E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-27-2013, 03:51 PM   #21
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
agreed.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:12 PM   #22
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
A very interesting perspective, one I've toyed with at times: why should marriage/civil unions be preferentially treated at all by governments, especially based upon somewhat vague and abstract concepts like strengthening social stability? It really boils down to social engineering which I presumed many/most conservatives to be against.

Perhaps for the sake of civil benefits of whatever stripe, domestic partnerships should be defined even more broadly than "marriages," whatever the gender of those involved, though it would certainly include marriages. I think there are benefits to this approach, including:
  • Simply removing the sacred element altogether from civil/domestic unions, leave that solely as the domain of individuals and their faith institutions.
  • Broaden the support for the wide range of socially-stabilizing domestic partnerships to increase the net stability of our society, be they husband and wife, wife and wife, brother and brother, mother and daughter, etc.
  • Let individuals more freely decide and define these relationships they wish to undertake themselves rather than having governments do so.
  • Create more empirical needs-based societal benefits rather than simply presumptive ones based on preferred groups and abstract goals.
  • These empirical, needs-based societal benefits would be better targeted to those that would most need and benefit from them.
Why should married couples receive whatever preferences/benefits simply for being married under the presumption of raising families? Rather, shouldn't we target those resources towards actual rather than presumptive children? If society feels it has an interest in investing in perpetuating itself via children, then focus those resources on those children.

As a new dad, yeah, its nice getting some modest general tax break simply for marching down an aisle, but the real money hit comes when junior popped out of the oven and that marriage benefit hardly begins to offset the added financial burdens of raising said spawn (it should hardly be any wonder birthrates have plummeted, kids have simply gotten too expensive for many/most to consider).

Anyway, again, a very interesting perspective and one worth discussing.
Furthermore, say you and I are brothers. We are both married and have kids. Our wives go out for dinner, and die in a terrible car accident. You and I decide to live together, with our kids, in one house, etc etc etc. Why should we not be able to receive the same benefits as "domestic partners?" If we have separation of church and state then gay or straight is irrelevant. Any two people should be able to choose to live their lives together, dependent on one another, and thus, receive whatever benefits the government offers to a couple.

Having said that, if the government wants to give tax breaks for married couples in order for the population of this nation to continue to grow (ensure propagation) then they should come out and say so and stop jerking everyone around.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:58 PM   #23
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,890
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
Allowing same sex couples to marry would be a nice start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
For practical purposes, like it or not, interpersonal relationships have a bearing on many govt functions: probate courts, tax laws, insurance regs, family/divorce courts, medical situations that involve next-of-kin, spousal communications privilege in civil and criminal cases, and so on.

So the Federal govt has to have a functional definition of what constitutes a married couple. There's really no way around that.

As long as marriage continues to be a civil institution for the purposes stated above, denying access to that civil institution to people based on gender or sexual orientation is a violation of their civil rights. The Federal govt has the responsibility and authority to prevent states from enacting local laws that violate the civil rights of US citizens. And no, the majority isn't allowed to legislate away the civil rights of the minority.
__________________
"Economics cannot answer such normative or prescriptive questions about how much of our market incomes, if any, should be transferred to poor families. This is a political question that can only be answered at the ballot box, or in some countries, at the point of a gun."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 08:07 PM   #24
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
That's discriminatory, seriously. There is no reason that single people should have to pay a higher tax rate than those in government-sanctioned relationships. I already pay school taxes, federal taxes, etc. Why should I (or you currently) be paying more than people who get married? If anything, people who have kids are using more resources and should be paying more.

I would like to see this get challenged.
Agreed. Your tax rate shouldn't go down when you have kids. If anything, it should stay the same or go up with each child you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
I don't see SCOTUS striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. You want to change the law? Then actually change the law. Don't rely on a judge to side with your pet causes.


