|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oh, regarding corruption being greater at higher levels, perhaps most low-level gov't officials just don't try hard enough. Because some obviously do.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The other failure is that everyone shrugs and the false flag legislative agenda is passed. Do you really think outrage is a reliable motive?
And yes, states are no fountain of virtue. I was talking to my brother the doctor yesterday. He was reminiscing how all the doctors went upstate to Albany a couple of years ago to protest the changes in health care funding. He said his group had a meeting with three top officials who gave speeches; the governor, the leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the house. They are all gone or under indictment or both.
[ 04. February 2015, 20:33: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
It should be noted that the ACLU supports the Citizens United ruling, a stance explained well here.
I don't see how it leads to "corruption," at least, in any direct sense. Buying votes of reps is as illegal as it's ever been. If lobbying counts as buying votes, where is the line to be drawn, and on what grounds? How would, say, the well-funded campaigns for equal marriage get a pass?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is it a coincidence that this was your 666th post?
OOoooooooh! Good spotting!
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What makes you think that the states are "largely less corrupt"? There's *lots* of corruption at state level.
Key positions at the State level, such as governors etc are certainly subject to a lot of corruption. However, your run-of-the-mill average State politician has an order of magnitude less corruption happening than does the average member of Congress. The amount of money spent on the electoral races of most states is tiny by comparison, as is the amount of time that the politicians spend begging rich donors for donations. (By all reports, members of Congress now spend the majority of their work day calling potential donors and asking for money.)
Look up "California state corruption" and also for Louisiana and Illinois. (I'm in California, so figured it was only fair to look at my state's corruption, before poking at anyone else's state!)
One of the more bizarre California problems came out last spring: a state senator from San Francisco was accused of gun running.
StateIntegrity.org grades corruption in each state. They give Calif. a high grade--way too high, I think, and the gun-running article hints at that, toward the end.
quote:
quote:
I was mostly interested in your idea about other countries getting involved in our internal politics. How would you go about it? That is likely to backfire spectacularly.
Yeah, do it wrong and it could definitely backfire spectacularly.
Various ways of doing it that come to mind:
1. Talking & negotiations. In each and every diplomatic meeting, US's allies should emphasize to the US representatives how dissatisfied they are with the state of US corruption, and how they would like to see something done about it. If nothing else, this keeps the top people in US politics constantly thinking about the issue, and they will likely then start to mention in their own speeches at home. The more something is talked about, the more chance of something getting done. It doesn't have to be just talk either, eg in a diplomatic meeting a US ally could say "well, we'll agree to join you fighting ISIS if you do X, Y, or Z to combat corruption." The US's allies regularly give it support for it's wars and they are in a good position to demand something in return.
Mentioning it privately *might* help them think about it, and that *might* help them look at any opportunity that might arise. But they're very unlikely to mention it in speeches, except maybe the president.
Look, I'm not sure how you think the US gov't works. But to really change the campaign finance corruption and make it stick long enough to make a difference, you're going to need:
--several successive presidents to be for it;
--several successive congresses to be for it;
--several successive attorneys general to be for it;
--several successive supreme courts to be for it--the majority, at least, and the Supremes are in for life;
--several election cycles of the majority of voters to be for it;
--cheaper campaign costs;
--the majority of the money takers to turn it down;
--and the majority of the donors to stop giving.
You're going to need most everyone to be on the same page, and stick with it, for a long, long time. Per Wikipedia, " attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867".
Good luck with that.
PS The US has helped allies with *their* wars, too. I'm not a flag-waver; but imagine how much more strongly actual flag-wavers are going to object to your comment.
quote:
2. Trade agreements. All trade agreements (eg the TPP) these days tend to have a lot of clauses about local laws. If other countries keep shoveling anti-corruption clauses into their trade agreements in the US, that can be a back-door way of forcing laws onto them. Now, granted, a trade agreement can't directly overturn a Supreme Court decision, however you can work on it in tidbits by putting a few dozen minor anti-corruption provisions into the agreement that cumulatively have a significant effect.
