Why Obama can count on my vote tomorrow

[jslove]

I'm not much of a joiner. In particular, I am not a member of a political party. I certainly have no desire ever to run for any office. For some people, political affiliations are like their religions, but I am an agnostic

Comments

Importance of appointments

[blaurentnv]

One of the reasons I ended up supporting Obama strongly during the caucus process was consideration of who he appointed in various positions. Because of my role as Democratic Party Secretary for Elko County, Nevada, I had many opportunities to meet various adviser types

Re: Importance of appointments

[dda]

I'm an odd duck in that I'm a small government Democrat; I don't believe that the government has any right to have a say in abortion.

I find this odd since it was the government that ruled that abortion was legal and, for at least some time, has paid for them. Also if one does believe that abortion is killing a living being, who better than the government to deal with that?

While I'm ranting slightly, I also don't believe that the government has any right to determine who can or cannot marry whom. Hence my vehement opposition to prop 8 here in California.

I find this even more odd since it is the government that bestows the rights and responsibilities of marriage and, thus, it is the government that gets to determine who can or cannot marry! I do wonder at people who say this since they would seem to be advocating me marrying my (non-existant) 16 year-old sister and I can't really believe they mean that.

Re: Importance of appointments

[blaurentnv]

"Also if one does believe that abortion is killing a living being, who better than the government to deal with that?" - To me, that's a religious issue.

"it is the government that gets to determine who can or cannot marry!" - I have yet to have someone identify the clause in the Constitution that grants that right. Failing that, the 9th & 10th amendments apply.

"I do wonder at people who say this since they would seem to be advocating me marrying my (non-existant) 16 year-old sister and I can't really believe they mean that." - I think this is a biologically unsound choice; however, if you are not having kids, then I don't see why the government should care. This is legal in some states and I've met offspring from this kind of marriage. I don't recommend this! I do, however, admit that the government should have some say in what minors should and should not be allowed to do, although I'm not sure what in the Constitution grants that right.

Re: Importance of appointments

[dda]

"Also if one does believe that abortion is killing a living being, who better than the government to deal with that?" - To me, that's a religious issue.

Not really; your statement was about why government should have a say in abortion and I still feel this is a good reason.

I have yet to have someone identify the clause in the Constitution that grants that right. Failing that, the 9th & 10th amendments apply.

The government grants certain rights and responsibilities to married people (taxes being one, health proxies being another, immunity from testifying against the spouse being a third); this, to me, gives it the right to decide who gets those rights and responsibilities and that means they get to decide who gets married. I don't believe anyone is saying that a religious same-sex marriage should be banned, just a civil one.

...I don't see why the government should care.The point isn't whether or not the government should care (but see above for why they might) but that those saying anyone should be able to marry anyone don't

Re: Importance of appointments

[vixyish]

Usually when people say anyone should be able to marry anyone, the understood assumption is that they mean "consenting adults". Laws exist prohibiting minors from doing a wide variety of things that adults are free to do, because it is viewed by most legislation that children lack the experience and maturity to have the ability make reasonable decisions for themselves.

And of course, this doesn't actually need to be spelled out; it's understood by any reasonable person that no reasonble person actually means to include children in the proposition. Bringing absurd things like children or animals into the Prop 8 discussion strikes me as rather disingenuous.

Re: Importance of appointments

[dda]

Usually when people say anyone should be able to marry anyone, the understood assumption is that they mean "consenting adults".

There are various and sundry "consenting adults" that are not allowed to marry (at least in Massachusetts, I believe). I don't believe I can marry my (non-existant) sister or my first cousin here.

Bringing absurd things like children or animals into the Prop 8 discussion strikes me as rather disingenuous.

Hardly; I'm trying to show that the government has a vested interest in who it allows to marry. I consider it disingenuous to have a rallying cry that obscures the real intent which is allowing same sex couples to marry. By saying "Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone," they disguise this.

Re: Importance of appointments

[blaurentnv]

Prop 8 is not about allowing same sex couples to marry. It's about making it illegal for them to marry. It's an attempt to overturn a State Supreme Court ruling by ballot proposition. This is dangerous. It is encoding discrimination into the State Constitution.

Re: Importance of appointments

[dda]

It's an attempt to overturn a State Supreme Court ruling by ballot proposition.

I know; a very similar thing happened here in Massachusetts. I'm told the ballot proposition passed but the Legislature ignored it (however, I haven't verified this). Prop 8 is a bit confusing because voting for it is voting to make same sex marriage illegal whereas voting against it is voting to keep it legal; I'm told some voters think it is the other way around.

Re: Importance of appointments

[jslove]

This is trolling.

This is also why I say that the questions that "classify" our beliefs are simplistic!

I do not believe that rights derive from the government. dda apparently believes that. Some things are administered by the government; having someone to do that is one of the reasons we create governments.

One thing governments do is enforce community standards. However, they do not enforce all community standards. We have constitutions to allow or disallow what we will use our government for.

So: blaurentnv says he does not believe that government should have any right to a say in abortion, but I don't for a minute believe that this is his detailed position; it's rhetoric, and taking it as the whole truth just gets us into stupid arguments. If we must argue, and I don't see why, then let's have smart arguments

Re: Importance of appointments

[dda]

This is trolling.

If you believe I am trolling then I shall avoid discussing any of this in your journal.

Re: Importance of appointments

[jslove]

It's not what you believe but how you say it. The way I read it, you are picking fights. Actually, sometimes the fights are fun to read, but I don't understand how they can be fun to be in. I'd rather not have that tone in my journal if it can be avoided

Re: Importance of appointments

[blaurentnv]

It's true that I did not have time to give detailed positions. I find it convenient to use slogans (your term, not mine) as short hand for position statements that are reasonably common. I certainly did not want to delay the discussion until after tomorrow.

I do enjoy discussions with devil's advocates, which is how I took dda's comments. It probably comes from teaching online - the discussion is rather dull unless someone takes a contrary position.

The yes-on-8 people have pushed me into a much more radical position than I held a couple of months ago. I firmly believe that there is no constitutional justification for the federal government to have an opinion about what constitutes a marriage. I've looked and I don't see it; I have not had anyone point to something there that yields this right to the federal government. The individual states may have this right, depending on their constitutions (the only state constitution that I've read carefully was for Missouri; I've read the California Constitution, but it is quite lengthy

Re: Importance of appointments

[stevemb]

"The government grants certain rights and responsibilities to married people (taxes being one, health proxies being another, immunity from testifying against the spouse being a third); this, to me, gives it the right to decide who gets those rights and responsibilities and that means they get to decide who gets married."

Non sequitur. By this reasoning, the fact that the government makes it possible for you to drive (by maintaining a road network that creates physical access and by maintaining a police force that usually prevents your car from being stolen as soon as you step away from it) gives the government the right to set your daily itinerary.

Re: Importance of appointments

[dda]

No, it gives them the right to decide who uses those roads and that police force; this is exactly what they do by licensing drivers and registering cars and requiring inspections to make sure those cars are road-worthy.

And it is just what they do with marriage; they require licenses and blood tests and have rules about who can marry whom.

Re: Importance of appointments

[jslove]

I agree that the style of the campaigns is important. I have not personally experienced the problems that you describe, but your reactions sound pretty reasonable to me. How else are you going to estimate their future behavior but by the behaviors they and their staffs exhibit