The LGBT Equality Act Puts Polarizing Politics Over Good Policy
Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 1 month ago to Politics
This explains some details behind the LGBT Equality Act. It says it probably won't become law, but probably would have if they had allowed religious exemptions. They politicians didn't want it to pass.
"I noted the bill back in 2019 and the reality that neither religious conservative organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom, nor LGBT lobby groups like the Human Rights Campaign, want anything to do with it. But given the state of the culture war right now, the Equality Act probably cannot pass. And to be cynical, the law doesn't seem designed to pass. It seems designed to be divisive for political purposes, to be used to request political donations, and to rally the base. Equality Act co-sponsor Sen. Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.) hinted he'd like to use the bill as a way to try to dump the filibuster."
I waste too much time thinking about politicians' antics and machinations.
"I noted the bill back in 2019 and the reality that neither religious conservative organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom, nor LGBT lobby groups like the Human Rights Campaign, want anything to do with it. But given the state of the culture war right now, the Equality Act probably cannot pass. And to be cynical, the law doesn't seem designed to pass. It seems designed to be divisive for political purposes, to be used to request political donations, and to rally the base. Equality Act co-sponsor Sen. Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.) hinted he'd like to use the bill as a way to try to dump the filibuster."
I waste too much time thinking about politicians' antics and machinations.
The problem here is less about LGBT rights, but more about "special" rights afforded married. Eliminate the institutionalized special rights of marriage, let it be the contract that it is, and this all goes away.
We absolutely should recognize marriage both societally and governmentally, but we should restore the policy bar to defer to parents on all things unless the government proves on a case-by-case basis the need to interfere (such as in the cases of extreme neglect or abuse).
Yes, I know. I'm evil and anti-government. And I'm proud of it. ;)
If history repeats itself, that will happen when people establish a colony somewhere that's somewhat out of reach, like on the moon. I don't think history has to repeat, though, and I would like to see it happen in some radical free trade zone. I love the space colony idea, but I think space travel is just too hard for Earth, much harder than it was for colonists to live off the land in the Americas. So I think it will have to come from some sort of "zona franca". A seastead is conceivable. I think space colonies are centuries away.
Just asking for someone else.
In Malaysia the Malay controlled government has for many years had the slogan- "sons of the soil" (Bumiputra). It is an excuse for racial discrimination.
Be careful tho', it may or may not be racial, public conversion to Islam helps to gain Bumiputra status for the family.
He also was wondering how far back are people responsible for other folks actions. Are they responsible for crimes before they were born?
Are they victims themselves from abuses their ancestors suffered from?
My friend says we are being abused today by IDIOTS pushing the retribution and racist $hit.
I truly believe mostly of this is a state of mind. Life has so many random ups and downs, including freak accidents and diseases that kill for no reason. But wallowing in grievance is pointless; actions people can choose to take usually have more impact than all the things they're victims of.
I recommend Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and Guns, Germs, and Steel.
As more of these discomfiting efforts to normalize sexually related mental disorders come to light, I can't help but feel there's a motivation behind it to normalize pedophelia. We're already seeing discussion of how it's a disease, and the "victims" shouldn't be considered criminals. If you think about it, if the argument that minors have a right to make life altering decisions about their sex, the next logical step is to declare they have a "right" to experience their inherent sexuality, including having sex with adults.
I think this is the slippery slope fallacy.
Also, I don't see the trend going toward kids having more rights to make decisions for themselves. It seems like we're considering people incompetent to do things for themselves at older ages. I have the unpopular belief that once people develop formal operations, usually as teenagers, they soon get an urge to set out on their own and make their own decisions. I think our society is wrong to consider them children, not able to make decisions, not supposed to work, not accountable for the agreements or their crimes. That doesn't mean I want my kids to leave home at 16, but I want to start respecting them as people becoming responsible for their own lives. I have warned them at early as age 7 and 9 that there are some troubled people who want kids to be their b/f or g/f, that this is unhealthy, and that I want them to tell me if they ever sense that from someone. But in a few years, when they're 15 and 17, ages when historically people got married or went to war; they really have to start taking responsibility for their actions.
I guess all this means people might see me as normalizing pedophilia. It's not directly related to my respect for others as individual without regard to gender.
Yeah, they're applying terms well beyond what they original meant.