See answer to #1.
quote:
3. Money. US laws on money donation are so lax now, and transparency so non-existent, that other countries could easily funnel money through various off-shore companies, shell companies, 3rd parties and super-PACs with no one any the wiser. If the UK wanted to funnel $1 billion to a particular candidate in a US election without the candidate or anyone else knowing where that money had come from, they could do so easily if their lawyers, accountants, or spies, were even remotely competent. (Granted if they got caught out it would look bad and backfire, but the chances of getting caught out until years later would be remote.) When I mentioned in my post about spending a few billion to decorrupt the US, this is primarily what I was thinking of: Funnel the money through a few 3rd parties and into anti-corruption organisations in the US such as Mayday or Wolf PACs, or into your own PACs and use it to influence specific political races of your choice. I don't think anyone in the US has woken up to what a mammoth threat to national security that money-in-politics is, because a US enemy could exploit the lack of transparency and corruption there just as easily as a US ally. An alternative is to donate money openly: Embarrass the US public by saying openly "We, country X, are giving Y billion dollars to organisation Z in the US that fights corruption, because the US is embarrassingly corrupt and we want to help you guys out." There are plenty of anti-corruption organisations in the US that could be legitimate recipients of such money. And the very fact that the US is being deemed "too corrupt" by an ally can make for some embarrassing headlines within the US which might inspire people to talk about the issue and take action on it themselves.
Section #3 is so mind-bogglingly naive, ignorant, and arrogant, all at the same time, that I barely know what to say. What you're talking about doing? That, in itself, would be extremely corrupt. Just as much as when the US pulls that crap.
quote:
Basically, if I was the leader of a US ally, I would use all three methods in all their forms. Because, to my mind, the issue of climate change alone justifies both open and secret political intervention in US politics: Due to the amount of money they receive from rich donors and the oil industry, the majority of Congresspeople in the US currently don't publicly accept that climate change is human-caused and actively impede laws to do anything about the subject, and this actively harms the rest of the world. The Koch brothers (oil barons) are about to put $1 billion in donations into the next US election cycle: Well I would like to see ten times that amount mysteriously materialize in anonymous donations to candidates supporting action on climate change (and even better: on candidates that support action in decorrupting US politics).
Same about this paragraph. I believe in climate change, and much more should be done about it. Ethically--re saving the environment, at least--you might be right to do all that. But it would be as illegal as when the Koch brothers do it.
It might make a good political suspense novel. But doing any of the things you proposed, the way you proposed them, is apt to make Americans of all stripes grab their pitchforks, attach flags to them, and go extremely isolationist and nationalist. This would not be a good thing.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
You're going to need most everyone to be on the same page, and stick with it, for a long, long time. Per Wikipedia, " attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867".
Good luck with that.
Oh, I think decorrupting politics is a very hard process. But I think it worthwhile and necessary.
I live in the least corrupt country in the world, so I'm naturally more optimistic about the possibility of successfully eradicating corrupting influences. I'm not at all willing to accept that corruption is any sort of necessary or acceptable consequence of the democratic process.
quote:
Section #3 is so mind-bogglingly naive, ignorant, and arrogant, all at the same time, that I barely know what to say. What you're talking about doing? That, in itself, would be extremely corrupt. Just as much as when the US pulls that crap.
It would be an interventionist and controversial foreign policy move, yes, but I wouldn't call it 'corrupt'.
In the past, the US has occasionally caused coups in other nations and overthrown democratically elected governments. What I'm suggesting is an order of magnitude less interventionist (and more benevolent) than that: Encourage the democratic election of politicians who will act to improve the target country's democratic process and reduce corruption.
quote:
PS The US has helped allies with *their* wars, too.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Really???
Israel is the only one that really comes to mind in the last 70 years.
None of the US's major Western allies have been attacked since WWII, and all the assistance has gone the other way: The West has been helping the US in its various wars. (I was saddened to read this weak that the US has talked our political leaders into sending troops to help them out, yet again, in Iraq. Maybe "no boots on the ground" means "no American boots on the ground, but we browbeat our allies into sending boots")
quote:
But doing any of the things you proposed, the way you proposed them, is apt to make Americans of all stripes grab their pitchforks, attach flags to them, and go extremely isolationist and nationalist.
I guess it's American exceptionalism at it's finest: It's 'okay' for the US to dramatically intervene in foreign countries to the point of overthrowing their democrating elected governments and installing dictators due to motives involving oil or corporate interests (eg bananas, canals), but if a foreign country were to intervene in the US in a much more benevolent way to improve the democratic process and to a much smaller extent then that would be "aBSoLuTEly eViL!!!!" and cause for the US to chuck the toys out of their cot. Because things like that are only moral when it's the US that's doing them.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Starlight--
Did you miss--in the section you quoted about #3--where I said that that it's just as bad "when the US pulls that crap"??
I believe I said a couple of similar things in a previous post, too.
I don't think anyone should be messing around with another's country, unless asked. The US has overthrown other gov'ts--one way or another--more often than "occasionally". It's awful. And we don't just do it directly--look up "School of the Americas" (now renamed "WHINSEC"). It's trained torturers and assassins. There's also SOA Watch, a human-rights organization which fights against it. The US has done all kinds of bad things and has all sorts of problems--and there are lots of people trying to change that.
