Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[NotMiki]

Defense of Marriage Act has yet to face a constitutional challenge on full faith and credit, I believe.  Gay rights activists don't want the current supreme court within striking distance of it.  The marriage-honoring is a big problem logistically.  Take Iowa: anyone can get married in Iowa, but only state residents can get divorced.  States that don't recognize gay marriage don't recognize gay divorce either, leading to an incredibly messy situation.

EDIT: Unrelated Topic: Britain thinks ideas are dangerous.  Yeesh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/michael-savage-banned-fro_n_196631.html

[metroid composite]

As for the religious/secular divide, well, someone over on Secular Right is currently hashing out a (secular conservative) case against gay marriage, which is pretty interesting if ultimately (in my opinion) astoundingly unconvincing.

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1940

Hmm...

#1: Yes the majority has rights too; I don't see any trampling or inconvenience here, though.  When you need to offer 6 languages, yes it reduces the quality of service you can give to the majority.  When First Nation's People are declared to be legal owners of large sections of Canadian cities for historical reasons which are currently inhabited by white people, yeah, that tramples on the white people's rights.  When a small contingent of Jews in 1950 decided they could march into the Middle East and force out some Arabs to build a new country, yeah, they're trampling on majority rights.

But gay marriage?  Uhh...I don't see how heterosexual marriage is really affected negatively.

#2: Historical costantness--others covered this.

#3: Slipery slope.  
* Ponies cannot legally sign a contract (nor can people under the age of 18).
* Incest...well the argument against Incestual marriage is that the resulting kids will be screwed up (the general idea in law being that marriage and sex are at least somewhat linked--see, for example, AIDS tests being required for a marriage certificate in some states).  So...that argument could be used to block calls for incest marriage; well...I guess homosexual incest marriage would be okay.
* Polygamy...on paper there's nothing wrong with it.  In practice, it seem to be associated with horrible exploitation 90% of the time.  That's enough of a justification for laws--see seatbelt laws, for example.  People who don't wear seatbelts tend to get screwed up a whole lot worse, though on paper if everyone was a perfect driver it'd be silly to require seatbelts.

#4: You're going to confuse your (apparently) incredibly idiotic populace with all this confusing "change" stuff.
Yeah, uhh...both GW Bush and Obama won their elections with "Change" as a key campaign slogan.  I mean, yeah, just from the perspective of a game designer I totally understand the "keep it simple" mantra, and chant it a lot myself.  I also understand the concept of "if all else is equal, give players what they have grown to expect."  However, gay marriage is not remotely complicated, and doesn't change how the majority of players "play" the game (heterosexual couples still usually get married in a church and sign the same documents).

#5: Human Nature--others have already argued that this isn't human nature but rather church doctrine.  Personally I'm not sure it matters even if there is some human nature there--I mean, there are people with piercings that I'm sure make most of society very uncomfortable, and which probably make for weird sex.  I wouldn't bar these people from getting married.

#6: This is an age-old one--"why not have some civil union with all the same rights, and just not call it marriage."  Much better authors than I have written about this, like my twin (evil twin? Good twin?  Whatever--mathematician girl who runs websites):

Why Separate Is Not Equal

California's domestic partnership law grants the same rights to domestic partners as to surviving spouses except for narrow areas BUT, the state agency overseeing crematories does not accept this and refuses to grant cremation licenses to crematoriums on the authority of a surviving domestic partner.

Unless EVERY existing law is changed or countless court battles are fought to establish that "same" means "same" by precedent, some asshat somewhere is going to insist that a law that says spouse does not include domestic partners.

This is the situation I am now in regarding the remains of my partner, Jeanne who died last Saturday. I don't have time to fight a legal battle because the law gives me only eight days to take charge of things and then the county is in charge.

Separate is NEVER equal.

- Joyce Melton

What finally happened is that Jeanne's sister took over and insisted that the death certificate be filled out in Jeanne's original name with Jeanne as an AKA. After 21 years, I had no spousal rights. Except that I had already paid for everything. Jeanne's sister simply took a last spiteful strike against Jeanne.

