Line Item Veto

[Cyclonepride]

Good answer on the marraige thing. I was interested in how you would defend support of it using your right infringing on me.

In general, I think an ammendment defining marraige between a man and a woman is one of the craziest things out there right now. I think the problems is the use of the term 'marraige' by the government. I think the government should define a civil union I believe both gay and hetero couples should get the same civil union rights. I believe marraige in the spirtual sense should stay out of the government. If a church wants deny marraige's in the spiritual sense, the government shouldn't get involved. The whole government debate should be based only on government ideas. I really have a problem with those that would give gay couples the same rights as hetero couples, but call it civil unions instead of marraiges. At least the ones that want to deny civil unions are making the government argument and not the religious argument.

Think if this kind of thing was used for a interracial marraiges. "Well we're going to give you the same rights and benefits as a same race couple, but you guys are going to have a 'civil union' while the same race couple has a 'marraige'." That would be outrageous.

I also hate the arguments that if gay marraige's are allowed, the typical hetero marraige will be ruined. So my parents are going to get a divorce it John and Tim get hitched? When Joe asks Sally to marry him, Sally will say "Well Joe, a few days ago I would have gladly said yes, but now that the government says I can marry Sue, I'm going to do that." Get real. Also, the notion that we should define it as a man and a woman is the best situation to raise kids. I agree that on the whole, that is probably true. But there are plenty of situations that are just tough on kids. Should divorce, having a child out of wedlock, having an interracial marraige all be made illegal? Of course not. The real reason people have an issue with gay marraige is they think is creepy and want to shun those people. Well it kinda creeps me out as well but thats not a reason to make people in those situations lower class citizens.

I just don't believe that marriage is a government institution, nor should it be. The church establishes the validity of marriage, not the government. The government merely uses it to determine which tax deductions to give you, and to collect fees from the process.

 

[clone52]

Actually, it would be the other way around. Slavery would be part of the original intent.

I wasn't sure if slavery was legal in all colonies at the time. I agree though.

 

[bawbie]

I just don't believe that marriage is a government institution, nor should it be. The church establishes the validity of marriage, not the government. The government merely uses it to determine which tax deductions to give you, and to collect fees from the process.

Marriage certainly is a government institution. There are something like 70 rights and benefits given by the state to those who are legally married in the state's eyes. It is a state institution because there is a social benefit from encouraging stable monogamous relationships.

 

[clone52]

Marriage certainly is a government institution. There are something like 70 rights and benefits given by the state to those who are legally married in the state's eyes. It is a state institution because there is a social benefit from encouraging stable monogamous relationships.

First off, the part of marraige with goverment benefits is a government institutions. The debate on gay vs. hetero getting those benefits is a valid one although I disagree with one side. The argument for a amendment defining a marraige being between a man and a woman has nothing to do with those benefits, does it? My problem is with those who argue that gay unions should get the same government benefits but not get defined as 'married'.

Also, just because there is a social benefit does not mean it is right. Should we make divorces, interracial marraiges and having a child out of wedlock illegal? Those would all be encouraging stable monogamous relationships. Heck, how does gay marraige not encourage stable monogamous relationships? Heck, someone could make an arguement that there was a social benefit to segregation in that it could reduce the number of fights that might occur if a white racist walked into a restroom occupied by a black man. That doesn't make it right though.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Marriage certainly is a government institution. There are something like 70 rights and benefits given by the state to those who are legally married in the state's eyes. It is a state institution because there is a social benefit from encouraging stable monogamous relationships.

I agree that there is a benefit to stable monogamous relationships. More babies....more taxpayers, etc. But government has wedged itself into that role, and I'm not sure it belongs there.

 

[clone52]

I just don't believe that marriage is a government institution, nor should it be. The church establishes the validity of marriage, not the government. The government merely uses it to determine which tax deductions to give you, and to collect fees from the process.

I agree with everything you say here. If you would support an amendment saying that gay marraiges shouldn't get the same government benefits, I would disagree with you whole heartedly, but at least respect you for making it a debate about the government side of things.

 

[CloneAggie]

I agree that there is a benefit to stable monogamous relationships. More babies....more taxpayers, etc. But government has wedged itself into that role, and I'm not sure it belongs there.

If it was about more babies, wouldn't polygamy be better?

 

[clone52]

To take this back to line item vetos, while I agree that it can be a useful tool, what are the supporters going to do when a president gets in power who uses it for unintended purposes? What if the tool that can be so useful to curb pork barrel spending begins to be used by a corrupt president for political purposes? What if he starts to use to for personal financial gain.

What if there is an item in a spending bill that set aside money for a federal anti-smoking campaign and the tobacco lobby was close with the president and bribed him to use the line-item veto. What if someone starts trading political favors for line item vetos.

I think the potential corruption it could lead to outweighs any potential benefits.

 

[alaskaguy]

The line item veto could become a partisan weapon for which ever party controls the White House. In other words, the claim is that it might only serve the party of the President and not the people.

 

[Cyclonepride]

If it was about more babies, wouldn't polygamy be better?

That kind of takes the stability portion out of the picture, which is the key to it.

 

[Cyclonepride]

To take this back to line item vetos, while I agree that it can be a useful tool, what are the supporters going to do when a president gets in power who uses it for unintended purposes? What if the tool that can be so useful to curb pork barrel spending begins to be used by a corrupt president for political purposes? What if he starts to use to for personal financial gain.

What if there is an item in a spending bill that set aside money for a federal anti-smoking campaign and the tobacco lobby was close with the president and bribed him to use the line-item veto. What if someone starts trading political favors for line item vetos.

I think the potential corruption it could lead to outweighs any potential benefits.

That is a valid argument also. I'm not sure how that could be implemented without the possibility of corruption, and in the wrong hands, I suppose it expands the power of the executive branch even more.

I think corruption starts and ends with multimillion dollar campaigns. Not only does that exempt someone without connections to large amounts of money from the presidency, it also allows people to buy power. Obviously I am all for very strict campaign financing laws, with very little wiggle room.

 

[clone52]

That is a valid argument also. I'm not sure how that could be implemented without the possibility of corruption, and in the wrong hands, I suppose it expands the power of the executive branch even more.

I think corruption starts and ends with multimillion dollar campaigns. Not only does that exempt someone without connections to large amounts of money from the presidency, it also allows people to buy power. Obviously I am all for very strict campaign financing laws, with very little wiggle room.

Sounds good to me on the campaign financing laws.