Reply To: Barack Obama

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Barack Obama Reply To: Barack Obama

#624008
illini07
Member

Joseph: I have always been a state’s right-ist. I believe strongly in a federal system, where states have wide latitude to adopt social policies. If it fails, one state is harmed and only one state. If it succeeds, others are free to follow suit. It’s what Brandeis called the “laboratory system” of federalism in his dissent in the New State Ice Co. case.

And I’m not aware of any civil unions act that requires any religious institution to recognize such a partnership. That would strike me as patently unconstitutional. If I’m incorrect, I’d greatly appreciate a reference so I can check it out for myself!

Mariner:

In the definitional sense, my inference was absolutely correct. You can’t go and re-define the meaning of the word “record” to fit your argument. You can’t complain he didn’t vote for something when there has not been a vote. As I said, and as most political commentators have recognized, neither candidate will sway from the status quo on support for Israel. It would be FAR too politically costly – it would cost the Republicans their growing frum base, and the Democrats their support from all of the non-frum Jews who still consider Israel an important part of their identity.

As to your final paragraph, then you probably shouldn’t care if blacks have health insurance either, as they have higher HIV infection rates. Furthermore, perhaps Jews should not get health insurance due to their numerous predominantly Jewish diseases. Additionally, your “slippery slope” argument is fallacious at best: a main point of civil marriage is to clearly define and establish legal responsibilities, which animals cannot have. Animals do not have legal standing in this way, and furthermore cannot consent. It is absolutely preposterous to claim that bestiality is the inevitable result of civil unions. It’s the same thing as saying, “well, we gave women the right to vote, so clearly we must give it to toddlers as well.” Hogwash.

Since you were so kind to point out the previous DSM classifications, also remember, that in the not-too-distant past, it was also illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry, and women were considered property.