Gay Marriage

[Occhidiangela]

Munkay: as to the ban versus approved states.

If the condition now is 38 states, ban, 12 states approve, one could argue that one should move to an approve state and get on with one's life. In reality, it aint that simple, and a burden on the livlihood and options outside the marriage bit for the parties concerned. Check out the conversation in re inter racial marriage in the 1950's and 1960's to see an errie foreshadowing of the matter under discussion in this thread.

But as to "State's Rights" issues, check out Article IV of the Constitution. That presents some legal challenges for a ban state dealing with an approved state's citizens who move, or do interstate commerce in, their state. Or so it is put forth by the President's legal staff.

I honestly think that the President's move will, in the long term, benefit those who argue pro, since it forces the issue. I also think that as time passes, more not fewer, folks will be sympathetic, or will feel "not my business, pursue happiness in your own way" as some here have professed.

Occhi out

[Guest]

Now, why is it that Christians are actively like anti-gay? I know it's in their book and things, but what do they care if gay people 'go to hell'? It shouldn't matter to them in the slightest, should it? :huh:

[Obi2Kenobi]

I am very liberal (not quite communist, but I define myself as a quasi-socialist). However, I almost agree with you. Almost, because it doesn't seem to be harsh enough. Maybe you just forgot to put in what would happen if the screw up again. Reversable is just too little for some people.

[Guest]

edited. Cut it out, Ghostie.

-Griselda

[TurkeyBeans]

UnrealShadow: The reason they care is in a "humanitarian" effort, they're trying to save the souls of gay people. At least, that's my limited understanding.

[Munkay]

@ Deadlyman,

The point I was bringing up about the constitutional ban, is that people refused to take it seriously. Why? Because the states have already taken steps for or against gay marriage. It's a borderline moot point.

As far as the steps that should be taken on a state level, if I remember my elementry school teaching correctly, an idea for a bill goes from the people, to a representative in Washington, who drafts a bill, then house, senate, govenor, and possibly back to congress if veto'd. I remember state level being not too different. Although I do remember bills going to a general public vote at some point.

You're original question was:

So if left to the states and the citizens of the states (Example California has already done this) votes to define marriage as between a man and a woman, then should the issue be settled for that state? Or how exactly should this be decided? Who should have the authority to define marriage. I thought when issues are put to the vote of the people it is settled. If public opinion is against redefining the word marriage, then that is what needs to be worked on, not the government.

If its a bill that's voted on, and passed, then it's a done deal. The 'how' part is through a predetermined path (such as amending a states constitution). Who has the authority to define marriage within the state? The state government. Which is representative of the people. Et. Al. I'm failing to see the curve, or the debate, in your post.

Enlighten me?

[kandrathe]

Gah! :blink:

Religious people fight against wickedness, and do not want to see it mainstream. The religious see all evil as they define it as a direct attack or temptation by Satan. So from their perspective, it doesn't matter if it is some sexed up reality show, Howard Stern, or Queer Eye -- or abortion, gay marriage, or Janet, Britney et. al. baring it all in public.

Society is an agreement of moral and ethical standards. Public nudity, appropriate attire, when you can spit and where. Remove all restraint and you have a selfish anarchy. At some level it is common courtesy, and frankly I appreciate not being put off my lunch by the 600 Kilo guy in a thong. The social contract is changing, it is just that some people want to push the boundaries to far, too fast and at some point there is bound to be a backlash. It's not like this is the first time in history that decadance has become mainstream. Personally, I would rather not devolve into the late Roman empires preoccupation with entertainment, but it appears that is where we are going.

[kandrathe]

So, a couple has been legally married in Oregon for 10 years. They move 10 miles to Idaho, and now they are unmarried. Of course, they sue Idaho to have their established marriage recognized by the next state, and when a sympathetic judge (not likely in Idaho) allows it and declares the state law unconstitutional.

Eventually, it will be decided by the Supreme Court -- even if Congress passes a law it will be challenged and either upheld or struck down. Based on the long established precedents of the states granting "marriage" to heterosexuals only regardless of religious affiliation, I think the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause would have to grant equal marriage rights to all couples who seek them. But, the Supreme Court gets to decide what cases they will or will not hear and since this is such a hot button topic I doubt they will be eager to rule on it anytime soon. Even then, if they do they may just review a lower courts ruling and not make a determination on the equal protection argument.

I don't think the people who are pressing the issue of gay marriage are interested in a fair and workable compromise that is sensitive to the other side. I think they have been repressed and attacked by religious institutions for hundreds of years, and see this as an opportunity to shove one up their ... so to speak.

[Occhidiangela]

Unrealshallow, this is for you: A story from someone whose children still ask for stories, even as teenagers.

