Super Duper Tuesday Politics

Originally Posted by BillPaxton

All that said, I'm off SC till Monday due to work - now everyone go to bed so I can get to work tomorrow!

But isn't today tomorrow where you are by now?

[BillPaxton]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

But isn't today tomorrow where you are by now?

aww shuddup and let me sleep already. I can't sleep when I hear the 'ding' of a sc post.

have a great week all - +BP -o-u-t!

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

...during the whole Terry Schiavo escapade on the national level, at the state level, a case was making its way to the Texas Supreme Court where the hospital was being sued for pulling the plug on an 8-year old child, against the wishes of the parents of that child.

Texas won. The kid died.

Didn't see word one in the national media, though.

Now now Eric....what you posted wasn't exactly right.

Sun (the baby's name 'cause his mother said he was given to her by the Sun) was dying of lethal, incurable congenital problem with his lungs. The Texas law (I think it is called Futile Healthcare Law) was applied because the Doctors involved were able demonstrate to a bipartisan ethics committee that keeping Sun alive, on a respirator, would only delay his inevitable death by weeks.

The ethics panel agreed and as is required by law the hospital offered the mother the chance to transfer her child to another hospital or the termination of life support. However, no hospital would take Sun as most (I can't say all as I'm not sure) concurred that the child would continue to be in pain and would die regardless of what efforts were expended.

Yes, not many people heard about this (it was 2004 or 2005) but the law, in my opinion, was applied properly.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by KSagal

Fair 'nuff!

Karl,

Don't forget, Cognac and some "cheap" Cuban cigars on me! I owe you from two years ago.

Then you have to pay for the other agreement we had (Cognac on you), and then, well we agreed to sit, sip, and chat ("cheap" Cubans on me) the rest of the night!

I hope they have an outside seating area...

Steven

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Karl,

Don't forget, Cognac and some "cheap" Cuban cigars on me! I owe you from two years ago.

Then you have to pay for the other agreement we had (Cognac on you), and then, well we agreed to sit, sip, and chat ("cheap" Cubans on me) the rest of the night!

I hope they have an outside seating area...

Steven

I better get on the straight and narrow now...

It looks like I will be using up several months (years?) worth of miscreant behaviour, with lots of various vices thrown in, at fest this year! It's gonna be a blast!

Many here have heard me spout off on one topic or another from time to time... Imagine if you will, me with a snootfull! It's gonna be a hot time in Indy this summer!

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Now now Eric....what you posted wasn't exactly right.

Sun (the baby's name 'cause his mother said he was given to her by the Sun) was dying of lethal, incurable congenital problem with his lungs. The Texas law (I think it is called Futile Healthcare Law) was applied because the Doctors involved were able demonstrate to a bipartisan ethics committee that keeping Sun alive, on a respirator, would only delay his inevitable death by weeks.

The ethics panel agreed and as is required by law the hospital offered the mother the chance to transfer her child to another hospital or the termination of life support. However, no hospital would take Sun as most (I can't say all as I'm not sure) concurred that the child would continue to be in pain and would die regardless of what efforts were expended.

Yes, not many people heard about this (it was 2004 or 2005) but the law, in my opinion, was applied properly.

Thank you for the clarification; I was, admittedly, incorrect on the particulars.

But the overall outlook is the same: The state of Texas, in defiance of parental wishes, determined that a CHILD should be taken off life support and - though you don't mention it, I distinctly remember the reporter on CNN noting the state's position: Since the child was on state aid, with the state being the only source of payment the hospital would receive, it was the state's call to terminate life support.

And it was being played out at the same time as Terry Schiavo... where the Feds stepped in to tell this one man he could not avail himself of the legal rights every other married man/woman in the world has concerning their spouse.

Thankfully, that "video tape" diagnosis of Frist's concerning Ms Schiavo cost him his career both in politics and medicine, and his rush to the state of Florida's Senate and Supreme Court will forever stain Jeb Bush's political ambitions.