I'm not into American exceptionalism, manifest destiny, or American imperialism. I'm not naive about my gov't--that's why I pointed out all the obstacles I could think of. When 9/11 happened, there was an everyday woman on the news who said,"Why do they hate us???" I had a pretty good idea why.
But I--and some other American Shipmates--get really tired of outsiders chanting, "The US is the source of all the evil in the worrrllllldddd, just be like us and do THIS, and everything will be riggghhhhhtttt". It ain't that simple.
And, respectfully, NZ may not be quite as clean as you think. In the NZ Herald , I found "Bryce Edwards: Political roundup: Is NZ really the least corrupt country?" Edwards is on the NZ board of Transparency International, the group that listed NZ as least corrupt. He has some other ideas, and so wrote an opinion piece as a private individual.
I'm not sure how all this relates to US states approving same-sex marriage, unless people think that's only because of political corruption. That may well be a huge chunk of it. But, honestly, a lot of Americans are against anything to do with LGBT; and a lot of others can't wrap their minds around changing something that they perceive as part of the bedrock of society. Your interventionism won't change that.
And, for the record, I voted for same-sex marriage twice. When former SF mayor Gavin Newsom made it legal here, I was thrilled, and I think it's the one good thing he did in office. (That and ask Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, a couple for 50 years, to be the first wed. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) I grew up in conservative circumstances, and in a fundamentalist church. It took me a long time and a lot of work to get to this point, so I have a little bit of sympathy for people who have a hard time accepting changes.
(BTW, my war allies comment was primarily about WW2.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Did you miss--in the section you quoted about #3--where I said that that it's just as bad "when the US pulls that crap"??
I didn't miss it, but I felt the vehemence of your objection to my suggestions seemed to be out of proportion.
quote:
I don't think anyone should be messing around with another's country, unless asked.
For the most part, I entirely agree, and would generally consider myself very isolationist in my foreign policy views.
However, one of the very few exceptions I would want to make for that is the US, whose current level of political corruption is becoming a serious problem for the rest of the world. I think if the US can't help itself, then surely its allies have a duty to help it as best they can. And this is a very current issue for NZ, since the TPP agreement currently being negotiated is having an impact on NZ's laws: The US negotiators, working for multinational interests, are telling the NZ government what laws they 'need' to pass in order to get a free-trade agreement - laws that benefit multinationals and harm NZers.
quote:
The US has overthrown other gov'ts--one way or another--more often than "occasionally". It's awful.
I'd originally written 'regularly', but changed it to 'semi-regularly', and then to 'occasionally' because I didn't want to be accused of exaggerating America's faults, since people don't usually appreciate it when foreigners exaggerate their country's faults.
I don't think overthrowing a government is necessarily awful if it's an evil dictator you're overthrowing and replacing with a better regime and if you're truly doing it for the good of the people. If you really are a benevolent third-party, fine. Sadly, the US's history on this subject has included less-than-pure motives and less-than-ideal choices of regimes to overthrow.
quote:
But I--and some other American Shipmates--get really tired of outsiders chanting, "The US is the source of all the evil in the worrrllllldddd, just be like us and do THIS, and everything will be riggghhhhhtttt". It ain't that simple.
Well I certainly agree that it is very difficult to change things in the US: You have a constitution which enshrines a certain governmental structure, and the authorized interpreters of that constitution is a court that can't easily or quickly be changed. So any latent problems present in the fundamental structure of your government or in the interpretation of the constitution are very very hard to address.
quote:
And, respectfully, NZ may not be quite as clean as you think.
I'm as familiar with NZ's shortcomings as you are with America's. There has certainly been a huge increase in political corruption here in the past 10 years and I think it's a very very serious problem which needs to be addressed.
That said, the political corruption here is orders of magnitude smaller in degree to the corruption that occurs in US politics. One possible reason for that could simply be, of course, that the US is a much bigger country so there is much more money to be made out of corrupting politicians and so much more motivation for corruption. I am not an expert on NZ's anti-corruption laws and hence I can't point to any specific law and say "oh, if only you did it in the US exactly like we do here, you wouldn't have the problems you do".
quote:
I'm not sure how all this relates to US states approving same-sex marriage, unless people think that's only because of political corruption.
