jmog;690375 wrote:
The Rs are trying to get the budget under control first, which will stimulate the economy and in turn create jobs.

Um, no. If you believe that it's time for austerity and that concerns about unemployment and economic growth are second fiddle that is fine. Many conservatives believe this and I'm not arguing against this proposition. But, budget cutting as the recovery teeters has the exact opposite effect of economic stimulation and job creation...

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/government-budget-cuts-pose-threat-to-recovery/049e19d5897145b0946aa6dc50db9450

I mean, it is now in vogue for conservatives and Austrian apologists like Ron Paul to suggest that FDR prolonged the great depression and therefore deficit spending is unjustified. But, what prolonged it was the erroneous choice to raise taxes (astronomically by the way), to try to trim the budget deficit.

Yet, these same people are the ones asking Congress to slash budget deficits. Now, now, I hear what these folks like Cleveland_Buck are saying...No reason to falsely prop up our over-inflated economy now and kick the can down the road. That's fine...and I believe Cleveland_Buck for one acknowledges that this will be incredibly painful. I'm not saying that this is not the correct action....but we must agree that slashing budgets and austerity do not bode well for economic growth and employment in the short term.

QuakerOats;692040 wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich said it is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.

“His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.

“Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”

I respect Newt Gingrich and especially his appreciation for De Tocqueville but most of his statements Oats quoted are wrong. The Obama administration has agreed to still enforce the law. It simply has stated that they will not defend it in Court and Congress has the Constitutional authority to appoint counsel to defend the law.

From page 5 of the AG's letter:

"Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's Constitutionality."

Also, the Justice Dept. has done this before and cites legal authority in the letter to that effect.

So please, relax.

jhay78;690082 wrote:
So if the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, then whose calling the union of two consenting people "marriage" really matters? IMO society has a vested interest in defining what is and isn't marriage, as they already do with regard to incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. (and no I'm not comparing those to two consenting adults- before everyone freaks out).

If the people = the government in our country (at least theorecitally), then they should be able to define what is and isn't legally recognized as marriage. But if y'all don't want the government involved anyway, then whose recognition or authoritative use of the word "marriage" do you seek?

In regards to the phraseology, defining marriage "as between a man and woman,"

The definition for marriage is not up for debate. Marriage has a particular definition. "Marriage" is just a particular type of contract. Like all contracts there is an offer, acceptance and the bargained for consideration being the love and affection of the other person, as evidenced by the good, valuable consideration in the form of wedding rings. It's just a basic type of contract formation creating legally binding obligations on one another.

What we're really saying when "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is that these are the only two classes of persons who's engaging in such a private agreement will be legitimized by the government. We're discriminating against gays, say, when we say they can't form this particular type of agreement and receive sanction by the government. But, we discriminate against people all of the time. We say that children cannot vote because we have good reasons for them not doing so because they will vote for justin bieber or something.

The question, is, if we're going to say certain people like two men cannot have their contract to love each other until death parts them receive sanction from the government, we'd have to offer some rational basis for not permitting this free, arm's length, private agreement to have the People's blessing. In reality, it's becoming harder and harder to find a sufficient justification as to why such a private agreement between private individuals ought not to be respected like other such agreements when there is a lack of evidence of a sufficient harm caused by such arrangements.

Just another campaign promise from Obama that he broke. No surprise.

BoatShoes;692409 wrote:In regards to the phraseology, defining marriage "as between a man and woman,"

The definition for marriage is not up for debate. Marriage has a particular definition. "Marriage" is just a particular type of contract. Like all contracts there is an offer, acceptance and the bargained for consideration being the love and affection of the other person, as evidenced by the good, valuable consideration in the form of wedding rings. It's just a basic type of contract formation creating legally binding obligations on one another.

What we're really saying when "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is that these are the only two classes of persons who's engaging in such a private agreement will be legitimized by the government. We're discriminating against gays, say, when we say they can't form this particular type of agreement and receive sanction by the government. But, we discriminate against people all of the time. We say that children cannot vote because we have good reasons for them not doing so because they will vote for justin bieber or something.

The question, is, if we're going to say certain people like two men cannot have their contract to love each other until death parts them receive sanction from the government, we'd have to offer some rational basis for not permitting this free, arm's length, private agreement to have the People's blessing. In reality, it's becoming harder and harder to find a sufficient justification as to why such a private agreement between private individuals ought not to be respected like other such agreements when there is a lack of evidence of a sufficient harm caused by such arrangements.

Marriage is only a "contract" because the State is involved. Get the State out of all marriages and the "contract" status is gone. There's no reason for the State to be part of anything to do with marriage. Gender will no longer matter and anyone who chooses can participate in any capacity they desire.

