It doesn’t appear that marriage is really being defended properly as it is. I recall news reports that people routinely fly off to Vegas, get married just for fun, and then have it annulled a few days later.
You make excellent points. I don’t have an answer for your question.
But I think the way the debate has been framed, there is a larger issue at stake that is being overlooked: Since when does the federal government have anything to do with deciding who may and who may not marry? It’s against the law to marry a sibling - but not against federal law. Age-of-consent for marriage varies by state. Common-law marriage laws vary by state.
This can be viewed as a state’s rights issue. For the feds to respect the institution of marriage, they must first respect the local authorities in charge of creating and dissolving that institution. A constitutional amendment regarding marriage - whatever it’s intent and content - would increase federal authority and erode local authority. That flies in the face of conservative philosophy.
And yet, the conservatives keep cheering him on, even though he stabs them in the back again and again.
Cite?
Oh, hell with it. You made that up. Please don’t do that again; it doesn’t fly here.
The Iowa caucuses were on January 19. Here’s what Zogby had to say on January 12, when his poll showed Kerry in third, but doing increasingly well:
But back to you, Titan:
There’s a long stretch of time between now and November, and a lot can happen. But while people have only started to focus on the Dem candidate, they’ve had three years to think about Bush, and these polls tell you a lot about how the public feels about him.
At any rate, a lot more is being made out of Bush’s approval ratings et al. than I intended them for, which was a simple rebuttal to Bricker’s claims of Bush’s public standing now.
Neither Kerry, Edwards, nor Clark is Bush Lite, and all can articulate their positions pretty well. And they’re the field, IMHO: I’d be willing to add to my list of potential wagers that neither Lieberman nor Dean will be the nominee.
BTW, anyone wanting me to put my money where my mouth is, is welcome to do so, but please shoot me an email just in case I miss your post.
Then what do you suppose the Mass. SC meant by its statement that it was “reformulating” the definition of civil marriage to mean “a civil union between two persons as spouses . . . .”? They weren’t changing an administrative practice. They were changing a law.
[clarification] Despite my earlier statements, the Mass SC didn’t hand "the matter back to the lesiglature with instructions to reform the law’s definition of marriage and/or create civil unions consistent with the SC’s opinion, or else they’d strike the law down or change it themselves. " The Mass SC reformulated the statute themselves, and then stayed the effect for 180 days, so the legislature could take whatever action (consistent with the Court’s opinion) it deemed appropriate.
I used that phrase because I don’t know if the decision was activist. I’m not an expert on the Mass. constitution, and I haven’t done any research on the topic. The Mass. SC presumably are experts, and have done lots of research on the topic. I’ll have to take their word on what the Mass. constitution stands for.
My point was that the Mass. SC’s order to stay the effect for 180 days was irrelevant to whether or not the decision was activist. An court could stay the entry of judgment for 180 days and still be activist. Or a court could not stay the entry of judgment for any time, and still not be activist.
In other words, I meant exactly what I said.
And for the record, I support legislation amending the definition of marriage to allow for same-sex marriages.
Thank goodness that lesson was never learned by the generation that lived through the Civil War (the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments). Or the 1910s (the 19th Amendment). Or the 1960s (the 24th Amendment). Or, I guess, the first generation of Americans, who also passed the Constitution itself (the Bill of Rights).
Come to think of it, let’s hope no one ever learns this “lesson” you speak of.
I assume Elvis is talking about Prohibition (past generations learned…). Marriage is along those lines-- doesn’t belong in the federal constitution.
And I’m sure GW made certain that the Texas Rangers were steroid-free when he owned the team…didn’t he? :rolleyes:
So that’s why the Rangers aren’t any good. Bush got them all off of steroids!
Ah, it makes sense now.
Now that you mention it, Sammy Sosa was a lot more skinny when he played for the Rangers. 