There was a city in what is now called Iraq known as Sodom (the etymological root of 'sodomy'), another city called Babylon, and another called Gommorah. It seems that some folks there were all right with sodomy, and similar fleshy frolics, whereas others, a real bunch of tight(er?) arses, were not so keen on that activity. The more inhibited folks, led IIRC by a fellow named Lot, hit the bricks and headed for what is now Israel/Syria. Once established there, they pursued their vocations as shepards and nebishes, but the chronicle (OT) is noticeably silent on the matter of animal husbandry, cross species marriages and affairs, and salt mining. The chromicles do comment on the saline dangers of looking backward instead of into the future. Any woman worth her salt, they concluded, looks into the future to care for her progeny.

The laws of those folks were passed down from generation to generation, and formed the foundation of the laws of Western Civilization, with modifications and heated debate all the way down the centureis today.

Since I wouldn't want you to passover a chance to learn what's behind all this antipathy toward homosexuals from modern Christians, try looking into the Old Testament. It formed the basis of Martin Luther's protest against the Papists.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

You forget that poor people don't pay taxes, so tax breaks mean nothing to them. Rich people make enough where the paltry deduction is also meaningless, and generally the sterotype is also that they have fewer if any children. The person who most benefits is the union wage blue collar (possibly Catholic to reinforce that stereotype) or middle management single wage earner where one works, and the other tends the household and raises the kids. That tax boon is aimed squarely at the majority middle to upper class voting block and only when someone talks of eliminating it do we hear cries of crippling poverty. I dunno, but I think the answer to that one is pretty simple. Give the able bodied dead beats free birth control and jobs working for the state, and if they don't show up enough times for work you contemplate putting the kids up for adoption. And to the other extremists here who advocated sterilization, No! But, you can offer an incentive for using something like the long lasting subdermal one.

If the state and federal governments really wanted to give a boon to families they would work at making high school gradation rates 100%, and college tuition as low as possible. This is one area where I come down on the side of state subsidy, and that is educating all the people who seek it. A good education for a bright and willing mind should not be a capitalist enterprise only available to those who can afford it.

But really do you see the state of federal government doing anything to help clueless parents raise children? The area where I live (which is affluant) is unique in that they have a very active community involvement in ECFE (Early Childhood Family Education). Odd, since the program is free for poorer people, but scaled for upper to high income levels. The local ECFE group here is constantly trying to prevent legislators from cutting the program, and going around raising money to keep the program going statewide.

[kandrathe]

"etymological " -- but what do insects have to do with buggery. :) jk. Good to have you back around here while that filter/blocker is out of commission.

[Occhidiangela]

Well punned, that got me giggling.

While it is nice to be back, I need to watch out. Got rather nasty with Lem yesterday, and given what I am doing at present, I need to "detox" from The Watch a few more minutes before I post. The Lurker Community does not need that crap spilling over into the serenity of the Lounge.

Hope you are well.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

If the state and federal governments really wanted to give a boon to families they would work at making high school gradation rates 100%

Right. And those too dumb to deserve a diploma, we'll just give one to them anyway -- thereby making all diplomas about as useful as used toilet paper.

--Pete

[Deadlyman]

If its a bill that's voted on, and passed, then it's a done deal.

It was this that I was talking about. A few years ago, the people in my state (California) were asked to vote for a proposition that would define the term marriage legally as being between a man and a woman. That proprosition passed. OK, therefore as you said it would be a "done deal".

But now as one of this years hot new items, the brash young mayor of the San Fransisco decides to go against the law and allow homosexual marriages. The California Supreme Court does the correct thing and nullifies the licenses void, but looks like the bad guys. What gives? See this is what I was trying to find out. Even the issue is put to public and marriage stays status quo, would this happen else where?

I hope that I have enlightened you Munk B)

[Occhidiangela]

The diploma is only worth as much as you put into earning it, and the standard required to get a thumbs up from the grantor. The standard is what I hope kandarthe was getting at, and it certainly is where my efforts in local school board activity are aimed when I re engage that target upon arriving home.

On one of the other bits, k's comment about government issued contraceptive medicine assumes that the recipients have both the will and the wit to use them correctly. Had they the will and self discipline in the first place, the meds not needed, and lacking the will or wit, the meds would hardly have the desired influence and represent yet another pissing of money down a . . . hole. :o

I had some experience with Antabuse pills in the early 1980's, in a program that the Navy ran in hopes of helping alcoholics reform while being able to come to work, and to be quite frank with you, it did not work. The self discipline to reform was generally lacking, and the sailors, clever lads they, found numerous ways around the program.

