Just wondering, with future elections what issues do you think are really important?

jimmiej said:
IA. Just don't ask me to endorse it.
No one's asking you to, just not to outlaw it. That's part of the responsibility of citizens in a pluralistic society - to legally permit course of conduct they do not personally approve of. It's seems apropos to consider excerpts of Loving v. Virginia at this point

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
 
1. Crafting a foreign policy that renews international respect for America and wins hearts and minds

2. Strong wall between church and state

3. Health care reform

4. Reducing the deficit

5. Perfecting and implementing an anti-missle defense system

6. A more balanced Middle East policy (see 1 above)

7. Reform of national intelligence agencies to improve their ability to effectively collect and analyze intelligence
 
My top five issues

1. Trying to create the atmosphere that creates good paying jobs for nonprofessionals - we are a weaker society when someone cannot make a living wage with their hands, or without a college degree. Would hope to accomplish this partly by creating the infrastructure for the next generation of high value added jobs, like the internet we are intercating on now.

2. Trying to create a sense of community, of national purpose

3. Improve our national performance in math & engineering

4. Global climate change
 
No one's asking you to, just not to outlaw it. That's part of the responsibility of citizens in a pluralistic society - to legally permit course of conduct they do not personally approve of. It's seems apropos to consider excerpts of Loving v. Virginia at this point

Actually, you ARE asking us to endorse it. If my state of federal goverment allows it, it is being endorsed. Personally, I could care less about the legal cases you are outlining. These matters will be decided in court, and the outomce (as always) will be dtermined by how liberal or conservative that court happens to be.

None of that changes my opinion, legal or not. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and you can pass any law you want. I don't agree with Roe V Wade for the same reason.
 

WIcruizer said:
Actually, you ARE asking us to endorse it. If my state of federal goverment allows it, it is being endorsed. Personally, I could care less about the legal cases you are outlining. These matters will be decided in court, and the outomce (as always) will be dtermined by how liberal or conservative that court happens to be.

None of that changes my opinion, legal or not. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and you can pass any law you want. I don't agree with Roe V Wade for the same reason.
What a cynical view of our society. But it matters not - society is moving inexorably in that direction, and 30 years from now your views will sound as outdated and anachronistic as that of the Virginia state judge in Loving v. Virginia. I know I don't want to be in the same position that my mother was - having to explain why racial animus and segregation seemed logical at the time. Of course, there is no doubt that I will on some issue - having to explain to my daughter why I felt a certain way. But not on this issue.

Perhaps I will be judged adversely for not adopting the course other seem to think is required for a Christian life, but that's not what my conscience tells me. I feel I will be judged if I act otherwise
 
What a cynical view of our society.

How so?

Perhaps I will be judged adversely for not adopting the course other seem to think is required for a Christian life

I don't oppose this because I'm a Christian, I oppose it as married man.
 
WIcruizer said:


It's cynical because you view the law as completely divorced from any independent normative analysis - as merely an extension of the biases of the individuals on the High Court at that time. While you can never omit the human subjective component, to presume that there is nothing more, that no public official can ever be motivated, even temporarily, by any principle higher than self-interest, usually reflects more about the holder of that view than anything else. We are all fallen and flawed, but we are also all capable of fleeting moments of nobility, and on a societal level, both factors increase exponentially. That's the cynicism.

And while no one should abandon deeply held principles just because they happen to find themselves in the minority on an issue, to express utter and complete disdain for the opinions of the majority of one's fellow citizens is also deeply cynical
 
1. Homeland security
2. Tax reform
3. Immigration reform
4. Government spending
5. School choice and reform
 
Health care reform, job retention, and the trade deficit with China.

Immigration has never been high on my list. :blush:
 
I thought of including the Chinese trade deficit (and the coming challenge of the Euro and reserve currency), but I look at it as unavoidable - a natural reaction. Heck, though China remains totalitarian, that grip slips every day. We wanted China to modernize for security reasons, although their growing economic might has permitted a military expansion, so that's a double-edged sword, though I am still more comfortable with a pluralistic society with a larger military. In any event, I think there will be some negatives to that economic rivalry (already have been via resource contraints) and we are vulnerable debt wise, as they fund our deficit and peg currency, but I still think it will follow a Japan like arc, in that they cannot keep repressing demand forever to drive that trade surplus.
 