We got on to this tangent due to Orfeo asking whether it was more important for the Supreme court to make the "legally correct" decision on same-sex marriage (whatever that might be) or to make the "morally correct" decision of legalizing same-sex marriage regardless of the amount of legal hand-waving needed to justify such a decision. I responded that the current US Supreme court is regarded with contempt by so many people at this point in time, that I don't think many people are overly concerned as to whether their decisions are 'legally correct' or not. That slid us into a discussion of whether the current Supreme court is 'corrupt' or not, and how corruption works in the US currently. Nobody in this thread was suggesting marriage equality itself is an issue that is significantly affected by corruption either way.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
and to return to the topic of this thread Nebraska isn't allowing same-sex marriages but there's progress, and I use the word loosely, of a sort; Nebraska Gun Control bills recognizes same sex military spouses. In a law to allow US military spouses the right to carry concealed carry guns the legislators decided that the privilege applied to all military spouses, even same sex ones. Inch by inch, step by step, slowly I turn...
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
That Nebraska vote illustrates just how much the old Republican/Democrat split on this issue is breaking down: a bunch of fervent Second Amendment supporters vote unanimously to recognize same-sex marriages! A supporter of gun control joins the vote on equality grounds. Interesting times and then some.
News like this makes me hopeful that the SCOTUS will impose marriage equality on all the states. This isn't the wedge issue it once was: it's mainstream, and plenty Repubs want to move on. I suspect the libertarian stream popular amongst South Park Republicans is also playing a part.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, the Republicans turning to support equal marriage is more that those with less fossilised brains recognise that opposition is eroding their support base.
And regarding Nebraska, it is possibly more everybodyshouldhaveGuns!giveeverybodyGuns!GunsGunsGUNS!!! than support for equality.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Agreed LilBuddha. From the discussion covered in the link, it seems more about making sure military spouses can carry guns without the inconvenience of having to create a new local definition of military spouse in conflict with the Federal interpretation.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This goes beyond his earlier suggestion. Some judges had already said they wouldn't marry anyone. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It's not clear the probate judges will pay attention to the order or just ignore it and what recourse is.
The man is a nutter, and he'll lose his job again for this, just like he has done previously (over refusing to follow a federal order to remove the 10 commandments from public property). The SPLC and HRC are already calling for him to be fired for this issue.
What I find more interesting is the Supreme Court's silence. I was expecting their decision to allow or refuse a stay to be a useful barometer for their final decision (If they thought they might rule against legalizing marriage, then they would surely stay the Alabama decision. So refusing a stay would indicate imminent victory for gay marriage.). In the other cases so far they have always ruled to allow, or (more recently) refuse, a stay. Silence in response to the question is a new tactic. It's an implicit refusal, but it's not nearly so clear-cut.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
What I find more interesting is the Supreme Court's silence. I was expecting their decision to allow or refuse a stay to be a useful barometer for their final decision (If they thought they might rule against legalizing marriage, then they would surely stay the Alabama decision. So refusing a stay would indicate imminent victory for gay marriage.). In the other cases so far they have always ruled to allow, or (more recently) refuse, a stay. Silence in response to the question is a new tactic. It's an implicit refusal, but it's not nearly so clear-cut.
Well, a stay has now been refused, despite a rather petulant dissent by Justice Thomas (supported by Scalia).
But Justice Thomas, despite the insults he throws at the majority decision to refuse a stay ("rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way"; "not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities"; "it is indecorous";"this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States"; "without any regard for the people who approved those laws"; "I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve") actually lets the cat out of the bag at the beginning of his (in itself unusual) reasoned dissent from the refusal of a stay.
quote:
...it is a rare case in which a State will be unable to make at least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.
That's it. The stay was refused because the State could not, in the view of the majority, "make at least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits". In other words, the States are going to lose and gay marriage is going to win.
Thomas must know that. It's dishonest of him to get all sanctimonious about the people who have supported plainly unconstitutional laws and to say nothing about the people whom a stay would deprive of their constitutional rights. But, hey, THOSE people are gay so....
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Well, a stay has now been refused, despite a rather petulant dissent by Justice Thomas (supported by Scalia).
Excellent. I see observers are using the same logic as me to call it on the Supreme Court's June decision:
Marriage Equality Is Coming To America This June: If there was any doubt left, Justice Clarence Thomas ended it on Monday morning.
No stay = Intention to legalize marriage.
quote:
quote:
...it is a rare case in which a State will be unable to make at least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.
That's it. The stay was refused because the State could not, in the view of the majority, "make at least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits".
You're reading into it slightly: He doesn't say that that's why the rest of the Court refused it.
But yeah. It likely was.
quote:
In other words, the States are going to lose and gay marriage is going to win.
Yep.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:
Thomas must know that. It's dishonest of him to get all sanctimonious about the people who have supported plainly unconstitutional laws and to say nothing about the people whom a stay would deprive of their constitutional rights.
