Politics...

[Waldorf]

Well, so here it is. A forum dedicated to politics. Let the games begin...

[statler]

Politics are stupid and any one who disagrees with me is a jerk.

[PerfectHandle]

Statler...just go away. Everyone here hates you, and your opinions on politics are all stupid, stupid, STUPID!

[DudeUrSistersHot]

im wicked right about everything


ahh, finally a place where it's appropriate to say that.

[kz1000ps]

Barack Obama is the answer to everything!

[Patrick]

What be politics?

[Patrick]

Politics are stupid and any one who disagrees with me is a jerk.

It all boils down to values, which are practically unchangeable for most people, and which, unfortunately, differ markedly across the country, causing perpetual discord over just about everything. So, while I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic with a hint of truth in there somewhere, regardless, I almost agree with you, my B.A. in politics aside. Politics is ALMOST stupid, and ALMOST pointless, but ultimately it boils down to what is referred to in Game Theory as the prisoner's dilemma. That is, both sides continuously bicker and try to convince the other side of the spectrum they have the right idea (even though it is essentially an exercise in futility) because if they didn't, and both sides tried to cooperate, one side would likely take advantage and the consequences could be great (regardless of which side succeeded in persuading others to hop on board). Its the same reason all night grocery stores exist. if one store stays open til ten and the other stays open until 11, store one either goes out of business or stays open until 11 as well. the end result, both stores are open all night when they could have chosen to cooperate and have all employees go home at a reasonable hour, and still earned the same profits (more when operating costs are factored in). politics is the same way, in a way. ask dude, he's always right, and seeing as how I am right here, he will concur. Politics is stupid, I don't disagree, but I think everything that goes along with it, the push, the pull, is absolutely necessary, even if exhausting. now, statler, I know this was not the type of response you counted on, but I figured I'd use your humorous comment as a launch pad for further discussion.

[DudeUrSistersHot]

go away

[justin]

Retroactive death penalty for all women who committed prenatal infanticide.

justin

[Patrick]

Do you know what the U.S. shares in common with Afghanistan, Cuba, China, North Korea, Pakistan and Sierra Leone?

[Waldorf]

Death Penalty for women who disobey their husbands?

[ablarc]

Do you know what the U.S. shares in common with Afghanistan, Cuba, China, North Korea, Pakistan and Sierra Leone?
What?

[Ron Newman]

Stolen national elections?

[Patrick]

Ask Justin.

[Patrick]

New Hampshire legalizes civil unions
The governor calls the law a 'matter of conscience,' but one group vows to push for repeal.



E-mail this page

Reader Comments (below)


June 1, 2007



? By BEVERLEY WANG
The Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. — They packed the room with cameras in hand to record the moment. And when Gov. John Lynch put down his pen, they broke into applause.

Lynch's signature Thursday morning completed a long-awaited step toward equality for New Hampshire's gay couples: civil unions.

"Sometimes you've just got to live long enough. I never thought I'd see the day," said Dawn Touzin, a board member of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, as she wiped away tears.

"It's just been such a struggle. It shouldn't be this hard just to want to be in a relationship. This is a huge step and I'm just so proud of New Hampshire today," she said.

New Hampshire will be the fourth state to offer civil unions, and the first to do so without a court order or threat of one.

"How could any one of us look into the eyes of our neighbors, our friends, or our loved ones if we continued to deny them these basic legal protections?" Lynch said.

"I've listened and I've heard all the arguments. I do not believe that this bill threatens marriage. I believe that this is a matter of conscience and fairness."

Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson was in the crowd. Although his consecration in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church divided the worldwide Anglican Communion, Robinson and his longtime partner plan to enter a civil union.

"This is not a radical departure," he said of the bill. "This is a real confirmation of what New Hampshire has always been about: the freedom of its own citizens and fairness for everyone."

Robinson said he will not direct Episcopal priests in the state to bless same-sex unions, letting priests decide that individually. Such blessings have been another divisive issue for Episcopalians and Anglicans.

Lynch's staff arranged the signing swiftly, waiting until after 8 a.m. to announce the 9:45 a.m. ceremony. It drew a supportive crowd of Democratic lawmakers already in the Statehouse for sessions; any opponents in the room did not make themselves known.

The group Conserve N.H. later criticized the quick scheduling and vowed to push for repeal.

"We, along with the majority of our fellow citizens, are disappointed that Governor Lynch has agreed to rewrite New Hampshire's marriage laws with this unpublicized signing of the civil unions bill," said Paul Nagy, the group's chairman. "Every New Hampshire voter will be made aware of this unpopular payoff to liberal special interests."

Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington have laws allowing either civil unions or domestic partnerships, and Oregon will join the list in January. Connecticut adopted civil unions without a court order two years ago, though a lawsuit was pending.

Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs. Only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry.

Couples entering civil unions will have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples. Same-sex unions from other states will be recognized if they are legal in the state where they were performed.

The bill's success was a turnabout from two years ago, when a study panel recommended against any meaningful consideration of marriage and civil unions and endorsed a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Two years in a row lawmakers defeated bills for a such a ban.

Democrats won control of the Legislature last fall for the first time in more than a century, dramatically changing the equation. Civil unions passed both Houses last month largely along party lines, and Lynch, a Democrat, promised to sign it.

The speedy progress surprised even staunch supporters.

"In the fall when the bill came through I thought, we'll start to, you know, make some headway," said state Rep. Bette Lasky of Nashua, who shepherded civil unions through the House. "I really didn't think we'd be here. I can't believe it. This to me is not routine. I do believe we made history."