Age, I’m not sure why you’re being all disingenuous with me, but the point is simple, or my point is anyway: we went into Iraq partially because, it being a military adventure, it gave the Prez an excuse to directly control the one piece of the Federal government he has a Constitutional mandate to control, rather than it doing anything to fight the terrorists. As for the rest of what you said, yeah that’s justifiable use of the military against terrorists, but it could be financed with a fraction of what we’re now spending.
First, what the Prez proposes to spend over the next few years on the military: http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/topline.cfm
Notice that the amount rises by more than 100 billion dollars just over this timeline.
Next, a relative assessment of the amount we spend as opposed to the amount al Qaeda spends:
http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/budget.shtml
I wasn’t being disengenuous. You said that “the only reason why [Bush] militarized the terrorism problem” was to increase his power. I’m saying Bush “militarized” it (to the extent it has been militarized) because Bush thinks that the problem can be stopped before it gets to our borders, and the military is one of the best ways to do that.
I wasn’t trying to be snarky. Thanks for clarifying your position.
The American military is doing quite a bit more than just fighting Al Queda. We’re stationed throughout the globe, and for a variety of missions.
I don’t doubt that the military could be run more efficiently and cheaply, but there are costs to cutting the amounts we spend on the military, and in order to show that the military can be run for “a fraction” of its current costs and projections, you’re going to need to show a bit more than the increase in spending over the next few years. I’d be interested, though, in your thoughts on what we can cut.
By the way, your satirewire link was hilarious.
An Australian perspective.
Our evening news showed a snippet of the address which focused on Bush urging Americans to support him because he needs to finish the war off. Bloody hell. That is the lowest of all arguments for reelection. I hope the US people do not fall for this war-reelection-ploy.
Keep him in power and he will continue to increase the hatred for America around the world whilst wasting billions.
Binarydrome was right on the mark about Bushes
. This is something that comes across as very scary and worrisome.
Could be, actually - there has to be some reason for their chronic suckitude. Maybe Bush is still sore that Sammy Sosa didn’t juice up and start hitting for power until after he traded him to the Cubs.
Don’t know. I wasn’t talking about specific Democrats who oppose the Patriot Act. I was merely referencing the Democrats’ behavior last night when the President mentioned the expiration of key elements of it. They seemed to approve until he slammed the door on them.
Nonsense. The Rangers won their first division title ever under Dubya’s ownership. Unlike Tom “Who Needs Pitching?” Hicks, Dubya was smart enough to let the show be run by people who knew what the hell they were doing. But unlike Dubya, Tom Hicks is smart enough not to let maniacs run the show. (Instead, he runs it himself, which is just as bad.)
Why does marriage need defending? Who’s attacking it? If someone, say Britney Spears, goes off to Vegas, gets married, and annulls it the next day, I might think she’s a moron, but ultimately it’s her life to screw up however she likes. No one held her at gunpoint and told her to get married at some drive-thru chapel, or get a bullet in her head. The government cannot protect people from their own stupidity, however much effort may be poured into the task.
Two corrections:
-
The Texas Rangers didn’t win a division title until 1996, by which time Dubya was governor of Texas, and presumably not playing an active role as owner, even if he hadn’t completely divested himself of his interest in the team.
-
Dubya was never the owner of the Rangers, just one member of an ownership group. (If he invested any money of his own, it was minimal.) I don’t know what % of the team he owned, but despite being the frontman for the ownership group, the one source I’ve read with something to say on the matter(Helyar’s Lords of the Realm, an economic history of baseball) indicates that Dubya didn’t run the team in any meaningful sense.
Boy, that is just so typical of you “Bush bashers” The guy does a perfectly splendid job as owner/front man/chief cheerleader of a major league team and gets no credit for it!
I, for one, remain convinced that major league baseball is the perfect outlet for GeeDubya’s talents. Indeed, I find him entirely suitable for the position of Commissioner of Baseball. The sooner he is relieved of his current onerous responsibilities and is free to take on such a position, the better!
Let us all work towards such a desireable end!
[nitpick]The Rangers traded Sosa to the White Sox in the ill-fated Harold Baines deal.[/nitpick]
Pash (Beleaguered Rangers fan since 1982)