I amuses me at how obsessive about States' Rights he becomes when it's convenient. Reading his arguments, you'd wonder how it would ever be possible for any court ever to find any law ever passed by any State to be unconstitutional, because in his mind the States have the right to do absolutely anything they please, and how dare the other judges think that the US Constitution might place any limits whatsoever on the supreme power and freedom of the individual States.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It amuses me at how obsessive about States' Rights he becomes when it's convenient. Reading his arguments, you'd wonder how it would ever be possible for any court ever to find any law ever passed by any State to be unconstitutional, because in his mind the States have the right to do absolutely anything they please, and how dare the other judges think that the US Constitution might place any limits whatsoever on the supreme power and freedom of the individual States.
Yes, although I do think the argument that marriage and family is pre-eminently a local law issue is actually a strong one. It was the same in the British Empire, where the British judges in the Privy Council solemnly applied Sharia law in family matters from certain parts of the Empire. In fact, it is the very fluidity and locality (in time and space) of ideas of family which makes the hysterical opposition to same sex marriage so ignorant when based on "the recognition that marriage is one man and one woman, as it has been for centuries" (Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, speaking yesterday, for example). But that can equally be argued against marriage for same sex couples being a fundamental right or a basic human right. It's a right you may or may not have, depending on where you are, and the moment in history.
I do understand that the argument is based on equal protection and is, on that basis, indeed a fundamental right. And I hope that argument wins. But we got gay marriage in Europe because people changed their minds and brought it into law - new law - not by the application of constitutional, fundamental or human rights law. No-one has managed to get same sex marriage out of the Court of Justice of the European Union or the European Court of Human Rights. It has come from parliaments.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
That choice for equality has been made in countries that still have memories of hugely unequal treatment during wars (e.g. Germany), or generalised nasty attitudes put forth by entrenched state religions (e.g. Spain, Ireland)
The Americans haven't got past the promotion of nasty attitudes to People Not Like Us as election stuff, plus, of course, the huge imbalance on funding from right-wing billionaires has pretty well wiped out the basic ideas of science, let alone that feeble Christian "neighbour" thing. The Greatest Generation was drowned out by the poor attitudes of the Boomers, so the lessons of WW2 have been lost. Cripes, the Civil War is still being fought in some areas!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's certainly nice that in Europe, laws were passed by a majority of the voters. In the United States waiting for everyone to acknowledge fundamental rights hasn't worked so well. Certainly Blacks got tired of waiting for that to happen naturally a hundred years after the Civil War. That struggle continues today as the Supreme Court supports the rights of States to gerrymander voting districts. Gay people aren't willing to wait so long so that the backward can figure it out for themselves.
The unwillingness to allow fundamental rights is baked into a concoction of an assumption of regional and religious privilege, e.g. this is a Christian nation. Without federal intervention it could last a very long time.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[...] I amuses me at how obsessive about States' Rights [Thomas] becomes when it's convenient. [...]
To be fair to the guy, he wants to allow states to legalize marijuana, an outcome he would, it's safe to say, loathe.
I disagree with him about the stay if there's no realistic chance that the SCOTUS will reverse the pro-equal marriage decisions. Not only would it be deeply cruel to dissolve marriages already recognize, it'd be exactly the kind of arbitrariness the law should avoid.
Right now, I can't see the Supreme Court upholding marriage equality 7-2, but stranger things have happened (like Scalia voting to bring equal marriage to the Golden State).
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Meanwhile, Alabama continues its weird ways. Some probate judges are granting marriages, others aren't. The NY Times has an interesting quote from one judge who is performing marriages despite the order from the State Chief Justice. He said he was opposed but that by not granting the stay the Supreme Court of the United States had slapped Alabama hard.
Meanwhile, the federal judge has been handed a suit asking her to enforce her ruling on the probate court in Mobile, which is the largest district to refuse to perform marriages. It's not clear what she's going to do, but probate judges are getting nervous that they might have to pay court costs. The lawyer for the plaintiff said she didn't think it would come to a court by court decision but if need be they would do so.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I see observers are using the same logic as me to call it on the Supreme Court's June decision:
Marriage Equality Is Coming To America This June: If there was any doubt left, Justice Clarence Thomas ended it on Monday morning.
No stay = Intention to legalize marriage.
And if the writing on the wall wasn't sufficiently clear, Ruth Bader Ginsburg just talked about the case in an interview. Her statements include:
quote:
Originally stated by RBG:
The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous. In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor — we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.
... I think [if the court legalized same-sex marriage] it would not take a large adjustment [for Americans to get used to it].
Of course, a few people are questioning her wisdom in commenting on an open case like this.
