The General American Politics Thread

[Aquaslash]

I would think that if the Church is the one that's doing the marriage, it would have the right to marry who it wants and deny who it wants. It's like all those cases you hear of people getting fired from *insert christian organization here* because their naked pictures turned up on the internet. The only thing they can do about it is find somewhere else to work cause said organization has the right to do so.

This whole thing should really be as simple as interested couples finding a place that won't mind marrying them, but of course, it can never be that easy. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal about who gets married is either. I'm more concerned about walking to the store and getting shot by some random thuglet, or some racist old dude who thinks I'm up to no good even though all I have is a bottle of Dew than I am about gays marrying.

Why do your woes with gas supercede all of the prejudice that gay people have battled in this country for decades?

Because at the rate it's going, nobody's gonna be able to afford to drive to the church, let alone get married.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Aquaslash

[Nepenthe]

The church is not the only entity capable of marrying someone. You can go to a courthouse and get a certificate that affords you marriage. However, in states where same-sex marriages are banned by law, of course this avenue is a dead end. And you know the church won't take you. Overall though, the big deal about marriage is that there are contractual and legal rights afforded exclusively to married couples that aren't afforded to unmarried couples. Here's a convenient list of all of the benefits and privileges you're afforded if you're married. Gay people want these things too, naturally. Religious zealots and bigots won't let them because they need a group of people to look down upon. This is the root of the controversy.

But this is all regardless of the big picture. Regardless of whether or not this personally impacts your life (I know it doesn't for me; I'm not gay and personally know very few gay people), is there any reason you can state that makes the type of abhorrent behavior displayed by North Carolina okay? Why do gay rights not matter simply because there's high gas prices or bombings going on in the Middle East? Again, when should gay people and those who sympathize with gay people bother speaking up?

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

If you're whining about a measly $6 per gallon being ridiculous, you may be interested to learn that US fuel prices are disproportionately low because of its privileged status as a world reserve currency and that most developed nations are paying way, way more for it, and we're still doing fine.

$9 a gallon in the UK at the moment.

[Aquaslash]

But this is all regardless of the big picture. Regardless of whether or not this personally impacts your life (I know it doesn't for me; I'm not gay and personally know very few gay people), is there any reason you can state that makes the type of abhorrent behavior displayed by North Carolina okay? Why do gay rights not matter simply because there's high gas prices or bombings going on in the Middle East? Again, when should gay people and those who sympathize with gay people bother speaking up?

I never said what went down in NC was ok, and in fact, I thought I pretty sure I indirectly said that it wasn't. Of course, we're talking about the south, so I don't expect any sense coming from there anyway. As for gay rights, I'd like some insurance that they don't get murdered in a driveby or by some random gangster the second they come out of the church. Forget the Middle East, we've had problems HERE forever, and there's hardly slag getting done about it. You guys get married and then what? I'm still unemployed, getting turned down by everywhere I apply to, and looking at the government threatening to take away the programs that give me food and insurance, New York and Detroit are still really crappy places to live, the list goes on and on.

As for when to speak up, isn't this going to ultimately come down to the state? It seems like this is a battle that's being fought on the wrong grounds. I guess the time is now, but the people who are being spoken to are the ones who can hardly do anything about it. It's a crying shame that this battle has gone on this long, when it has the simplest solution. Let them marry and move the frag on to more important issues.

If you're whining about a measly $6 per gallon being ridiculous, you may be interested to learn that US fuel prices are disproportionately low because of its privileged status as a world reserve currency and that most developed nations are paying way, way more for it, and we're still doing fine.

$9 a gallon in the UK at the moment.

Pretty sure the UK is faring far better financially than the US is at the moment. Never mind that the dollar is super weak compared to the british pound. How are your paychecks looking? Cause I sure don't think ours can support $9 gas, especially since living expenses aren't going anywhere but up.

