Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Toemeesleather]

Sending those kids to private school is deviant


Stopped reading after this...

[AlabamAlum]

Well, more kids go to public than private school and, of course, I was using 'departing from the norm' as my definition of 'deviant'. Weren't you?

[innocentbystander]

Clearly life for many a NY conservative took a major turn for the worse friday night now that marriage no longer has any meaning.

What did marriage mean before that?

A little late to ask that question now, isn't it? Why wasn't this question asked earlier?

>I'm just not sure what people have against it.

The only response I've ever gotten to this is that it will destroy traditional marriage. But no one ever explains how. Maybe the traditional divorce rate will go higher with everyone running off to marry someone of their own gender?

The problem, Dora dear, the point Dr Strangelove was trying to make, is that marriage (in and of itself) is a very special, privileged institution (not for all, only for some) that is sanctioned by state and federal law and considered sacred by God. That is all entirely trivialized and gone forever because of the damage this change to the law does on the margins.

When trying to reform a law, it is absolutely essential for the reformer to understand fully WHY a certain law was created in the first place and understanding fully WHY those parameters for that law no longer exist. That is the ONLY time a reformer is in the proper position of reform, when they have all the facts and they understand the previous law (fully.) This discussion never took place in Massachusetts a few years ago, nor did it take place in New York this past year. The reformers wanted a man to be able to marry another man, come Hell or Highwater, fuck anyone else who thinks otherwise. The fact that this change in marriage law may very well have destroyed marriage utterly (in ways that neither you, nor I, nor any of us can fully understand yet), isn't relevant. A tiny subset of society wanted to be "made whole" at the expense of "the other" and damn it, fuck you and FUCK ANYONE if you try to get in the way, ...you are all just a bunch of ignorant bigots, I don't even want to hear your excuses!

That's the point. And you missed it Dora. And Megan McCardle made this point 6 years ago....

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.

That is where they are at in New York. They just leaped without thinking.

[AugustWest]

State and Federal law used to sanction slavery and prohibited blacks and women from voting. times change. two same sex couples announced their marriages on the charlotte observer over the weekend. my marriage is no less sanctified than it was last week. more power to them.

[Dora]

The problem, Dora dear, the point Dr Strangelove was trying to make, is that marriage (in and of itself) is a very special, privileged institution (not for all, only for some) that is sanctioned by state and federal law and considered sacred by God. That is all entirely trivialized and gone forever because of the damage this change to the law does on the margins.

With the majority of hetero marriages ending in divorce, it does not look like marriage has been all that until now.

[AlabamAlum]

That is all entirely trivialized and gone forever because of the damage this change to the law does on the margins

Why? How?

The fact that this change in marriage law may very well have destroyed marriage utterly (in ways that neither you, nor I, nor any of us can fully understand yet),

Why? How? A guess would do.

WRT: to the McArdle ramblings: Gays are living together, and have been, as significant others for a loooong time. Allowing them a marriage certificate has become a Chicken Little moment for many right-wingers. The argument that you can't allow something that would cause the extinction of humans (if everyone did it) is beyond silly, but the argument that only allowing these unions between fertile heterosexuals to fulfill a biological imperative is even sillier. The fact is, marriage laws have changed and will continue to change. Let's not forget that many states didn't used to allow marriage between non-whites or non-Christians, and those laws have changed (although, until recently, those marriages were technically illegal in many states).

The argument that there is no historical precedent for it falls short, as well. The French had same-sex marriages going back 600 years or so (they called them "brotherments"), and before that, in Ancient Rome, Greece, and China the practice wasn't unheard of according to historians. Throw in the Native American She-Male wives and the spinster marriages in the US of the 19th century and you'll see that most societies have had their homo unions - this changed, by-in-large, with the rise of certain religious sects and the power and influence they controlled - on that vein, no one is saying that your god approves of this, and I would be against trying to force anyone's church to sanction or recognize it, but not allowing it because it doesn't jibe with what your religious text says is proper makes me bristle. Two committed, consenting adults want to publicly recognize their union and enter into a legally binding agreement that affords them the same rights and responsibilities as a hetero couple? More power to them. The option for them is living as significant others with or without paperwork issued by the government, and I can see why this is important and personal to them.

[aTm]

The state doesn't need to sanction any marriage. We are actually going the wrong direction. The idiocracy will never accept that move, though. Allowing gays similar freedoms to everyone else is probably the best move.

[AlabamAlum]

The state doesn't need to sanction any marriage. We are actually going the wrong direction. The idiocracy will never accept that move, though. Allowing gays similar freedoms to everyone else is probably the best move.

