-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Beer Monkey
Member
Yeah, they'll vote for Democrats or something, right?
Huckabee, your sheep will vote Republican until the end of time. There's no viable third party in the USA.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
...as a representative of the people who form that culture, yes...
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Huckabee has been doing his damn best to be "the friendly, wholesome face of discrimination" for a while now, but he's not that great an artful dodger.
But, at this stage in the game there is quite a history behind the basic rationalization the anti-equality movement uses. I recall seeing the reasoning becoming tightly stitched together as far back as 2003 when the thinkers in the movement realized they were losing too much ground in the area of just screaming that gays are icky.
(Currently it is transfolk that are icky.)
They don't want the cuts to be to stuff that affects everyone though, otherwise people might realize it's a bad idea.
The only consequence I can think of is deflated turnout from evangelicals. Though I don't know that would actually happen.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The tea party has proven that conservatives can't create a viable third party. Eventually the GOP's power base will move from the south and begin moderating on a host of issues. And unlike in 1964 there will be no place for Dixiecrats to go.
Personally I think all they need to do is stop being dicks about gay issues, abortion, etc. They can oppose it and theoretically still win elections in the future, they just can't be as oppressive as they are now (like forcing Romney to drop the gay adviser he had)
Personally I think all they need to do is stop being dicks about gay issues, abortion, etc. They can oppose it and theoretically still win elections in the future, they just can't be as oppressive as they are now (like forcing Romney to drop the gay adviser he had)
But without being dicks about gay rights, what do they have to sell to the public?
Yeah, "defense of marriage" bullshit is losing popularity fast, but it's a much more viable election strategy that overturning the new deal.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Don't get ahead of yourself. It might not get overturned.
If they take the case they will definitely overturn it, Roberts isn't going to repeal part of the VRA without some kind of cover.
cooljeanius
Member
While everyone's getting distracted by the gay marriage cases, the Supreme Court decided another case today...
(Also on the topic of the law, Anthony Lewis died the other day.)
(Also on the topic of the law, Anthony Lewis died the other day.)
Of course the reason as to why the dog was there was left out. I'm not really going to get all up in arms about the case, especially if I don't know why the dog was there. If they were just passing by and got a disturbance call or if they took the dog there to check for narcotics. If it's the former I don't see how that wouldn't be ok, if it's the latter I can see how it may be an issue.
Sirpopopop
Member
GOP doesn't have a base without the South.
Too few of them without it to be effective.
The Dixiecrats will just form their own base. Advantageous for Democrats, and I dare say, the country, but not for the GOP.
Good, and good on Scalia.
The minimally invasive warrantless search doctrine is a fucking travesty.
Now if you'll excuse me, I just complimented Scalia, I'm going to take a rape shower to wash the stench off me.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Conservatism as an ideology isn't going to simply die, there will always be people who prefer a smaller government with low taxes/regulations. Likewise due to the boom/bust nature of our economy, democrats will eventually be on the losing side of that bust just as W Bush was. Four years of this type of weak economy just might convince people that the "liberal" approach isn't working.
To me the gay rights, abortion, etc issues are indeed about messaging to a degree. There are plenty of people in this country who disagree with gay marriage...but wouldn't even consider booing a gay soldier asking a question about DADT. Likewise there are plenty of people who are pro-life who wouldn't dream of suggesting an "illegitimate" rape victim shouldn't be allowed to abort. The GOP's problem is that everyone is trying to prove how extreme they are, as a means of proving how different they are from Obama. It shouldn't be hard to moderate to a level of decency.
IE more republicans should support civil unions for gay couples, hospital visitation rights, etc. On abortion, they should be more clear on allowing them for rape, incest etc. They don't have to go all the way to the left in the short term, basically; there's a middle ground they could reach without turning off many in their base. Consider how effectively the party has stifled any anti-immigration reform voices. They need to just come out the gate for some moderate shit. It won't solve everything, but it will make them look less dick-ish.
cartoon_soldier
Member
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/jon-tester-announces-support-for-gay-marriage
Another Dem Senator bites the dust!