Her statement can be added to Clarence Thomas' previous statement in his dissent over the issue of a stay on the Alabama decision:
quote:
Originally written by Clarence Thomas:
[Rejecting a stay in Alabama] may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution [of the wider issue]
The legal director of Human Rights Campaign is calling it after the Alabama decision: "there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."
Meanwhile in Alabama... the federal judge has ordered the reluctant probate judges to go ahead and issue marriage licenses, and they are now complying.
[ 13. February 2015, 18:48: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Meanwhile, Gay Marriage Prompts Call for Clergy to Shun Civil Ceremonies
Some Christian clergy are deciding if they should stop performing civil ceremonies of marriage. They still perform opposite sex Christian marriage ceremonies, but require the participates to get their own license.
This is controversial; some see it as surrender, some see it as an abdication of a long held clerical duty.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There never was any reason that a given clergyman HAD TO perform a civil marriage ceremony, certainly not since most people got cars.
The clergy are doing a government registrar's job, which could always be done by (gasp!) a government registrar. That is what the GRs are paid to do, even if they has religious qualms about it. But they could always refuse to do their job, I suppose, at the risk of being fired, unlike the minister. Refusing to do the job you are paid for is a valid discipline issue, unlike simply being different from some other groups because of skin colour.
Maybe it is time for Alabama and other states to join the 20th century (or upgrade to the 21st) and let governments and churches function properly. A government MUST govern for all the people, regardless of (insert sinful attitude here).
A church is a private club that may exclude or ignore individuals as it sees fit (although it may receive some heat for not doing what Jesus preached, of course). Any church that prevents persons from receiving communion because they are baptised in the wrong manner is exercising that privilege (wrongly IMO, but allowably)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The article was not particularly about Alabama. I'm quite happy to have the religious ceremony be separated from the civil ceremony since the rules of eligibility may be different. Still, I would imagine it was a minor convenience for those involved not to traipse to the city hall before church as is the case in France.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, it would in fact just mean falling into line with most of the world.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Meanwhile in Egypt... stupid is as stupid does.
They have bought into religious conservative fantasies about the consequences of anal sex. When they suspect men of homosexuality they therefore get 'experts' to examine their anuses to see:
1) if "the shape of the hole has changed" to "look like a female vagina".
2) how large an object can fit up there, because "A normal man’s anus can’t take more than one joint of the small finger"
3) if the anus is "smooth" and lacks the "wrinkles" found on "normal" anuses.
Western doctors are left in awe of the ground-breaking 'science' being done by these Egyptian experts. "I could not tell a gay anal canal from a straight anal canal,” a US expert on anal dysplasia admitted. "Never in my 20 years of doing this have I seen an anus that looks like a vagina," admitted another US expert on anal cancer.
Meanwhile in Uganda, police are apparently checking to see if men they arrest for homosexuality are wearing diapers, since they know that gay people have to wear diapers due to incontinence.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 16. February 2015, 23:05: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Starlight, I think you know that once someone is arrested by the police in nations like the ones you mentioned for a homosexuality-related offense, they are already assumed to be guilty - and the shame of being arrested means that they are already going to shunned by society. So the anal examinations - regardless of whatever pseudoscience or cultural beliefs back them up - are just as much about subjecting them to even more humiliation as they are about determining their "guilt." For some of the men who were accused of having a gay marriage ceremony at a bathhouse in Egypt, the "gay test" you describe was said by them to be much more traumatic than the arrest or any of the abuse they suffered in police custody, because it was a clinical way of questioning whether or not, in that culture, they were men. The accused do not want to advocate for gay rights and stringently deny that they are gay, not only because of any legal issues, but because they do not want to bring any more shame on their families. Their families, rather than disowning them, are largely advocating for their innocence and supporting them. Homosexuality in Egypt has long been tolerated among middle and upper class families as long as men keep it secret, marry, and have children.
Culturally, it is related to "virginity tests" given to women and girls accused of sex before marriage. In Indonesia, some local lawmakers have suggested making "passing" such tests, which are also scientifically baseless, necessary for female students to graduate high school (only for female students ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ), and female police officers have also alleged that such a test was necessary in order to become a police officer (I assume married women are not allowed to become police officers).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Alabama Supreme court orders a halt to Same-Sex Licenses
The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, ruling in direct contradiction to a federal judge that the state’s ban on same sex marriage did not violate the United States Constitution.
The vote was 7 to 1. Interesting times ahead.
I think this actually helps the case in the Supreme Court. A number of the Supremes may not like same-sex marriage, but that pales compared to their dislike of attempts to over-rule them by state courts.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
OTOH, Nebraska.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Meanwhile, the Repubs have started sending in the clowns again . . .
