LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[pittsoccer33]

anyone see the blackhawk choppers circling downtown? they just flew up towards duquesne u

[tifosi77]

Here you go, fellows.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb ... or-walled/

Yeah...I don't want to move to Johnstown

An apartment in Anchorage or Homer or Wasilla would be fine....

I've been to Wasilla.... in August. I would make no recommendations or assertions about its suitability a location for my dwelling until I was there in, say, January.

[shafnutz05]

Here you go, fellows.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb ... or-walled/

Yeah...I don't want to move to Johnstown

An apartment in Anchorage or Homer or Wasilla would be fine....

Ah yes Johnstown....the site of that horrible cult massacre at the War Memorial

[Hockeynut!]

Ah yes Johnstown....the site of that horrible cult massacre at the War Memorial

[KennyTheKangaroo]

Here you go, fellows.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb ... or-walled/

Yeah...I don't want to move to Johnstown

An apartment in Anchorage or Homer or Wasilla would be fine....

Ah yes Johnstown....the site of that horrible cult massacre at the War Memorial

dont drink the purple kool aid....or the water out of the conemaugh

[PensFanInDC]

Lol did I get the name wrong? Was it jamestown? Whatever the kool aid place was....

[Dickie Dunn]

Lol did I get the name wrong? Was it jamestown? Whatever the kool aid place was....

Jonestown

[columbia]

For the states rights crowd....

DOMA is an abuse of federalism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... days-opeds

[tifosi77]

A little levity in the drone debate.....

Spoiler:

[DelPen]

For the states rights crowd....

DOMA is an abuse of federalism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... days-opeds

Agree, and there should be no federal definition of marriage.

[PensFanInDC]

There shouldn't be a state definition of marriage either

[tifosi77]

A very big part of the marriage debate is centered on a lot of things that married people take for granted.... next-of-kin status, for example. The easiest way to do that is to confer it through state sanction via a marriage license. If two people want to designate one and other as their next-of-kin via some other instrument, and one of them falls ill and is in the hospital and incapacitated, that hospital is under no obligation to recognize the other person as the legal next-of-kin. Or at the very least there it leaves a door open through which a stink can be made.

If you want to get rid of all the tax code ramifications, okay. But there are legitimate reasons for having marriages recognized by government.

[PensFanInDC]

A very big part of the marriage debate is centered on a lot of things that married people take for granted.... next-of-kin status, for example. The easiest way to do that is to confer it through state sanction via a marriage license. If two people want to designate one and other as their next-of-kin via some other instrument, and one of them falls ill and is in the hospital and incapacitated, that hospital is under no obligation to recognize the other person as the legal next-of-kin. Or at the very least there it leaves a door open through which a stink can be made.

If you want to get rid of all the tax code ramifications, okay. But there are legitimate reasons for having marriages recognized by government.

Why? Why can't 2 people who have a marriage certificate (a notarized piece of paper stating the two are married) claim next of kin?

[Hockeynut!]

Why? Why can't 2 people who have a marriage certificate (a notarized piece of paper stating the two are married) claim next of kin?

I think he's saying that without a marriage certificate, it's harder to claim next of kin, etc.

[PensFanInDC]

Right. My point is that a marriage certificate shouldn't be a government document

[pittsoccer33]

You are all participating in singlism - The stereotyping, stigmatizing, and discrimination against people who are single

Your marriage benefits present an institutionalized form of discrimination against me.

[columbia]

The above poster is correct.

[tifosi77]

A very big part of the marriage debate is centered on a lot of things that married people take for granted.... next-of-kin status, for example. The easiest way to do that is to confer it through state sanction via a marriage license. If two people want to designate one and other as their next-of-kin via some other instrument, and one of them falls ill and is in the hospital and incapacitated, that hospital is under no obligation to recognize the other person as the legal next-of-kin. Or at the very least there it leaves a door open through which a stink can be made.

If you want to get rid of all the tax code ramifications, okay. But there are legitimate reasons for having marriages recognized by government.

Why? Why can't 2 people who have a marriage certificate (a notarized piece of paper stating the two are married) claim next of kin?

People can do that. In fact, they have those things now - they're called marriage licenses.

Two people absolutely can have a non-notarized certificate that designates next-of-kin. But since only two parties had privity in making the agreement, no one else can be compelled to honor it. The mechanism for recognition outside the actual union of the two parties in the relationship is state sanction. (A fact which you even acknowledge by indicating the need for notarization.)

Some states have laws that allow for recognition of next-of-kin status if someone has a pre-paid funeral plan, but that's not necessarily portable.... and how many people actually have a pre-paid funeral plan?

Bereavement leave, spousal privilege, inheritance, probate notification, wrongful death benefits, joint insurance, the aforementioned next-of-kin status......... including tax benefits, which I don't really want to hinge my argument on, there are between 1,200 and 1,400 rights and privileges that are conferred to married couples in the U.S., depending on state.

[PensFanInDC]

I understand all that. Maybe I'm just thinking it should be as easy as "Oh, you're married? Here ya go."

[tifosi77]

And to clarify, I think we might be talking past each other a bit.

I presume your definition of marriage is the declaration and blessing of your union before god. That's fine and dandy, and I don't want to impinge upon that in any way. My definition of marriage has nothing to do with divinity; it's an entirely secular construct to me, a contract.

[tifosi77]

I understand all that. Maybe I'm just thinking it should be as easy as "Oh, you're married? Here ya go."

Well, if you're talking about all that stuff falling into place automatically for married couples, with state recognition it kinda is that easy. Without it, much of that stuff is incredibly difficult.

[PensFanInDC]

And to clarify, I think we might be talking past each other a bit.

I presume your definition of marriage is the declaration and blessing of your union before god. That's fine and dandy, and I don't want to impinge upon that in any way. My definition of marriage has nothing to do with divinity; it's an entirely secular construct to me, a contract.

Im not even talking about my definition. If 2 people want to get married, fine. Why does the govt need to get involved. To me it should be as easy as informing the govt that you are now married. End of story.

[slappybrown]

This is one of those tricky things that I can actually see some merit to both positions.

On the one hand, if you are driving your car out on public roadways I don't understand how there can be any reasonable expectation of privacy solely as regards your car's physical position. Depending on where you are, there could quite literally be hundreds of eyes on you at any one time. What's inside the car is a different kettle of fish, of course. But I really have a hard time understanding the notion that determining a car's precise location is somehow a violation of Constitutional protections.

On the other hand, affixing a device to said car to obtain its position seems to me as crossing a line. Like if you're walking down the street and your hot neighbor is walking nekkid through her living room with the blinds drawn and you see everything....... that's different than if you wait til nightfall and scurry down to her bedroom window and hide in the shrubbery to peer in while she changes. The former is something that's (for all intents and purposes) public. The latter required you to do something specific (and rather creepy) and you and only you are privy to the information gleaned from that action.

Whats so "rather creepy" about hiding in shrubbery?

SPAGETT!

[Factorial]

The latest on The Daily Caller smear scandal:

A top Dominican law enforcement official said Friday that a local lawyer has reported being paid by someone claiming to work for the conservative Web site the Daily Caller to find prostitutes who would lie and say they had sex for money with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

The local lawyer told Dominican investigators that a foreign man, who identified himself as “Carlos,” had offered him $5,000 to find and pay women in the Caribbean nation willing to make the claims about Menendez, according to Jose Antonio Polanco, district attorney for the La Romana region, where the investigation is being conducted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z1

[Gaucho]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/guantanamo-bay-hunger-strike-worsens-as-hopes-for-prisons-closing-fade-20130321