US Politics Mega-thread - Page 178

On March 29 2013 02:33 HunterX11 wrote:


In many states, your boss can legally fire you for being gay. If there were Federal ENDA legislation (or even just similar legislation in more than a slim majority of states), and being gay was considered a suspect classification, you might have a point. However, neither of those are true. So, no, they don't.

On March 29 2013 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

So you only have enough, or a lot, or more of a political voice if you win?

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Wednesday that her views on gay marriage are "evolving," but stopped short of endorsing it.

"The term 'evolving view' has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use," she said, following an address at the Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce, according to the Chugiak-Eagle River Star.

Murkowski elaborated on her stance to Alaska Public Radio. "I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual," she said. Her comments came on the same day as the Supreme Court heard arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Murkowski's openness toward same-sex marriage is unusual among members of her caucus, save for Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who recently expressed his support after his son came out as gay. But most Senate Republicans remain opposed. When Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), for instance, was recently asked about his position, he responded by saying, "I'm not gay, so I'm not going to marry one."

Nine Senate Democrats remain publicly opposed to same-sex marriage as well.

Murkowski's statement is similar to one previously made by President Barack Obama, who repeatedly said his views on same-sex marriage were "evolving" before he came out in favor in May 2012.

On March 29 2013 02:36 HunterX11 wrote:


I'm saying that even if the Court rules in favor of making gay marriage legal nationwide, gays will have an improved but still vastly insufficient political voice.

Roberts has in the past been dismissive of the need for voting rights protections or affirmative action, viewing the world as without the sort of racism that might require such remedies. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," he offered in one case about school segregation, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.

"It's a sordid business, this divvying us up by race," Roberts said in a voting rights case, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.

“Things have changed in the South,” Roberts wrote four years ago in nearly striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (Namudno) v. Holder.

During Supreme Court oral arguments over the Voting Rights Act earlier this month, Roberts argued that Northern and Southern states should be treated equally, singling out Massachusetts as having an especially troubling record on minority voting rights. The Voting Rights Act was passed to make sure that states with a history of using the law to deny African Americans the right to vote -- through literacy tests, poll taxes or law enforcement-sponsored terrorism -- would not revert to past practices.

For Roberts, there is no past -- even when the past is thoroughly documented in the Congressional Record. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli pointed out to Roberts, in an attempt to persuade him that members of Congress are capable of impure thoughts, that "this statute is not called the Federal Uniform Marriage Benefits Act; it's called the Defense of Marriage Act."

On March 29 2013 02:46 Trumpet wrote:
edit: Thinking about it, the only group with a "sufficient" political voice in the US is straight cis white men. Unfortunately it's way more than sufficient and I'd say pretty much everyone else's political voice is less than it should be as a result.

On March 29 2013 02:49 farvacola wrote:

I wonder how many people asked MLK this as he marched through Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Act was still a year away, and it was still perilously unclear as to how minority rights would fare as the nation became acquainted with the new president in LBJ. Blacks still were without a solid political leg to stand on outside of demonstration, and it was those very demonstrations that played a role in the expansion of the political recognition of minorities.

The hoopla surrounding DOMA and Preposition 8 is similar. Once gays are not actively discriminated against by state, local, and federal authorities insofar as marriage is concerned, they will have garnered this "political power" you speak of. In the meantime, we simply disagree in terms of how fundamental this all is. You seem to be of the opinion that gay marriage is the sort of topic that is to be decided through normative representative democratic process, hence your insistence that national polling support amounts to actual political power. Following this line of reasoning, you'd likely be ok with gay marriage being considered illegal in a number of states, as long as the majority opinion is followed. I find this unacceptable.

On March 29 2013 03:05 farvacola wrote:

lol, in regards to a recognition as fundamental as this, yes. In a general sense, absolutely not.

On March 29 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:

Did blacks have "political power" before 1964?

On March 29 2013 02:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:

Cause Romney totally won the election...

On March 29 2013 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

So if you really really really want to win, then you only have political power if you win.

On March 29 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Over half of public support is "vastly insufficient"?

On March 29 2013 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I have no idea really - not a history buff. I'd bet that they had some. Whether or not they had a lot or a little I don't know. I'd have to do some research. Gotta run though, so take the last word