Maybe Dr. Carson ought to request a refund for his degree(s). First, choices exist only where there are genuine alternatives; second, what happens in prison is likely to be rape, and about power, not sex; third, this is classic conflation of behavior with orientation, and the two are not the same. Probably I've missed a few obvious additional glitches with this argument. By all means enlighten me.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But what does reality have to do with political statements?
Come to that, what does reality have to do with the need to try to control certain groups of people? It isn't as if the Constitution (the "Holy Book" of all these nasty people) said anything about the rights of anybody who isn't "me".
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Meanwhile, in Slovenia:
quote:
Today, March 3, Slovenia voted in favor of the freedom to marry to the country, amending the country's Marriage & Family Relations Act to include relationships between same-sex couples.
The amendment passed with a vote of 51-28 in the General Assembly. The bill was introduced on December 15 of 2014. On February 10, the Committe on Family, Social Policy, and Disability of the National Assembly voted to allow the bill to continue to the General Assembly, where it was voted on today.
The Slovene National Council now has seven days to decide whether or not the Assembly must vote again.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Probably I've missed a few obvious additional glitches with this argument. By all means enlighten me.
He also claimed that slavery was corrected through following the constitution... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm confused as to why the host seemed to accept his basic assertion that some people go into prison straight and come out gay... the interwebs seems to be having a field day with that claim now though, so... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Meanwhile, the Repubs have started sending in the clowns again . . .
Maybe Dr. Carson ought to request a refund for his degree(s).
It still boggles me that Carson believes this and loads of other crap. He's a brilliant neuro-surgeon, and has saved babies with brain tumors. I don't know if he still practices, but *that's* where he's needed.
Makes me wonder if something's gone wrong with him.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Makes me wonder if something's gone wrong with him.
I believe he is mentally ill.
For his sake, I hope it's all just a cynical act to make a ridiculous amount of money for himself.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The Alabama case does require popcorn. It's a massive violation of federal law but it's not clear what the remedy is. I'm thinking they could continue doing the court cases against probate judges and hold them personally liable for court costs.
I'm not sure what other things might bubble up and how the federal government will proceed. Does Marbury vs. Madison apply?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
An interesting article; The Case Against Gay Marriage: Top Law Firms Won’t Touch It talks about how it's getting hard to find a top law firm to defend the anti-same-sex marriage side of pending lawsuits.
quote:
But some conservatives say lawyers and scholars who support religious liberty and oppose a constitutional right to same-sex marriage have been bullied into silence. “The level of sheer desire to crush dissent is pretty unprecedented,” said Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge who teaches law at Stanford.
Law firms cite that defending anti-same sex clients bothers both partners and clients.
quote:
“It usually takes much longer for a position to become so disreputable that no respectable lawyer will touch it,” said Professor Yoshino, a writer for The Ethicists column in The New York Times Magazine and the author of “Speak Now,” a history of the challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Another factor is that donations for groups opposing same-sex marriage are starting to dry up. It may be hard to convince law firms to advocate unpopular and controversial positions. It's even harder to convince them to do it at reduced rates or pro bono.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Also as the article mentions, law firms are likely to want to recruit promising young lawyers. More young lawyers are likely to steer clear of a firm they associate with anti-same sex marriage court cases.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
A good justice case doesn't need to use power to emasculate a bad case. That's just a "might is right" argument, which actually takes on the clothes of the previous oppressors.
It's a dangerous path to take, both when the case is on the way up and when it has had significant success in changing perceptions. You can lose the moral high ground which you have struggled to gain.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Another factor is that when you're suing the government* over what you allege is a rights violation, if you win the government* is usually obligated to pay your legal expenses. The basic principle here is that you shouldn't have to pay money to gain your rights. If you do, they're not really 'rights' in the sense the term is typically understood. Given this, firms are sometimes willing to take cases on behalf of clients suing the government* even if they can't pay on the expectation that their fees will be paid by the government upon victory. Naturally firms making this kind of estimation have to assess the likelihood of victory, and the recent track record of suits in support of same-sex marriage bans is not favorable in that regard.
--------------------
*This is not necessarily the case in disputes between private parties, where legal costs are usually assigned as a penalty only in cases where the losing party seems to be making bad faith arguments.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Several lawyers have lamented that the top firms are shying away from working for the anti-same-sex marriage litigants on the theory that the court system depends on there being legal representation for all, even the most heinous. There are still plenty of lawyers who will take the job, but the top firms have decided it's bad for business and reputation.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In an interesting NY Times article GOP struggles with shifts in Gay Marriage discusses the problem for the Republicans in the Presidential campaign. While their core supporters who show up in the primaries are anti same sex marriage, voters in general have become supporters, especially younger ones. The Democrats have decided to seize the pro Same Sex marriage plank instead of ducking it. So what was once a reliable GOP wedge issue is now looking more like a potential embarrassment. A number of the party strategists are hoping that the Supreme Court decides in favor of Same Sex marriage so the Republicans don't have to deal with a split in their ranks.