If I had to pick any single incident that tipped off the general public what life would be like living in a theocracy, it would be the Terry Schiavo fiasco. It clearly showed that the life of anyone, at anytime, could be altered, by law, to adhere to religious principles and dogma of complete strangers. Even though the war in Iraq would catch up with him, Bush's willingness to fly into Washington, in the middle of the night, to sign a law stripping one individual of his marital rights, but only in regards to making medical decisions for his spouse (all other marital rights and obligations, including paying medical expenses, would remain intact), in order to assuage Christian believers was when Bush's approval rating started its steady decline.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

Thank you for the clarification; I was, admittedly, incorrect on the particulars.

But the overall outlook is the same: The state of Texas, in defiance of parental wishes, determined that a CHILD should be taken off life support and - though you don't mention it, I distinctly remember the reporter on CNN noting the state's position: Since the child was on state aid, with the state being the only source of payment the hospital would receive, it was the state's call to terminate life support.

And it was being played out at the same time as Terry Schiavo... where the Feds stepped in to tell this one man he could not avail himself of the legal rights every other married man/woman in the world has concerning their spouse.

Thankfully, that "video tape" diagnosis of Frist's concerning Ms Schiavo cost him his career both in politics and medicine, and his rush to the state of Florida's Senate and Supreme Court will forever stain Jeb Bush's political ambitions.

If I had to pick any single incident that tipped off the general public what life would be like living in a theocracy, it would be the Terry Schiavo fiasco. It clearly showed that the life of anyone, at anytime, could be altered, by law, to adhere to religious principles and dogma of complete strangers. Even though the war in Iraq would catch up with him, Bush's willingness to fly into Washington, in the middle of the night, to sign a law stripping one individual of his marital rights, but only in regards to making medical decisions for his spouse (all other marital rights and obligations, including paying medical expenses, would remain intact), in order to assuage Christian believers was when Bush's approval rating started its steady decline.

Eric,

My friend, here is where one of those items we choose to agree to disagree about is about to rear it's ugly head...

First off, I have a great deal of trouble with any moral decisions being made by the federal government in general, and this case (these cases) are as good an example as any...

The time I go to the likes of Ted Kennedy for moral leadership, will be a very cold day indeed. I believe there are far more people on capital hill who are morally bankrupt than in the whole mortgage "crisis".

The Shiavo thing was a fiasco. I don't think because so much because of the sentiment of if she should be kept alive or not, as both sides had ample reasons to argue their case... If she was indeed vegitative, with no quality of life, it should end, if she had some value and quality of life, even a very simple one, she should continue. Both sides lost this one, as her real life was forfeit long before congress got involved in this tradgedy.

For me the fiasco thing was how all the rules were being bent, and broken to fit the moment. It takes months and billions of dollars in pork spending to get a simple bill thru congress, yet in the middle of the night, all these letches, wife cheaters, page assaulters, and intern abusers had no problem drafting spot legislation for one guy's wife, who was one couple's daughter, and they did not even help the tradgedy, but exasserbated it. That was shameful.

Why was there not comprehensive understanding as to why she was there to begin with? If he had hurt her, causing the situation, then it may be more reasonable to have the parents with guardianship. I see this as an unfinished investigation that, had it been complete, then guardianship would have been clear, and no further debate made...

As far as last minute deciding that he did not have the normal duties and responsiblities afforded to the spouse, that was not the time nor place. It should never have been about the husband or the parents at that stage, it should have been about her quality of life...

Where Eric and I are going to mix it up, is in that he feels strongly about his right to be 'married' to his spouse. I do not feel that same sex marriages are the same as a man and woman who are married.

I do believe that the law allows for a functional partnership that employs the rights of visitation, and asset distribution and the like, but Eric has stated that even with some of these legal contracts in place, families have petitioned the courts to have them overturned, and I do not know all the details he knows. I believe if a sane adult enters into a contract, be it social or otherwise, it should be valid, and no court should overturn it because the family does not like it later... But...

Here, in this thread, Eric was arguing how when some people in charge want to, they will strip the rights of a man who is married to a woman, in the eyes of the law, the courts, the church and everyone else...