They can call me a "child abuser" for saying teenagers old enough to be tried as adults if they commit a crime are also free to quit school, earn money, get high, borrow money, and do whatever they please, even things I would strongly urge them not to do. I don't want perverts arrested, though, so I'm not that brand of domestic terrorist [their term, not yours]. :)
My own daughter was wrestling with the effects of divorce and physical separation from me. Her stepfather, who is a narcissistic, unscrupulous womanizer, took advantage of her. I didn't find out about this until she was an adult, and she asked me not to do anything out of anger, as she wanted to keep me out of legal trouble.
Walk in my shoes for a moment, so you understand why I have zero tolerance for perverts who prey on children. The first abuser is long dead, but the second still lives free of any responsibility or sense of guilt, and were it not for my promise to my daughter, I would hunt him down and flay him alive.
I don't care what consenting adults choose to do, but when they purposely target the young and vulnerable, my tolerance ends.
Bigotry would already be dead if it weren't for Democrats. Who have been the race-baiters? Democrats like Al Sharption and Jesse Jackson. Who opposed the '63 and '64 bills making inequality in public accommodations illlegal? Democrats. Who has been supportive of the destructive race riots and BLM? Democrats. Heck, we can go back to the times immediately following the Civil War and who supported the KKK? Democrats.
The only way we'll ever really be rid of bigotry is when there are no more Democratic Politicians.
"Why would we even expect political parties to sort people..."
Again, its all about ideology. Does any given politician espouse the idea that all men are equal under the law? If so, they are against bigotry. It's just that simple. The converse is also true: that those who push the idea that some are "more equal than others" (Animal Farm) are bigoted. It is that simple.
I know they say they do, but I don't believe it at all.
CG: "Why would we even expect political parties to sort people."
blarman: "Again, its all about ideology"
As you say, that answer is simple and verifiable. The parties have platforms that mention ideology. They have mechanisms to reward people who go along with the party. So it's possible that politicians could read the platform now and look at the historic platforms and compare it to their own ideas on questions such as whether all people are created equal. It's also plausible that the party leadership could be people of strong philosophical frameworks who would make sure the rank-and-file behave consistently with the party ideology. They could also groom future leaders based on their commitment to philosophies and ideologies. I think this scenario does not occur though. I think politics is show business for ugly people. The job attracts people who are entitled to lead, and they'll use any letter by their name to get more power. Unlike the business world, there are a finite number of positions in government. That's part of their appeal. Many people want them, so you have to use every tool you can to get elected, which includes support from the party, deals with interest groups, and deals with other politicians. You might think the party is all about ideology, but it's just made up with other people similarly doing whatever it takes to get finite coveted positions of power, and that's all it's about. Philosophy is only tangentially related to all this in that politicians need to make a narrative of how their actions are consistent with their voters' desires. Voters seek different things: handouts, equal protection under the law, gun rights, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, a feeling of superiority, a feeling of getting back at some group of citizens who mistreated them, protection from criminals, and it goes on and on. To stay in office, politicians must do things that at least appear to be satisfying enough of these desires to get a majority.
I am not saying that's intrinsically good or bad. I think it's good that the system makes politicians responsive to voter desires. It's bad when it makes them pander to unhealthy desires, e.g handouts, bigotry, which are desires that seem to me to be proscribed by the Constitution, but we don't strictly follow the Constitution.
I think all of this is almost nothing at all about ideology.
I'll just leave you with this thought. Why do people act in certain ways? Answer: they perceive that it furthers their goals. Every choice we make in life is dependent upon our personal philosophy. Groups form from people with similar personal philosophies. There is a reason why businesses and non-profits alike have business statements and political groups publish platforms. They are expounding upon their collective philosophies and values. It really is that simple - not that the philosophies themselves are simply but that there is a motive behind every act performed by an individual which aligns with their personal ideology. That's why I contend that philosophy/ideology is key - in politics and elsewhere. If you disagree, realize that the opposite position holds that all actions are purely random. That has some pretty profound ramifications.
This reminds me of The Romantic Manifesto. I wasn't sure I fully understood, but I think she was saying everyone has a philosophy that drives their actions even if they haven't thought it through well.