Of course the anti-same sex marriage faction has said it won't let a Supreme Court decision stop them. They're going to go for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In an interesting NY Times article GOP struggles with shifts in Gay Marriage discusses the problem for the Republicans in the Presidential campaign. While their core supporters who show up in the primaries are anti same sex marriage, voters in general have become supporters, especially younger ones. The Democrats have decided to seize the pro Same Sex marriage plank instead of ducking it. So what was once a reliable GOP wedge issue is now looking more like a potential embarrassment.
We had a thread along those lines about two-and-a-half years ago. Same-sex marriage went from a reliable way of turning out the Republican base in 2004 to something the Republican presidential candidate didn't want to even mention in 2012.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Reading through the Times article I was struck by this:
quote:
“This is an issue that is being decided by demography every single day — 59 percent of Americans support marriage equality, including 52 percent of Republicans under 50 and more than 60 percent of evangelicals under 30 — and also by human experience,” said Ken Mehlman, a businessman who came out as gay after serving as the Republican national chairman. “When people see couples who have married, they see love, they see more stability, they see more commitment and they see more compassionate care for people who are old and are sick and more stable homes where children are being raised.”
As we've previously discussed, Ken Mehlman isn't just "a businessman who came out as gay after serving as the Republican national chairman", he was George W. Bush's 2004 campaign manager. You'd think the fact that he managed the most anti-gay major party presidential campaign in U.S. history might bear mentioning in an article dealing with Republicans' troubles with gay-related issues, but apparently the Gray Lady doesn't think so.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
The Supreme Court had the oral arguments on same-sex marriage today. Transcripts here
What I got out of reading the transcripts:
I'm now less certain than I was that the court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. I didn't really feel that anything said today implied such a ruling.
There are two, quite separate legal arguments on which a pro-marriage ruling could be based: 1. That marriage is a "fundamental right"; or 2. That banning same-sex marriage is some form of sexual discrimination - either it's just plain discriminatory against gay people; or discriminates on the grounds of sex since a man can marry a woman but not marry a man. It's possible that if the majority decides in favour of same-sex marriage they will still be split about the logic backing their decision.
The pro-same-sex lawyer (for the plaintiffs) comes across from the transcript as a bit bumbling. She got hammered by 3 conservative justices over and over again as they repeatedly say things along the lines of "For millennia, not a single other society" allowed same-sex marriage. She eventually admitted that she didn't know of any that had. The majority of her time was spent with those justices repeating that point over and over again at her. I found that quite astounding, given that it is factually false.* It's rather disturbing that the US Supreme court could be that ignorant of the anthropology of marriage at this point in time, and it suggests the American Anthropological Society was asleep at the wheel when it failed to provide the court with a briefing on this issue.
The lawyer for the federal government made a number of solid general arguments in favour of a pro-same-sex marriage decision (siding with the plaintiffs).
The main argument given by the anti-same-sex-marriage lawyer (for the defense) was that marriage has always, as part of its definition, included the idea that it is between people of the opposite sex. We see this definition present in many historical societies where gay people were fully respected. So the definition itself does not imply dislike, intolerance, or ill-will toward gay people, but rather is a universally used definition of marriage. So gay people in the present, who seek to marry, are not seeking the right to participate in the existing institution of marriage from which they have been arbitrarily excluded due to ill-will, but rather seeking to redefine the concept of marriage that has existed for millennia. The States who adopt a wait-and-see approach about the consequences of other countries and other States changing their definitions of marriage, are taking a reasonable and cautious approach to social engineering.
* Historical societies where same-sex marriage have occurred include:
- 10 of the historical African societies described by these anthropologists.
- Siwa until the mid-20th century
- Native American peoples prior to European colonization.
- Ancient Rome, with various same-sex marriages being attested to including that of Emperor Nero.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
On the other hand even the conservative Alito suggested that maybe it would be good to force states to recognize each others' marriages. Even if the Supremes decide not to force states to perform same sex marriages, if they say states must recognize each others' marriages, it's all over but the shouting. It's stupid if some people must travel out of state to get married and others don't have to, but people will generally* be able to have legally recognized marriages at least.
*I'm sure there will be a few people who simply can't travel out of state for whatever reason.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
