View previous topic | View next topic

The Really, Really Long Race To The White House 2012

Page 34 of 87
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 85, 86, 87  Next

908814.  Sat May 12, 2012 6:53 am Reply with quote

He can't interfere, but he CAN not be silent on it. He could also not have the convention there, but maybe that would offend some ignorant rednecks.

Also, he's not really come out in favour in any meaningful way, he says it would be nice but it's up to each individual state.

So before we fit him for a halo, let's stop and be sensible.

908815.  Sat May 12, 2012 6:58 am Reply with quote

I have a fair number of US friends on Facebook, and I'm amazed at how, all of a sudden, the gay marriage thing really seems to have reached fever pitch.

Most specifically, it does seem that the NC vote has generated much more activity, both before and after, than California's Proposition 8 ever seemed to. Perhaps its just a spot of lazy prejudice on my part - but I would have thought that the banning of gay marriage in San Francisco would have had rather more of an impact than doing so in Charlotte.

909052.  Sun May 13, 2012 9:43 am Reply with quote

Oh, there was plenty said and written about the California proposition too.

The vote in California was very close - Proposition 8 was upheld by 52-48, and on a very high turnout (79%). You're probably right in supposing that many more gay marriages would - if permitted - actually take place in California than ever will in North Carolina. But we must also remember that California is one of the most strongly RC states of the Union; while Catholic Americans (except in Florida) tend to vote Democrat, they also tend to be socially rather conservative.

We should also consider what has happened to Proposition 8 since it was passed. Practically, it is in force - no gay marriages can take place at present. The question of whether or not Prop 8 is incompatible with the Constitution has been through several courts. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in San Francisco decided - on a 2-1 split judgment - that it was indeed unconstutional. That judgment has been appealed, and there is now a move to have it reconsidered en banc. (This means that eleven of the Circuit's 29 judges, chosen at random, would hear the case, rather than just three of them.)

That can only happen if the 29 judges vote to allow it to happen, and a majority of the 29 are Democrat. If it does happen, the hearing could take years since it can only sit on days when all eleven of the judges involved are free of other commitments.

Whether or not an en banc hearing takes place, the matter is surely headed to the Supreme Court. But unless and until the Supreme Court rules Prop 8 unconstitutional, it remains in force.

909128.  Sun May 13, 2012 11:57 am Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:

Also, he's not really come out in favour in any meaningful way, he says it would be nice but it's up to each individual state.

So before we fit him for a halo, let's stop and be sensible.

Well I wasn't proposing to fit him for a halo, and I fully agree that he could have said something sooner - opinions are divided as to whether Joe Biden's 'gaffe' on the subject a few days before was a way of flying a kite on the issue - but actually by saying it would be nice but it's up to each individual state he's said as much as he can, meaningfully, say. It is up to each individual state, as far as the constitution is concerned, unless Congress makes an amendment to the contrary, which is deeply improbable.

909132.  Sun May 13, 2012 12:06 pm Reply with quote

Abraham Lincoln became US President in 1860. The 13th amendment outlawing slavery wasn't passed until 1864 and was adopted in 1865. I can't remember whether it was Spike Lee or Chuck D who, when reminded that Lincoln freed the slaves, sad "what took him so long?".

913505.  Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:28 am Reply with quote

Seems old habits die hard in Florida.

914469.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:06 am Reply with quote

I had some time to kill and wanted something interesting to listen/watch, so decided to put on the Sharpton v Hitchens debate from a few years ago, which I think is a great one:

The reason why I bring it up in this thread is that I completely forgot a couple of comments made at the time.

The first is by Hitchens at around 21 minutes, the second is by Sharpton at around 27 and a half minutes.

Oh, if they only knew then.... :)

914607.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:53 pm Reply with quote

Thanks CB - interesting. So far the Obama camp hasn't made too much of Romney's Mormon faith - remains to be seen what will happen during the campaign.

914615.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:02 pm Reply with quote

I'm sure that one of the superpacs will use it.

914629.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:14 pm Reply with quote

It's already in the press off and on. His family, apparently, fled to Mexico to get on with their polygamising in Chihuahua and only returned to escape the Mexican Revolution. The Romney in question is Mitt's grandfather and although he was not himself a polygamist, his ancestors were. It popped up most recently because Mitt made the "marriage is between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman" joke. Which was just stupid.

914630.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:15 pm Reply with quote

Personally I don't care what the religious beliefs of a person is when it comes to being a leader of a country, they can even believe in alien abductions for all I care, so I wouldn't care for negative campaigns about someone's religious beliefs.

What I do care about is the separation between the state and religion, and I find that in US politics it's become very advantagious to campaign on your beliefs (if you're Christian, and preferrably Anglican), and this I do find worrying.

When the stories of Blair being religious surfaced I wasn't bothered because it wasn't something that was used in any campaigning, and there was the memorable quote "we don't do God", but in the past 8 years or so I've spotted a number of senior politicians from various parties talking more about their religion during campaigns and I hope it's not a slide down that route.

914634.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:19 pm Reply with quote

Anglican? Episcopalian maybe. Though this list shows that presbyterians, baptists etc are far more common.

914647.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:36 pm Reply with quote

I count Episopalians, Baptists and Methodists as part of the greater Anglican faith, and Presbytarians are like a Scottish version of Anglicanism.

I realise there is more to it than that, but I'm talking in broad terms.

914656.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:46 pm Reply with quote

I can't decide if you're being funny on various threads or if you need to alter your dosage...

914666.  Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:06 pm Reply with quote

Presbyterians = Anglicans, oh I can hear the howls now!


Page 34 of 87
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 85, 86, 87  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group