|
gohuskies posted:Al Gore would have won the election if every Nader voter in Florida had voted Gore instead. In 2004, did the Democrats move left to capture those Nader voters? No, they didn't, they nominated the more centrist option instead. If you think the major cause of the rightward shift of the country between 2000 and 2004 was a few thousand Nader voters you are probably age ten or an idiot.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Is the Justice Department going to defend DOMA? Dammit, Obama. Congress (BLAG) is defending the law because Justice will not. Justice was at the hearing to argue for heightened scrutiny. More detail on the arguments here. The same guy wrote a piece a year ago about the stated reasons for passing DOMA in 1996. (Spoiler: because they didn't like gay people)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
quote:Congress (BLAG) is defending the law because Justice will not. "Heightened scrutiny?" What's that mean, are they gunning for DOMA?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you think the major cause of the rightward shift of the country between 2000 and 2004 was a few thousand Nader voters you are probably age ten or an idiot. It's not so much a rightward shift as the lack of a leftward one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not so much a rightward shift as the lack of a leftward one. The statement still applies, there's so many factors to the gradual rightward shift that happened even before 2000 to blame a third party for it is just downright petty and nothing but 'well if we just don't mess with the norm things would be ok!!!!' logic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:The statement still applies, there's so many factors to the gradual rightward shift that happened even before 2000 to blame a third party for it is just downright petty and nothing but 'well if we just don't mess with the norm things would be ok!!!!' logic. I'm not blaming Nader voters for the rightward shift. I'm saying that the fact that a leftward shift didn't happen is evidence that voting for a third party does not force a mainstream party to go in the direction of that third party. People often say "If we vote for a party to the left of the Democrats, the Democrats will see that and will move to the left". In the most recent case when people actually voted for a party to the left of the Democrats, the Democrats did not move to the left, so that evidence suggests that people making the statement that "If we vote for a party to the left of the Democrats, the Democrats will see that and will move to the left" are wrong. Edit: This is kind of a derail from marriage equality issues though. This long-running argument about whether or not the Democratic Party is or someday will be an effective vehicle for progressive change seems to hop from thread to thread and maybe somebody should just start a thread specifically just for it. gohuskies fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:The statement still applies, there's so many factors to the gradual rightward shift that happened even before 2000 to blame a third party for it is just downright petty and nothing but 'well if we just don't mess with the norm things would be ok!!!!' logic. Nobody (or at least very few people) blame the righward shift of the Democratic party on Nader. When most people bring this up, it's in rebuttal to the implication that voting for a leftist candidate - even to the point where it guarantees the election of a right wing candidate - will move the Democratic party, or voters in general, towards the left. The party lost the 2000 election due to a left wing third party challenger and did not show any movement to improve their relationship with left wing voters. I don't know if it's a good argument against third parties in general, but in this case, voting for the third party candidate had none of the positive effects that third party advocates promote and I think that fact needs to be dealt with when discussing the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Off topic for the marriage equality thread, sorry
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:"Heightened scrutiny?" What's that mean, are they gunning for DOMA? Explanation of heightened scrutiny. Lambda lawyer posted:In most cases, the courts only require that there be a ‘rational basis’ for the difference in treatment... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Justice is opposed to DOMA and not defending it. The Republican Congress is defending it with the lawyer who just argued against the healthcare mandate in SCOTUS. Ah, alright then. We can add that to the (small but slowly growing) pile of "good poo poo Obama's done." Though I've heard before that the only thing stopping national gay marriage in the US is the fundies being really good at keeping the issue away from the SCOTUS. Is the Supreme Court really, firmly on the side of not being stupid this time around, or could it go unexpectedly (and poorly)? I mean, this is the court that passed Citizens United; I don't consider them the high-water mark of progressive rulings, really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Ah, alright then. We can add that to the (small but slowly growing) pile of "good poo poo Obama's done." The reason the Supreme Court hasn't heard this case is that it takes a minimum of four justices to approve hearing a case, and the one guy that flip-flops in the 5-4 decisions (Kennedy) could literally go either way depending on the case, so it's not something that either the progressive or conservative wing of the court (or people in general) really want/ed to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Al Gore would have won the election if every Nader voter in Florida had voted Gore instead. In 2004, did the Democrats move left to capture those Nader voters? No, they didn't, they nominated the more centrist option instead. If you want to support the proposition that voting third party forces a major party to shift in that third party's direction to capture votes, I'd be interested to hear examples. I don't think Perot counts because Bill was going to be a centrist Dem anyways - he was Democratic Leadership Council from the start and had always talked about balancing budgets and so forth. I think this is exactly it. Protest voting has a huge coordination problem. The evangelicals do it right. They seem to pick a few individuals. Then, the threat is, "If these guys endorse you, we vote for you. Otherwise, we stay home." That