I essentially agree; however, the state sanctioning marriage makes some of the property and power of attorney problems easier to solve. Leaving it to non-government religious and civil groups has issues - especially with things like record keeping and verification.

[AugustWest]

I always kind of thought of civil unions as a government deal while a "marriage" was a religious one. if a church doesnt to marry a same sex couple that's their right, but the State cannot constitutionally deny consenting adults the right to unionize.

[innocentbystander]

State and Federal law used to sanction slavery and prohibited blacks and women from voting. times change. two same sex couples announced their marriages on the charlotte observer over the weekend. my marriage is no less sanctified than it was last week. more power to them.

Auggie,

This is my point exactly. Yes, some states did have laws that sanctioned human slavery. And why? Because the founders looked at slaves and all "some" of them saw (particularly the ones who lived South of Maryland), was 3-5ths a person, not a WHOLE person. They weren't given full person-hood at the onset of our nation. And we had to fight a fucking WAR and bury 600,000 people, to rectify that.

We changed the law at the Federal level (a law that was only "Compromised" in 1850) taking away a state's right to have indentured servitude, with a Constitutional Amendment in 1863, only AFTER the reformers (in this case, reformers = the United States Congress and President Abraham Lincoln) understood exactly whyit was lawful to enslave people in this country in the first place. They understood fully the history of slavery. They understood why slavery was so important for the economy in much of the South and they understood WHY the South had to lose this vote AND the war. They were in the right place to make reform.

Black men (well really ALL men) had the right to vote in every state long before women did. But women couldn't vote in every state. Some states, yes they could vote. All states, no. And why did they reform THAT law with an Amendment in 1920? Well the reformers understood why women weren't given the right to vote in the first place. They understood the history on how some of the founding fathers looked at women. They thought women were too "emotional" (make decisions with their hearts and not their heads) to vote, too "irrational" to be given that responsibility, that since women didn't "work" outside the home, that they couldn't possibly be expected to "vote", that since women couldn't fight or die in the army, that they were not to be given the privilege to vote. They understood all these things and Congress talked about them before they took the vote to Amend the Constitution. But you see that is the whole point Auggie (the point you are missing) they fucking talked about why the states had laws preventing women from voting in the first place.

Such is NOT THE CASE in New York with gay marriage. The reformers never EVER talked about why marriage was (from a legal standpoint) only one man and one woman. Your point about what this does to YOUR MARRIAGE doesn't mean ANYTHING. What matters is what will happen on the margins to marriage going forward. The New York state legislators never properly "vetted" the whole concept of same-sex-marriage. And the only way you do that is by talking about why two men weren't permitted to marry in the first place.

"Change" is not always "good." You need to change your thinking if think it always is.

[AlabamAlum]

The reformers never EVER talked about why marriage was only one man and one woman...... And the only way you do that is by talking about why two men weren't permitted to marry in the first place.

You talk about it. Why?

[AugustWest]

two men werent allowed to marry for the same reason blacks werent allowed to vote. people look down on gays and think they shouldnt have the same right as "normal" people. well gays are normal people. done. vetted. let 'em get married.

[crashcourse]

if the state wants to recognize gay marriages--fine. we vote our legislators in they come up with the law--it passes govenor signs it so be it. we are talking about a very small element of society who have carved there niche sound like the ones in stable relationships with good families.


not sure if it is the role of the federal governemnet to force states to enact legislations that most of midwest america would not allow their legislatures to enact in fact most midwestern states are prohibiting gay marriage.

thats where there problem is when the religious right and there teachings in christianity prohibit homosexual relationships how do you vote for lawmakers who contradict your religious beliefs? muslim, christianity catholicism and I'm sure a few others quantify homosexuality as a sin. the church won't change its position I'm sure to allow a freer definition of marriage in the midwest

[innocentbystander]

That is all entirely trivialized and gone forever because of the damage this change to the law does on the margins

Why? How?

Don't know yet.

The fact that this change in marriage law may very well have destroyed marriage utterly (in ways that neither you, nor I, nor any of us can fully understand yet),

Why? How? A guess would do.

Don't know yet. If I had to "guess" I'm guessing that some of the underpinnings of marriage being ripped away (with same-sex-marriage) will start with government subsidy and money $$$$$. I don't know specifically how, but I'm guessing it is going to start there.

