2016 Election

Quote: AZDuffman

I laugh at this being a problem. Obama and other libs want to change the Citizens United decision, which is settled law, and there is no problem with that, despite that overturning it takes away free speech rights. I guess some law is more settled than other law.

Both sides want to overturn various decisions, and it has been done in the past.

Libs want to overturn "Citizens United"
Cons want to overturn "Roe"

Both feel that the court overstepped in those cases just as many feel they have in the two recent big cases. The court does overstep more often than it should; depending on what side you are on, it is either great or horrible. I don't know how you actually "fix" it. Changing the terms by adding approval votes could mean organized efforts to get rid of certain justices. That would mean that one President may get to appointment a majority of the court in a short period if others leave by death or resignation.

We don't want that. We'll just have to keep what we have and hope that they get it right--the "right decision", not the "right" side--more often than not.

Great article about why the anti-gay people's polygamy argument is nonsense.

James Peron: Polygamy Is Not the Next 'Gay Marriage'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/polygamy-is-not-the-next-gay-marriage_b_7767018.html

Oh the Oregon cake company that was supposedly fined 135k for refusing to serve a gay wedding cake, total hogwash. They were fined because they released personally identifying information on the people who complained after they refused to serve gay people. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/ So they are even worse human beings than I originally assumed.

Quote: ams288

Great article about why the anti-gay people's polygamy argument is nonsense.

James Peron: Polygamy Is Not the Next 'Gay Marriage'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/polygamy-is-not-the-next-gay-marriage_b_7767018.html

Quote:

We have a massive number of laws -- federal and state -- that take marital status into account for various reasons. ALL those laws are written on the assumption of two members to a marriage.

This is what the author said. What they miss is that all the laws were written based on marriage being one man and one woman. We threw that out the window now. Legally there is no limit now, because it is not about law but "people loving each other" and such. Personally I feel the sooner these polygamy laws fall the better.

Quote: AZDuffman

This is what the author said. What they miss is that all the laws were written based on marriage being one man and one woman. We threw that out the window now. Legally there is no limit now, because it is not about law but "people loving each other" and such. Personally I feel the sooner these polygamy laws fall the better.

No it is very important it be two people and laws are written assuming two people. For instance our file jointly tax code is designed for 2 people because of the income levels put in. Estate laws are written assuming a single spousal beneficiary. End of life laws assume there will be a single person making the decision for their spouse. The list goes on. These can all be fixed and personally I'd have no problem allowing polygamy, but you are foolish if you think that laws aren't written with 2 spouses in mind and it would take a major overhaul of the laws to make polygamous marriage possible.

Quote: Twirdman

No it is very important it be two people and laws are written assuming two people. For instance our file jointly tax code is designed for 2 people because of the income levels put in. Estate laws are written assuming a single spousal beneficiary. End of life laws assume there will be a single person making the decision for their spouse. The list goes on. These can all be fixed and personally I'd have no problem allowing polygamy, but you are foolish if you think that laws aren't written with 2 spouses in mind and it would take a major overhaul of the laws to make polygamous marriage possible.

The laws were written with a male/female marriage in mind. It was not "2 people." It will may take years to see the effect of the change we have just made, but they were made for male/female situations.

Quote: AZDuffman

The laws were written with a male/female marriage in mind. .

That's not true,
Many states did not recognize my parents marriage.
In 1958, the year I was born, Judge Bazile in Virginia ruled in 1958, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
This just proves the fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with a male/female having children. If my parents appeared before this Christian judge, well, not good. Having children does not matter.
If we moved to Virginia, my parents could have been arrested and do a year in jail and they were arresting people for this in Virginia back then.

Quote: Twirdman

Oh the Oregon cake company that was supposedly fined 135k for refusing to serve a gay wedding cake, total hogwash. They were fined because they released personally identifying information on the people who complained after they refused to serve gay people.

Names and addresses are part of the public record of legal cases except, in many instances, rapes, and in most instances juveniles. But even that is trending to release the names of accusers, a fundamental right of defendants. Notwithstanding the lunacy of prestigious institutions of higher learning like Duke, Amherst, Columbia and the University of Virginia.

Quote: terapined

That's not true,
Many states did not recognize my parents marriage.
In 1958, the year I was born, Judge Bazile in Virginia ruled in 1958, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
This just proves the fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with a male/female having children.
If we moved to Virginia, my parents could have been arrested and do a year in jail and they were arresting people for this in Virginia back then.

This has nothing to do with things. Different races can still biologically reproduce and even if they cannot or chose not to male/female is still physically, biologically, and spiritually/mentally a different relationship than a same-sex one.

Quote: AZDuffman

What they miss is that all the laws were written based on marriage being one man and one woman. We threw that out the window now. Legally there is no limit now, because it is not about law but "people loving each other" and such. Personally I feel the sooner these polygamy laws fall the better.

It is not about "people loving each other" as you say. It is about what the Supreme Court ruled. The liberal justices do what they want, regardless of what the law says and they won't allow it. Do you really think Scalia and Thomas will be the ones who force the government to accept polygamy?