Conservative lawmakers propose bills to placate idiots

[about_average]

"Georgia House Speaker David Ralston has proposed a “Pastor Protection Act” that would allow clergy members who don’t believe in same-sex marriage to decline to perform those marriages."

Looks like conservative lawmakers all over the country are doing the same. Apparently they feel a strong need to make the morons in the electorate feel good.

 

[JackLuis]

Couldn't the Pastors just say NO?

But I guess it draws attention to the dumb assed law maker to keep his name in the papers.

 

[someoneyouknow]

What I find interesting is these are the same people who will adamantly claim their God created everything and everyone yet just as vehemently denounce their God's work when it comes to gays.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Couldn't the Pastors just say NO?

But I guess it draws attention to the dumb assed law maker to keep his name in the papers.

Here is the SCOTUS decision: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...t-upholds-state-bans-on-gay-marriage-n2017268

This seems to answer the question being asked:

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex," he said.

 

[phrodeau]

Churches have always refused to marry any couple who don't meet their standards or adhere to their doctrines.

Pretty much a non-issue, but that's the GOP for you. Jerking off on the taxpayer's dime.

 

[sr71plt]

Couldn't the Pastors just say NO?

Well, yes. That's why such a bill is idiotic.

 

[about_average]

Well, yes. That's why such a bill is idiotic.

Actually they are great bills, politically speaking. Pretty much guarantees them votes from the clueless.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Actually they are great bills, politically speaking. Pretty much guarantees them votes from the clueless.

Votes they'd have anyway.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Some of those votes they'd have already but there are a lot of "moderate" religious people who feel they are being encroached upon and would leap at the chance to have this kind of bill so it could get them some votes and likely costs them little. The bigger issue is that as a whole they could and should ignore the religioius bloc.

 

[Aglaopheme]

If only it was that easy to motivate people to vote. It's not.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh it's not easy for a lot of reasons. Just off the top of my head for some of us voting seems like a complete waste of time. I know I'm in that club. I live in California. I think Reagan was the last time this state went Red and that was just because he was our governor and for better or worse one of the legendary politicians of the modern era. He'll be remember along side Bill Clinton as one of those people who could make you see the world how he saw it. (We can disagree all we want with their policies especially in hindsight but not their hypnotic presence.) The same goes for my Senators. My vote only really matters on the local level and in many cases it's difficult to justify giving a shit there either. I don't really care how the local school board is run, people in California commute far enough on average that the only thing having the greatest schools on the planet would generate is an above average college graduate rate. The same goes for New Yorkers and I imagine Texans (though in the opposite direction.)

Another reason is the differences between the parties is fairly minute. They aren't identical (certainly not in temprament) but still the overall policies combined with what is possible to get through Congress means who's in charge really almost boils down to who would you rather see on TV talking. Not to a truly substantive difference in policies. Which isn't to say there aren't differences. I don't think Gore would have taken us into Iraq, I likewise think they would have been quicker to save the banks.

But my point about ignoring the religious right has more to do with the fact that they alienated a lot of people and at the same time they have no place to go. It's the same on the left with gays or the environment. The left pays some minor lip service but rarely makes big moves or even talks about them at length because what are the gays gonna do? Vote for the people who wanted to keep them apart and would happily legislate them back into closet given half a chance? What are the greenies gonna do? Vote for the people who want to shut down the EPA? What are the Doves gonna do? Vote for the people who want a war with Iran? At worst they'll stay home. The religious right is in the same spot, are they gonna vote for the gay loving, atheist party? The answer to all of these is NO. But they'd piss guys like me off a lot less.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If only it was that easy to motivate people to vote. It's not.

It's not hard.

We have a system designed to and continuously made to be more against the voter.

Our government doesn't want us involved and they like it that way and tbh so do the people so it just seems like it's hard to get people involved.

In reality there is no reason we should still be using the system we do........

 

[Aglaopheme]

It's not hard.

We have a system designed to and continuously made to be more against the voter.

Our government doesn't want us involved and they like it that way and tbh so do the people so it just seems like it's hard to get people involved.

In reality there is no reason we should still be using the system we do........

I agree with what you said, other than the fact that it is hard to get people to the polls, very hard. Trust me on this one. I'm well versed in voter turn out.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I agree with what you said, other than the fact that it is hard to get people to the polls, very hard. Trust me on this one. I'm well versed in voter turn out.

Design a more streamlined system that gets run at regular intervals during a 4 day national holiday voter weekend, then tax the nuts off those who don't participate and I'd bet the world voter turnout starts pulling a triple lindy every election cycle compared to what it is today.
http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/triple-lindy-5.gif?w=650&h=350

Problem solved, next issue.

Oh wait....this is America

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Here is the SCOTUS decision: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...t-upholds-state-bans-on-gay-marriage-n2017268

This seems to answer the question being asked:

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex," he said.

All the opinion does is affirm a first amendment right to oppose same-sex but it doesn't affirm a right to resist same-sex with action. That is, do the wedding or cake and bitch later.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Design a more streamlined system that gets run at regular intervals during a 4 day national holiday voter weekend, then tax the nuts off those who don't participate and I'd bet the world voter turnout starts pulling a triple lindy every election cycle compared to what it is today.
http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/triple-lindy-5.gif?w=650&h=350

Problem solved, next issue.