Let me give you all a hypothetical situation that many of you might not be aware of: if you work for an airline you get free flight benefits. Airlines MUST offer this benefit since they don't offer money (without this benefit, no one would work for an airline.) If there is space on the plane, you (and your spouse and your children, up to age 19) can fly for free. Having worked Information Technology at a major airline, my wife and children flew a lot when I had benefits. We loved it. But you know what else I saw at the airline? I knew of people who were getting bullshit marriages to people they didn't love just so their boyfriend/girlfriend could fly with them for free on the weekends. You see, the airline spousal flight benefit dramatically changed marriage on the margins. You get it? Now AA, might come back and say "...how has it changed marriage?" Well AA, it was Nevada No Fault Divorce law when the girlfriend and boyfriend "broke up" that enabled these people to have (and routinely end) their bullshit marriages. Just takes one week in Nevada to end a marriage. When a state changed marriage law (allowing someone to exit marriage so routinely) this enabled people who did not love each other to enter marriage just for some temporary airline travel subsidy.

A bad law that wasn't properly "vetted" (in this case, bad law = no fault divorce) corrupted a marriage benefit to couples who were in love, families with children. That isn't progress AA. But that is what happens on the margins. Marriage is now worth "less" simply because we know how easily it is to exit it (and divorce is bad for society.)

Now, I don't know specifically what the fuck might happen to marriage (per se) as a result of same-sex-marriage. But I do know what happened at the airlines thanks to No Fault Divorce. Certain individuals will take advantage of that. And this same-sex-marriage wasn't vetted. That is my point. It is also Megan's. Do NOT de-legitimize my point, not if you want to have a rational discussion.

WRT: to the McArdle ramblings: Gays are living together, and have been, as significant others for a loooong time. Allowing them a marriage certificate has become a Chicken Little moment for many right-wingers. The argument that you can't allow something that would cause the extinction of humans (if everyone did it) is beyond silly, but the argument that only allowing these unions between fertile heterosexuals to fulfill a biological imperative is even sillier.

This is what drives me nuts about this whole same-sex-marriage discussion. You refuse to discuss it. You have made your mind up (all people who don't automatically think the way that YOU DO are ignorant bigots) so fuck them and anything that they may think. How very small of you AA.

Really, shame on you.

The fact is, marriage laws have changed and will continue to change. Let's not forget that many states didn't used to allow marriage between non-whites or non-Christians, and those laws have changed (although, until recently, those marriages were technically illegal in many states).

Of course they change (and they should change.) But only AFTER they are "vetted." You still haven't told me why marriage was for a man and a woman and why that was the law in the first place.

Neither did the New York state legislature.

The argument that there is no historical precedent for it falls short, as well. The French had same-sex marriages going back 600 years or so (they called them "brotherments")

This isn't Europe President Obama. France also had the Maginot Line, fat lot of good it did them. And today, they have Islamic ghettos, should we have that also?

...and before that, in Ancient Rome, Greece, and China the practice wasn't unheard of according to historians. Throw in the Native American She-Male wives and the spinster marriages in the US of the 19th century and you'll see that most societies have had their homo unions - this changed, by-in-large, with the rise of certain religious sects and the power and influence they controlled - on that vein, no one is saying that your god approves of this, and I would be against trying to force anyone's church to sanction or recognize it, but not allowing it because it doesn't jibe with what your religious text says is proper makes me bristle. Two committed, consenting adults want to publicly recognize their union and enter into a legally binding agreement that affords them the same rights and responsibilities as a hetero couple? More power to them. The option for them is living as significant others with or without paperwork issued by the government, and I can see why this is important and personal to them.

No one is saying that two men can't live together and own property. They were allowed to under current law. They didn't need marriage for that. What I am saying (and you are ignoring) is that no one was willing to discuss why marriage law for one man and one woman existed in the first place. Hell, you still wont even discuss it.

[Jungle Rat]

two men werent allowed to marry for the same reason blacks werent allowed to vote. people look down on gays and think they shouldnt have the same right as "normal" people. well gays are normal people. done. vetted. let 'em get married.

Let them eat cake!

[innocentbystander]

two men werent allowed to marry for the same reason blacks werent allowed to vote. people look down on gays and think they shouldnt have the same right as "normal" people.

I disagree TOTALLY. No one ever said one must be "normal" to get married. You act like men who would rather have sex with other men, haven't been marrying women for thousands of years.

I think two men weren't allowed to get married because they can't breed. We have marriage (predominantly) for children. This is also the same reason why we don't let brothers and sisters get married, they shouldn't be ALLOWED to breed. This was also the reason some states didn't let black people marry white people, they didn't want them to breed. (that 3rd law was wrong by the way, but I understood it)

Now we are vetting.

well gays are normal people. done. vetted. let 'em get married.