Anti-gay marriage people tried to actually change the law with Prop 8. That attempted change is being challenged. That's how the process works. You think we should scrap the entire judicial review process and toss out one of the most important checks/balances built into our system of government?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Furthermore, say you and I are brothers. We are both married and have kids. Our wives go out for dinner, and die in a terrible car accident. You and I decide to live together, with our kids, in one house, etc etc etc. Why should we not be able to receive the same benefits as "domestic partners?" If we have separation of church and state then gay or straight is irrelevant. Any two people should be able to choose to live their lives together, dependent on one another, and thus, receive whatever benefits the government offers to a couple.

Having said that, if the government wants to give tax breaks for married couples in order for the population of this nation to continue to grow (ensure propagation) then they should come out and say so and stop jerking everyone around.
I understand that what you're proposing is motivated by fairness. But it sounds like an administrative mess. How is the govt to differentiate between the lifelong-interdependent-brother relationship you're describing and a couple of roommates that are just trying to game the system? By the time the terms and conditions were written up, we'd create a whole new industry of lawyers/tax advisers/financial planners and likely endless debates about what should and shouldn't qualify.

Fair and equitable is good. But simple and clear is good too.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 08:35 PM   #25
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
Agreed. Your tax rate shouldn't go down when you have kids. If anything, it should stay the same or go up with each child you have.





Anti-gay marriage people tried to actually change the law with Prop 8. That attempted change is being challenged. That's how the process works. You think we should scrap the entire judicial review process and toss out one of the most important checks/balances built into our system of government?



I understand that what you're proposing is motivated by fairness. But it sounds like an administrative mess. How is the govt to differentiate between the lifelong-interdependent-brother relationship you're describing and a couple of roommates that are just trying to game the system? By the time the terms and conditions were written up, we'd create a whole new industry of lawyers/tax advisers/financial planners and likely endless debates about what should and shouldn't qualify.

Fair and equitable is good. But simple and clear is good too.
The same way the government deals with marriage. Two people must come into a county court and register themselves as domestic partners. I don't see this being different than people getting their marriage license at city hall.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 09:09 PM   #26
325seeeye
Core Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rocket City
Posts: 1,162
My Ride: 325Ci, e36 325is
i:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post

Having said that, if the government wants to give tax breaks for married couples in order for the population of this nation to continue to grow (ensure propagation) then they should come out and say so and stop jerking everyone around.
There is social agenda in the tax code. Always has been. If they want you getting married, they will give you a tax break. If they want you buying houses, they will give you a tax break. If they want you investing in your 401k, they will give you a tax break. It is to steer you into making decisions they feel benefit the country (or, sometimes it is less altruistic). But only a naive person doesn't think there is an agenda in the tax code.
__________________

Last edited by 325seeeye; 03-27-2013 at 09:09 PM.
325seeeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 09:31 PM   #27
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 11,896
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by 325seeeye View Post
i:

There is social agenda in the tax code. Always has been. If they want you getting married, they will give you a tax break. If they want you buying houses, they will give you a tax break. If they want you investing in your 401k, they will give you a tax break. It is to steer you into making decisions they feel benefit the country (or, sometimes it is less altruistic). But only a naive person doesn't think there is an agenda in the tax code.
+1. As I've said here before (a few times over the years), the tax code is probably the biggest social policy tool the government has.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 09:42 PM   #28
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 4,890
My Ride: Phoenix Yellow M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
+1. As I've said here before (a few times over the years), the tax code is probably the biggest social policy tool the government has.
Agreed. In order to make money, the goverment must invest money.
__________________
"Economics cannot answer such normative or prescriptive questions about how much of our market incomes, if any, should be transferred to poor families. This is a political question that can only be answered at the ballot box, or in some countries, at the point of a gun."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 02:55 AM   #29
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
The same way the government deals with marriage. Two people must come into a county court and register themselves as domestic partners. I don't see this being different than people getting their marriage license at city hall.
So what's your plan to differentiate between the brother arrangement you mentioned vs roommates?