Oh wait....this is America

Well, that would be ideal.

There are folks that are trying to make it easier, but you know white men happens.

 

[JackLuis]

After the dismal turnout in the last election, I thought, rather than having to have a Drivers license to vote, how about having to vote to get a DL?

That would increase the electorate substantially!

 

[Aglaopheme]

I liked it!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, that would be ideal.

There are folks that are trying to make it easier, but you know white men happens.

Yep....

It's not white men....it's money.

That's the real deal imo because when you look at all these things the VAST majority of the "OMG what the actual fuck guys??" there is some 90+% that if you check and dig hard enough you will find your answer on an invoice/contract.

Just so happens most of the real money is held by white guys, but that's changing.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The thing is I'm uncertain we really want an increased voter turn out, certainly not to the point of pushing people to vote and here's why.

Let's be honest for a second, as stupid as some of our Lit posters are on various subjects simply by virtue of being here on a regular basis and posting to the politics/GB of lit you are better versed than the average American on most political subjects. That's just the reality of the situation frightening though it may be.

There don't seem to be any particularly good fixes for this either. You can't have a test to vote because once you let the government deny the right to vote based on any kind of test the people administering the test will find ways to make sure that only the 'right' sort of people are voting. I know that's what I do. It wouldn't be to properly identify the Republicans vs the Democrats it would be to name Hillary Clinton's maiden name or something else sufficiently stupid that the only people who would know it would be my supporters. Which puts that and other similar solutions out the window.

Another is while there are lots and lots of flaws in our system the reality is that for most people, most of the time, what you get out of America is largely on you. We bitch a lot because we don't have real problems. The things that we see come up as problems either don't directly effect enough people on a visible enough level to really be concerned. (Which isn't to say they shouldn't be addressed. )

So without forcing people out of the system that a smaller group of more knowledgable people is preferable to a larger group of ignorant people. Lets face it whether it's politics or American Idol it's a lot better to be pretty than good. At least with American idol an argument can be made that being pretty will make you better at the job you're going for. I think that upon hitting 18 you should just be issued a state ID that syncs to your SSN that allows you to vote. You can vote where you want over say a four day period.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Okay, white men with money are still white men.


Sean you can easily target the voters you want to turn out, and people do. The Denocrats happen to have a better data base than the republicans at the moment. There's a big difference between ignorant voters and sporadic voters that tend to vote only during presidential cycles. There's very few persuadable voters. The key, at least for me, is to get those sporadic Democrats to the polls in the off year elections. Republicans just plain vote more regularly.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The thing is I'm uncertain we really want an increased voter turn out, certainly not to the point of pushing people to vote and here's why.

Let's be honest for a second, as stupid as some of our Lit posters are on various subjects simply by virtue of being here on a regular basis and posting to the politics/GB of lit you are better versed than the average American on most political subjects. That's just the reality of the situation frightening though it may be.

There don't seem to be any particularly good fixes for this either. You can't have a test to vote because once you let the government deny the right to vote based on any kind of test the people administering the test will find ways to make sure that only the 'right' sort of people are voting. I know that's what I do. It wouldn't be to properly identify the Republicans vs the Democrats it would be to name Hillary Clinton's maiden name or something else sufficiently stupid that the only people who would know it would be my supporters. Which puts that and other similar solutions out the window.

Another is while there are lots and lots of flaws in our system the reality is that for most people, most of the time, what you get out of America is largely on you. We bitch a lot because we don't have real problems. The things that we see come up as problems either don't directly effect enough people on a visible enough level to really be concerned. (Which isn't to say they shouldn't be addressed. )

So without forcing people out of the system that a smaller group of more knowledgable people is preferable to a larger group of ignorant people. Lets face it whether it's politics or American Idol it's a lot better to be pretty than good. At least with American idol an argument can be made that being pretty will make you better at the job you're going for. I think that upon hitting 18 you should just be issued a state ID that syncs to your SSN that allows you to vote. You can vote where you want over say a four day period.

When I first registered to vote, I had to pass a literacy test, which was simple enough. I was handed a paper with a few simple paragraphs o it and I had to prove I was literate by reading it out loud. The idea was that a person had to be able to read to be familiar with the issues and be able to cast an informed vote. The reading matter was strictly apolitical, such as an elementary school primer, but it did determine literacy or not.

 

[Aglaopheme]

That's utter crap Box.

 

[JackLuis]

When I first registered to vote, I had to pass a literacy test, which was simple enough. I was handed a paper with a few simple paragraphs o it and I had to prove I was literate by reading it out loud. The idea was that a person had to be able to read to be familiar with the issues and be able to cast an informed vote. The reading matter was strictly apolitical, such as an elementary school primer, but it did determine literacy or not.

I'm more in favor of an idiotic test to keep idiots from voting.

Oh No, Republican lose!

 

[Eastcoast1956]

Actually they are great bills, politically speaking. Pretty much guarantees them votes from the clueless.

Clueless and busy body votes.