Separate is NEVER equal.

Hugs to all,
Erin

[NotMiki]

That's a great quote, mc.

-----------------

I'm tempted to put this in IotD, but it's Specter, soo....

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/specter-explains-pro-coleman-remarks-i-have-to-get-used-to-my-new-teammates.php

Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”

That...that's something you'd only expect to hear in comedies about soulless senators switching parties.

[Just Another Day]

On a less positive note, this guy still exists.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/05/joe/index.html

I dunno. I think he's the gift that keeps on giving.

Not that I wouldn't be delighted to see, say, John Huntsman or someone comparitively sane take control of the Republicans. It has to happen sooner or later, that or a Democratic party split of some sort (a take Ben Nelson and get the hell out sort of deal), and it really would take some of the terror out of the American electoral process. But I couldn't really bring myself to complain too hard if that illiterate troglodyte were to remain one of the party's spokespeople for another election cycle or three either.

[Grefter]

#6: This is an age-old one--"why not have some civil union with all the same rights, and just not call it marriage."  Much better authors than I have written about this, like my twin (evil twin? Good twin?  Whatever--mathematician girl who runs websites):

Why Separate Is Not Equal

California's domestic partnership law grants the same rights to domestic partners as to surviving spouses except for narrow areas BUT, the state agency overseeing crematories does not accept this and refuses to grant cremation licenses to crematoriums on the authority of a surviving domestic partner.

Unless EVERY existing law is changed or countless court battles are fought to establish that "same" means "same" by precedent, some asshat somewhere is going to insist that a law that says spouse does not include domestic partners.

This is the situation I am now in regarding the remains of my partner, Jeanne who died last Saturday. I don't have time to fight a legal battle because the law gives me only eight days to take charge of things and then the county is in charge.

Separate is NEVER equal.

- Joyce Melton

What finally happened is that Jeanne's sister took over and insisted that the death certificate be filled out in Jeanne's original name with Jeanne as an AKA. After 21 years, I had no spousal rights. Except that I had already paid for everything. Jeanne's sister simply took a last spiteful strike against Jeanne.

Separate is NEVER equal.

Hugs to all,
Erin

This is indeed a fantastic quote, but one which does not preclude the changing of all laws to be exactly that if people really are that anal (sex) about the term Marriage.  I would rather someone hire a good Etymologist to define marriage and the way the word came about though since I thought it was more about joining and very little else.

[NotMiki]

I couldn't really bring myself to complain too hard if that illiterate troglodyte were to remain one of the party's spokespeople for another election cycle or three either.

I'd rather people like this were against me rather than with me, but what I'd really like is for them not to exist (or that sentiment not to exist, more accurately).  How many people's homophobic views were reinforced when he said that?

[Grefter]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/tea-party-organizer-effor_n_195916.html

So apparently my paranoia about the Tea Party stuff was out of hand.  Freedomworks doesn't have enough control over the events to subvert the real reasons people are going which aren't matching up with what they want them to rally for.  What does that mean people are rallying for?  Who the fuck knows, it has just degenerated into a mindless stupid mob doing something fucking retarded.

[Just Another Day]

* Polygamy...on paper there's nothing wrong with it.  In practice, it seem to be associated with horrible exploitation 90% of the time.  That's enough of a justification for laws--see seatbelt laws, for example.  People who don't wear seatbelts tend to get screwed up a whole lot worse, though on paper if everyone was a perfect driver it'd be silly to require seatbelts.

Polygamy would also require significant, and arguably inequitable (i.e. poly people getting more spousal benefits than monogamous people) amounts of bureaucratic adjustment for tax and immigration and whatnot; it's not that these things couldn't be done, but there's absolutely no political will, nor really any pressing moral or legal arguments for them (largely for the reasons you state).

Separate is NEVER equal.

As far as I understand the legal arguments, that's the crux of it. By keeping a segment of the population already vulnerable to prejudice artificially distinct in such a central societal function, you cannot help but perpetuate said prejudice. If there was some magical way whereby gay marriage actually threatened society, perhaps there would be justification for such a distinction, but of course there is no such threat, and thus no reason to deny or rename or otherwise distinguish a basic civil right.