Are we going to end up with a system that's completely clogged with roomies, drinking buddies, casual acquaintances and so on that are coming in to file and/or update their domestic partnership forms? What about the implications for citizenship/naturalization when immigrants and US citizens file together? Are we going to have standards for how long people have to know each other/live together to separate "true" domestic partnership as the system intends from two people that are just trying to get tax cuts/govt benefits?
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 10:33 AM   #30
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Such City
Posts: 5,635
My Ride: '02 Dogemobile Shibe
Quote:
"At the Supreme Court hearing, Elena Kagan, the newest justice, read from the House Report from Congress when it passed the law in 1996, which summarized DOMA's entire legal underpinning: 'Congress decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.' "
Yeah. ****ing finally someone called them out on a national stage. Not that they were any good at hiding it.

GG Christians - you lost.
__________________

Last edited by Zell; 03-28-2013 at 10:33 AM.
Zell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 10:48 AM   #31
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
So what's your plan to differentiate between the brother arrangement you mentioned vs roommates?

Are we going to end up with a system that's completely clogged with roomies, drinking buddies, casual acquaintances and so on that are coming in to file and/or update their domestic partnership forms? What about the implications for citizenship/naturalization when immigrants and US citizens file together? Are we going to have standards for how long people have to know each other/live together to separate "true" domestic partnership as the system intends from two people that are just trying to get tax cuts/govt benefits?
Same way we do with marriage. If you file for domestic partnership, you have to file a "separation" if you are no longer partners with that person. Only then can you do it with someone else. What difference is it if roomates can "get married" then divorce a year later? The system can be scammed either way, so I don't see where the issue is.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 10:49 AM   #32
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zell View Post
Yeah. ****ing finally someone called them out on a national stage. Not that they were any good at hiding it.

GG Christians - you lost.
Kagan is a lesbian, so hardly an objective opinion.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 11:07 AM   #33
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zell View Post
Yeah. ****ing finally someone called them out on a national stage. Not that they were any good at hiding it.

GG Christians - you lost.
So you want kagans idea of morality legislated instead. How intelligent of an argument you make.

The last line of your post shows your true colors and your real interest here.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 11:11 AM   #34
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Kagan is a lesbian, so hardly an objective opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
So you want kagans idea of morality legislated instead. How intelligent of an argument you make.

The last line of your post shows your true colors and your real interest here.
Do you agree or disagree with Kagan and why?
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 11:21 AM   #35
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Hard to say honestly. Dislike for homosexuality is not a religious thing although religions DO prohibit it. Plenty of seculars consider man/woman normal. Now, having said that, the will of the people (so far) seems to be against homosexuality (not marriage, but homosexuality as a lifestyle.) It is still "deviant" behavior in the US. Furthermore, like we stated above, "marriage" as far as the government is concerned has it's benefits (to the government) so they passed laws.

I would probably agree with Kagan that the law passes disapproval of homosexuality. However, I think that the will of the people can't be ignored and it's always going to be someone's agenda.Like AOG said, if we replace the current morality with her morality, does that make it fair?
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 11:27 AM   #36
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Same way we do with marriage. If you file for domestic partnership, you have to file a "separation" if you are no longer partners with that person. Only then can you do it with someone else. What difference is it if roomates can "get married" then divorce a year later? The system can be scammed either way, so I don't see where the issue is.
Yeah, if this is the depth to which you've thought it out, your plan sucks and I'm voting against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Kagan is a lesbian, so hardly an objective opinion.
That is far from certain, but even if it's true, the rest of them are straight, so they're hardly objective, either.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 01:11 PM   #37
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
Do you agree or disagree with Kagan and why?
That's a good question. I prefer not to enact moral judgments or any sort of moral "consensus". Legally, however, we have accepted such laws as part of our society when it comes to vulgarity, indecency, polygamy, incest, etc. You can't say f__k on TV or show nipples because society decided that it is against the accepted morals, for example.