We aren't even in the same realm of reality. I have given you the reason why men and women were given marriage privileges and you are going to have to convince me otherwise to get on board.

[AlabamAlum]

Me: I don't see why gay marriage can't be legal.

You: It will be the end of marriage.

Me: Why?

You: Don't know, but it erode the very fiber of civilization. (roughly)

Me: How?

You: Don't know. Just will.



Then this.....

This is what drives me nuts about this whole same-sex-marriage discussion. You refuse to discuss it. You have made your mind up (all people who don't automatically think the way that YOU DO are ignorant bigots) so fuck them and anything that they may think. How very small of you AA.

Really, shame on you.

LMAO!

I won't discuss it? YOU won't discuss it. You offer "don't know yet" as a reason to maintain the status quo and as some ridiculous proof of your assertion.

[innocentbystander]

Me: I don't see why gay marriage can't be legal.

You: It will be the end of marriage.

Me: Why?

You: Don't know, but it erode the very fiber of civilization. (roughly)

Me: How?

You: Don't know. Just will.



Then this.....

This is what drives me nuts about this whole same-sex-marriage discussion. You refuse to discuss it. You have made your mind up (all people who don't automatically think the way that YOU DO are ignorant bigots) so fuck them and anything that they may think. How very small of you AA.

Really, shame on you.

LMAO!

I won't discuss it? YOU won't discuss it. You offer "don't know yet" as a reason to maintain the status quo and as some ridiculous proof of your assertion.

I don't have to prove "a negative." I gave Auggie three reasons why marriage laws (for men and women) were they way they were. YOU haven't told me why the current law (marriage = one man and one woman) is bad. All you are saying is that anyone who doesn't think like YOU is bad.

That is a no-no AA. So I repeat my earlier claim, shame on you.

[AlabamAlum]

Let me give you all a hypothetical situation that many of you might not be aware of: if you work for an airline you get free flight benefits. Airlines MUST offer this benefit since they don't offer money (without this benefit, no one would work for an airline.) If there is space on the plane, you (and your spouse and your children, up to age 19) can fly for free. Having worked Information Technology at a major airline, my wife and children flew a lot when I had benefits. We loved it. But you know what else I saw at the airline? I knew of people who were getting bullshit marriages to people they didn't love just so their boyfriend/girlfriend could fly with them for free on the weekends. You see, the airline spousal flight benefit dramatically changed marriage on the margins. You get it? Now AA, might come back and say "...how has it changed marriage?" Well AA, it was Nevada No Fault Divorce law when the girlfriend and boyfriend "broke up" that enabled these people to have (and routinely end) their bullshit marriages. Just takes one week in Nevada to end a marriage. When a state changed marriage law (allowing someone to exit marriage so routinely) this enabled people who did not love each other to enter marriage just for some temporary airline travel subsidy.

Okay, you're pulling my leg now with this. Well done. You had me going for a bit, though.

[innocentbystander]

Let me give you all a hypothetical situation that many of you might not be aware of: if you work for an airline you get free flight benefits. Airlines MUST offer this benefit since they don't offer money (without this benefit, no one would work for an airline.) If there is space on the plane, you (and your spouse and your children, up to age 19) can fly for free. Having worked Information Technology at a major airline, my wife and children flew a lot when I had benefits. We loved it. But you know what else I saw at the airline? I knew of people who were getting bullshit marriages to people they didn't love just so their boyfriend/girlfriend could fly with them for free on the weekends. You see, the airline spousal flight benefit dramatically changed marriage on the margins. You get it? Now AA, might come back and say "...how has it changed marriage?" Well AA, it was Nevada No Fault Divorce law when the girlfriend and boyfriend "broke up" that enabled these people to have (and routinely end) their bullshit marriages. Just takes one week in Nevada to end a marriage. When a state changed marriage law (allowing someone to exit marriage so routinely) this enabled people who did not love each other to enter marriage just for some temporary airline travel subsidy.

Okay, you're pulling my leg now with this. Well done. You had me going for a bit, though.

You don't think this happens ALL THE TIME with airline employees out West? Get the fuck out of Alabama and move out to Arizona/Nevada/California/Utah/New Mexico/Texas and work for Southwest Airlines for a little while, talk to a few flight attendants who have had 3 or 4 divorces before their 35th birthday and get back to me, okay?