setup makes negotiation possible. And it lets the influential evangelicals set clear 'do X, get Y votes' incentives. But, without some people who can negotiate, the coordination problem kicks in. When people make their demands individually, there's no way to say, "Vote correctly on bill X, get Y votes." Plus, I get the impression that a lot of the progressive-protest-voters are objecting to the idea of voting for an imperfect party. These people aren't really up for grabs; even if the Dems listened to them on some major issue, there'd still be N other major issues where they'd disagree. So, conservatives get, "Convince Pastor Bob, get lots of votes." Progressives face, "Shift left by some unspecified amount, and people may start voting for you." In practice, the conservatives get to move stuff right. The protest-voters vote in a way that let's them remove personal responsibility for bad things, and trade incremental progress for no-progress or actual loss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Though I've heard before that the only thing stopping national gay marriage in the US is the fundies being really good at keeping the issue away from the SCOTUS. Wednesday was the first DOMA challenge heard in federal court. That being said, the defenders of DOMA will surely appeal for an en banc ruling because it delays the inevitable SCOTUS ruling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Am I just deluded, or can't DOMA be attacked even on rather simple Full Faith and Credit grounds rather than having to make any sort of complex 14th amendment argument?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Am I just deluded, or can't DOMA be attacked even on rather simple Full Faith and Credit grounds rather than having to make any sort of complex 14th amendment argument? I thought DOMA specifically included language saying that it was an exception to the full faith and credit clause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 01:28
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:I thought DOMA specifically included language saying that it was an exception to the full faith and credit clause. Is that how the law works? The Constitution applies unless Congress says it doesn't?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
I may be repeating myself, but isn't there a problem with Congress defending DOMA? Does it even have legal standing to defend a federal law in court?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
Looks like nobody's raised standing yet--if it were a live issue, I expect someone would have. Seems to me that Congress, as a lawmaking body, would have standing to litigate the laws it makes...it just usually isn't put in a position where it does. Armyman25 posted:Is that how the law works? The Constitution applies unless Congress says it doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Is that how the law works? The Constitution applies unless Congress says it doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Is that how the law works? The Constitution applies unless Congress says it doesn't? At a state level legislatures have been ignoring their state constitutions for the last year. Michigan has been passing laws with immediate effect unconstitutionally, last January the Wisconsin legislature unconstitutionally locked us out of the state capital, and there's a dozen other examples in other states. The constitution literally only matters to regressives if it can be used as a bludgeon to beat back opposing viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Apparently there's been a coup at NOM: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/04/nom-site-suddenly-down-after-suspected-hacking.html Or a hacking. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Apr 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
New Colorado poll (PPP) shows 62% support the civil union bill. The bill still needs a GOP co-sponsor in the House and only 31% of Republicans support it. I don't know if this is normal, but the bill has basically been stalled for 2 months. The session ends May 9th so they need to get on that now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
It's a great thing that the mass legislature (with help from Deval Patrick)was able to block a vote on overturning gay marriage a few years back, but I am still sort of curious how it would have turned out. I'd be loving ashamed if that had gone through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
ThatsSoNotPLUR posted:It's a great thing that the mass legislature (with help from Deval Patrick)was able to block a vote on overturning gay marriage a few years back, but I am still sort of curious how it would have turned out. I'd be loving ashamed if that had gone through. With the supermajority the Democrats have held in the Massachusetts Legislature for at least the last twenty years, any marriage equality repeal effort would've quickly died no matter what. Even Finneran couldn't have stopped such an effort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Nevada couples and Lambda Legal filed a federal suit challenging the state's constitutional amendment against same sex marriage. So the Prop 8 challenge floodgates have opened. Illinois is not voting on a marriage bill this year. Civil unions have only been in effect for 10 months so it's not surprising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Tea Party speaker shows his "tolerance"quote:Reports from attendees were that in response to disturbances by protestors, one of the speakers said from the podium, broadcast across the loud speakers at the Commons, "We will not be silenced by faggots." It is always nice when their honest homophobia comes out and we see the true hate in their heart. Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Apr 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Carl Winslow is really getting off on choking that twink. I have a feeling that one is going viral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
How about you add Ohio to that list? Please? Pretty please with a buckeye on top? "Ohio AG Gives Nod to Gay Marriage Ban Repeal Initiative" quote:LGBT rights groups hope that Ohio, in a first for any state in the US, might overturn its 2004 voter-enacted constitutional amendment banning marriage equality and replace it with language that would allow two consenting adults who otherwise fulfill the requirements of current marriage law in the state to wed. Yeah, this has a good chance of failing, but let's not forget the fact that Ohio's "Support Gay Marriage" page is the largest out of any state with 200,000-some likes. At least that's something? Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