All issues regarding equality and lack-there-of are solved when the State is removed from marriage. There is no rational reason the State should be involved whatsoever.

Con_Alma;692417 wrote:Marriage is only a "contract" because the State is involved. Get the State out of all marriages and the "contract" status is gone. There's no reason for the State to be part of anything to do with marriage. Gender will no longer matter and anyone who chooses can participate in any capacity they desire.

All issues regarding equality and lack-there-of are solved when the State is removed from marriage. There is no rational reason the State should be involved whatsoever.

Well it satisfies all the conditions of a contract it's just a question of whether or not a state will recognize the promises as legally binding. In a perfect world, any promise exchanged for good consideration is binding and enforceable in our courts...but public policy dictates this not to be the case in the absolute (i.e. contract kills). Nonetheless, I'm sympathetic to your point of view that gubment should just be out of marriage entirely but let me ask, if you say the state should not consider the mutual obligations exchanged within the marital agreement, should they not offer a forum for redress for such breaches? I.E. Should there be no divorce, alimony, support obligations, etc.

For instance, I can contract with Belly35 to Assassinate President Obama and satisfy all of the conditions for a conventional contract but Belly35 has not right of action against me if I chicken out and fail to carry out my obligation...I don't know, perhaps I realize that he is trying to trick me into using his communist made guns as he's a secret Joe Biden Devotee....It seems to me, that if you're saying that the State should completely absolve itself from the marital arena, it follows that the state should not offer any forum for redress should one's failure to adhere to their marital obligations and promises exchanged in the marital agreement.

Also, the state recognizes other types of legal relationships between citizens such as partnerships, shareholders in a corporation, members of an LLC, etc. Why not also as unions bonded by mutual love and affection?

And, as a practical matter...how might we go about weening the state out of marriage in its entirety?

BS, this cracked me up!

For instance, I can contract with Belly35 to Assassinate President Obama and satisfy all of the conditions for a conventional contract but Belly35 has not right of action against me if I chicken out and fail to carry out my obligation...I don't know, perhaps I realize that he is trying to trick me into using his communist made guns as he's a secret Joe Biden Devotee....

You really wanna send him over the edge, eh? hehe!

On another note, we really need a Marriage Czar!

BoatShoes;692409 wrote:In regards to the phraseology, defining marriage "as between a man and woman,"

The definition for marriage is not up for debate. Marriage has a particular definition. "Marriage" is just a particular type of contract. Like all contracts there is an offer, acceptance and the bargained for consideration being the love and affection of the other person, as evidenced by the good, valuable consideration in the form of wedding rings. It's just a basic type of contract formation creating legally binding obligations on one another.

What we're really saying when "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is that these are the only two classes of persons who's engaging in such a private agreement will be legitimized by the government. We're discriminating against gays, say, when we say they can't form this particular type of agreement and receive sanction by the government. But, we discriminate against people all of the time. We say that children cannot vote because we have good reasons for them not doing so because they will vote for justin bieber or something.

The question, is, if we're going to say certain people like two men cannot have their contract to love each other until death parts them receive sanction from the government, we'd have to offer some rational basis for not permitting this free, arm's length, private agreement to have the People's blessing. In reality, it's becoming harder and harder to find a sufficient justification as to why such a private agreement between private individuals ought not to be respected like other such agreements when there is a lack of evidence of a sufficient harm caused by such arrangements.

You're exactly right about the discrimination thing. We discriminate against 30 year olds marrying 15 year olds, brothers marrying their sisters, and men marrying multiple women. Discrimination is not always bad.

As for a rational basis and sufficient justification for DOMA, it is in society's interest to ensure its own preservation and future citizenry via stable familial units. Last time I checked, children can only be conceived through the union of one man and one woman, presently the only gender status recognized for marriage. While I don't know about evidence for harm caused by other arrangements, there is evidence that children fare better when both a mother and a father are present in a child's upbringing.

BoatShoes;692430 wrote:Well it satisfies all the conditions of a contract it's just a question of whether or not a state will recognize the promises as legally binding. In a perfect world, any promise exchanged for good consideration is binding and enforceable in our courts...but public policy dictates this not to be the case in the absolute (i.e. contract kills). Nonetheless, I'm sympathetic to your point of view that gubment should just be out of marriage entirely but let me ask, if you say the state should not consider the mutual obligations exchanged within the marital agreement, should they not offer a forum for redress for such breaches? I.E. Should there be no divorce, alimony, support obligations, etc.