"There is a reason why businesses and non-profits alike have business statements and political groups publish platforms. "
Yes. People sometimes belittle them, but I think they have a good purpose. There is a whole field of study on setting up systems that make the organization actually follow its mission statement. I have seen examples of it working and not working all.
"I contend that philosophy/ideology is key"
I've come to think this too. I used to think if we had a really well structured constitution, it would protect from tyranny of the majority. Now I think that it takes most people in the society having a philosophy consistent with the constitution, or will eventually fail, because its human beings who must execute what the constitution says.
I think you might be saying philosophy/ideology is key to how political parties behave... I've beaten that horse to death about how strongly I disagree with that point. :)
"If you disagree [with philosophy being key], realize that the opposite position holds that all actions are purely random"
If you're saying key to life, I agree. If we're talking about what drives political parties, it need not be either philosophy or random chance. It could be something else entirely.
"Now I think that it takes most people in the society having a philosophy consistent with the constitution, or will eventually fail, because its human beings who must execute what the constitution says."
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
No society can be controlled or run by evil people for long. It will collapse because the very tenets of such a society are antithetical to reality.
What is the purpose of a constitution made only for a moral and religious people?
What would a constitution made only for that excluded group look like? .. and for all kinds of people?
Individuals and groups of individuals-
the point is valid, and yet, surely you do not mean that individuals are to be judged or directed according to whatever group they can be put into rather than on what each does?
CC's point-
a really well structured constitution
brings up two ideas-
Scope for misuse may increase, and
the administrative arrangements are very important, if no checking, no Karens, no complaints, then rules do not matter.
Good luck creating it. In the end, freedom inherently includes the right NOT to do what is right. Society is based on the idea that people share the same worldview and are willing to agree to the terms that society creates. I talk about this in my book, but an ordered society is a more efficient society allowing for specialization and greater growth. The more disorderly the people become, the less efficient society becomes until it stops functioning altogether and people lose their abilities to specialize and profit from those specialties. It's the same reason why a socialistic society inevitably degrades into stagnation - because no one is allowed to specialize and no one else is allowed to benefit from that specialization.
I don't believe in religion, but I do see the point of a constitution requiring some philosophical commitment on the part of citizens. The constitution sets parameters. You can't have a popular vote on whether a minority group's rights are respected: the two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. In response to horrific kidnapping, you can't give the police powers to search any house without reason. In response to a horrific shooting, you can't ban guns. You can't ban speech, no matter how unpopular.
It's supposed to be there for time when it would be popular to vote for not respecting someone's rights. But I've come to realize it really is just a piece of paper. If the people don't believe in it and are determined to go against it, they will.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adam's (2nd President of the United States.
It meaning was not 'religious' and, was never intended to be, it was to simply say those who police themselves do not need laws to curtail their behavior. Morality is not exclusive to religion (or Faith oriented people), the Framers knew this. Adams, a prominent lawyer, knew this. Why choose to use the word religious? Because it shows personal fidelity to a belief structure for no other sake than the individual chooses.
Interesting quote that holds more meaning than face value.
-Adam Smith
If Adam Smith was right then a constitution for people in general may not be so hard to put together. Or maybe, most people are moral and religious - using the very good usage of the word religious from AJA - thanks, but I would replace 'belief structure' by 'general code of behavior'.
This could mean that it is the behavior of the outliers that needs more attention than people in general, and that there really has to be some common ground in how people behave with others. Call this culture, or civic consciousness, or awareness of the rights of other people. So, take in migrants only so fast as their behavior and attitudes can be influenced.
It may be more important to have the general idea that no constitution is perfect by can be improved by a fair process. Having rules that are evaded by criminals and elites using word play in a court system, will degrade the entire structure.
That's generally how police function. When lawbreaking becomes the rule rather than the exception, all civil society breaks down. That's why it is so dangerous for elected officials to side with lawbreakers such as BLM, Antifa, terrorists, etc.
"So, take in migrants only so fast as their behavior and attitudes can be influenced."
YES! I would propose the following adjustments to our adulterated immigration system:
-------------------------------------------------
Any immigrant seeking naturalization into the United States of America must be sponsored by a US citizen for a period not less than five years from their proposed entry into the United States. Any US Citizen wishing to be a sponsor must register with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and post an immigration bond of $10,000. All fees related to the immigration process are to be deducted from this bond and records are to be kept detailing all charges made against the bond.
