they're getting rid of the law that ensures minorities can vote

Rock Knight said:
Are you serious that's all they want to do every single politician would love to stop those who would vote against them from voting
Click to expand...

The right-wing actually went to some pretty extreme lengths to prevent people who don't have driver's licenses (i.e. people who live in the inner city and don't need a car, i.e. poor minorities who would vote against them) from voting. When it failed to prevent Obama from winning the election, they moved on to this.

Doctor Walter Bishop said:
On the subject of hate crimes, I think it's silly that a person can get in more trouble for killing a person of a differing gender, sexual orientation, or race/creed than if they killed someone inside one of their own said group(s).
Click to expand...

If you did a bit of research into the horrifying racial crimes of the '60s, I don't think you'd be saying that.

It's not because one group is better than another, it's because people are more likely to kill those who are different from them, so there has to be a harsher punishment to deter it.

And on the main subject, I think they are eliminating it more for the fact that it's no longer necessary as there are laws already put in place to protect the voting rights of minorities. I firmly believe that not one single person in office is trying to disenfranchise anyone. :-\
Click to expand...

Okay. What exactly would you call Conservative attempts to prevent gays from being married, then, hmm? If that's not disenfranchisement I don't know what is.

Doctor Walter Bishop said:
I still have some hope in America's political system.
Click to expand...

...why?

I mean, yeah, it's better than a communist or fascist dictatorship, but it's still absurdly messed up and nothing ever gets done because anyone with the power and desire to fix things gets bought out or overruled.
 
weird. ive never heard it used to mean anything other than "revoking the right to vote"

thats probably what banjo meant
 
Nice Cage said:
Okay. What exactly would you call Conservative attempts to prevent gays from being married, then, hmm? If that's not disenfranchisement I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that the government should have absolutely no role in marriage to start with.

If you take the government out of marriage then the problem would resolve itself, right? The government would no longer be defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which would please the LGBT crowd, and the fact the the government didn't recognize homosexual marriage would please conservatives. Everyone wins.

I don't even see why the government is involved in marriage in the first place.
 
that sounds like the definition of a pyrrhic victory to me

it would render marriage completely meaningless aside from whatever sentimental value it holds for certain people
 
i don't know. i doubt it. can you explain why that would matter?
 
Certainly.

Marriage licenses weren't required at all in the United States until the mid-1800s, where they were used so that the state could decide who could marry or not - specifically introduced to prevent interracial marriages. Now, in the same way it is also being used to prevent LGBT marriages.

Before the government's sanction was required, it's not like people weren't being married. Marriages still took place all the time without the government legally defining it with a license - common-law marriage was used to define marriage to the government. Common-law marriage basically says that if two people are living together and claim that they are married, then under the law they have all the rights that are given to married couples. The government would not have the ability to deny this basic right by choosing to not issue a marriage license.
 
because i live in south carolina right now, which is in the south, and also has common-law marriage already in effect

and no one is complaining about it
 
...that's not what common law marriage is

common law marriage just means that as far as the government is concerned, you are legally married in the form of taxes, wills, etc.

but the government doesn't issue a marriage license or whatever. common law marriage really only comes up in civil cases where they appear as spouses or whatever.

What I'm trying to say is that they can have their ceremony, declare themselves married, and the government will recognize it. I think. I don't have any specific examples of this happening, I just know how common-law marriage works and unless it's meddled been with by the state legislature (a possibility I wouldn't rule out) then the government would then recognize their union if they ever needed it recognized in court.
 
well if you can't even show me that this has ever happened the way you suggest, i can hardly take "because it works that way in south carolina" as a valid reason to believe that nobody's going to take issue with the idea
 
Dr. Javelin said:
...that's not what common law marriage is

common law marriage just means that as far as the government is concerned, you are legally married in the form of taxes, wills, etc.

but the government doesn't issue a marriage license or whatever. common law marriage really only comes up in civil cases where they appear as spouses or whatever.

What I'm trying to say is that they can have their ceremony, declare themselves married, and the government will recognize it. I think. I don't have any specific examples of this happening, I just know how common-law marriage works and unless it's meddled been with by the state legislature (a possibility I wouldn't rule out) then the government would then recognize their union if they ever needed it recognized in court.
Click to expand...
why would the government recognize it if they've banned it...
 
because that's how common-law marriage works

it's not technically a marriage, but it has all the legal powers that a marriage grants

EDIT: unless south carolina has changed the basic premise of common-law marriage, which is entirely possible.
 
Dr. Javelin said:
Nice Cage said:
Dr. Javelin said:
I'm of the opinion that the government should have absolutely no role in marriage to start with.
Click to expand...
of course you are
Click to expand...
of course you aren't

mr. neoliberal
Click to expand...

actually, i agree that the government shouldn't be allowed to say who can get married to who, but i think that much of what you've said in this thread is kind of unrealistic
 
youre not even going to argue with being called a neoliberal??? come on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal said:
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.
Click to expand...

if someone called me a neoliberal i would be insulted
 
how so

i only ever saw that star wars movie that everyone hates, so i dont really know that much about emperor palpatine

should i be offended that you think that, or pleased?
 
he's pretty cool, but he's evil. I'd say pleased, because he's cool

i was referring to you almost lighting a fire between SvS and Jav by noting out what a neo-liberal is, referencing how the emperor only makes things spice up between Luke and vader by making them both angry

bearing in mind it was only a joke
 
oh

yes, excellent. it's all in line with my master plan

*evil laughter*
 
Bulbasaur said:
youre not even going to argue with being called a neoliberal??? come on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal said:
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.
Click to expand...

if someone called me a neoliberal i would be insulted
Click to expand...

oh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back