For instance, I can contract with Belly35 to Assassinate President Obama and satisfy all of the conditions for a conventional contract but Belly35 has not right of action against me if I chicken out and fail to carry out my obligation...I don't know, perhaps I realize that he is trying to trick me into using his communist made guns as he's a secret Joe Biden Devotee....It seems to me, that if you're saying that the State should completely absolve itself from the marital arena, it follows that the state should not offer any forum for redress should one's failure to adhere to their marital obligations and promises exchanged in the marital agreement.

Also, the state recognizes other types of legal relationships between citizens such as partnerships, shareholders in a corporation, members of an LLC, etc. Why not also as unions bonded by mutual love and affection?

And, as a practical matter...how might we go about weening the state out of marriage in its entirety?

The state also recognizes births, deaths, etc. I don't see the urgency (or the practicality) of getting the state out of marriage. It's not as if society is picking your spouse for you and mandating whom you shall marry, or making it a crime not to marry, etc. To me the state is sufficiently out of marriage as it stands now.

I believe most of the evidence to support kids being better off with a mother and father is looking at the alternative as either a mother or father only. Not two same gender parents. So the evidence really isn't valid.

It's not as if society is picking your spouse for you and mandating whom you shall marry

Except they do.

jhay78;693125 wrote:There is evidence that children fare better when both a mother and a father are present in a child's upbringing.

There is also evidence that children fare very well when brought up in a gay or lesbian household. I know a lot of gay couples who have adopted children and are doing a hell of a good job raising them.

FairwoodKing;693162 wrote:There is also evidence that children fare very well when brought up in a gay or lesbian household. I know a lot of gay couples who have adopted children and are doing a hell of a good job raising them.

A serious question and maybe you would know the results.I understand that you think very highly of the gay community,are their any statistics about children that are raised by gay parents deciding to choose the gay lifestyle for their own happiness?

password;693178 wrote:A serious question and maybe you would know the results.I understand that you think very highly of the gay community,are their any statistics about children that are raised by gay parents deciding to choose the gay lifestyle for their own happiness?

Most gay people have had parents or someone try to influence them to be straight. Gay people know this just doesn't work, just as it doesn't work to try to turn someone gay. In every case that I've seen, gay parents have allowed their children to march to the beat of their own drummer.

That has nothing to do with my question.Are their statistics?

password;693409 wrote:That has nothing to do with my question.Are their statistics?

I'm too lazy to search for it, but yes, there has been at least one study done that showed the children of gay parents were no more likely to become gay than the children of straight parents.

But the response you got was logical and correct. Almost every gay person has had at least one straight biological parent, and most two, yet gay people keep coming into this world at about the same rate as they always have (so far as statistics can tell us, anyway). I'd say that speaks more to nature and some combination of nurture.

Oh hell, it was too easy to find...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

One promise after another...

Writerbuckeye;694136 wrote:I'm too lazy to search for it, but yes, there has been at least one study done that showed the children of gay parents were no more likely to become gay than the children of straight parents.

But the response you got was logical and correct. Almost every gay person has had at least one straight biological parent, and most two, yet gay people keep coming into this world at about the same rate as they always have (so far as statistics can tell us, anyway). I'd say that speaks more to nature and some combination of nurture.

Oh hell, it was too easy to find...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

What I am asking is how many children that are raised by 2 gay parents decide that being gay is ok and chose that life and continue the gay cycle.Example would be children that are adopted by 2 gay parents or for some reason a child ends up living and growing up within the gay community.I do understand that you will always need at least one straight parent to make a baby unless you are talking about a little help from a donor.

jhay78;690469 wrote:Back to Obama- how in the world can he instruct his Justice Department to no longer defend DOMA as constitutionally valid, but still have it be enforced?

A Conservative opinion:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/should-obama-abandon-defense-of-marriage-act

Probably the same way Regan did it when he felt the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 was unconstitutional! The difference? Regan actually signed that act into law! And as 2quik has pointed out, Obama isn't the first to do this!

I Wear Pants;693159 wrote:I believe most of the evidence to support kids being better off with a mother and father is looking at the alternative as either a mother or father only. Not two same gender parents. So the evidence really isn't valid.

Except they do.

Really? Cause when I got married I got to pick my wife all by myself, and she got to pick me. Every single person I know who's been married in this country picked his/her own spouse.

Now sure, the government tells you whom you can't marry (minors, familiy members, multiple spouses, and yes, same-gendered persons). But nobody made me marry anyone I didn't want to marry.

FairwoodKing;693162 wrote:There is also evidence that children fare very well when brought up in a gay or lesbian household. I know a lot of gay couples who have adopted children and are doing a hell of a good job raising them.

That may be true, but only a mother and a father can conceive those children in the first place. It is in society's interests to recognize unions that can both conceive children (future citizens) and raise them in a stable family unit.

