Maine's Question 1

[Scam of God]

Why has this debate descended into puerile legalism? What matters is the preservation of the national spirit of individualism! I care less what one document says; what matters are the principles behind it - the absolutely freewheeling individualism, the benign freedom-loving of our forefathers. The conservatives have completely abandoned it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not arguing that you should be showing "tollerance". F**k your "tollerance", and f**k your faith with it - I'm not a liberal. I'm arguing you should be honest about the values you pretend to hold - do you really believe in a smaller government?

[Sam Spade]

This thread went off a deep end.  Guess the substantive commentary will wait for tomorrow.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

And how am I a theocrat?  I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana.  I have never said that I want gay marriage to be illegal - I have simply said that states have the rightto do so.  A theocrat would be pushing for the federal government to step in and illegalize it, which I do think is overstepping its bounds, because the gov't has never stepped into the realm of marriage (other than DoMA, which really has no legal impact whatsoever, since states still make their own marriage laws).

[Phony Moderate]

In my opinion, libertarians shouldn't support state's rights. What's the logic in taking away the right of the federal government to dictate your life, and giving that right to the states?

[RI]

Here is the county map:

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This thread went off a deep end.  Guess the substantive commentary will wait for tomorrow.

I'm trying to have a discussion on the legality behind gay marriage, but as usually happens with the gay marriage debate, people let their emotions get in the way and they stop looking at the issue from the standpoint of what the law says.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

[Scam of God]

In my opinion, libertarians shouldn't support state's rights. What's the logic in taking away the right of the federal government to dictate your life, and giving that right to the states?

Precisely. Personal freedom first, states' rights a distant second.

[Phony Moderate]

The Republican Party has been hijacked by morons like Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, who are three of the least conservative people in America. Barry Goldwater was an honest man who believed in the seperation of church and state, and the Republican Party should base itself around his ideals again (although, ditch the war-mongering).

[Sam Spade]

Here is the county map:

I want to see if Al would agree, but what are the odds that a Hillary-Obama primary would have had a very similar map? 

Lookie, lookie at working-class, former textile mill Maine.  My oh my!

[Scam of God]

The Republican Party has been hijacked by morons like Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, who are three of the least conservative people in America. Barry Goldwater was an honest man who believed in the seperation of church and state, and the Republican Party should base itself around his ideals again (although, ditch the war-mongering).

You need to run for office.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

And you're lookin at i from 2 extremes - either I'm a libertarian and I want smaller government...or I'm a theocrat - which is just a logical fallacy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

P
Here is the county map:

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England. And Canada has gay marriage.

[Lunar]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

[Phony Moderate]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

[Phony Moderate]

And the moral of this story is:

Civil Unions with full benefits = Win!

That wasn't what the Yes campaign was based on, it was based on incoherent fear tactics arguing that gay marriage is somehow going to be a class taught in school or that parents are going to have to explain to their kids the details of anal sex.

The No campaign seemed to do everything right from what I saw on the surface, I wonder where things broke down.  It could just be that despite not being that religious, Maine is still rural and Catholic and it was a special election and all that jazz was just literally impossible to overcome.

Liberals need to be less timid about calling the Right "liars" when they are.  Not Joe Wilson style.  But calmly and methodically point out reality:  the Right's real case is too weak so they lie.

I do not believe that's the right strategy.  That was part of the No On 8 campaign's mistake.

Remember, only some of the electorate was "persuaded" by the campaign messaging, No On 8 clearly had better ads that were unafraid to aggressively tackle the Yes side's strengths head-on.  Mostly it was about getting your saints to turn out better than the other side's saints.

Although i personally liked it, it was the Mormon ad that probably lost "No on 8" the election.

[Ronnie]

P
Here is the county map:

Wow, why'd it do so well in Aroostock county? Obama won that county by 10 points, while Question 1 did worse in Piscataquis, McCain's sole county in all of New England.

Those counties are pretty erratic when it comes to voting trends.  Susan Collins got 72% in Aroostook and 66% in Piscataquis.

[Phony Moderate]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

[Scam of God]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. There is only one form of marriage - that which the individuals involved and the institution of their choice performs. The State has no business whatsoever defining anything with regards to marriage. That is entirely the prerogative of the religious sphere.

Disagreeing with my statement is just pure ignorance.  Currently, there are 2 forms of marriage.

I don't care what there is currently. I care about what matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's why you're a big-government theocrat, and not a small-government conservative. As I said elsewhere: you mistake authoritarianism for conservatism. The State has no right whatsoever to interfere in the private personal life of the free individual.

But you didn't say that you were talking about what matters before - you said that I was wrong in saying that there are 2 types of marriage.  Currently there are - and that is what matters, because we are debating the current situation in American politics.

This division doesn't actually exist, save in your head. The only pertinent outside party within the ritualistic contract that is marriage is the Church or other institution that performs it. Society as a greater whole has no concern in it, and ought therefore be kept out of it, on any level, Federal or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the individual States can also act as nanny-states. Simply bellowing "states' rights! states' rights!" repeatedly does nothing to further the cause of personal liberty, any more than it did when segregation was still an active practice in the South. Personal freedom is more important than states' rights to the genuine libertarian.

The division does exist - you have the ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of marriage.  It's not like you go to a church to get a divorce - that's a governmental aspect of marriage.

For a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

The exact same principle that leads me to oppose business regulation (whether by the Federal or State governments) leads me to oppose this horrendous measure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are increasingly reaching a point in time when this is the basic division in American politics.

I would agree - the government ought not be involved in marriage at all - nobody should be getting tax credits for being married,etc.  Butwhile they are involved in it, they have a right to define it.

No, they don't. The government is also 'involved' in the business of business; that does not give it a right to regulate business as it sees fit.