Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[inteuniso]

EDIT: Whoops, wrong thread to post in.

Well, I'm already here. I'll say what I've always felt: America desperately needs a new third party. We used to have the Whigs, and other parties. Now the Republicans and the Democrats have essentially strong-armed the independents out of the debates. The supreme court has even supported these policies.

Someone still has to explain to me how we're considered leader of the Free World.

[nenjin]

May not be a question of just his presidential run. He may have flip-flopped his way out of politics altogether.

Or maybe he'll go Charlie Sheen on us and run as a crazy independent in a Hawaiian shirt. I dunno though, a guy with Newt's money doesn't just disappear overnight.

[Aqizzar]

May not be a question of just his presidential run. He may have flip-flopped his way out of politics altogether.

Gingrich hasn't really been "in" politics since he resigned from the House.  He's basically been pretending to run for President for twelve years, so people will keep buying his books, paying him speaking fees, and donating money to a campaign that until a few weeks ago, had been totally ephemeral.  I think it says a lot that before May, his political campaign website, which had been around for years, was composed almost entirely of edited stock photos.  A lot of people didn't even think he'd declare, since they were banking on him continuing to just be a professional campaigner for no office.

Or maybe he'll go Charlie Sheen on us and run as a crazy independent in a Hawaiian shirt. I dunno though, a guy with Newt's money doesn't just disappear overnight.

That however, would be pretty awesome.  If Newt Gingrich walked out onto a stage wearing the quarter-million of jewelry he apparently owns, I'd vote him myself.

[nenjin]

A lot of people didn't even think he'd declare, since they were banking on him continuing to just be a professional campaigner for no office.

My liberal view of the Republican party is that influence over the direction of policy follows the money that supports the party. I don't know much more about Gingrich's influence beyond when everyone was listening to him on the Contract with America and all the money that attention got him.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

5. Has supported same-sex civil unions

Too bad that civil unions are really just an appeasement tactic to make gay people believe they have equal rights when they are not, in fact, being granted equal rights at all. Supporting civil unions instead of marriage also gets used as a "See, I'm not really a bigot!" card a lot. Honestly, that almost makes me like him less overall, not more.

[Andir]

5. Has supported same-sex civil unions

Too bad that civil unions are really just an appeasement tactic to make gay people believe they have equal rights when they are not, in fact, being granted equal rights at all. Supporting civil unions instead of marriage also gets used as a "See, I'm not really a bigot!" card a lot. Honestly, that almost makes me like him less overall, not more.

Honestly, I don't understand why it matters.  As long as you can gain the benefits of partnership according to the government (tax deduction, shared income/responsibility) then why does it matter what you call it?

[Aqizzar]

Well, yes.  It's not really about the legal status, which is ridiculously important in its own right of course.  It's about respect.  It's about saying that two different relationships are of equal merit and consideration.  How would you like it if the government said something about your family wasn't entitled to call itself the same thing as everyone else?

[nenjin]

Because it's an opportunity for legislators to pick and choose what rights they want to give civil-union couples, versus giving them the rights we already extended to married couples. Inheritance, execution of wills, rights to medical disclosure, power of attorney, all these things are tied up in legal unions. Saying you're ok with civil unions is saying you're ok with them starting from scratch on the laws and possibly trying to withhold some rights civil unions should enjoy.

Put another way, for civil unions to mean jack outside of the state they were issued, all states have to make allowances for civil unions. Different states may opt for totally different rights therein across their borders. Civil Unions in Nebraska? Full rights. Civil Unions in Kansas? Half the rights. That's not a situation that holds and is equitable. Allowing gays to marry just like everyone else makes it much, much harder for legislators to limit their rights without outright calling for limiting the institute of marriage itself, specifically as it relates to gays.

[Andir]

Because it's an opportunity for legislators to pick and choose what rights they want to give civil-union couples, versus giving them the rights we already extend to married couples. Inheritance, execution of wills, rights to medical disclosure, power of attorney, all these things are tied up in legal unions. Saying you're ok with civil unions is saying you're ok with them starting from scratch on the laws and possibly trying to withhold some rights civil unions should enjoy.

Forgive my mis-understanding this, but I thought a civil union was that which you went to a judge and basically got married.  Not religiously bound, but recognized by the State as a partnership.  Doing a quick google, I find that they apparently have different rights federally which pretty much sucks.  Maybe we should just remove all benefits of union so there's no debate.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

5. Has supported same-sex civil unions

Too bad that civil unions are really just an appeasement tactic to make gay people believe they have equal rights when they are not, in fact, being granted equal rights at all. Supporting civil unions instead of marriage also gets used as a "See, I'm not really a bigot!" card a lot. Honestly, that almost makes me like him less overall, not more.

Honestly, I don't understand why it matters.  As long as you can gain the benefits of partnership according to the government (tax deduction, shared income/responsibility) then why does it matter what you call it?

This is why it matters.

[nenjin]

Ninja'd by MetalSimeHunt. If you're still confused why separate legal entities are a problem, we can go into more detail.

Look at it like this though. Just because the State says it recognizes your union, doesn't guarantee you any of the same rights as married couples.

[Andir]

Doing a quick google, I find that they apparently have different rights federally which pretty much sucks.  Maybe we should just remove all benefits of union so there's no debate.

Forgive my quoting myself, but maybe you both missed this?

Also, race disputes have what to do with marriage?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Forgive my quoting myself, but maybe you both missed this?

Also, race disputes have what to do with marriage?

I didn't miss it, I just wanted to make my response. It doesn't have to do with race disputes, it has to do with not repeating history. (Again.)

[Leafsnail]

Separated facilities for black people and white people were meant to be equal.  In practise, they never were.

Separated marriages/ civil partnerships for straight people and gay people are meant to be equal...

[nenjin]

Doing a quick google, I find that they apparently have different rights federally which pretty much sucks.  Maybe we should just remove all benefits of union so there's no debate.

Forgive my quoting myself, but maybe you both missed this?

Also, race disputes have what to do with marriage?

Ah. I get your meaning now. But still, you don't seem to be American because Civil Rights here is not just about race anymore.