Even right at the top of that article it says we use more gas than any other country, so because of us going more frequently, you still end up the winners.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Aquaslash

[Tornado]

most developed nations are paying way, way more for it, and we're still doing fine.

Because most developed governments levy large fuel taxes which causes the prices to be so high, which "justifies" their costs and lowers bitching. And because most developed countries have the infrastructure in place to support getting away from private fuel usage. And because most developed countries are much, much smaller than the United States, so public transportation of such a sort is considerably more practical even ignoring the fact that the infrastructure is there already. And because most developed countries don't have 90 years of thought processes engrained in public culture (partially/mostly because the US didn't need to completely rebuild after WWII) which will most likely never be gotten rid of.

Apples/oranges.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Tornado

[goodone121]

Also, social conservatives are idiots.

Rules for Radicals 13:Pick the target,freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Never ever read comments on political articles. So many awful bigoted racist people in my country. Anything about Obama brings out the racist comments, insults towards his wife and daughters. It just makes me sick. This recent news is worse. Some of the stuff I've read would get somebody banned in a forum like this if they said it here.

Hold it!

What, exactly, is "racist" or "insult[ing] towards his wife and daughters?" I want quotes and stats, not links, BTW.

Edited May 10, 2012 by goodone121

[Tornado]

Wanting people to have the equal rights they never should have been denied in the first place is "radical?"

Also, I suggest you learn the difference between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservatives are the ones who (at least in theory. In practice they rarely ever stick to it) want small government and low taxes and etc. Social conservatives are the ones who rally bigoted people up to strip people of rights and promote discrimination. They are an inherently bad group to associate with in the modern world.

Which, to be frank, is a moot point for this thread purview because neither Romney nor Obama are either.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Tornado

[Phos]

You know how when you're playing Yahzee, you can hold some dice and reroll the rest if you only like some of them? I wouldn't "hold" any of these candidates.

Obama continues to come off as a packaged good mascot in terms of presentation and practice as well and Romney is a politician.

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

If I were able to vote for this, frankly, whilst I would vote for Obama, I would do so begrudgingly. None of the candidates are particularly appealing, it's just that Obama is the least terrible of them all.

I imagine many others who actually can vote will have the same idea.

[Stacy]

In America why is Medicare (other free healthcare bills) seen as being communism by some people? Seriously do some Americans have any idea what Communism other than the shit they have spoon fed since the Cold War?

[SuperStingray]

In America why is Medicare (other free healthcare bills) seen as being communism by some people? Seriously do some Americans have any idea what Communism other than the shit they have spoon fed since the Cold War?

Edited May 10, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Stacy]

Actually, Medicare seems to be the only form of subsidized health care that conservatives seem to be okay with. It's really Obamacare, or the idea of universal health care in general that seems to make them upset.

It all pretty much comes down to taxes. Conservatives seem to be evaluating the idea of raising taxes as the government taking away freedom by taking control of the economy away from the people. It's part paranoia, part obliviousness; America has one of the lowest marginal tax rates in the world and implementing universal health care won't do much to change that, yet they don't seem to be aware that our neighbor has already done so and has yet to turn into a Marxist dystopia.

[Axl.EXE]

At this point, I'm on the verge of deserting my party altogether. You know the problem with being Republican? Other Republicans. Seriously. Right now, the Republican party is terrible. Romney is merely mediocre, and the whole party needs to put two and two together and realize that allying with people like the Tea Party isn't going to work anymore. Hasn't really worked since Reagan, methinks.

[Stacy]

Pretty sure the UK is faring far better financially than the US is at the moment. Never mind that the dollar is super weak compared to the british pound. How are your paychecks looking? Cause I sure don't think ours can support $9 gas, especially since living expenses aren't going anywhere but up.

[Mono]

I'm voting for Obama in November for these reasons:

- Health care. It may be mediocre, but it's better than we had, and if the democrats win back the house and keep the senate, they could provided us medicare for all/ (Like Canada)

- Ended the Iraq War. He was against the War even before it took place as a state senator. 4000+ people dead for oil money in w's and cheneys pockets.