Another Dem Senator bites the dust!
empty vessel
Member
God, Breyer is terrible.
i'm reading up on the case and people are saying they might throw the case out on some procedural grounds without deciding on the larger issue at play here? Hopefully it's just listening too much into things here...
Edit:
Lol @ that CNN exchange
The anti-gay marriage guy on marriage: "It brings together people who love each other to have babies..."
CNN host: "mm-hmm. I'm married and I don't have any babies."
AWK-ward.
Edit:
Lol @ that CNN exchange
The anti-gay marriage guy on marriage: "It brings together people who love each other to have babies..."
CNN host: "mm-hmm. I'm married and I don't have any babies."
AWK-ward.
At least he didn't say it to Anderson Cooper.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Expect more of this stupidity as time goes on.
PhoenixDark
Banned
the biblical definition of marriage? you mean polygamy?
It's always so tempting to just grant that these concerns are serious and respond with "maybe you should have thought of that when you chose to be Christian".
Edit: But, really, probably there should be less of this, right? You just can't make a "a storm is coming" ad when a bunch of states already have legal gay marriage and are doing fine. Likewise when they can't find a single priest forced at gunpoint to perform a marriage for a gay couple.
Certainly they'll make a big stink about adoption standards and they'll continue complaining about being expelled from public discourse for being "Christian", but if we've already enacted the homosexual agenda and Christians aren't being carted off to concentration camps, they have to stop warning about how Christians will be carted off to concentration camps if we enact the homosexual agenda. It'll be something else.
I think people are going to disappointed when the court says the parties for today's case don't have standing so they won't decide the issue (and they probably shouldn't), but I genuinely believe DOMA will be gone after arguments are heard tomorrow.
Too much big business money behind getting rid of it; and waaay too many lawyers getting paid stupid money to write the amicus briefs for them not to turn every legal argument against DOMA into something the court might actually consider.
Too much big business money behind getting rid of it; and waaay too many lawyers getting paid stupid money to write the amicus briefs for them not to turn every legal argument against DOMA into something the court might actually consider.
That's not quite it. It was seven years, but then the woman's father snuck the ugly daughter into the Jacob's bed that night and so he was married to her instead, so he had to promise to work for seven additional years to get the daughter he wanted in the first place. So then Jacob was married to both, but only the one he didn't like was fertile - she had a bunch of sons, so clearly Jacob didn't find her disgusting, at least. The wife he preferred was unhappy that she couldn't conceive, so had Jacob sleep with her maid, who had a son which the wife took away and raised as her own. Then she did it again. The first wife got jealous at this point and made her maid do the same thing, also taking the maid's two sons by Jacob for her own. Then the two wives had more kids. Then, twenty years after arriving, Jacob and the father had a property dispute which involved goats and household idols, and Jacob took all his women and left. In the end they agreed that the father and Jacob would never talk to each other again and that Jacob wouldn't marry anybody new.
You know, biblical marriage.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Mark Begich apparently supports marriage equality now? That's really strange IMO because he's up for reelction next year (as opposed to Tester and McCaskill who have five and a half years). That takes some real balls. Props to Begich
Anyway, heading up to the Supreme Court tomorrow for the DOMA trial. Should be good, hopefully I can get some nice pictures of the crowds
Anyway, heading up to the Supreme Court tomorrow for the DOMA trial. Should be good, hopefully I can get some nice pictures of the crowds
PhoenixDark
Banned
Yea there's no such thing as traditional marriage
edit: edited the image, my bad. (I'll use imageshack now)
Aaron Strife
Banned
Mark Begich is great. Probably the best red state senator.
campfireweekend
Member
Genuine question, before the schism in the democratic party, were the "dixiecrats" liberal on everything else besides civil rights? Like say social security and Medicare. If so, did they all just turn on those policies when they jumped ship? Are there any good books on that. Thanks!
empty vessel
Member
It's complicated, is the short answer. The reality in the South for a long time was that you simply could not be a successful politician under the banner of the Republican party. Why? Because it was the Republican party who defeated the South in the civil war and imposed Reconstruction (which Southerners viewed as black rule). What that meant was that all political competition in the South had to be waged under the banner of the Democratic party. So, post-civil war, a Democrat could be an arch conservative and racist (e.g., Strom Thurmond), or could be somebody who aligned more with the more liberal national Democratic party (e.g., LBJ). Going back further in time, you could be an economically conservative railroad magnate or an economically progressive farmer (both of whom were likely to be racist). But what you had to be was a Democrat. Or at least not a Republican (progressive farmers did form a third party).
At least until 1964, when the national Democratic party passed the civil rights act and ended segregation, ending forever the Southern taboo against claiming the Republican banner. An earlier partial break, led by Strom Thurmond, came in 1948 when the national Democratic party supported integration of the armed forces, but that was still too soon to claim the Republican banner. Thurmond, who had been a Democrat, ran for president under the banner of a new party that came to be known as the Dixiecrat party. It was also Thurmond who was among the first to claim the Republican banner after the national Democratic party ended segregation. All politics in the South is about race. It has been so since the founding of the country and has not changed to this day.
The undisputed preeminent scholar of the South is C. Vann Woodward. He has two books I would highly recommend. Origins of the New South is about the reclamation of the South by Southerners after Reconstruction. The Strange Career of Jim Crow is about, obviously, the rise and fall of segregation.
speculawyer
Member
Shut the fuck up, Erickson. People hate the 'God hates fags' jackasses but no one tries to shut them up. You don't even like those jackasses. But do you see the government trying to shut them down? No. They just do a few reasonable things like allow a private funeral to keep such jerks as least X feet away an what not.
campfireweekend
Member
Much more comprehensive of an answer than I expected. How was the southern democratic party able to function while containing such a large swath of seemingly conflicting interests? Our nation's political parties are no stranger to being dissolved or branching out, so why didn't any schism occur earlier within the party? Was racism enough to hold the party together. I never knew it was that systemic. Thanks btw, I'll check out those books!
Carpe Libertatem
Member
This will be a simple answer and others might be able to give a much more elaborate answer if they have time, but four words: the New Deal Coalition.
FDR managed to keep so many groups from African-Americans to Southern Whites in line with his coalition. It's fascinating, looking back, how he was able to do that.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The advance of the information age probably had something to do with parties becoming more ideologically consistent as well. TV and internet let everyone know that Obama was for gay marriage the day he announced it. When FDR was president, internet didn't exist, TVs had just been invented, and radio broadcasts were more regulated.
Listening to the oral arguments from today now. Scalia asked one of the pro- SSM lawyers when it became unconstitutional to keep gay people out of marriage. The lawyer responded by asking when it became unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage. Scalia said it became unconstitutional when the 14th amendment was passed. Then the lawyer tripped all over himself instead of just agreeing with Scalia - it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage the moment the 14th amendment was ratified, and court decisions otherwise in the meantime have been wrong and were rooted in a failure to understand homosexuality and equal protection. Why not just bite that bullet? The lawyer gave some rambling answer about we as a society deciding that sexual orientation isn't something we should discriminate on or something.
brianmcdoogle
Member
When I listened to the arguments earlier today and that section came up, I thought like you did initially, but Olson is a smart guy, and I suspect the reason he didn't go with that answer is that Scalia was basically setting a trap that "No, the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with homosexuality or same-sex marriages. It was an Amendment made in the aftermath of the Civil War which explicitly concerns only Black African males" or something along that line. Scalia asked an impossible question to answer because both he and Olson knew the answer already. Olson did his best under the circumstances and tried to open up the question to a great and higher moral appeal rather than a word game with Scalia.
Aaron Strife
Banned
He's always been so-so on marriage but a dick towards the LGBT movement in general, from what I can tell.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
If I recall he's always been pretty supportive on civil unions
speculawyer
Member
Should say "It has always been unconstitutional, it has just taken us a while to discover the truth."
But where he went was exactly where Scalia wanted things to end up. I agree that Scalia was going to start talking about how nobody at the time thought the 14th amendment would extend marriage to gay people, but the lawyer already won that fight by asking about interracial marriage. The 14th amendment would not have passed if it was understood to be granting a right to interracial marriage, and Scalia had just committed himself to saying that the 14th amendment meant something that the people who wrote it and voted for it would not have endorsed and in fact were specifically opposed to. By Scalia's lights, it actually makes a lot more sense to say that the 14th requires gay marriage than that it requires interracial marriage, since lots of people at the time would at least have had thoughts about interracial marriage and would have specifically wanted the 14th amendment not to require it. It's a lot easier to argue that gay marriage is an unintentional consequence of the principles in the 14th, since people weren't even considering it.
The only sense I can make of it is that Kennedy doesn't want to have to admit that we've just been reading the 14th amendment wrong since it was written and is a lot more willing to listen to this weird cultural argument.
ViperVisor
Member
brianmcdoogle
Member
Maybe I remember the audio wrong, but I thought Scalia answered that the 14th Amendment granted interracial marriage and that it wasn't Loving that decided the issue, but the Amendment. And, going by that reasoning, the 14th Amendment guaranteed the right to interracial marriage back in the 1860s because it gave equal protection to African Americans. If you believe Scalia at his word on that, then the issue is that the people of the country were wrong and the laws were wrong and the courts were wrong up until Loving because the 14th Amendment already settled the issue. Society had to catch up to the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment granted equality to African Americans, and while they weren't thinking of interracial marriage at the time, it would extend to it anyway (just like the 2nd Amendment extends to all weapons because "shall not be infringed" is explicit and without wiggle room).
I think here's the issue he was trying to provoke. First, the 14th Amendment was established at a time that pertained only to African Americans, and not to homosexuals. As a result, the equal protection in the 14th Amendment must be understood at that time and not include extending equal rights to homosexuals; this is made evident in that the 14th Amendment was passed directly after the Civil War and overruled Dread Scott. Secondly, as a result of the 14th Amendment granting equal rights to African Americans, it pertained to ALL rights, including interracial marriage. Up until Loving, all laws and court rulings that went against this ideology were wrong in their interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Third and finally, there is no legal basis for equality for homosexuals without expanding the 14th Amendment to be something that it wasn't originally intended to be.
To which I think the response would be that the Court already expanded the 14th Amendment to apply to sexual issues with the Reed case, which ruled that you can't have laws that discriminate between sexes with regard to estates, so you can expand it again to include homosexuals.
Of course, Scalia would counter with something stupid like "well, can't it be expanded again to cover polygamy or beastiality". At which point, Sotomayor would probably throw a shoe at him.
I agree with you that Olson was aiming for Roberts and Kennedy with the cultural argument, which again makes it best to just talk around the 14th Amenedment and Scalia's "WHERES THE DATE" nonsense.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Yep, I like where this is going.
Awesome. :lol
Rocket Scientist
Member
I'm not really a fan.
So, so good.
Welp, my local airport is fucked.
http://nhregister.com/articles/2013/03/22/news/doc514cb8213d3ac278293700.txt?viewmode=default
Along with 149 others.
The airport is about 15 minutes from me, and basically only offers flights to Philly, but it is extremely convenient, and kind of a nice thing for a city to have, no? It somewhat recently got a new building, so it makes little sense to kill it after giving it a new building, but....
Also, "Long Island, N.Y.’s Westhampton Beach airport — will stay open due to “national security” concerns." ???
http://nhregister.com/articles/2013/03/22/news/doc514cb8213d3ac278293700.txt?viewmode=default
Along with 149 others.
The airport is about 15 minutes from me, and basically only offers flights to Philly, but it is extremely convenient, and kind of a nice thing for a city to have, no? It somewhat recently got a new building, so it makes little sense to kill it after giving it a new building, but....
Also, "Long Island, N.Y.’s Westhampton Beach airport — will stay open due to “national security” concerns." ???
Isn't this like where there needs to be at least one gas station open every XX miles? Maybe there is some U.S. Marshals or FBI facility that needs 24/7 access to an airfield.
I don't even know if there is a law about gas stations so I'm probably pulling it from my ass. I'm just throwing shit at a wall.
- Status