I'd rather people like this were against me rather than with me, but what I'd really like is for them not to exist (or that sentiment not to exist, more accurately).  How many people's homophobic views were reinforced when he said that?

Well, but that's why I despise Mike Huckabee; he propagates frankly vile opinions, but seems reasonable and articulate. Wurzelbacher has never been either, and if I have any faith in humanity whatsoever it says that he has accomplished nothing for the right in America save reinforce the opinions of the unsalvageable while driving away moderates. I just don't think the message that homosexuals (I do hate that he used the term queer; that's our term and he's made it feel a bit dirty again) are alright people but also all pedophiles will really resonate with anybody with a shred of common sense, let alone actual experience interacting with non-closeted gay people.

So yes, in a perfect world he and his whole worldview would not exist at all, but in the world we have, anything that helps marginalize the faction of intolerance is somewhat acceptable to me.

[metroid composite]

Polygamy would also require significant, and arguably inequitable (i.e. poly people getting more spousal benefits than monogamous people) amounts of bureaucratic adjustment for tax and immigration and whatnot

Oh, hm, I hadn't thought about that--yeah that arguably would threaten monogamous marriage.  If you have a married couple and their sister living in the same house...why wouldn't you bring the sister into the marriage for tax reasons?  If you have an immigrant friend who is being deported, why wouldn't you bring him into your marriage to give him immigration status?

I don't really see a way that would give equal rights without having all sorts of legal advantages and incentives for polygamy, which obviously isn't the desired goal.

Well, but that's why I despise Mike Huckabee; he propagates frankly vile opinion but seems reasonable and articulate. Wurzelbacher has never been either, and if I have any faith in humanity whatsoever it says that he has accomplished nothing for the right in America save reinforce the opinions of the unsalvageable while driving away moderates. I just don't think the message that homosexuals (I do hate that he used the term queer; that's our term and he's made it feel a bit dirty again) are alright people but also all pedophiles will really resonate with anybody with a shred of common sense, let alone actual experience interacting with non-closeted gay people.

So yes, in a perfect world he and his whole worldview would not exist at all, but in the world we have, anything that helps marginalize the faction of intolerance is somewhat acceptable to me.

Well yeah, Wurselbacher somehow out-Jack-Thompsons Jack Thompson himself, which is impressive.

EDIT:
Maine legalizes gay marriage.
http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Gov+News&id=72146&v=Article-2006

[NotMiki]

* Polygamy...on paper there's nothing wrong with it.  In practice, it seem to be associated with horrible exploitation 90% of the time.  That's enough of a justification for laws--see seatbelt laws, for example.  People who don't wear seatbelts tend to get screwed up a whole lot worse, though on paper if everyone was a perfect driver it'd be silly to require seatbelts.

Polygamy would also require significant, and arguably inequitable (i.e. poly people getting more spousal benefits than monogamous people) amounts of bureaucratic adjustment for tax and immigration and whatnot; it's not that these things couldn't be done, but there's absolutely no political will, nor really any pressing moral or legal arguments for them (largely for the reasons you state).

Yeah, there are a couple of big differences in the argument for polygamy.  First, 'polygamist' isn't likely to be found a suspect classification, because it's unlikely to be found immutable (unless you're hearing about people who, absent religion, can't bear to be in a relationship smaller than three).  So arguments for polygamy would argue that disallowing it is a form of religious discrimination.  That may work, but I would imagine the government would be able to carve out exceptions for polygamous religions in that case as opposed to fundamentally changing marriage for everyone.  Second, the change in the law would be more significant than in the case of gay marriage because polygamy changes the structure of marriage, as opposed to merely changing the components.  As a married person, you have certain rights in relation to your spouse that are the same, gay or straight.  that equation would have to change with the addition of new partners.  The government is allowed to discriminate against even protected classifications if it can prove 'significant state interest,' such as rules on military service.  It has a decent shot at that in this case.

What does that mean people are rallying for?  Who the fuck knows, it has just degenerated into a mindless stupid mob doing something fucking retarded.

