Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 27, 2013, 08:50 AM   #1
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Another example of Republicans "supreme" hypocrites.

This is NOT ABOUT "DOMA", although this example arose due to DOMA.

Republicans and Conservatives keep chanting "States Rights, States Rights" like a religious verse in the Bible.

Quote:
The (DOMA) case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry.
Now all the Republicans and Conservatives are saying the Federal Government must cram its rules down the throats of states.



Same with Keystone Pipeline.
"States have all the rights,.. unless WE (Republicans) say otherwise."
(State of Nebraska refused to allow pipeline trough its state, and the FG did not force them to have it).
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster

Last edited by PracticalMac; Jun 27, 2013 at 11:00 AM. Reason: Happy Happy Hippos!
PracticalMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 09:32 AM   #2
.Andy
macrumors 68030
 
.Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Mergui Archipelago
Can we leave hippos out of this?




edit: haha
__________________
Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

Last edited by .Andy; Jun 27, 2013 at 01:39 PM.
.Andy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 09:57 AM   #3
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by PracticalMac View Post
This is NOT ABOUT "DOMA", although this example arose due to DOMA.

Republicans and Conservatives keep chanting "States Rights, Stats Rights" like a religious verse in the Bible.



Now all the Republicans and Conservatives are saying the Federal Government must cram its rules down the throats of states.



Same with Keystone Pipeline.
"States have all the rights,.. unless WE (Republicans) say otherwise."
(State of Nebraska refused to allow pipeline trough its state, and the FG did not force them to have it).
I think a lot of the contention stems from the fact that, by most accounts, the next big push will be to have 50 state recognition of same sex marriage. So if a couple from Alabama goes to Vermont and gets married it would force Alabama to recognize it.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:12 AM   #4
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
I think a lot of the contention stems from the fact that, by most accounts, the next big push will be to have 50 state recognition of same sex marriage. So if a couple from Alabama goes to Vermont and gets married it would force Alabama to recognize it.
That is absolutely the next step. I have no idea what it contentious about that though. If we are talking about equal rights, it's a no brainer. Why should any married couple have to worry about losing their rights and protections if they cross a state line?
Moyank24 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:19 AM   #5
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
IMO, this is a good example of why you want Federal Laws, why Republicans are terrible hypocrites, and why they (the current crop of Republican leaders) do a disservice for the country when voted into power. As I've always said, it is idiot voters putting them into power.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.

Last edited by Huntn; Jun 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM.
Huntn is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:19 AM   #6
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
That is absolutely the next step. I have no idea what it contentious about that though. If we are talking about equal rights, it's a no brainer. Why should any married couple have to worry about losing their rights and protections if they cross a state line?
I'm not making the argument one way or the other....just trying to answer OP's question. It's always going to be a source of contention and states that choose not to adopt gay marriage are always going to fight to the nail to keep it out for as long as they can just like folks that want to see it there are going to keep fighting to make it so.

I think folks that are against it see yesterday as a "battle" lost and are already starting to gear up for the next battle in this progression.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:29 AM   #7
Hawkeye16
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Iowa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
That is absolutely the next step. I have no idea what it contentious about that though. If we are talking about equal rights, it's a no brainer. Why should any married couple have to worry about losing their rights and protections if they cross a state line?
They shouldn't. It is absurd to me that even with all of the tax benefits and different treatment by the government that marriage carries, it is still seen as a "religious" pact. Either it should be religious and they can not let Gay people marry and the status should have no impact financial or otherwise, or they should let everyone marry regardless of sexual preference and let them recognize the financial benefits of doing so.

The fact that the government has any say in something like this is wrong in my opinion. The government needs to stop trying to control everything.
__________________
Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
Hawkeye16 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:35 AM   #8
PracticalMac
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
I think a lot of the contention stems from the fact that, by most accounts, the next big push will be to have 50 state recognition of same sex marriage. So if a couple from Alabama goes to Vermont and gets married it would force Alabama to recognize it.
Noted, but as Huntn pointed out, its about how Republicans constantly say let the States decide, and then turn a 180 and say the States cant decide (add reason why here).