- Ended Don't Ask/Don't tell.

- Put two good liberals in an ultra conservative Supreme Court.

- Ending the War in Afghanistan Most bombings of terrorists will be done by drones.

- He has balls. The guy killed Osama for god sake. Bush couldn't even find him.

- Now he's the first president to endorse gay marriage

Pretty much everything he's done is historic/

Edited May 10, 2012 by Mono

[blackherox]

becoming more and more antiquated in American society, and in some years' time we will look back on the people who held such beliefs in a similar manner as we did with people who displayed outwardly racist behavior towards blacks. T'is only a matter of time.

I beg to differ, although this may be coming from a European perspective. Certainly in Europe anyway (and I'm sure this isn't just exclusive to here) there seems to be an increase in extreme right wing support, perhaps as a result on the continuing economic downturn. I also think that there still a very significant amount of people harboring the above views, the only difference is that there not saying it vocally/and or attracting media attention. And I'd arguably say that's worse. Better the devil you know right?

[Stacy]

I beg to differ, although this may be coming from a European perspective. Certainly in Europe anyway (and I'm sure this isn't just exclusive to here) there seems to be an increase in extreme right wing support, perhaps as a result on the continuing economic downturn. I also think that there still a very significant amount of people harboring the above views, the only difference is that there not saying it vocally/and or attracting media attention. And I'd arguably say that's worse. Better the devil you know right?

There is sadly, not just because of the economy but because issues like the EU and immigration, especially the rise in support for Nationalist parties. The the comments in that Yahoo link I posted reflect this.

[Barry the Nomad]

I'm married (to a woman!) and we were married with no connection to a church or any religious organisation. The process went like this:

We went to city hall with valid ID's and applied for a license. We paid the fee, waited a few minutes and got the license.

The license is NOT VALID AND COMPLETE at this point. It needs to be validated and the marriage needs to be officiated. You could do this moments after getting the license at city hall OR you could: have a ceremony with a registered officiate, no religious connections (we did this) or a mayor or a minister or a priest or a rabbi or a sea captain (joking).

You must do that bit within 60 days or the license is invalid and you have to do the process over again.

Being married entitles us to: being legally bound, tax breaks, insurance perks, medical benefits, legal benefits (adoption, marital communication privilege in relation to courtroom testimony) and much much more!

Note that in all of that, it's 100% government and all the religious stuff is optional.

That's why the church vs. state argument is nonsense. If a church wants to be an asshole and deny a ceremony or an officiate, they can do so. But anybody should have the right to be married in the eyes of the government.

edit: why not throw a wedding photo up?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Barry the Nomad

[Patticus]

- He has balls. The guy killed Osama for god sake. Bush couldn't even find him.

He didn't actually go in there and kill him with his own two hands, he ordered the kill.

[Tornado]

- Health care. It may be mediocre, but it's better than we had, and if the democrats win back the house and keep the senate, they could provided us medicare for all/ (Like Canada)

The legislature could be made up of 100% Democrats and this wouldn't happen. To assume otherwise is incredibly naive.

- Put two good liberals in an ultra conservative Supreme Court.

The hell are you talking about? Nevermind the fact that neither of his two appointees are unilaterally liberal (regardless of how terrified Rush Limbaugh seems to be of her, Sotomayor isn't some kind of Super-Commie), but do you know who Obama replaced in the court? David Souter and John Paul Stevens. If either of those two are "ultra conservative" then I shudder to think what you think of Scalia.

Obama replaced two generally-left leaning Justices with two generally left-leaning Justices. If the Court was "ultra conservative" before, it would be no less that way now.

- Ended the Iraq War. He was against the War even before it took place as a state senator. 4000+ people dead for oil money in w's and cheneys pockets.