I've already made it clear that my position is that the Federal government has no role whatsoever in regards to these things. What I do see here, however, is people wanting to replace THEIR morals in the place of those already legislated. They still want big government and intrusion into your private lives...just to their liking.

That is where I roll my eyes and realize they are a bunch of hacks.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 01:22 PM   #38
rapier7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ATL
Posts: 78
My Ride: Subaru BRZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post


Anti-gay marriage people tried to actually change the law with Prop 8. That attempted change is being challenged. That's how the process works. You think we should scrap the entire judicial review process and toss out one of the most important checks/balances built into our system of government?
What if Congress passed a law outlawing arugula as a food. Is it a stupid law? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? Probably not.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the states don't have the right to regulate marriage in a way they see fit so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

People are challenging the law because they want the Courts to overturn something that was certified by the majority of voters in California. Instead of taking the time and effort to amend the law via a similar plebiscite, they want 5 judges to do the dirty work for them.

I believe in judicial restraint, and if the Court can't find something in the US Constitution to overturn a bad law, then the bad law should stand.
__________________
http://meta-rhetoric.com - Unfiltered Reality
rapier7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 06:04 PM   #39
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
What if Congress passed a law outlawing arugula as a food. Is it a stupid law? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? Probably not.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the states don't have the right to regulate marriage in a way they see fit so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

People are challenging the law because they want the Courts to overturn something that was certified by the majority of voters in California. Instead of taking the time and effort to amend the law via a similar plebiscite, they want 5 judges to do the dirty work for them.

I believe in judicial restraint, and if the Court can't find something in the US Constitution to overturn a bad law, then the bad law should stand.
So you disagree with the ruling in Loving vs Virgina. You hold that states should be able to forbid inter-racial marriage as well?
How far do those states rights go. Should states have the right to prohibit inter-faith marriages? What about not legally sanctioning the marriages of a particular religious group?


As history has shown, individuals have rights under the constitution that trump the rights of states. That is the question in both cases. Although the USSC is going to try and punt on both of these given other non-discrimination marriage rulings in the past. Loving being the most well known, that is gonna be a bit of a tough punt.


I would love to see the govt get out of the marriage business. But, that is not going to happen any time soon. Unfortunate, but, true.

I hope they uphold the Prop 8 ruling and finally overturn DOMA, it should have been overturned years ago and never put on the books in the first place.


The reason they did was worries about damage to the "full faith and credit" clause. They did not want the problem of certain states recognizing a marriage when others didn't. That would create a massive constitutional issue. All of a sudden legal contracts in one state are not binding in another. A slippery slope.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 06:21 PM   #40
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
So you disagree with the ruling in Loving vs Virgina. You hold that states should be able to forbid inter-racial marriage as well?
How far do those states rights go. Should states have the right to prohibit inter-faith marriages? What about not legally sanctioning the marriages of a particular religious group?


As history has shown, individuals have rights under the constitution that trump the rights of states. That is the question in both cases. Although the USSC is going to try and punt on both of these given other non-discrimination marriage rulings in the past. Loving being the most well known, that is gonna be a bit of a tough punt.


I would love to see the govt get out of the marriage business. But, that is not going to happen any time soon. Unfortunate, but, true.

I hope they uphold the Prop 8 ruling and finally overturn DOMA, it should have been overturned years ago and never put on the books in the first place.


The reason they did was worries about damage to the "full faith and credit" clause. They did not want the problem of certain states recognizing a marriage when others didn't. That would create a massive constitutional issue. All of a sudden legal contracts in one state are not binding in another. A slippery slope.
No one is stopping gays from being married in their own "churches." They have the "civil right" to do so. However, for a state to recognize that relationship doesn't fall under the protection of the constitution, at least the way I understand it. Just like mormons can have 15 wives, they have the RIGHT to do it, but they don't have the right to have anyone recognize it.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use