It's cynical because you view the law as completely divorced from any independent normative analysis - as merely an extension of the biases of the individuals on the High Court at that time.

I never said anything about the High Court, although ideology determines decisions there as much as anything else. It is more relevant at the circuit courts, state courts, etc. I think it's more reality than cynicism. You're telling me an identical case in San Fran or NY would get the same result as AL or MT?

just because they happen to find themselves in the minority on an issue

i don't consider myself to be in the minority, not that it matters. YOu can parse words in a poll to get whatever results you want, but the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.
 
WIcruizer said:
i don't consider myself to be in the minority, not that it matters. YOu can parse words in a poll to get whatever results you want, but the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.

...and the majority of Americans are now opposed to the war in Iraq. By the logic you wish applied to deciding about gay marriage, doesn't that mean we should be pulling out of Iraq immediately?
 
If a majority of Americans specifically want to withdraw from Iraq immediately, then yes. JMO.
 
Mugg Mann said:
...and the majority of Americans are now opposed to the war in Iraq. By the logic you wish applied to deciding about gay marriage, doesn't that mean we should be pulling out of Iraq immediately?

I'm highly suspicious of this statement. Any polling data to back it up? Being opposed to the war doesn't necessarily mean wanting to withdraw troops immediately. Many oppose the reasons for going to war, but understand the need to stay the course now that we're there.
 
Of all the polling data I've seen on the question, only about 20% of the population wants us to withdraw immediately.
 
I question the statement that allowing an act implies endorsing it. If I choose to stay out of someone's private life, that doesn't mean that I endorse their actions. It just means that what they do is none of my affair and I have no right to intervene.

With this thinking we need laws allowing activities not just those denying them. I thought that a lack of law on an issue implied that doing something or not doing something was strictly up to the individual. I never assumed that it implied endorsement.
 
Planogirl said:
I question the statement that allowing an act implies endorsing it. If I choose to stay out of someone's private life, that doesn't mean that I endorse their actions. It just means that what they do is none of my affair and I have no right to intervene.

With this thinking we need laws allowing activities not just those denying them. I thought that a lack of law on an issue implied that doing something or not doing something was strictly up to the individual. I never assumed that it implied endorsement.

I don't care what they do in their own home. It's none of my business. But don't ask me to endorse gay marriage with my vote!
 
...and the majority of Americans are now opposed to the war in Iraq. By the logic you wish applied to deciding about gay marriage, doesn't that mean we should be pulling out of Iraq immediately?

No, because most Americans (and Iraqis for that matter) DON'T want us to pull out of Iraq.

More importantly, I don't care if I'm in the minority or majority on an issue. I'm not Bill Clinton, making every calculated decision based on polls.
 
jimmiej said:
I'm highly suspicious of this statement. Any polling data to back it up? Being opposed to the war doesn't necessarily mean wanting to withdraw troops immediately. Many oppose the reasons for going to war, but understand the need to stay the course now that we're there.

No problem; here's the data from the most recent gallup poll:
Asking the question;
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?" Form A (N=491, MoE ± 5)

11/11-13/05
Made a mistake 54%
Did Not Make a Mistake 45%
Unsure 1%

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"
38% yes
60% no
unsure 2%

Check out the complete current poll and how it measures to previous polling on the same question at
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

There's the data to back up my post. Two points I need to make here; one, I never said that people overwhelmingly want us to withdraw immediately. I respect both of you gentlemen (jimmiej & bsnyder) enough to not put words in my mouth. This brings me to my second point (and the point I was trying to make in the first place) concerning comments made by posters around gay marriage; we don't always do what the majority of the people want. If we did, based on current sentiment in this country, we wouldn't be in Iraq or we would be planning to withdraw based on the whim of the American people. Don't read more into it than that.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom