Obama 7 - now what?

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Looking at marriage from a legal/govt standpoint, there's little comparison between incest/polygamy and gay marriage. The government has the duty to regulate harmful activity, which is why we have laws in the first place. There's little inherently harmful about a same sex union. There's plenty harmful about incest, and regarding polygamy the biggest problem seems to be how one person can sustain a family of 30 if he has 7 wives. Putting aside moral or religious issues (religions are free to refuse marriages between interfaith couples for example, states cannot), there is a vested interest in the govt for banning these two practices. Banning gay marriage would be strictly on some moral code, which doesn't tend to trump legal rights.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

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)

IIRC from law school, and perhaps BarBri, the Supremes have generally viewed marriage as a "fundamental right" in the context of interracial marriage, and a few other foggy cases I can't remember. From your analysis, I would bet on the following order 2 and then 1, as the Court often changes to reflect society at large. I think one of the more interesting facets is the potential for continued conflict between states' residents and their legislative and judicial bodies. If enough states recognize, through whatever means, that gays have a right to marry, it's going to fall into the Supremes' lap and make a big mess no matter what the ruling.

I think the GOP is also going to pay in the long run for making this a litmus test for candidates

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Remember the lady that sued to marry her golden retriever? Where does she fit in to this debate?

I can't find it now, but I did find a fascinating Wiki entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage

 

[Plante26]

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.

Uh, not quite. They approved the loans based on the information given in the loan application. What you're arguing is complete hindsight, and if you actually think that banks were knowingly lending to borrowers who were going to default, please provide some proof of this. You're taking issue with the underwriting criteria set forth by Fannie/Freddie.....which is essentially the U.S. Government......and you would be correct in taking issue with their criteria.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Uh, not quite. They approved the loans based on the information given in the loan application. What you're arguing is complete hindsight, and if you actually think that banks were knowingly lending to borrowers who were going to default, please provide some proof of this. You're taking issue with the underwriting criteria set forth by Fannie/Freddie.....which is essentially the U.S. Government......and you would be correct in taking issue with their criteria.

Can't say I have proof, but my in-laws sold their house 3 yrs ago (right before the bust) in a lower middle class neighborhood for over $400K. 3BR 1.5BA, one story ranch, on-street parking.

We all thought that there was no way the buyer should have qualified for the mortgage, but the lender did. The house went into default 2 months later and sold last summer for $170K.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Really? How about two gay couples that have a child when both split up - then the kid has 4 parents. I'm close to a couple of these situations. Very messy.

And how's that different from two heterosexual couples, gender differences aside?

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Uh, not quite. They approved the loans based on the information given in the loan application. What you're arguing is complete hindsight, and if you actually think that banks were knowingly lending to borrowers who were going to default, please provide some proof of this. You're taking issue with the underwriting criteria set forth by Fannie/Freddie.....which is essentially the U.S. Government......and you would be correct in taking issue with their criteria.

Many of those mortgage lender companies were the ones falsifying the information on the loan application. You can find the info yourself with a little work.

"Oh, let's just say you're making $300,000/year, it's the only way you'll get this loan approved".

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

And how's that different from two heterosexual couples, gender differences aside?

None. but, remember, nobody is saying that you can't live together, can't get benefits, can't inherit. But people have trouble assenting to marriage between anyone other than male & female - because that is something very very sacred to society.

New motto of the Dems -- "To Serve Man"

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Thumbs up to the people of Maine. Gives one a little more hope for our nation, at least in the short term.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Many of those mortgage lender companies were the ones falsifying the information on the loan application. You can find the info yourself with a little work.

"Oh, let's just say you're making $300,000/year, it's the only way you'll get this loan approved".

This is distressing, if it was just fine and dandy with regulators in the past. and bolsters the case for increased bank regulation, or at least (if it's already against the rules) stiffer penalties for breaking them.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Thumbs up to the people of Maine. Gives one a little more hope for our nation, at least in the short term.

Oops! Oh, no, Bob.....now YOU'RE a bigot too!

I'm not sure why everyone gets so worked up about this. By and large, the American public doesn't want gay marriage legalized. Marriage is supposed to be about two people being in love with each other, not two people demanding recognition from the government (and by proxy, the people represented by that government).

If you're that worried about the tax benefits, form a corporation with your life partner and start voting Republican.....you'd probably get a better tax status as a result.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Oops! Oh, no, Bob.....now YOU'RE a bigot too!

I've been called that and worse before on this and other issues where conservative social values are anathema to most of this board. That's ok. Such is life in today's society when you don't buy into the latest PC causes. My convictions are anchored in something a lot stronger than the approval of posters on an internet message board.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Many of those mortgage lender companies were the ones falsifying the information on the loan application. You can find the info yourself with a little work.

"Oh, let's just say you're making $300,000/year, it's the only way you'll get this loan approved".

So you're trying to say that fraudulent loan applications caused the entire mortgage market to go into a Three-Mile Island-type meltdown? That's cute.

Fraudulent loan officers were a small, SMALL percentage of what has gone wrong. I would state that low-doc/no-doc loans and zero-down loans being authorized for purchase by Fannie/Freddie being a far greater contributing factor.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I've been called that and worse before on this and other issues where conservative social values are anathema to most of this board. That's ok. Such is life in today's society when you don't buy into the latest PC causes. My convictions are anchored in something a lot stronger than the approval of posters on an internet message board.

Kudos to you, Bob. I am in full agreement.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Can't say I have proof, but my in-laws sold their house 3 yrs ago (right before the bust) in a lower middle class neighborhood for over $400K. 3BR 1.5BA, one story ranch, on-street parking.

We all thought that there was no way the buyer should have qualified for the mortgage, but the lender did. The house went into default 2 months later and sold last summer for $170K.

Who was the lender?

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I'm not sure why everyone gets so worked up about this. By and large, the American public doesn't want gay marriage legalized. Marriage is supposed to be about two people being in love with each other, not two people demanding recognition from the government (and by proxy, the people represented by that government).

By that same reasoning, why should anyone, gay or straight, receive recognition from the government and the people? Why should we put forth the effort to recognize it for one group, but when the other group demands recognition respond that the recognition really isn't that important anyways?

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

A couple of the greatest quotes ever:

The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.

I've been called (a bigot). That's ok. Such is life in today's society when you don't buy into the latest PC causes. My convictions are anchored in something a lot stronger than the approval of posters on an internet message board.

along with, of course

These are my principles. If you don't like 'em, I've got others.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I'm not sure why everyone gets so worked up about this. By and large, the American public doesn't want gay marriage legalized. Marriage is supposed to be about two people being in love with each other, not two people demanding recognition from the government (and by proxy, the people represented by that government).

Considering the approximately 50% failure rate of marriage right now, maybe the "gheys are going to teach our kids to be fags" crowd is afraid the gays might ruin that stellar showing,or create new competition.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

By that same reasoning, why should anyone, gay or straight, receive recognition from the government and the people? Why should we put forth the effort to recognize it for one group, but when the other group demands recognition respond that the recognition really isn't that important anyways?

If you can show me where straight couples demanded recognition from the government, you'd have a valid argument. But I very highly doubt that when the state governments started issuing marriage licenses, it was at the behest of straight couples. It was the government deciding to regulate something that was originally a religious ceremony.....which would go against everything a good liberal believes in with regards to the seperation of Church and state.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

A couple of the greatest quotes ever:

along with, of course

I have to admit, I missed that posting by Plutarch! I hadn't joined the USCHO forum yet.