BoatShoes;692430 wrote:... Nonetheless, I'm sympathetic to your point of view that gubment should just be out of marriage entirely but let me ask, if you say the state should not consider the mutual obligations exchanged within the marital agreement, should they not offer a forum for redress for such breaches? I.E. ...

I never said the State should not consider "mutual obligations". If both parties agree to engage in an obligation it can be very binding. What I posted was that it should not require the State's approval to enter into such an agreement.

Marriage does not have to be a contract unless the parties wish for it to be. It Must be a contract when the State requires approval and attaches definitions to such an agreement.

jhay78;694476 wrote:Really? Cause when I got married I got to pick my wife all by myself, and she got to pick me. Every single person I know who's been married in this country picked his/her own spouse.

Now sure, the government tells you whom you can't marry (minors, familiy members, multiple spouses, and yes, same-gendered persons). But nobody made me marry anyone I didn't want to marry.



That may be true, but only a mother and a father can conceive those children in the first place. It is in society's interests to recognize unions that can both conceive children (future citizens) and raise them in a stable family unit.

Wow! Let me see if I understand you correctly! Heterosexual couples that for one reason or another that cannot reproduce SHOULD NOT be allowed to marry because, "It is in society's interests to recognize unions that can both conceive children..."? So the elderly should not be allowed to marry and couples with medical issues just to name a couple should not be allowed to marry? You didn't put much thought into that post did you?

password;694459 wrote:What I am asking is how many children that are raised by 2 gay parents decide that being gay is ok and chose that life and continue the gay cycle.Example would be children that are adopted by 2 gay parents or for some reason a child ends up living and growing up within the gay community.I do understand that you will always need at least one straight parent to make a baby unless you are talking about a little help from a donor.

Did you even read the article I linked? It clearly says that the study showed children raised by gay parents are NO MORE LIKELY to be gay than kids raised by straight ones.

And the evidence today is leaning more and more against being gay as a choice.

O-Trap;690408 wrote:Okay, now I see what you were meaning.

Yeah, if they aren't monogamous now, marriage won't magically make them.

Come to think of it, though, allowing same sex couples to marry should stimulate the economy bigtime. That's a whole new segment of the population now with the potential for buying a divorce lawyer's services.

Several lawyers I know are hoping that gay and lesbian couples will be allowed to legally marry for this very reason.

password;692132 wrote:They want to shove their lifestyle in your face and say ha ha we have the same rights as a male/female couple.

Please explain how they have shoved their lifestyle in your face? This comment is always entertaining because it is so idiotic. I have never heard of anyone "shoving" their lifestyle into someone's face. You just notice it and focus on it because you don't agree with it.

password;694459 wrote:What I am asking is how many children that are raised by 2 gay parents decide that being gay is ok and chose that life and continue the gay cycle.Example would be children that are adopted by 2 gay parents or for some reason a child ends up living and growing up within the gay community.I do understand that you will always need at least one straight parent to make a baby unless you are talking about a little help from a donor.

When did you decide it was ok to be straight, since I am assuming you were raised by 2 straight parents. When did you decide you were attracted to the opposite sex?

jhay78;694476 wrote:That may be true, but only a mother and a father can conceive those children in the first place. It is in society's interests to recognize unions that can both conceive children (future citizens) and raise them in a stable family unit.

Gay people can conceive children too. I fail to see the relevance in your post.

dwccrew;694552 wrote:Gay people can conceive children too. I fail to see the relevance in your post.

You're gonna have to explain that one, dwc. If there are 2 gay men trying to conceive, which one has the egg? If there are 2 lesbian women trying to conceive, which one has the sperm?

If you are saying that gay people can have others (a/k/a a surrogate) conceive children for them by using one of the gay's God-given ingredients, then that is possible, but it is not conceiving children together. They need one of the opposite sexes to provide the missing ingredient. Unless you know of some new strain of homo-sapiens, then THAT would be news!!

BG, I believe his statement is accurate. He didn't say all gay people can conceive children together; he simply said they can conceive children. A gay man can father children, and a lesbian can get pregnant. Both are acts of conception, thus proving dw correct in his statement.

Writerbuckeye;694604 wrote:BG, I believe his statement is accurate. He didn't say all gay people can conceive children together; he simply said they can conceive children. A gay man can father children, and a lesbian can get pregnant. Both are acts of conception, thus proving dw correct in his statement.

OK. It's worded strangely, but I see it now. However, if these people are having heterosexual sex, then, by definition, they aren't gay. They might be bi-sexual at that point, but that's not what he said.

I was hoping there was a new species walkin around...wouldn't that be neat if there was?