Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
Last things first, the GOP is refusing to let the federal (not state) government recognize gay marriage or civil unions between gays, even if it is recognized in the state in which they reside.
|
I think the Defense of Marriage Act does 2 things - it prevents one state from having to recognize the gay marriages of another state and it defines marriage for federal laws/entitlements as between one man and one woman. I don't believe that either is inconsistent with state's rights, which is what your complaint of hypocrisy was about. Just because the federal government doesn't want to give social security benefits to a gay spouse doesn't mean the state that has sanctioned the gay marriage has lost any rights. The federal government is not bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. That applies to the states only. The Full Faith and Credit Act, a federal law, does have implications on the federal government. But that is not a constitutional provision. That is a law that can be changed willy-nilly.
Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
The federal government recognizes common-law marriages, even though most states do not. But gay marriage, no. While you may be kinda sorta focused on state laws, there are a few federal laws (e.g., the Internal Revenue Code) that have provisions that relate to marriage (say, oh, whether or not you can use the "married filing jointly" tax rates that are quite favorable if one spouse earns considerably more than the other).
|
Well, it was you who was focused on state laws/rights, not me. I just responded to your cries of "hypocrisy."
I don't see your common law marriage analogy as apt. Your original post complained about the GOP being hypocrites because they claim to care about state's rights, and you believe that the Defense of Marriage Act somehow interferes with state's rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
First things last, what, people don't die because workplaces are unsafe? Since when? I realize that it has to do with preventing injuries etc. as well, but people die in unsafe factories (e.g., trapped inside when the place is burning down). People also die when food is unsafe, but that doesn't mean the GOP won't try to limit the FDA's (or the Dept. of Agriculture)enforcement efforts. People also die or are quite a bit harmed from poisons in their drinking water. Bet that really fucks up those unborn children. Fetuses are soooooo delicate. But let's roll back the regulations on that one, right?
|
Death is the intended consequence of an abortion and that makes it much different from regulating workplace safety, which only reduce the likelihood of death or injury. That is plainly different. Also, some workplace safety regulations, say the ergonomic requirements to prevent carpal tunnel, are trivial. Abortion is never trivial. Someone always dies.*
If the government doesn't regulate workplace safety, some people may or may not die as the result. Some workers may or may not get injured as the result. And some workplace safety regulations have never even been shown to prevent either death or injury in the workplace. When a woman has an abortion, the fetus always dies.*
Also, the unsafe factory may or may not be the cause of the death. It could be human error. An abortion is always the cause of the death.* Death is the intended consequence of the abortion. And that makes it different from regulating to decrease the likelihood of injury and death in the workplace.
Same can be said about your FDA regulation analogy and other analogies. It is not the same to regulate a procedure in which death is the intended consequence and to regulate the workplace/food safety to simply decrease the likelihood of injury/death occuring.
*Unless it is one of the rare cases in which the fetus lives and my god, what a fucking nightmare that is. You now have this severly maimed/harmed person who gets the pleasure of living like that because of a botched abortion. My understanding is if the abortion is botched and the baby's head is out of the womb, you can no longer kill it or it is murder. But I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, back to the abortion thing, apparently the FDA is considering letting the morning-after pill go OTC. Medical groups are for it, religious/political groups are against it. Article (from NYT via Yahoo!) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?<a ...thecounter</a>
|
The GOP is not against it as far as I know. Do you know otherwise? And if not, why did you say "religious/
political groups are against it"?