- He has balls. The guy killed Osama for god sake. Bush couldn't even find him.

Please tell me you're joking about these two things. Please.

He didn't actually go in there and kill him with his own two hands, he ordered the kill.

Nor did Obama personally conduct James Bond-style shit to find him.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Tornado

[turbojet]

The problem with being extremely liberal is that sometimes, you are so far from the middle, you are often times ignored.

I'm voting for Obama in November for these reasons:

Oh this gone be good.

- Health care. It may be mediocre, but it's better than we had, and if the democrats win back the house and keep the senate, they could provided us medicare for all/ (Like Canada)

The problem with this is that we don't know how good Obama's healthcare is because it is not even here yet, which I wonder why the Supreme Court even had the case because the States did not have standing. I voted for universal healthcare. The thing he promised in the election. I wanted that shit. Plus, there is no guarantee that Democrats will do that even if they gained the House and maintained Senate because, I say this as an extremely liberal person, Democrats are a bunch of bitches. There is no solidarity among Democrats because they are comprised of people that Republicans hate. That is why they are a part of the Democrat party.

- Ended the Iraq War. He was against the War even before it took place as a state senator. 4000+ people dead for oil money in w's and cheneys pockets.

He is also beating the war drum against Iran and North Korea so...

- Ended Don't Ask/Don't tell.

Okay, I'll give you this one.

- Put two good liberals in an ultra conservative Supreme Court.

Sotomayor may be the most amazing ethnic person on the court, but she ain't no Earl Warren. Yes, she holds a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and does not view the contract clause in a Social Darwinistic view, but she by no means is a wild liberal maverick. Sure, she speaks more than Clarence Thomas, then again, everybody does.

Kagen was chosen when the conservatives were taking seats in the Senate so she was a compromise at most.

- Ending the War in Afghanistan Most bombings of terrorists will be done by drones.

Okay, this needs to be said. Obama's pathological insistence on destroying every member in Al-Quada is becoming an international problem when it comes to countries like Somalia and Yemen. While their leaders support the American cause in eradicating these bastards, they do so in means that are tyrannical and the the United States turns a blind eye to this because they are on our side. Because of this, more and more people are joining Al-Quada and soon they will no longer be simply a terrorist organization, but a viable political option that people will opt to choose because of the destruction the U.S. wrought on their homelands. We are creating more enemies on our scavenger hunt than friends.

- He has balls. The guy killed Osama for god sake. Bush couldn't even find him.

The only thing that you could say about this is that McCain would not have invaded a sovereign country that has proven to be our allies previously and crucial to the wars in the Middle East.

- Now he's the first president to endorse gay marriage

He is not the first.

Pretty much everything he's done is historic

Everything he has done is prototypical pf presidents in the last 80 years.

Edited May 10, 2012 by turbojet

[Patticus]

He is also beating the war drum against Iran and North Korea so...

He was initially willing to be quite accommodating where Iran was concerned, after all they did provide intelligence critical to aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (after top secret negotiations with the US it is now the 'enemy' of), and they are the mortal enemies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. However, that conciliatory position made him a very easy target for those people back home eager to characterize him as a 'friend of the terrorists'. I see his change to a more hard-line stance on that country as being at least partially motivated by the political need to appease those in his own party and among his voters who openly doubted his willingness to defend his own country. Had McCain been in charge, the very same stance would have been taken, albeit from the beginning rather than after a year or two.

North Korea is a whole different ball game to Iran, and it's more than likely that any president that America could choose over the next few decades will sound similar notes on the subject of that country.

[Stacy]

The only thing that you could say about this is that McCain would not have invaded a sovereign country that has proven to be our allies previously and crucial to the wars in the Middle East.

[turbojet]

Pakistan are far from your allies, its a haven for the Al Qaeda and the Taliban the only reason America hasn't invaded them is because they have nukes.

[Stacy]

It is a strange situation where the people hate us and the government won't mind us if we pay them.