coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
joelsisk wrote:It's interstate commerce, so which state has jurisdiction for taxing the transaction? also a holdover from catalogue sales. This was the reason it wasn't taxed before.



But back in the catalogue days, I would guess that they made up a small percentage of total sales. Internet sales are no longer a small business, and the fact that there is some question over which state has jurisdiction doesn't mean that no state should have jurisdiction. The failure to collect sales taxes (going with the futility of trying to collect use taxes) gives an advantage to some sellers that is hard to justify on equity grounds. I guess it could be justified on "I want to buy stuff cheap" grounds, but that wasn't the issue I raised.

Edit - Sparky!

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
joelsisk wrote:It's interstate commerce, so which state has jurisdiction for taxing the transaction? also a holdover from catalogue sales. This was the reason it wasn't taxed before.

I think it's actually worse than that, even for intrastate. At one point if the seller had a nexus in the purchasers state, tax was assessed. With the advent of internet sales, this put B&M sellers at a distinct financial disadvantage, neglecting shipping costs which for some items can be a significant percentage. It seems customary, at least in CA, that tax is assessed at the point of sale for most transactions, excluding vehicles that are taxed at the district rate in which registered.

Interestingly, at one point, were I to physically make a purchase at a B&M but not take custody but have the item shipped to a differing tax district, higher or lower, I'd pay the local tax; even if it was to be shipped to a no tax district or state. However, that same purchase, by phone or net would be taxed at the delivery address rate.
Can you say Byzantine?

That Amazon caved under pressure was the death knell of non-taxed i-net sales.


CT

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
coynedj wrote:Much as I enjoy not paying taxes for (some) transactions, I don't see why internet sellers should have an automatic advantage over regular stores simply because they sell over the internet. Sales taxes should not discriminate against a particular class of sellers, or in favor of another. I'll end up paying more for my purchases because of it, but I think it is inevitable and proper.

And, on another subject - I don't often agree with Rand Paul, but I fully support his filibuster and continued pressuring of the administration on the issue of drone attacks. This issue should be pushed hard, and extended to a discusion of drone attacks outside the U.S. as well.



Seconded. I was very pleasantly surprised last night to discover, after I got home from work, that he had been filibustering on this, and even more encouraged when I turned on the TV to watch and saw that he was still making pertinent and coherent points and not just reading from a phone book to take up time. My respect for him increased significantly yesterday.

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the sequester will result in a 44 billion dollar drop in government spending.

Um. The sequester was 85 billion. So, only half of the reduction is real?

What am I missing?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
joelsisk wrote:The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the sequester will result in a 44 billion dollar drop in government spending.

Um. The sequester was 85 billion. So, only half of the reduction is real?

What am I missing?



Stupidity. Sometimes I wish I had it.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
joelsisk wrote:The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the sequester will result in a 44 billion dollar drop in government spending.

Um. The sequester was 85 billion. So, only half of the reduction is real?

What am I missing?



Are we looking at different time frames? That would be my guess, not having looked at the CBO report.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk
coynedj wrote:Are we looking at different time frames? That would be my guess, not having looked at the CBO report.



nope. that was CBO impact through end of fiscal year.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
joelsisk wrote:The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the sequester will result in a 44 billion dollar drop in government spending.

Um. The sequester was 85 billion. So, only half of the reduction is real?

What am I missing?



possibly real spending vs appropriated but not funded crap that we count even though it's just an imaginary number and no right thinking individual considers it an actual savings because it's akin to saying i was gonna buy that wine but I didn't so I saved that money even though I was never gonna spend it anyway.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
joelsisk wrote:nope. that was CBO impact through end of fiscal year.



OK, I looked it up. The $44 billion is in this year's spending, with the other $41 billion being spending that is part of the stuff being cut now but not actually spent until later years. Like getting rid of a 3-year highway project now, with the spending being spread out over all three years. At least that's what I found in a quick search.