SlenderWhore posted:How about you add Ohio to that list? Please? Pretty please with a buckeye on top? We only get a reasonable chance every 4 years. e: Oh this would happen in 2013. Yeah that's going to lose horribly. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
If you live in North Carolina please go vote against Amendment One, a constitutional ban on same sex marriage and civil unions. List of early voting locations. If you can't get out there between now and May 5th, you can vote the day of the primary on May 8th. Colorado Senate has more or less passed civil unions. There's another procedural vote later this week. They are still looking for a GOP co-sponsor to have any chance of getting a floor vote in the House.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
I absentee-voted against the Amendment already. But its absentee voting, which they don't even count unless things are close. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Am I just deluded, or can't DOMA be attacked even on rather simple Full Faith and Credit grounds rather than having to make any sort of complex 14th amendment argument? This was posted a while ago, but it's an interesting question with a complex answer that people who are interested in this topic should know about. Instead of trying to type out a full explanation, simply read this article (yes, it's the Huff Post, but it's thorough). Here's the quick version: States have long had the ability to refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages under a "public policy" exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (For example, before SSM became an issue, some states would refuse to recognize out-of-state inter-racial marriages because. This was completely legal until the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.) What states can't do is deny recognition of "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings." The problem is that DOMA not only allows states to ignore marriages, but also any judicial proceedings related to the marriage (such as divorce or probate proceedings). This latter part is what violates the FFC Clause. However, the FFC only knocks out that one part of DOMA. Rather, when the Supreme Court does strike down DOMA, it will do so based on the 14th Amendment. It's what they did in Loving and it fits in with the Court's other more recent homosexual rights related cases (Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas). Plus, it allows the court to strike down the whole law instead of just parts (assuming this is what Kennedy wants).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Here's a cool vote tracker for the early voting on Amendment 1. It shows party affiliation of the ballots sent in (b/c of the primary) and which counties, and even precincts, they come from. While early voting likely won't be huge the numbers are really interesting. The college precincts are ones to watch to see if students will vote. http://www.carolinatransparency.com/votetracker/prim2012/ Average age of voters could be predictive. It's 59 so far, which doesn't seem so good for the good guys..
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Sad Banana posted:Here's a cool vote tracker for the early voting on Amendment 1. It shows party affiliation of the ballots sent in (b/c of the primary) and which counties, and even precincts, they come from. While early voting likely won't be huge the numbers are really interesting. The college precincts are ones to watch to see if students will vote. The second highest return on that list is Buncombe, which contains Asheville so don't be *completely* depressed by those numbers so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
And there are about 30-50% more Democratic ballots cast than Republican, so far. And more Women voting too. I have a feeling that will change on election day though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Slaan posted:And there are about 30-50% more Democratic ballots cast than Republican, so far. And more Women voting too. I have a feeling that will change on election day though. See total voter registration here: http://www.carolinatransparency.com/voterregistration/
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Civil unions passed the CO Senate, 23-12.
UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Apr 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Civil unions passed the CO Senate, 23-12. Denver Post posted:Sen. Rollie Heath revealed one of his jobs in the Army was to sign off on the "108" discharge forms dismissing military members who were gay. "I thought nothing of it," the Boulder Democrat said. "It never, ever occurred to me that this was not the right thing to do. How could you have gays in the military? Everything would come to a halt." This seems out of context... it says in the article that all democrats voted for civil unions, and this guy is democrat. What's he trying to say, that he never had any moral qualms about DADT because...?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
quote:This seems out of context... it says in the article that all democrats voted for civil unions, and this guy is democrat. What's he trying to say, that he never had any moral qualms about DADT because...? It seems like he's doing this as some form of atonement. As in, "back in the day I persecuted gays for a living, and it was simply normal. The banality of evil firsthand. But today I realize that that was in fact awful, and so I'm here with my vote to make things right." Or at least, I'd like to hope it's that interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Zero VGS posted:This seems out of context... it says in the article that all democrats voted for civil unions, and this guy is democrat. What's he trying to say, that he never had any moral qualms about DADT because...? http://senrollieheath.com/index.php?id=12 Rollie Heath is not a young man. He graduated high school back in 1955, and did active military work from 1961-1969. He ran for governor back in 2002, and was anhillated by Repubican Bill Owens. I think he was trying to say, especially given that he voted for this bill: "Wow, I/society were really ignorant back in the 60's, look how far I/society has come." The way it was written was extremely odd, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2012 00:12
|
|
