US Senate election results

[john5746]

I don't understand why that issue continues to resonate amongst so many voters. Maybe it's religion, I don't know. I just don't get that one.

 

Culture shock. I think many people out there have this feeling that all those zombie replicas of themselves are being replaced by blacks, hispanics, atheists, gays, i.e. "them". Not just whites, because I think Prop 8 was supported by a larger % of blacks and hispanics than whites.

[iNow]

Again, though... those populations attend church much more per capita than the national average. Is their skin color the more prominent factor in their yes vote, or is their higher likelihood of being raised (and continuing to this day) with a religious upbringing?

[npts2020]

It's not religion per se but certain kinds of religion. I have Unitarian, Methodist, and other very religous friends who are just as appalled. Can we make the next ballot initiative to outlaw Mormons?

[jackson33]

I agree, but that doesn't make it any less odd or incomprehensible to me. (shrug)

 

Your slippery slope argument doesn't work (I know, because I used to use it myself), because we do specific grantings of exceptions under law in this country all the time.

 

American Law is based on precedent. Acceptance in any court of any State can be used in any other US State Court and OFTEN is the deciding factor in decision.

 

The Union of two individuals, under law with the benefits has by nature, have its limitations. Tax law, testifying against a spouse, to inheritance and all benefits provided by any government must establish a base. Any exceptions are to the reverse...A father is liable for his children or a spouse having certain rights granted are covered under common law and every STATE has laws to cover these exception, whether there is an acceptable recognition by the State to there union or not and will add if two same sex people have lived under common law, with or without even a legal contract are subject to laws of their State. One other point; The Federal government, RECOGNIZED only one man/woman for benefits only. There are no laws or ever have been on who can live in a union, again as two same sex or a group. Marriage itself is a purely religious concept...

 

To your answer on Alaska Law; No, the fact Stevens was tried in Federal Court has no bearing on what State Law dictates to replacement, or under any scenario. The Federal Court has no authority over the Senate and the Senate does NOT have to expel Stevens, even if in jail. Since Impeachment proceedings must be public and require an additional hearing for expulsion, from what as been mentioned, Stevens would probably then resign allowing the several scenarios offered.

 

Riogho; Suppose you joking, but we just elected a Senator with less than two years in the Senate. Palin's very presence in the Senate would be a distraction for Polosi and company and they would do anything to prevent this.

 

iNow; Americans traditionally have been slow to change and regardless how you observe this issue, they (gay/lesbian) have taken many steps forward and no steps backward. Sexual orientation, under US law (above all States) has firmly made them equals in all areas, including the right to practice their lifestyle in public. In both Florida and California were talking nearly a 50-50 (Arizona a little more opposed) which will change by generation. The eventual outcome however IMO, will come from the Congress in years to come out of necessity. The Federal Supreme Court could step in, but any final outcome to give rights on a National Level (only practical approach) has to come from Congress and/or the amendment process. I don't see this for at least 50 years or when possibly 38 States would ratify...

[iNow]

iNow; Americans traditionally have been slow to change and regardless how you observe this issue, they (gay/lesbian) have taken many steps forward and no steps backward.

This isn't about being slow to change, this about changing a states contstitution to restrict freedoms. I see a great big giant difference, and despite past steps forward for the homosexual community, this is an enormous leap backward, hence my absolute disgust.

[Riogho]

Maybe if we tell them 'no' enough they will stop? That has to be the mindset here.

[Pangloss]

I didn't say they have to, I said they will.

[jackson33]

IMO; The California case was more about FORCED change by the courts and the overthrow of the wishes of a society. To start with issues to rights are normally the responsibility of courts/legislatures, not the public. California had rejected 'recognition' previously and the courts ruling over the public. That is the California Congress still holds the right to over rule that referendum. In turn they simply AGAIN affirmed their original decision. Again though, it has nothing to do with 'sexual orientation' which remains legal to practice and does nothing to any laws protecting those rights. If you disagree, please give me one example, other than benefits, where that referendum changed anything. They can or again any group, can enter into a contract covering anything the religious concept of 'Sacred Union' or governments 'Marriage Contract' establishes.

[Mr Skeptic]

This isn't about being slow to change, this about changing a states contstitution to restrict freedoms. I see a great big giant difference, and despite past steps forward for the homosexual community, this is an enormous leap backward, hence my absolute disgust.

 

No, as I understand it, it is changing the wording of the constitution to make clear what it had always said from the beginning. It is the gay people who are wanting to redefine a word, and so gain additional rights that they did not have before. This is not to say that they don't deserve those rights, only that they were never granted them in the first place.

 

As anyone knows, when reading something you take its meaning to be that which the author meant when he said/wrote it. For example, a sarcastic comment means the opposite of what it says. Words that have acquired new meanings cannot be given those new meanings in interpretations of old texts, since the author could not have meant that if the text is older than the new definition. Unless I am very much mistaken, the union between two people of the same sex would have, at the time the law was written, been considered an abomination, not a marriage. Unless there is any precedent of a union of two people of the same sex being called a marriage that the lawmakers were aware of, then there is no way that the word marriage in the law would include same sex couples. At that time a "gay marriage" would have meant a "happy marriage".

 

Again, I am not saying that same sex couples don't deserve the same rights as opposite sex couples, only that they were not given those rights in the old laws, regardless of the new re-interpretations.

 

And this is why we have so many lawyers.

[iNow]

Supposedly black people weren't defined as a person based on the old laws. Didn't make the discrimination they faced any better, and I'd say it was a good thing when we gave this a "new re-interpretation."

[Mr Skeptic]

Supposedly black people weren't defined as a person based on the old laws. Didn't make the discrimination they faced any better, and I'd say it was a good thing when we gave this a "new re-interpretation."

 

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

 

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

 

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

The new "re-interpretation" was new amendments. They didn't simply re-interpret it -- they made new laws.

[NeonBlack]

My political science professor today was saying that there are anti-despotism laws that would prevent Palin from appointing herself to the senate seat.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting. And dimly familiar, but I can't think of what they might be referring to specifically.

[Phi for All]

I've decided that I'm going to be okay with a Franken victory, and might even enjoy watching him in the Senate a bit, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. He'll have to learn the same hard lessons as any other senator, and he'll have to decide whether he's going to be effective (which means acknowledging and embracing some level of moderacy) or ineffective-but-true-to-his-extreme. That's the way it should be.

Absolutely. Sometimes the far extremes help define the middle.