If his point is that the protections of 'marriage' were not sufficient for Mr. Shiavo in this case, I ask, what is the big deal in demanding that same sex couples be allowed to marry?

To this point, I had thought that Eric's position was that the social contracts were not as strong under the law as marriage, yet here he is commenting that marriage is not as strong as the evangelical right's hold on the government.

My personal argument has been that the convention of marriage predates the constitution. All constitutional law that refers to marriage, was referring to that convention that is thousands of years old, and is not a legal doctrine, but a social, societal one. Most marriage ceremonies historically included the attempt to get the bride pregnant. The inclusion of public bonding and a party is a fairly new addition.

So this longwinded post speaks to the inability of the government to make a moral decision reasonably, and that is the long and the short of it...

[jryan]

But how do same sex marriages differ from conventional ones? To me the idea of marriage is based on a bond and love! Both in legal and moral standpoints that is why opposite sex couples are allowed to get married! From personal expierience, growing up with a lesbian mom and around predomanently homosexual friends! I can tell you from personal expierience that same sex couples have the same love as opposite sex couples!

To imply that same sex marriage is wrong you would have to imply this is not true! I know as a fact that Eric and Bill (although I have never met them) would have the same amount of love as you and your wife Karl!

The second objection I have to banning gay marriages is the fact that science has proven that homosexuals are born that way! They are being punished for something that is PROVEN they have no control over! This would be like saying everyone with cancer cannot be married! I do not believe homosexuality to be a bad thing such as cancer, but both one cannot choose it just happens!

That being said I was born straight but not narrow! Some would argue biblical meanings! The bible was compiled and comissioned by the roman catholic church! The stories were not written by them but they took a long stack of previously written stories and chose which ones to include and which ones not! There is one passage in the bible that talks about gays! This passage could easily be misinterpreted and you have to consider the source! There are thousands of scriptures that allude to treat others as you would like! It does not exempt homosexuals and for that matter, if you want to go by the bible than, if you give up your marriage rights, then you can ask the same! Otherwise you are treating less than you would like to be treated!


Jeremy Ryan

I'm going to excise everything, Karl, down to one point which, hopefully, will make my stand a little more clear.

Originally Posted by KSagal

(m)y personal argument has been that the convention of marriage predates the constitution. All constitutional law that refers to marriage, was referring to that convention that is thousands of years old, and is not a legal doctrine, but a social, societal one. Most marriage ceremonies historically included the attempt to get the bride pregnant. The inclusion of public bonding and a party is a fairly new addition...

And, in this, you're right.

But just as anything does, over time, the concept of marriage has evolved and has now come to be a civil contract between two persons and the government. In exchange for the government being able to classify two individuals as a single unit, the government grants those two individuals expanded rights, as well as expects more responsibilities from them.

There are 1,100 rights that are granted to a married couple simply by virtue of a marriage license. And, yes, all have a "monetary" value of some sort, as is to be expected... but in the CIVIL contract of marriage, there is absolutely no responsibility for the couple to produce a child. If there were, then the infertile, the elderly, or the childless-by-choice would not be considered, legally, married.

Now, in the RELIGIOUS contract of marriage, there probably is an expectation that a couple will produce children... but guess what? If a couple does not also enter into the CIVIL contract of marriage, they are not married, and, therefore, not entitled to any of those 1,100 benefits, nor can they be held to the responsibilities.

I believe, deeply, in the First Amendment, which provides the citizens of this country with freedom of religion... but these days, too many people don't recognize the flip side of that coin, which is freedom FROM religion. Person A is entitled to have any spiritual belief they choose... as is Person B, who may choose to have no spiritual belief at all. Neither has the right to inflict their beliefs on the other; neither has the right to hold the other to some other civil/legal standard.

The United States expressly prohibits discrimination based on gender. There is no state in the United States where the production of offsping is a requisite of the civil marriage contract. The only difference between a coupling of two persons of opposite gender and two persons of the same gender is, obviously, one of gender... and that's expressly prohibited.