A given citizen may only sponsor a single immigrant at any given time. The potential immigrant must live in the same county as the sponsor for the entirety of the immigration process, which is not less than five years. There is no limit on the age of the immigrant, but Congress is empowered to pass laws regarding the sponsorship of minors not related to the sponsor or to prevent harm or abuse to the sponsor.
Sponsorship includes personal responsibility for all costs, taxes, fees, etc. which the immigrant may incur over-and-above what they are able to provide for themselves.
Sponsorship includes personal liability for any activities committed by the immigrant in violation of the law, including but not limited to damages and potential incarceration.
Sponsors are personally responsible to ensure that the immigrant completes a necessary course on US Civics including (but not limited to) a study of US History and the Founding of this nation, as well as the duties and responsibilities of a US Citizen.
Immigrants seeking naturalization who do not have a sponsor are denied entry into the United States. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Aspiring immigrants are responsible to find legal and gainful employment and may call upon their sponsors for assistance acquiring such. Aspiring immigrants may not use State resources to look for jobs nor may they be employed in a governmental function of any kind. Sponsors may access State resources on behalf of their sponsored immigrant.
Aspiring immigrants are held to a no-tolerance policy regarding the laws of the land. Sponsors are wholly responsible for the education of their charge regarding laws and social etiquette and are encouraged to enroll such in classes designed to acquaint and educatte aspiring immigrants in customs, duties, legal obligations, etc. Commission of a felony by either the immigrant or their sponsor voids the sponsorship, forfeits the bond, and immediately subjects the aspiring immigrant to deportation without possibility of reinstatement. Commission of a misdemeanor by the immigrant is subject to review by an ICE official and may warrant similar deportation and bond forfeiture.
Aspiring immigrants may be granted work visas, travel permits, drivers licenses, and similar documents enabling gainful and legal employment. All such MUST be registered with ICE and may be subject to immediate forfeiture upon commission of either a misdemeanor or felony.
Aspiring immigrants are not eligible to vote in elections for public offices. Any found to have participated in such immediately forfeit eligibility for citizenship and are to be immediately expelled from the country. The sponsor immediately forfeits the posted bond and may be subject to legal hazard for voting fraud as well as other potential charges.
Aspiring immigrants are not eligible to hold public office. They may participate in local civic groups such as parent-teacher organizations, charities, and religious entities.
At the end of the naturalization period of no less than five years, aspiring immigrants must pass a written test covering US history, civics, laws, and customs. Aspiring immigrants must also demonstrate competency in spoken English. Those who fail either examination are denied citizenship status at that time, but are not disqualified from the immigration program. They may apply to re-take the tests in not less than one year from the time of the last examination.
Upon successful completion of both examinations and the naturalization period, the immigrant may be granted Citizenship. Once citizenship is awarded, the sponsor shall be refunded the remainder of the bond funds within two calendar weeks.
-but, distinguish immigrate v.v. citizenship.
If you want to make it easy, I like CG's suggestion (!), at least ask some sensible questions - 'Do you want to chop off our heads' that would get rid of a fair number. and
"Sovereign nations must have controlled borders"
-the retired military letter.
The other alternative is to entirely eliminate our public welfare system. I can't remember who said it, but they astutely noted that a nation can have either open immigration OR a welfare system, but not both. Of course none of that solves the problem of terrorist infiltration or gangs - which is the other reason I support the role of a citizen mentor/steward program.
I think the philosophy of the people in general is most important. Most people are not criminals. A good criminal justice system is important, but more important IMHO is that the average citizen, who would not consider committing a serious crime, believe in the fundamental principles of power flowing from the people to the government and of a constitutional framework against mob rule.
"take in migrants only so fast as their behavior and attitudes can be influenced."
I think it's relatively simple to select migrants who at least claim to believe in the principles of constitutionally limited liberal democracy. The hard part is after a few generations people take it for granted.
That is exactly right. Individuals are driven by philosophies. Organizations are made of individuals, who are driven by individual philosophies. An organization saying it follows certain principles or a philosophy, may or may not actually do so. My point earlier was I categorically do not think political parties in the US have a philosophy. I know they say they do, but I think they absolutely do not. I actually think most individual politicians do not have a political philosophy, e.g. believe in small gov't, believe US military engagement around the world is important, believe in protectionism vs free trade... I think think they believe in getting elected and oppose someone else being elected to the office they're running for. But that's another point. My claim is the political parties don't have ideologies.