No thanks, don't want to see something like that on a national scale, better use for money would be in improving roads and rail lines. B)

Occhi

[kandrathe]

The standard is what I hope kandarthe was getting at, and it certainly is where my efforts in local school board activity are aimed when I re engage that target upon arriving home.

Yup. And, for incentive, tie something desireable but non-essential to passing all the required tests. Like getting a drivers license, and if you finish early better for you.

On one of the other bits, k's comment about government issued contraceptive medicine assumes that the recipients have both the will and the wit to use them correctly. Had they the will and self discipline in the first place, the meds not needed, and lacking the will or wit, the meds would hardly have the desired influence and represent yet another pissing of money down a . . . hole.

I guess that might be the case. Anyway, focus on what works and find some nonpermanent long term solution for both sexes that does not require discipline.

[Munkay]

And, for incentive, tie something desireable but non-essential to passing all the required tests.

I'm not sure how many people are familiar with the state of Massachusette's MCAS tests, but they are standard test given to students, and are required to pass them in order for them to graduate. The idea stemmed from making a high school diploma mean something, and that anyone holding one had at least certain skills.

The govenor Mitt Romney got a lot of flak for continuing to support MCAS testing. He was publicly boo'd at a rally he attempted to hold at a High School that had some of the worst score results in the state. The point of the rally was to ask, 'what can we [the State] do that will help.' Instead he was boo'd, and sucker punched when they had an honor student bring an emotional mentally retarded student in front of Mitt Romney, and demanded that he give the reasons this student, who has tried so hard, will be denied a high school diploma.

The whole situation made me want to vomit.

A very common criticism of MCAS testing is that 'teachers will start to teach towards the test.' If the goal is to assure students attain a certain skillset, I'm wondering why this is such a bad thing.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

If a person is emotionally or physically incapable of passing high school then obviously it is wrong to put them in that position of failure. They will need some special program of life skills training, and will possibly be a ward of the state their entire lives. A job for the parents and social workers. If they can gain some benefit from associating with peers then it makes sense to run the programs through the schools, but to expect that someone severely handicapped will keep up with a HS curriculum is nonsense. I'm sure Mit knew that.

A very common criticism of MCAS testing is that 'teachers will start to teach towards the test.' If the goal is to assure students attain a certain skillset, I'm wondering why this is such a bad thing.

True. Testing is not a fire and forget activity and requires continuous work to make the test relevant and somewhat unpredictable. It needs to test that the education objectives have been met. I guess it depends on whether the teachers are teaching the subject matter, or just how to guess more or less the correct answers. I'm one of those ruthless SOB's that build mostly essay and complex tests that are hard to pass if you don't know the material.

[Occhidiangela]

Not confusing education and training. It is far too easy to do. (Late thought: someone wise, it might have been Griselda or Pete or Shadow, described education as opening the floodgates of a person's natural curiosity and giving it an initial direction.)

Educating a person is like teaching a young kid how to play in tennis. You start with the simple mechanics, skills, which is a training task, but the real art of, for example, serving is in applying your serves tactically on the tennis court. That is the education part, preparing the child to grow his game once you have given him both the fundamentals and theory on how to apply them. How and why to mix serves, deceive, spin, and to place the ball. You practice the mechanics, but you never stop learning and experimenting with the serve as it fits into your whole tennis game. The education includes how to stay fit and flexible so you can make the shots you need to make in a match. The beginning of that learning is training, preparing the body to go do things on its own in the game that are not simple stretches or pushups. Maybe that is a weak analogy.

While standard test scores do assess knowledge level standards for the bulk of the students, the risk run is to stop at the training level and to down play the education. Task training is easier to quantify in a metric, education takes some years to manifest its benefit, and does not fit on a Power Point™ presentation very neatly. While training and education are related, it is far easier for people who have to make hard budget decisions to claim that it makes more sense to train, since they can show numerically how successful the system appears to be, than to educate.

Sort of like accountants running a car manufacturing company. Hmmmm, maybe they do already! :o

I'm raving, back to my coffee.

Occhi

[Munkay]

Is it not a platitude that standardized tests can only 'quantify in a metric'?

True education has benifits that go beyond quantitative measuring. I agree with what you said,

Much as you said training is more or less the groundwork for education, so is it not so illogical to assume education can not exist without proper training? And if proper training can be assessed, even with rather crude 'metric' judgements such as standardized tests, should it not be?

There are two parts two education as I see it. Groundwork and Effort. Groundwork is a requirement of the educator. Effort is the requirement of the educatee.

I look at the diploma as certifying the groundwork is there, or at least that's how I feel a diploma should be. I see the need for regulation and standardized testing. I also see the flaws with current standardized tests, but this does not negate the need for a form of regulation.

Pardon the incoherency, I've taken a bad habit of writing past 3 am.

Cheers,

Munk