figuring out how Dems lost NJ but won NY-23. That's the difference between a good night and a great night for the Republicans. I'm real curious what this means for Teabaggers and the GOP. In New Jersey, the party successfully recruited someone who could appeal to the middle. In NY, they (eventually) went hard right and lost a winnable race. I've heard talk now of taking out Charlie Crist in the primary in Florida. That's a BIG mistake IMHO. Clearly the Palin crowd couldn't deliver the goods in rural upstate New York. Not sure if they'll continue to stress ideological purity next year.
Lastly, really surprised by close Bloomberg race. By all accounts I've seen people like him and he's done a good job.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Just wanted to quote this for posterity's sake.
But the State is in the business of granting marriages.
Personally, I don't care if all marriages are then considered civil unions by the State, or if same sex marriages are allowed to happen under the State. Either way is fine with me - but the current set-up is not equal treatment under the law.
Anybody in opposition to this is on the wrong side of history.
Just wanted to quote this for posterity's sake.
But the State is in the business of granting marriages.
Personally, I don't care if all marriages are then considered civil unions by the State, or if same sex marriages are allowed to happen under the State. Either way is fine with me - but the current set-up is not equal treatment under the law.
Anybody in opposition to this is on the wrong side of history.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
NY Voters finally saw Hoffman and freaked?
Or maybe they decided not to vote for the guy who said "If you elect me I promise to move there & figure out what you care about."
NY Voters finally saw Hoffman and freaked?
Or maybe they decided not to vote for the guy who said "If you elect me I promise to move there & figure out what you care about."
dropthatpuck
In Vino Veritas
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I love watching the hypocrisy of the hateful left. Take a look at Bassale, for example.
It's only "free will" as long as you do it like him and his ilk. He wants to allow gay marriage and kill those who don't agree with him.
I love watching the hypocrisy of the hateful left. Take a look at Bassale, for example.
It's only "free will" as long as you do it like him and his ilk. He wants to allow gay marriage and kill those who don't agree with him.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
You're one of those strict constructionists? Good for you. There's no privacy there either, chew that one over.
You're one of those strict constructionists? Good for you. There's no privacy there either, chew that one over.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
50 years from now people will look back on this as we look back on banned interracial marriage. The writing is on the wall.
Unless you somehow find a way to change the trend line.
I love watching the hypocrisy of the hateful left. Take a look at Bassale, for example.
It's only "free will" as long as you do it like him and his ilk. He wants to allow gay marriage and kill those who don't agree with him.
50 years from now people will look back on this as we look back on banned interracial marriage. The writing is on the wall.
Unless you somehow find a way to change the trend line.
dropthatpuck
In Vino Veritas
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I truly don't care either way - the point is how some of our resident/non-resident lefties act like they're a bunch of peace-loving, accepting, goody-two-shoes until things don't go their way - then they show their true colors and a level of hate that even the so-called "bigots" don't have.
I truly don't care either way - the point is how some of our resident/non-resident lefties act like they're a bunch of peace-loving, accepting, goody-two-shoes until things don't go their way - then they show their true colors and a level of hate that even the so-called "bigots" don't have.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
The right to marry has always been a common law right, dating back to the law we brought over from England. The legal issue presently is "does the right to marry include the right to marry a person of the same gender?" - because the common law did not address that issue.
And frankly, the GOP would be better off focusing their efforts elsewhere, because they are going to lose on this one in the end (though, if their sole objective is to delay to force the Dems to waste money on it in the meantime, I guess that's a somewhat logical strategy).
One of three things will happen: 1)SCOTUS upholds an equal protection arguement, immediately making the recognition of gay marriage mandatory in all in states via the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment; 2) SCOTUS punts on the equal protection argument, but validates a full faith and credit clause argument. Thus, gay people just travel to a state that allows it, get married, and then return home where they will receive the benefits of their marriage; or 3) the old people die off, and as the electorate naturally changes, gay marriage gets approved in more and more states .
My guess is 1 or 2 happens before 3. And indeed, the GOP probably prefers as much, because it'll give them a rallying issue for the next few cycles (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade)
The right to marry has always been a common law right, dating back to the law we brought over from England. The legal issue presently is "does the right to marry include the right to marry a person of the same gender?" - because the common law did not address that issue.
And frankly, the GOP would be better off focusing their efforts elsewhere, because they are going to lose on this one in the end (though, if their sole objective is to delay to force the Dems to waste money on it in the meantime, I guess that's a somewhat logical strategy).
One of three things will happen: 1)SCOTUS upholds an equal protection arguement, immediately making the recognition of gay marriage mandatory in all in states via the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment; 2) SCOTUS punts on the equal protection argument, but validates a full faith and credit clause argument. Thus, gay people just travel to a state that allows it, get married, and then return home where they will receive the benefits of their marriage; or 3) the old people die off, and as the electorate naturally changes, gay marriage gets approved in more and more states .
My guess is 1 or 2 happens before 3. And indeed, the GOP probably prefers as much, because it'll give them a rallying issue for the next few cycles (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade)
Last edited:
SPIN CONTROL
is in charge
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
That's a nice thought Skippy, except for this little thing called the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
That's a nice thought Skippy, except for this little thing called the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
rufus
rock and roller
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I never said they weren't impacted in any way. I said that even if they had been, it certainly hasn't hurt them as a company. Maybe stockholders got a bit smaller rate of return than otherwise, maybe their profit margin wasn't quite as great. But they're still in business, and doing pretty well, it seems. Certainly far better than any American car company.
If their stockholders don't like the returns they're getting, they're free to take their money elsewhere. maybe to one of those dirty companies that are so successful.
I never said they weren't impacted in any way. I said that even if they had been, it certainly hasn't hurt them as a company. Maybe stockholders got a bit smaller rate of return than otherwise, maybe their profit margin wasn't quite as great. But they're still in business, and doing pretty well, it seems. Certainly far better than any American car company.
If their stockholders don't like the returns they're getting, they're free to take their money elsewhere. maybe to one of those dirty companies that are so successful.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Except that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th, if SCOTUS upholds such an argument in this case.
Except that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th, if SCOTUS upholds such an argument in this case.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Very good summary. I too wonder what would happen if this went before the Supreme Court. If interracial marriage can't be legally banned, how could gay marriage in the eyes of the law?
Very good summary. I too wonder what would happen if this went before the Supreme Court. If interracial marriage can't be legally banned, how could gay marriage in the eyes of the law?
rufus
rock and roller
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
That point is moot. The problem is, they had a choice on whether or not to approve them. Thay approved loans that the people had no means to be able to afford to pay back.
That point is moot. The problem is, they had a choice on whether or not to approve them. Thay approved loans that the people had no means to be able to afford to pay back.
- Status