This is me beating a dead horse b/c you think political parties do have ideologies. To support your claim, I can think of some issues they've stay consistent on all my life. During my lifetime, Republicans have always been stronger on gun rights, and Democrats have always been stronger on abortion rights. I suspect even those things weren't always true. On other issues I see them take different positions during my 30 years of paying attention to this stuff.
Right now the Republicans seem to stand for Trump-like bigotry, mean-spirtedness, and conspiracy theories. Is that because it's part of the Republican ideology? No way. They currently have a lot of voters who want tax cuts and about half the population who pays no income tax. A ridiculous clown show is one option for them to get elected, although I think they went too far with it and lost. I fully expect in the next 30 years to see Democrats do the same thing, possibly about very similar issues; because circumstances will have changed, and the real ideology is to get elected and make profitable connection in office.
This sounds bad, but it means politician represent the strengths and frailties of the electorate. That's why I think it's so important for all voting citizens to have a philosophy of liberty. Because if the average person wants liberty, the politicians (and their parties, which I say don't matter) will follow along.
To label a human, it is a typical
Tactic of you phony “ liberals”.
It is without any basis you make that claim. Trump had the highest employment for black men in history. Essentially that key to success ,freedom
Advancement . Employment is the first step in progress and progress is continually ignored by the name calling {BULLY} .You claim to be progressive but in fact are a boil on the ass of progress. The Progressive liberal left democrats kill small business and job growth with Restrictions and regulations . Halting pipelines , eliminate fracking. Job killing! Jobs available shrink with minimum wage and high corp taxes remove capital for investment and growth. Those are facts backing my claim You claim bigotry... I say Trump improved dramatically the lives of the so called minorities (I call them people). That label deserves a whole other discussion. Want to make things better for a person give them experience and self worth and an earned income.
It is the best 1st step to making a livelihood.
That starts with employment.
So Let’s hear it.
What are your facts?
Mean spiritedness is labeling a persons character with out evidence
Just Because all the cool talking heads label the person a bigot. That is bullying.
I suspect you thinQ my response is mean spirited.
Well those who think the truth is hate speech - they actually hate the truth.
Wow. I would ask two questions of that. 1) can you supply examples or is this just ad hominem and 2) Are you not projecting the actual sins of the Democrats upon their political opponents? They are certainly guilty of bigotry (see their responses to Tim Scott's State of the Union rebuttal), mean-spiritedness (the nasty names they perpetually call Republicans) and conspiracy theories (Stacy Abrams claims that the election was stolen. Or Hillary Clinton's.) PS. The 2020 election WAS stolen by the Democrats. The evidence is overwhelming.
I would also ask this: do you think the modern Democratic Party is the same as it was in the 1980's? Even the Democrats admit it isn't. And when the party votes in lockstep, doesn't that demonstrate a pervasive ideology? I think it does. And there is no question in my mind that the current ideology/platform of the Democratic Party is disastrous for freedom.
That being said I do agree that a complacent/complicit electorate is the biggest source of danger to a republic. But here's another question to pose: which party has been primarily responsible for that degradation? Which party is beholden to the teachers unions who have denied our children the right to attend school this past year? Which party supported the lawlessness of $2 Billion in damages of rioting just this past summer alone? Which party encourages illegal immigration (Biden just announced he is quadrupling the cap on immigration and he has refused to enforce immigration laws since his election) ? Which party is the party of abortion, which encourages irresponsibility and destroys (quite literally) lives - especially those of colored people? Which party is the party of the minimum wage which disproportionately affects colored youth by denying them valuable entry-level positions in the market? Which party is really the party of Jim Crow?
Yes. This line is VERY close to what I'm saying. A better analogy would be about the sins of Capricorns and Cancers.
Edit add: I didn't down vote your post.
If this is true, we need to find out why our system of selecting people to make laws recruits lawless people.
It's not free time. I think getting people fired up about nothing is part of the job, if they want to stay in office. I avoid jobs with lots of politics. People who go into politics are the opposite from me.