If Bill were to die, right now, despite the documentation we have in place, I would have to pay estate taxes on OUR home, on OUR automobile, on OUR savings, on OUR furniture, on everything WE own.

Though I am named as beneficiary on his insurance policy, should his blood relatives file suit, there is a 95% likelihood his blood relatives would prevail in court, as the law sees us as nothing more than "roommates" or "friends."

Though he has a vested pension, since, legally, he has no immediate survivors, it simply vanishes. Ditto his Social Security; and since I haven't worked in almost ten years, I've got the minimum coming.

Now, what you might not know, the government plays both sides of the street here. On one hand, they tell us "NO! NO! A thousand times NO!", but on the other... when it comes to deciding whether I qualify for financial assistance due to my health... they take his income into account, and deny me that assistance.

So, Karl, no, we don't part ways here. I agree with you... for the RELIGIOUS marriage... but not for the civil marriage contract between two persons and the government.

(PS: Oh, and Karl? When it came to it, the Supreme Court would have invalidated "Terry's Law" as being unconstitutional, just as the Florida State Supreme Court did with Jeb Bush's state version of the law.)

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by jryan

But how do same sex marriages differ from conventional ones? To me the idea of marriage is based on a bond and love! To you, this makes sense, but your are not the arbitor of how laws come to pass. Both in legal and moral standpoints that is why opposite sex couples are allowed to get married! I will address Eric's following post next, but I am unaware of any requirement for being in love any more than a requirement to procreate. From personal expierience, growing up with a lesbian mom and around predomanently homosexual friends! I can tell you from personal expierience that same sex couples have the same love as opposite sex couples! I have already posted several times that I endorse this position. I also know of long lasting marriages, where few would argue the marriage that are devoid of love. That is not the point here. (even though I know you think it should be)

To imply that same sex marriage is wrong you would have to imply this is not true! I know as a fact that Eric and Bill (although I have never met them) would have the same amount of love as you and your wife Karl! Here you are treading on thin ice. While I do not doubt the affection that Eric and Bill have, and I am aware of the affection I have for my wife and kids, you really should be very careful to make comparisons that you clearly are not qualified to make, AND YOU SURELY DO NOT KNOW ANY OF THIS AS A FACT! I like you, but please be careful here.

The second objection I have to banning gay marriages is the fact that science has proven that homosexuals are born that way! Here I believe you are just making stuff up. There has not been any conclusive scientific PROOF on this topic, for or against your feelings. They are being punished for something that is PROVEN again, this is just not so (and you need not argue it, as the point is not valid in this context, and I am not even arguing it. I don't know, but do not care if it is nature or nurture, it is a real thing to me) they have no control over! This would be like saying everyone with cancer cannot be married! No, it is not. I do not believe homosexuality to be a bad thing such as cancer, but both one cannot choose it just happens! I don't know if it is chosen either, but the jury is clearly still out on this. I don't feel it is a bad thing, so there is no need to bludgeon me with this.

That being said I was born straight but not narrow! Some would argue biblical meanings! The bible was compiled and comissioned by the roman catholic church! I am Jewish, and the Old Testament (the original bible) was writen thousands of years before Christ, so I highly doubt if the roman catholic church had much to do with it. Just so you know, it also predates the Romans as well.The stories were not written by them but they took a long stack of previously written stories and chose which ones to include and which ones not! I am not an authority on the New Testament, so I will not argue this. There is one passage in the bible that talks about gays! In the bible I am familiar with, I believe there are several. This passage could easily be misinterpreted and you have to consider the source! There are thousands of scriptures that allude to treat others as you would like! I presume you mean to treat others as you would like to be treated. I believe that as well, and act upon it. It does not exempt homosexuals and for that matter, if you want to go by the bible than, if you give up your marriage rights, then you can ask the same! I don't understand this point. I am not the same as some others, and do not expect to be treated as the same...Otherwise you are treating less than you would like to be treated!


Jeremy Ryan

I do attempt to treat others with respect, and dignity. I also expect to have to follow the rules of society, and expect others to as well. We will have to get back to this later, as this discussion is a very very long one...