Insert cynicism regarding those future spending plans here.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD

So you want to bring the discussion about the tactless write up on today's offering?
In business, you try not to offend any potential customers, whether its your belief or not.
Sorry David, bad write up.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
ERMD wrote:So you want to bring the discussion about the tactless write up on today's offering?
In business, you try not to offend any potential customers, whether its your belief or not.
Sorry David, bad write up.



I don't think WD has anything to do with the write-ups. I'm also very surprised that you were offended knowing your humor.

While completely understanding that religion seems to be a overly touchy issue, I think it's hard for businesses to not offend someone, somehow. I remember when Trinitas was on here, people were offended by their connection to religion (Catholism). Jeff Bezo giving (independent of Amazon) money towards gay rights versus Chik-fil-a doing the opposite (although through the company). People were offended by both. I have expressed my thoughts on being offended many times here, but to reiterate, not that anyone cares, get over it. The idea of something being offensive is completely linked to an interpretation which is, inherently, subjective (both personally and historically). I am not going to waste my time tip-toeing around someone for fear of offending them because doing so offends me. See how absurd it is?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
ERMD wrote:So you want to bring the discussion about the tactless write up on today's offering?
In business, you try not to offend any potential customers, whether its your belief or not.
Sorry David, bad write up.



Woot write ups are usually pretty irreverent. I've seen plenty of them that might offend someone, but they are all in good fun.

I didn't detect any real malice in the write up, so I didn't think it was offensive. I can get all PC-crazy about jokes and stuff when it appears that you have to buy into racist/homophobic/whatever ideas in order for it to be funny, but I don't see that here.

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin

x-post from the daily deal

rjquillin wrote:This whole tax thing looks to become a moot point for discussion very soon. Read more HERE.


Piece from The Hill:

The Senate on Friday overwhelmingly approved an amendment empowering states to collect taxes for online sales, delivering a huge victory to lawmakers and stakeholders who have devoted more than two years to the effort.
Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Secret Squirrel Durbin (D-Ill.) watched their amendment sail through the upper chamber...


andreaserben wrote:I was not asking about sales tax itself - but wondering why specifically woot collects sales taxes on behalf of the winery because supposedly they 'have to' because of the license requirements the winery has - if in fact the winery itself does not do it when you go directly to their website. I have seen that multiple times, I Jane. Stop this crazy thing! to single an individual winery out here, there are quite some.

The logistics that WW/Amazon and WCC provide are beyond my desire to fully understand. I can only assume, in the interest of profit, they do what is necessary to enable them to sell to the maximum number of states/customers. Wine laws, and sales taxes for that matter, seem arcane at best and I'm thankful others tend to the details.


As to moot or not because of pending legislation - let that legislation become active, then we will see.
There will be people who will be creative with this, I am sure, e.g. people setting up multiple companies just for the sake of each of them staying under the million dollar limit. the administrative cost in doing so for some might be lower than what they can gain by driving more business by competing with 'no sales tax' prices.

The whole internet-sales-tax issue has been brewing for some time, spurned on by B&M's feeling that they are at a disadvantage, and states spending beyond their assessments and wanting to expand their sources. Both would seem to spell the end of no-tax i-net shopping. It's been a great ride, for those that do not self declare, on large ticket purchases. I agree, there will be those that will find a way to circumvent whatever is put into place, and I don't doubt that we've just seen the beginnings of what is to come. Amazon caving was just the start.

CT

tommythecat78


quality posts: 18 Private Messages tommythecat78

This is definitely something I can get behind!!!!

It will never happen of course.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
My Cellar (has not been updated in forever)
Do the people want fire that can be applied nasally? -Golgafrinchan Marketing Consultant

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:x-post from the daily dealThe whole internet-sales-tax issue has been brewing for some time, spurned on by B&M's feeling that they are at a disadvantage, and states spending beyond their assessments and wanting to expand their sources. Both would seem to spell the end of no-tax i-net shopping. It's been a great ride, for those that do not self declare, on large ticket purchases. I agree, there will be those that will find a way to circumvent whatever is put into place, and I don't doubt that we've just seen the beginnings of what is to come. Amazon caving was just the start.



I guess it was inevitable. I don't like it though!

I watched Bill Maher the past two weeks, and I saw some funny stuff. Disclaimer: Maher is an asshat and not to be taken seriously. And also I'm going on memory so don't quote me.

The first funny thing was when Maher complained that California was too liberal and tax-hungry even for him.

The second funny thing was interviews with tea party types. They asked them what should be cut from the budget. Military, education, hurricane relief, veterans' benefits, healthcare, unemployment benefits? They said no to cutting all these things. It was just a silly segment on a comedy show, not anything more than that. However, it's partly true, isn't it? Nobody wants to cut anything that will affect them.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
tommythecat78 wrote:This is definitely something I can get behind!!!!

It will never happen of course.



Love it.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
tommythecat78 wrote:This is definitely something I can get behind!!!!

It will never happen of course.



do they have enough clothing space?

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I guess it was inevitable. I don't like it though!

I watched Bill Maher the past two weeks, and I saw some funny stuff. Disclaimer: Maher is an asshat and not to be taken seriously. And also I'm going on memory so don't quote me.

The first funny thing was when Maher complained that California was too liberal and tax-hungry even for him.

The second funny thing was interviews with tea party types. They asked them what should be cut from the budget. Military, education, hurricane relief, veterans' benefits, healthcare, unemployment benefits? They said no to cutting all these things. It was just a silly segment on a comedy show, not anything more than that. However, it's partly true, isn't it? Nobody wants to cut anything that will affect them.

I've heard replays of the BM comments; love it.
Given the comments you recall from the second interview, I'm thinking none of those questioned were true/active TP types or he'd have gotten an ear full of places to cut/save.

Have you heard the question-on-the-street "What do you think of Obama pardoning the sequester and sending it to Portugal?" Scares the freaking $#!t outta me, these people VOTE! I'd be all in for some intelligence questionnaire before allowing the populace to even enter the polls much less get a ballot. Yeah, like that or true voter identification will ever happen.

+1 on the clothing

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Given the comments you recall from the second interview, I'm thinking none of those questioned were true/active TP types or he'd have gotten an ear full of places to cut/save.



Yeah, you can find goofballs everywhere. These folks in particular were in New Jersey and they are feeling cranky about the lack of government help for the hurricane victims. Still, people cannot agree on what to cut. Look at this stupid sequester. Cutting Head Start, for example? My gut feeling (no data here) is that Head Start probably saves $$ in the long run by helping poor kids. It's like deciding to stop doing maintenance on your car and home to save a few bucks in the short term.

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:Yeah, you can find goofballs everywhere. These folks in particular were in New Jersey and they are feeling cranky about the lack of government help for the hurricane victims. Still, people cannot agree on what to cut. Look at this stupid sequester. Cutting Head Start, for example? My gut feeling (no data here) is that Head Start probably saves $$ in the long run by helping poor kids. It's like deciding to stop doing maintenance on your car and home to save a few bucks in the short term.

We may have to disagree on Head Start. I'm not a great fan of WSJ, article here, but recent studies suggest little lasting effect after Grade 3 based on HHS documents just released. There are opinions on both sides, as one might well expect, but it seems that those in favor generally have a fiscal dog in play that benefits from continued funding.



CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:We may have to disagree on Head Start. I'm not a great fan of WSJ, article here, but recent studies suggest little lasting effect after Grade 3 based on HHS documents just released. There are opinions on both sides, as one might well expect, but it seems that those in favor generally have a fiscal dog in play that benefits from continued funding.



That's interesting. I stand corrected. Thanks!

andreaserben


quality posts: 21 Private Messages andreaserben
rjquillin wrote:x-post from the daily dealThe whole internet-sales-tax issue has been brewing for some time, spurned on by B&M's feeling that they are at a disadvantage, and states spending beyond their assessments and wanting to expand their sources. Both would seem to spell the end of no-tax i-net shopping. It's been a great ride, for those that do not self declare, on large ticket purchases. I agree, there will be those that will find a way to circumvent whatever is put into place, and I don't doubt that we've just seen the beginnings of what is to come. Amazon caving was just the start.



I agree - CURRENTLY the situation is however more differentiated. What I am interested in are specifics. There are some indications towards that woot is collecting sales taxes for shipments to some states where it is not supposed to collect them as according to some wineries shipments to those states will not have sales tax applied. Either one of them is doing it wrong.
Collecting a tax on behalf of a government entity when you are not supposed to collect it, is mildly put not aligned to laws/regulations - one could question legality. Thus from woot/amazon should clarify in detail.
This is different from e.g. a business deciding to charge specific shipping and handling fees, where they are not acting on behalf of another entity (government) and are completely allowed to do charge what they want.
But you cannot e.g. claim to collect a mandatory tax, when that tax is not mandatory.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus

Fingers crossed tightly for the Supreme Court's decision on Prop. 8.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Fingers crossed tightly for the Supreme Court's decision on Prop. 8.

Don't you think a no decision might be best, so not to impose on states rights?

CT

andreaserben


quality posts: 21 Private Messages andreaserben
rjquillin wrote:Don't you think a no decision might be best, so not to impose on states rights?



Difficult since marriage/family touches federal issues including citizenship issues, benefits, and taxation.
Also a married couple should be granted the same type of rights/protection in all states. Moving to a different state needs to keep a family intact.
It is one of the fundamental concepts of a free country that you can move freely inside that country without disadvantage 'by law' as an individual or as a family.

So I believe we unfortunately do need a federal concept of family, not a state concept.

Now, I thought about if a common law approach, meaning government staying out of marriage would make sense.
A common law approach to marriage (e.g. keep legislation completely out of marriage) is not realistic since discrimination protection needs to be awarded universally and at least immigration/citizenship rights need to be regulated
A common law approach without protections could result in people being outcasted based on their marital (gay) status and acceptance of those marriages in their communities, and if you want establish discrimination protection for common law gay marriage, citizenship statutes, and so on, then basically you establish law/regulations to protect gay marriage anyways.


Taxation for families is messed up anyways, I strongly dislike the current set-up with a marriage penalty and how dependents are considered. Would like a shift in paradigm there rather that awards more benefits to families with children and gets rid of a marriage penalty. But tax overhaul is a such complex beast by itself

It will remain definitely a very difficult topic to handle from a legal/legislation perspective, even independently of if one generally is favorable towards gay marriage or not.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Don't you think a no decision might be best, so not to impose on states rights?



I guess I'm not so keen on states rights. If states rights were absolute, chances are good I would not have had the right to vote in my home state. Among other things.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Don't you think a no decision might be best, so not to impose on states rights?



A fair question. And one that is larger than it seems, I think. Chem touched a bit on what my surely longer post will say.

I think there are two questions that are more important to answer first. What do you see the job of the Supreme Court being and in what column, if you will, do you see gay marriage?

I hope that the SC and its justices see their job as protecting civil rights. States have the right to make and mandate laws as they'd like as long as they don't interfere with civil rights.

And in my very unhumble opinion -- and this is where, I think, the debate becomes quite large and emotional -- that the right to benefit from "marriage" to whomever one wants is a civil right. Indeed, the Constitution does not name homosexuals as a protected class, but it didn't name black/Mexican/women as protected classes either. That is, until it did. I see this as the last brick that needs to be removed in a large wall preventing civil rights. I'm sure others will emerge, but I can't imagine any more bricks being added to the wall for a while.

If a state wanted to outlaw a black man marrying a white woman, should we (i.e.: should the courts) allow that? What if a state wanted to disallow a 55 year old woman from marrying a 58 year old man? (An argument made in the current case suggested that ga.y marriage doesn't serve the states' interests because children won't be a product. The issues in that argument are absolutely incredible and quite funny actually, but it was argued.)

I think that some states' and counties' laws are insane, but I don't think they impede civil rights (dry counties for example absolutely blow my mind).

I think -- and it has been suggested many times before -- that the SC should change the title of what the gov't recognizes as a legal union. Everyone gets civilly united and with it come all of the benefits (tax, death, insurance, etc.). I think it's absurd but people want so badly to hang on to an inherently meaningless word. And if that's the issue, then let them keep the 8 letters and they can stop preventing people from doing things that don't affect other people in the least.

Edit: I'd like to add that I think the outcome will be that the SC doesn't make a ruling. This will make marriage legal in CA (reverting to the 9th's decision), but illegal in the majority of states. In that case, we have issues of recognition that were so well explained above by andrea above.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin

Yes, there is a lot here, and much of it is very decisive.

kylemittskus wrote:A fair question. And one that is larger than it seems, I think. Chem touched a bit on what my surely longer post will say.

I think there are two questions that are more important to answer first. What do you see the job of the Supreme Court being and in what column, if you will, do you see gay marriage?

SC; to protect the Constitution and insure the constitutionally of laws and cases presented to and accepted by it.
"Marriage", to me, is a religious and not civil construct for the union of a man and a woman. The government originally became involved with the issuance of "marriage licenses" for political reasons to prevent black/white unions.
A "civil union" {corrected, CA has domestic partnerships,DP's} as we have in CA, confers all the rights and privileges of "marriage" to same-sex couples.


I hope that the SC and its justices see their job as protecting civil rights. States have the right to make and mandate laws as they'd like as long as they don't interfere with civil rights.

Within the bounds of the Constitution, I believe we generally agree.


And in my very unhumble opinion -- and this is where, I think, the debate becomes quite large and emotional -- that the right to benefit from "marriage" to whomever one wants is a civil right. Indeed, the Constitution does not name homosexuals as a protected class, but it didn't name black/Mexican/women as protected classes either. That is, until it did. I see this as the last brick that needs to be removed in a large wall preventing civil rights. I'm sure others will emerge, but I can't imagine any more bricks being added to the wall for a while.

The suppression of Blacks was very real, as was the abolition of slavery. Clearly civil rights issues. Woman's suffrage also rises to that stature. However, what's with Mexican? You lost me there, unless you are addressing race, ethnicity or National origin, then we agree; protected class, only if legally in the country.
Regarding "whomever one wants" we currently do have laws restricting marriage between close relatives. We ~had~ politically motivated laws prohibiting marriage of black/white couples; fortunately those were seen as violations of civil rights and were overturned.


If a state wanted to outlaw a black man marrying a white woman, should we (i.e.: should the courts) allow that?

Racial discrimination as already been addressed.

What if a state wanted to disallow a 55 year old woman from marrying a 58 year old man? (An argument made in the current case suggested that ga.y marriage doesn't serve the states' interests because children won't be a product. The issues in that argument are absolutely incredible and quite funny actually, but it was argued.)

That was a rather amusing diversion. There were also a few other positions taken, by both sides, that would have been best not voiced.


I think that some states' and counties' laws are insane, but I don't think they impede civil rights (dry counties for example absolutely blow my mind).

Indeed! But they are States and they do have that right. Fortunately, we also have the right to chose where we reside, and travel freely within the States.

I think -- and it has been suggested many times before -- that the SC should change the title of what the gov't recognizes as a legal union. Everyone gets civilly united and with it come all of the benefits (tax, death, insurance, etc.). I think it's absurd but people want so badly to hang on to an inherently meaningless word. And if that's the issue, then let them keep the 8 letters and they can stop preventing people from doing things that don't affect other people in the least.

I think this is esactly how proponents of traditional male/female marriage see this issue. It seems it is the in-your-face gay community that is forcing these issues and these cases, resulting in elevated emotions for those on both sides.
I work on a University campus; we have a very diverse group and are tolerant and accepting of all, without regard to personal views.

Edit: I'd like to add that I think the outcome will be that the SC doesn't make a ruling. This will make marriage legal in CA (reverting to the 9th's decision), but illegal in the majority of states. In that case, we have issues of recognition that were so well explained above by andrea above.

I believe you are correct and that reflects my current thinking as well, and that takes us back to States Rights, and there have already been SC rulings regarding how conflicts in state laws are to be resolved.

CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I guess I'm not so keen on states rights. If states rights were absolute, chances are good I would not have had the right to vote in my home state. Among other things.

Not sure I understand your situation to make any comment other than this comment.
But States Rights are fundamental to the United States or we wouldn't have the United States.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus

Ron: I think we're generally on the same page. I have a couple issues, though. The first is factual. One of us is wrong. I thought that CA's current "civil union" provided most but not all marriage benefits.

I think this is esactly how proponents of traditional male/female marriage see this issue. It seems it is the in-your-face gay community that is forcing these issues and these cases, resulting in elevated emotions for those on both sides.
I work on a University campus; we have a very diverse group and are tolerant and accepting of all, without regard to personal views.


I don't think this is the case. The in-your-face-community is as problematic as the in-your-face religious community. I hope most people see things the way I (we?) do, but I don't think that's entirely true. As I said, make every union a "civil union." Religious marriage stays religious. The current situation is the equivalent of separate but equal.

"If you're straight, we'll call it one thing but if you're gay, something else."

"But it's the same thing?"

"Yep. Fair right?"

I also think that there is a larger attack on the gay community in general with regard parenting and such. And I think that having this separate but equal thing creates a target of difference which then creates an excuse for discrimination. Not that you're saying we should keep the current system or not.

I'm also slightly confused about your response to my civil rights argument. Do you think gay marriage is a civil rights issue or no?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Ron: I think we're generally on the same page. I have a couple issues, though. The first is factual. One of us is wrong. I thought that CA's current "civil union" provided most but not all marriage benefits.

I think so as well, but citations and reliable opinion statements on law are going to be difficult to obtain and verify. In general, from what I have read and heard from what I believe are reasonably reliable sources, suggest the two are materially the same, at least at the State level. Differences do remain at the Federal level.

I don't think this is the case. The in-your-face-community is as problematic as the in-your-face religious community.

Yes, both sides are quite vocal and problematic in their positions and actions. However, the 'religious right' wasn't, that I know of, out marching in the streets and bringing lawsuits to begin with, and this is why I phrased my initial comment as I did.

I hope most people see things the way I (we?) do, but I don't think that's entirely true. As I said, make every union a "civil union." Religious marriage stays religious. The current situation is the equivalent of separate but equal.

"If you're straight, we'll call it one thing but if you're gay, something else."

"But it's the same thing?"

"Yep. Fair right?"

I think we agree on the above.


I also think that there is a larger attack on the gay community in general with regard parenting and such.

I'm now more in the g-parenting group and fully admit I've not attempted to follow what recent sociological studies may exist regarding same sex parents and the effects on parenting children. I believe historically a balance of both maternal and paternal guidance has been the norm. Single parent households, in general, haven't fared all that well for numerous reasons. I just don't have the data to make an informed decision on how two same-sex parents would differ, but intuitively it would seem to provide for a lopsided, no matter how nurturing, upbringing.

And I think that having this separate but equal thing creates a target of difference which then creates an excuse for discrimination. Not that you're saying we should keep the current system or not.

Clearly there are issues/problems with what we now have or it wouldn't be the topic we now see. I don't have a magic elixir to make it all good. As I mentioned earlier, we currently have the freedom to chose the state in which we live, and are free to move if you disagree with the current laws of the state in which you reside. Clearly some changes need to be made at a Federal level however, likely difficult decisions.


I'm also slightly confused about your response to my civil rights argument. Do you think gay marriage is a civil rights issue or no?

I have some number of gay friends, not acquaintances, friends, some in committed relationships. We've had discussions on this topic, and, surprisingly to me, the majority had no issue they weren't allowed to "marry".

No, I do not believe this rises to the level of a civil rights issue, at least not at this time.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:No, I do not believe this rises to the level of a civil rights issue, at least not at this time.



Why not?

Edit: I should note that being as young as I am, this is the first group issue I've experienced. And being as privileged as I am, the first experiences I have had with discrimination. What makes it even more poignant for me is how passionate SWMBO and I are about the issue (she's published on the topic).

NB: I'm glad that we (the community) have now had 2 lengthy, and calm and logical, conversations about this quite controversial and potentially emotionally charged topic.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Why not?

NB: I'm glad that we (the community) have now had 2 lengthy, and calm and logical, conversations about this quite controversial and potentially emotionally charged topic.

Reference our Constitution and Bill of Rights, with Amendments, I don't see any stated "rights" being infringed upon.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
rjquillin wrote:Reference our Constitution and Bill of Rights, with Amendments, I don't see any stated "rights" being infringed upon.



Couldn't the same be said about interracial marriage?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Not sure I understand your situation to make any comment other than this comment.
But States Rights are fundamental to the United States or we wouldn't have the United States.



I'm not saying there should be zero states rights, just that civil rights > states rights. I see this as a civil rights issue. Somewhere up there, you said you do not, but I'm not sure why not.

Just a few random comments, aside from my response to your question. Being for gay marriage does not mean that I'm anti-traditional marriage. Its' not an either/or situation. Marriage, as recognized by the gov't, is not limited to a religious institution. You can get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, FFS. Marriage, as recognized by the gov't, does not require procreation. In view of all that, I don't see a good reason for denying same-sex couples the right to marry if they want to do so.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Reference our Constitution and Bill of Rights, with Amendments, I don't see any stated "rights" being infringed upon.



So this is why you don't see it as a civil rights issue? If it's not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, it's not a civil right?

I didn't see anything in the constitution about assault weapons or high capacity magazines, either, but I hear a lot of chatter about the constitution when we bring up a ban. (FYI, I do not support such bans)

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:Couldn't the same be said about interracial marriage?

The States laws prohibiting interracial marriage were political/partisan in nature and overturned. I don't see that here.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Couldn't the same be said about interracial marriage?



Loving v Virginia

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Clearly same-sex marriage is not exactly the same as interracial marriage, but I still think this is relevant. We don't have good reasons to deny same-sex partners the right to marry.

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:So this is why you don't see it as a civil rights issue? If it's not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, it's not a civil right?

Perhaps a bit harsh, but our Government has far exceeded it's Constitutional bounds. We are not a democracy, where the majority rules, we are, or were, a Constitutional Republic, and it seem that is slipping away. So, harsh as it may sound, that is the primary reason I don't accept this as a civil rights issue. Nowhere in our founding documents is "marriage" addressed. The Federal Government has no authority in defining what is/not "marriage"; as that is left to the States.


I didn't see anything in the constitution about assault weapons or high capacity magazines, either, but I hear a lot of chatter about the constitution when we bring up a ban. (FYI, I do not support such bans)

Nor do I support bans, but unfortunately we have them, and many of the gun laws/restrictions are an affront to our rights that are spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Many will disagree with the NRA and some of it's positions, but they are fighting for our rights. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, it's about the citizens having the means to prevent our government from imposing a tyranny upon it's citizens, a prime consideration of why this country was founded.



CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 185 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote: Loving v Virginia

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Clearly same-sex marriage is not exactly the same as interracial marriage, but I still think this is relevant. We don't have good reasons to deny same-sex partners the right to marry.

Your citation has perfectly supported my case, same-sex "marriage" is not at racial. Those Virgina laws were politically motivated, and overturned by this decision.

CT