In the end, one state does not have to accept what another approves (ie, Cannabis), and Federal benefits are national, not state.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye16 View Post
They shouldn't. It is absurd to me that even with all of the tax benefits and different treatment by the government that marriage carries, it is still seen as a "religious" pact. Either it should be religious and they can not let Gay people marry and the status should have no impact financial or otherwise, or they should let everyone marry regardless of sexual preference and let them recognize the financial benefits of doing so.

The fact that the government has any say in something like this is wrong in my opinion. The government needs to stop trying to control everything.

Tell that to the Republicans/Conservatives!
(certain politicians seem to let well enough alone)
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:36 AM   #9
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
That is absolutely the next step. I have no idea what it contentious about that though. If we are talking about equal rights, it's a no brainer. Why should any married couple have to worry about losing their rights and protections if they cross a state line?
I hope its the next step. Sadly though I honestly don't expect to get married in PA in my lifetime (and I'm only 31). There's too much 'Murica here and people won't vote for whats right, they'll vote based on their hatred for gays.
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:58 AM   #10
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
I think a lot of the contention stems from the fact that, by most accounts, the next big push will be to have 50 state recognition of same sex marriage. So if a couple from Alabama goes to Vermont and gets married it would force Alabama to recognize it.
Good, that's how legal contracts are supposed to work.
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 11:32 AM   #11
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
I'm not making the argument one way or the other....just trying to answer OP's question. It's always going to be a source of contention and states that choose not to adopt gay marriage are always going to fight to the nail to keep it out for as long as they can just like folks that want to see it there are going to keep fighting to make it so.

I think folks that are against it see yesterday as a "battle" lost and are already starting to gear up for the next battle in this progression.
The funny thing is, this sort of thing has gone on a long time. When I was young, memories were still fresh about how young couples not allowed to get married in their home state by state law, would arrange to visit a neighboring state where they were allowed to get married, get married there, and then return after a while. According to the old "states rights" Constitution, states are supposed to recognize what other states do.

So, what we have here, is social conservatives asserting that they don't have to honor another states action, because they don't like the action. Then, they turn around and inflict Federal law on something that was considered a state function. Strict "States Rights" has been basically logically impossible from the beginning-- there are always cases that defy strict application. What some States Rights people claim they want to do is go back to the Articles of Confederation. The rest of us thought that was resolved in 1865.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 11:57 AM   #12
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
The funny thing is, this sort of thing has gone on a long time. When I was young, memories were still fresh about how young couples not allowed to get married in their home state by state law, would arrange to visit a neighboring state where they were allowed to get married, get married there, and then return after a while. According to the old "states rights" Constitution, states are supposed to recognize what other states do.

So, what we have here, is social conservatives asserting that they don't have to honor another states action, because they don't like the action. Then, they turn around and inflict Federal law on something that was considered a state function. Strict "States Rights" has been basically logically impossible from the beginning-- there are always cases that defy strict application. What some States Rights people claim they want to do is go back to the Articles of Confederation. The rest of us thought that was resolved in 1865.
Seems to be an inherent conflict. There are State's rights, but then there are elected officials to represent the State on a Federal level. I believe certain categories of laws should be uniform across the country- such as anti-discrimination, education standards, immigration, etc. On the Federal level, the States get a say. As a country we stand for something. Civil rights in the early 1960s is the perfect example of why we need uniform Federal laws. If it is immigration policy, States get to vote on the federal level. They (States like Arizona) should not have the right to make up their own rules or ignore rules they don't like.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 03:50 PM   #13
SwiftLives
macrumors Demi-God
 
SwiftLives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Send a message via AIM to SwiftLives
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
Seems to be an inherent conflict. There are State's rights, but then there are elected officials to represent the State on a Federal level. I believe certain categories of laws should be uniform across the country- such as anti-discrimination, education standards, immigration, etc. On the Federal level, the States get a say. As a country we stand for something. Civil rights in the early 1960s is the perfect example of why we need uniform Federal laws. If it is immigration policy, States get to vote on the federal level. They (States like Arizona) should not have the right to make up their own rules or ignore rules they don't like.
The other side of this coin are the laws legalizing medical and recreational use of marijuana. The federal government still maintains that it's an illegal drug. Granted, enforcement is in a bit of a gray area at the moment.
SwiftLives is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 04:56 PM   #14
thermodynamic
macrumors 65816
 
thermodynamic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
IMO, this is a good example of why you want Federal Laws, why Republicans are terrible hypocrites, and why they (the current crop of Republican leaders) do a disservice for the country when voted into power. As I've always said, it is idiot voters putting them into power.
Some people vote based on how slick or pretty one looks.

Others are satisfied with the veneer marketed to them, not wanting to be bothered with details.

The world is made up of all types.

And I don't think Republicans have a monopoly on this...
__________________
Early-2011 17" MacBook Pro (2.2GHz 8GB DDR3-12800 (1600MHz))
2009 Mac Pro (Quad, 2.66GHz, 8GB (DDR3-8500 (1066MHz))
iPhone 3GS (32GB)
thermodynamic is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2013, 06:22 PM   #15
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
The deal with Republicans and CONservatives is the fact that they use and ignore laws when it is most convenient for them, plain and simple. There is never any consistency with these people.
iMikeT is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2013, 09:30 PM   #16
AustinIllini
macrumors Demi-God
 
AustinIllini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMikeT View Post
The deal with Republicans and CONservatives is the fact that they use and ignore laws when it is most convenient for them, plain and simple. There is never any consistency with these people.
Yeah because Democrats are a lot different.

Also, you use the term "conservative" too loosely. A fiscal conservative and Social liberal (neo-libertarian) could easily vote Democrat after Bush, but probably will not now because of the excessive spending.

Social conservatives are losing and have to adjust their game. Soon and very soon, we need the fiscal conservatives to move back into power before we spend ourselves into trouble.

So yeah, go ahead and keep calling Republicans conservative, but honestly they're not (military spending!). A true conservative wouldn't support or not support gay marriage. I would argue a true conservative would want the government not to waste money licensing people to get married. To get married is a right, I shouldn't have to go get a license for it.
__________________
Victory ILLINOIS Varsity!
Early 2011 13" MBP iPad Mini Retina 32 GB Google Nexus 5

Last edited by AustinIllini; Jun 28, 2013 at 09:35 PM.
AustinIllini is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2013, 08:10 PM   #17
SwiftLives
macrumors Demi-God
 
SwiftLives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Send a message via AIM to SwiftLives
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
...To get married is a right, I shouldn't have to go get a license for it.
Would you also agree that you shouldn't receive any tax benefits for marriage? Or no legal visitation rights if your spouse ends up in the hospital? Would you be okay paying estate taxes on any money your spouse left you after death? How about giving up your rights to make wellness and monetary decisions for your spouse if she were unable to do so? I also take it you would be okay giving up any social security or medicare benefits for your spouse?
SwiftLives is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2013, 08:29 PM   #18
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
To get married is a right, I shouldn't have to go get a license for it.
Think of it as filing a "Change of property and dependent status" form for tax and property ownership purposes. If you wish to forgo the benefits that ensue, you are certainly free to do so.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2013, 11:32 PM   #19
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye16 View Post
They shouldn't. It is absurd to me that even with all of the tax benefits and different treatment by the government that marriage carries, it is still seen as a "religious" pact. Either it should be religious and they can not let Gay people marry and the status should have no impact financial or otherwise, or they should let everyone marry regardless of sexual preference and let them recognize the financial benefits of doing so.