Sounds like a fun weekend to me.  The tea party thing was never about a coherent message, it was just about venting frustration.  A little post-Barack-Obama's-election catharsis.  Frankly, I don't think it was all that unhealthy, really. 

[Just Another Day]

Yeah, there are a couple of big differences in the argument for polygamy.  First, 'polygamist' isn't likely to be found a suspect classification, because it's unlikely to be found immutable (unless you're hearing about people who, absent religion, can't bear to be in a relationship smaller than three).  So arguments for polygamy would argue that disallowing it is a form of religious discrimination.  That may work, but I would imagine the government would carve out exceptions for polygamous religions in that case as opposed to fundamentally changing marriage for everyone.  Second, the change in the law would be more significant than in the case of gay marriage because polygamy changes the structure of marriage, as opposed to merely changing the components.  As a married person, you have certain rights in relation to your spouse that are the same, gay or straight.  that equation would have to change with the addition of new partners.  The government is allowed to discriminate against even protected classifications if it can prove 'significant state interest,' such as rules on military service.  It has a decent shot at that in this case. 

There's also the question of why governments support and subsidize the institution of marriage in the first place; plenty of answers to that, but I think most of them boil down to marriage's stabilizing effects, the way it draws young people into communities, provides a measure of financial support to parents and gives them incentive to stay together. Now I'm not much of even a small-c conservative, and think a lot of this is pretty archaic (I feel strongly that the government should get out of the business of subsidizing parenthood), but Andrew Sullivan has written a lot about this over the years, and I think a lot of it is pretty convincing. Specifically in the context of gay marriage, but also more generally, here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/gay-marriage

and on his blog here:

http://www.andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

Now, to contrast, multiple partner marriages bring quite a bit of baggage with them. They're inherently less stable, and this in a culture with already sky-high divorce rates. And without radical rewiring of the tax code they would be significantly more expensive to the government. Outside of a perfectly egalitarian society, they also have the potential to be disruptive on a macro level; in late Ming China (economically prosperous, large gap between rich and poor, minimal government oversight, women as property, culturally and legally sanctioned polygamy) lack of women was an extremely serious social issue. Not saying anything like as severe would occur in the modern west, of course, but the higher order consequences of common, multiple partner marriages are at the very best unclear, and seem unlikely to be positive (at least from a social harmony perspective).

Which is not to say I wouldn't love to see some legal protections/provisions in place for poly types, be they religious or no. The ability to legally designate secondary partners, say, with a range of administrative privileges attached would be great. And some measure of protection against discrimination in civil suits (particularly child custody) also strikes me as a very good idea.

Mind you, this gets back to an opinion I believe I share with Grefter, at the very least, which is that I'm not sold on the merits of the government specifically sanctioning conjugal relationships under the marriage moniker. I would be much more comfortable with a generic civil union or primary partner legal definition (one that need not be sexual at all), leaving the question of what a marriage is or is not in the hands of social groups that actually care.

[Shale]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/specter.seniority/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

<Nelson>Ha HA!</Nelson>

[superaielman]

That makes me feel much better about life.

[Excal]

And that link generally makes me glad I'm not in the US.  As much as I can respect the people who vote party rather than person, it's still a person who is representing your riding.  And this basically restricts their ability to represent the people in their ridings if that riding shifts in views, or if the party shifts.

Hell, even in this circumstance, this was a damned shitty move to make.  Sure, the guy only moved over to save his skin.  But the message here is that if you want to save your skin, then your best bet is to stay Republican, and entrench, doing whatever you can to hold on there.

[Shale]

On principle, I agree with you. In this specific case, Arlen Specter is a complete douchebag and deserves it.

[metroid composite]

Seriously, though?  "Seniority ranks"?  One of my biggest concerns with American politics is that senators/house members tend to get elected for 30 straight years.  This to me indicates a lack of competition, which hurts democracy as a process.  Now you're telling me this is actually -encouraged- through a formal seniority system?

I mean, sure, senators who are around for longer will probably be more skilled at the job on average, but you're telling me if the smartest guy in the country gets elected to the senate, they'll say "sorry, can't put you on any committees--union rules, you gotta work up the ranks."  Union structures can be positive for coal mining, but there's a reason why executives aren't unionized....

[NotMiki]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/specter.seniority/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

<Nelson>Ha HA!</Nelson>

Talkingpointsmemo labeled the post with this story "Doof or Consequences."  I like them.

Also:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/reid-specter-will-be-with-us-when-we-need-him.php

* NotMiki facepalms

[Grefter]

While not a shining example of why 2 party systems don't work, this shit is certainly a good example of the kind of shit that is fucking broken in YOUR 2 party system.

Seriously seniority in the fucking party/senate?  Fuck that, everyone is representing people.  Where is the equal representation in that kind of crap?

Edit - And before you say that is the perks for being in the position for a long time, the perks for being in the position for a long time is FUCKING BEING IN THE POSITION FOR A LONG TIME.

[Cotigo]

What's that?  America's legal system is proper fucked? 


A-WHAAAAAAAAA??

[NotMiki]

Seriously seniority in the fucking party/senate?  Fuck that, everyone is representing people.  Where is the equal representation in that kind of crap?

Um, it's the Senate.  2 reps per state, no matter the size.  That's not equal representation in the first place, if your unit of measure is a person.

[SnowFire]

Re Seniority: Seniority is just a tradition and a tiebreaker, nothing in the rules about HAVING to use it.  For instance Harry Reid is in no way the most senior Democrat in the chamber (that'd be Robert Byrd, who's been there since the 50s).  Basically it is ultimately up to the Speaker of the House / Senate Majority Leader to hand out Committee assignments, bearing in mind that they won't be the leader for long if they infuriate everyone.  It's usually not hard to hand out non-sexy committee leaderships to senior Senators, or to sneak them in as #2 on a committee with someone even more powerful you trust.  (The Republicans are getting slightly bitten right now because I don't think anybody expected Jeff Sessions, crypto-segregationist, would ever *lead* the minority of the Judiciary Committee.)

Amusingly enough, the Republicans when they took control in 1994 explicitly disavowed seniority as having any merit, putting power in Newt Gingrich & Bob Dole's loving hands.  Of course, consider that many of the most senior Republicans would be old-school Northeastern liberal Rockefeller Republicans like John Chaffe from Rhode Island, so yeah.  The Democrats claim to respect seniority, which I agree is meh, but it's not as bad as it could be due to the ability to shuffle embarrassing Senators to worthless committees.  Exceptionally awesome junior Senators can be rewarded with a good committee assignment, at least, like Appropriations or Rules.

Re 2 party system: Eh?  Don't see why an excessive respect for seniority wouldn't be the same problem in any system no matter the number of parties.

mc, re 30 years in office for Congressmen, a Google reveals this:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS22555.pdf
The average length of service of Members of the House was approximately 10 years (5.1 terms) at the beginning of the present Congress....  The average length of service of Members of the Senate at the beginning of the present Congress was 12.8 years (approximately two  terms).

No idea how the most recent election changed this (fair amount of turnover, so the average length of service has probably declined), and I think median would be more interesting than the average, so I suspect it's even lower (there are some freakish outliers for the people who really do spend 30+ years in office).  I think that 10-12 sounds pretty healthy myself, and am not overly worried about the US.

For an example I would be worried about...  Italy.  Their government is ruled by a bunch of old fogies; Berlusconi is 73, and previous PM Romano Prodi is 70.  And their multi-party parliamentiarism is a complete disaster.  There's a lot of things they need to fix, though, and I'm not sure the best way to do it.  Term limits would kind of work, I guess, but eh.

[NotMiki]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3713335,00.html

Name: Koresh Mouzuni
Age: 12
Platform: Buy Hawaii from the US and lease it to the Israelis so they leave the middle east.

[superaielman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070685

Nothing like catching the government red handed.

[NotMiki]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/19/reid/index.html?source=refresh

for the supers

[superaielman]

*For everyone.

Though the republican senator from Nevada isn't great either, but it doesn't change the need for Reid to get out.