[justin]

Piecemeal extension of marriage rights is a blatant snub to polygamists, incestuous couples and other non-traditional family units. Should a loving union of three men and two women not have the same right to privileges and obligations of marriage?

A wealthy and influential minority has stormed the castle and immediately pulled the drawbridge back up, others be damned.

justin

[Patrick]

Piecemeal extension of marriage rights is a blatant snub to polygamists, incestuous couples and other non-traditional family units. Should a loving union of three men and two women not have the same right to privileges and obligations of marriage?

A wealthy and influential minority has stormed the castle and immediately pulled the drawbridge back up, others be damned.

justin

This is a joke, right?

[statler]

At least the small minority (which is neither as wealthy or as 'influential' as you imagine) left a road map to the castle and documented all the weak spots in the defenses.
If polygamy is your bag, go for it. Fight the good fight. Work hard to get the political, popular and legal support you need. Hammer away at the hearts and minds of people for decades. The path has been cleared, now you just have to follow it.
Just don't expect to ride in on the coat-tails of those who did all the heavy lifting. They are still too busy trying to get the rest of their family safely into the castle (and making sure not get themselves kicked back out.)

[justin]

Piecemeal extension of marriage rights is a blatant snub to polygamists, incestuous couples and other non-traditional family units. Should a loving union of three men and two women not have the same right to privileges and obligations of marriage?

A wealthy and influential minority has stormed the castle and immediately pulled the drawbridge back up, others be damned.

justin

This is a joke, right?

Speaking up for the rights of ostracized minorities, be they gays, polygamists or children younger than 9 months, is no laughing matter to me, mister.

justin

[statler]

So what you are offering is, would you say, somewhat of ... a modest proposal?

[justin]

I offer a clear and cogent argument in favor of a tolerant and compassionate cause, and everybody thinks I'm joking. What oh what did I do to deserve that...

justin

[statler]

Mostly because polygamy is often used as a lead-in to the slippery slope argument. I was assuming that is where you were going. I was just trying to head it off at the pass.
You mention 'other non-traditional family units'. What other units did you have in mind?

[justin]

Mostly because polygamy is often used as a lead-in to the slippery slope argument. I was assuming that is where you were going. I was just trying to head it off at the pass.
One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tolens...

You mention 'other non-traditional family units'. What other units did you have in mind?
I mentioned at least two types in my previous post.

justin

[Patrick]

I offer a clear and cogent argument in favor of a tolerant and compassionate cause, and everybody thinks I'm joking. What oh what did I do to deserve that...

justin

I am inclined to think you are writing more to be ostentacious and evoke contradictory responses than to make a point.

[justin]

I am inclined to think you are writing more to be ostentacious and evoke contradictory responses than to make a point.

Moi, ostentacious?! Ya lol, dude, ya lol.

I'm being anything but ostentatious; and I am, in fact, making a simple point. One of the main arguments for extending marriage rights to gay couples was that respect for individual choice trumps tradition as a criterion for the state's deciding on whom to confer the benefits of marriage. If that is the operating principle, it applies just as well to incest and poligamy, so long as the arrangement in question really is the individual choice of all the parties involved (i.e. no coercion). In fact, fundamentalist Mormons or very old-fashioned Sunnis have a religious freedom argument to boot, so their claim to marriage rights is even stronger than the gays'.

Until we take the lovely principle of the primacy of choice to its logical extreme and replace binary marriage with some sort of general state-decreed guidelines for cohabitation contracts , we will merely have shifted the prejudice, not abolished it.

As for me wanting to 'evoke contradictory responses', the two I have evoked so far, yours and statlers, don't seem to particularly contradict one another. If you meant to say that I aim to animate the debate, well yeah, there's nothing more boring in life than agreement.

justin

[atlrvr]

I think I'm buying into Justin's arguement. I don't particularly have a problem with gay marriage, though I do think a "civil union" or pick any other word would be preferable, because I think the word marriage has historical implication of man+woman. However, I think his arguement is logical, which is the reasoning for allowing gay marriage is flawed by the courts. A more limiting definition of who should be allowed to "marry" (1 man + 1 woman, 1 man + 1 man, 3 women, 1 man + 1 goat, etc.) The problem is why relyed on tradition to answer this question in the past, and now it is obvious tradition isn't the leading consideration.

[Patrick]

I am inclined to think you are writing more to be ostentacious and evoke contradictory responses than to make a point.

Moi, ostentacious?! Ya lol, dude, ya lol.

I'm being anything but ostentatious; and I am, in fact, making a simple point. One of the main arguments for extending marriage rights to gay couples was that respect for individual choice trumps tradition as a criterion for the state's deciding on whom to confer the benefits of marriage. If that is the operating principle, it applies just as well to incest and poligamy, so long as the arrangement in question really is the individual choice of all the parties involved (i.e. no coercion). In fact, fundamentalist Mormons or very old-fashioned Sunnis have a religious freedom argument to boot, so their claim to marriage rights is even stronger than the gays'.

Until we take the lovely principle of the primacy of choice to its logical extreme and replace binary marriage with some sort of general state-decreed guidelines for cohabitation contracts , we will merely have shifted the prejudice, not abolished it.

As for me wanting to 'evoke contradictory responses', the two I have evoked so far, yours and statlers, don't seem to particularly contradict one another. If you meant to say that I aim to animate the debate, well yeah, there's nothing more boring in life than agreement.

justin

I meant responses which contradict your point of view, not each other's. before your last post, I had a hard time buying that you actually believed what you were saying. It almost seemed as if you were being sarcastic. That's why i asked if you were joking.

[DudeUrSistersHot]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Silascode.PNG


^justin