The fact that the government has any say in something like this is wrong in my opinion. The government needs to stop trying to control everything.
If it was a solely religious matter, it would be up to whatever church was to perform the services. As far as I know churches can refuse to perform such services, but that doesn't have any real impact on ability to obtain a marriage license or be married elsewhere.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 12:11 AM   #20
AustinIllini
macrumors Demi-God
 
AustinIllini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwiftLives View Post
Would you also agree that you shouldn't receive any tax benefits for marriage? Or no legal visitation rights if your spouse ends up in the hospital? Would you be okay paying estate taxes on any money your spouse left you after death? How about giving up your rights to make wellness and monetary decisions for your spouse if she were unable to do so? I also take it you would be okay giving up any social security or medicare benefits for your spouse?
In a perfect America:

Two people tell the government "hey, we're getting married." The government records it. All benefits follow.

The governments only job is to provide legal evidence of a marriage and provide the benefits of said marriage. Anything else above that is a waste. No applications, no licenses.

I consider myself a libertarian. The only further intervention I support is common law marriage with children. For example, if mom and dad have two kids, cohabit a residence, and mom and dad are unmarried, and one of the two has health insurance, their children should not be allowed on the government dole. If one parent (regardless of marital status) has insurance, he must provide for his children. The US taxpayers shouldn't be paying for insurable children.
__________________
Victory ILLINOIS Varsity!
Early 2011 13" MBP iPad Mini Retina 32 GB Google Nexus 5
AustinIllini is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2013, 12:24 AM   #21
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
Two people tell the government "hey, we're getting married." The government records it. All benefits follow.

The governments only job is to provide legal evidence of a marriage and provide the benefits of said marriage. Anything else above that is a waste. No applications, no licenses.
I'm almost with you on that one. It's sooo close.

I registered with the county government and received a license which needed to be signed upon completion of a legal marriage ceremony.

I would cut one step ...

I registered with the county government and received a license which needed to be signed upon completion of a legal marriage ceremony.

IMO, anything after receiving the marriage license from the local government should be entirely optional.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2013, 02:34 AM   #22
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinIllini View Post
Yeah because Democrats are a lot different.

Also, you use the term "conservative" too loosely. A fiscal conservative and Social liberal (neo-libertarian) could easily vote Democrat after Bush, but probably will not now because of the excessive spending.

Social conservatives are losing and have to adjust their game. Soon and very soon, we need the fiscal conservatives to move back into power before we spend ourselves into trouble.

So yeah, go ahead and keep calling Republicans conservative, but honestly they're not (military spending!). A true conservative wouldn't support or not support gay marriage. I would argue a true conservative would want the government not to waste money licensing people to get married. To get married is a right, I shouldn't have to go get a license for it.

The hypocrisy with Democrats is the fact that they speak like progressives but govern like Republicans. On top of that, the modern Democratic party is just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. President Spineless (Obama) and Senator Spineless (Reed) are good examples of this. Do Democrats get a pass? Nope.

To me, there is a difference between conservatives and CONservatives. Conservatives are the real Republicans who were pushed out of the party by the religious right, Libertarians, and Tea Party. Many real Republicans have found themselves either mostly as independents or Democrats and consider themselves RINOs. CONservatives (religious right, Libertarians, and Tea Party) are the useful idiots left in the modern Republican party and are often used to do the bidding of the corporate interests who are running the show.

I'll agree that there was a time when real Republicans would not be in favor for the bloated military spending but we know where those people have gone to. The party that calls for more military spending is the neo-CON Republicans.
iMikeT is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"What's HBO?" asks Supreme Court Justice Michael Goff Politics, Religion, Social Issues 15 May 22, 2014 09:13 AM
2010 27" iMac screen issue..."dirty", "cloudy", image retention issues MMcCraryNJ iMac 1 May 18, 2013 04:02 PM
House Republicans "Fail" hit list (contributions welcome) PracticalMac Politics, Religion, Social Issues 12 Jan 3, 2013 02:57 PM
Republicans Appeal DOMA Case to Supreme Court leekohler Politics, Religion, Social Issues 119 Oct 28, 2012 09:35 PM
Do Republicans deserve to use the term "Pro Life"? LIVEFRMNYC Politics, Religion, Social Issues 62 Sep 13, 2012 09:43 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC