One issue that seems like it might end up getting more play either in Cleveland or in the general, is gay marriage and other LBGT rights. At this point, it seems like liberals, centrists, and most chamber of commerce Republicans are on one side with the Christian Right on the other.

(The shift on this in the past 10 years is stunning - support for same sex marriage has gone from a fringe view to opposition being the out of the mainstream view...)

I don't think establishment Republicans want it to be an issue, but it will be if Cruz is the nominee and states like NC and MS keep passing these laws.

(04-05-2016 12:47 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  One issue that seems like it might end up getting more play either in Cleveland or in the general, is gay marriage and other LBGT rights. At this point, it seems like liberals, centrists, and most chamber of commerce Republicans are on one side with the Christian Right on the other.

(The shift on this in the past 10 years is stunning - support for same sex marriage has gone from a fringe view to opposition being the out of the mainstream view...)

I don't think establishment Republicans want it to be an issue, but it will be if Cruz is the nominee and states like NC and MS keep passing these laws.

Exactly....Politico had a good article on this yesterday.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/th...are-221477

Do not want one but I do not feel the need to stop someone else from getting one.

(04-05-2016 12:47 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  One issue that seems like it might end up getting more play either in Cleveland or in the general, is gay marriage and other LBGT rights. At this point, it seems like liberals, centrists, and most chamber of commerce Republicans are on one side with the Christian Right on the other.

(The shift on this in the past 10 years is stunning - support for same sex marriage has gone from a fringe view to opposition being the out of the mainstream view...)

I don't think establishment Republicans want it to be an issue, but it will be if Cruz is the nominee and states like NC and MS keep passing these laws.

(03-31-2016 12:56 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 08:46 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Well, today Trump managed to make pro-choice and pro-life groups mad at him.
That is quite an accomplishment.

Yep.

I think this combined with the statement about letting Japan, S. Korea and Saudi Arabia (?!?!?!) get nuclear weapons may finally do him in, or at least finally bring us the contested convention pundits and junkies day dream about every four years.

After the Wisconsin primary results, in which Cruz picked up most of the delegates, a contested convention is becoming a real possibility. Given the amount of delegates remaining to be picked, it's unlikely that Cruz can overhaul Trump in the final count, but it's much more likely now that Trump won't have enough for a clear majority going into the convention, thus leaving the two to fight it out in a second ballot at the convention. The TV networks won't have to complain about their ratings cratering during convention coverage this time!

Quote:Edit: Rereading the transcript it's not clear what his position on Saudi Arabia having nuclear weapons is:

This isn't the first time Trump hasn't been clear on an issue....

(04-07-2016 04:46 PM)75src Wrote:  Do not want one but I do not feel the need to stop someone else from getting one.

Of course, the issue was never "feel[ing] the need to stop someone else from getting one", but rather the rationale for the role of government in regulating marriage. The Obergfell decision basically has destroyed any such rationale.

(04-09-2016 01:22 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Of course, the issue was never "feel[ing] the need to stop someone else from getting one", but rather the rationale for the role of government in regulating marriage. The Obergfell decision basically has destroyed any such rationale.

So now that the rationale has been "destroyed", what's the way forward? Do conservatives push bills that take marriage out of the government's purview entirely?

(04-09-2016 08:49 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 01:22 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Of course, the issue was never "feel[ing] the need to stop someone else from getting one", but rather the rationale for the role of government in regulating marriage. The Obergfell decision basically has destroyed any such rationale.

So now that the rationale has been "destroyed", what's the way forward? Do conservatives push bills that take marriage out of the government's purview entirely?

Doesn't Obergfell implicitly REQUIRE government to authorize marriage? I seem to recall that one premise of the opinion by Chief Justice Roberts was that marriage is so fundamental to human nature (or something like that) that government HAS to authorize it -- and therefore cannot discriminate in doing so.

A commentator at the time opined that if Justice Ginsburg had written the opinion, she probably would have reached the same result ("government can't discriminate") purely on equal protection grounds, without going into the fundamentality (if you will) of marriage.

The reason I'm recalling it this way is that I thought it was a bit ironic that Roberts, the alleged conservative, seemed to be giving constitutional status to a positive right (a "right to marry") that the Constitution never mentions, while one of the alleged arch-liberals would have been more of a strict textualist on the 14th Amendment.

Anyway, if the above description is correct, it would be a rare case of turning government licensing into a constitutional mandate: the government may not have to license drivers, doctors, cosmetologists or anything else, but it MUST license marriages.

And this campaign just gets weirder and weirder:

Kasich and Cruz coordinate to block Trump...
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475541039/...t=20160425

This campaign keeps getting weirder and weirder because there is nobody worth a damn running.

(04-09-2016 09:05 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:49 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 01:22 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Of course, the issue was never "feel[ing] the need to stop someone else from getting one", but rather the rationale for the role of government in regulating marriage. The Obergfell decision basically has destroyed any such rationale.

So now that the rationale has been "destroyed", what's the way forward? Do conservatives push bills that take marriage out of the government's purview entirely?

Doesn't Obergfell implicitly REQUIRE government to authorize marriage? I seem to recall that one premise of the opinion by Chief Justice Roberts was that marriage is so fundamental to human nature (or something like that) that government HAS to authorize it -- and therefore cannot discriminate in doing so.

A commentator at the time opined that if Justice Ginsburg had written the opinion, she probably would have reached the same result ("government can't discriminate") purely on equal protection grounds, without going into the fundamentality (if you will) or marriage.

The reason I'm recalling it this way is that I thought it was bit ironic that Roberts, the alleged conservative, seemed to be giving constitutional status to a positive right (a "right to marry") that the document never mentions, while one of the alleged arch-liberals would have been more of a strict textualist on the 14th Amendment.

Anyway, if the above description is correct, it would be a rare case of turning government licensing into a constitutional mandate: the government many not have to drivers, doctors, cosmetologies or anything else, but it MUST license marriages.

As an alternative, and to make things make more logical sense, how about government not license marriages, but instead just treat all marriage contracts the same as any other contract?

Then any person with standing could enter a marriage agreement with any other person with standing. Plus, it would end a lot of shennanigans that go on with marriage not being treated like the contract it really is.

(04-25-2016 02:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 09:05 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:49 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 01:22 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Of course, the issue was never "feel[ing] the need to stop someone else from getting one", but rather the rationale for the role of government in regulating marriage. The Obergfell decision basically has destroyed any such rationale.

So now that the rationale has been "destroyed", what's the way forward? Do conservatives push bills that take marriage out of the government's purview entirely?

Doesn't Obergfell implicitly REQUIRE government to authorize marriage? I seem to recall that one premise of the opinion by Chief Justice Roberts was that marriage is so fundamental to human nature (or something like that) that government HAS to authorize it -- and therefore cannot discriminate in doing so.

A commentator at the time opined that if Justice Ginsburg had written the opinion, she probably would have reached the same result ("government can't discriminate") purely on equal protection grounds, without going into the fundamentality (if you will) or marriage.

The reason I'm recalling it this way is that I thought it was bit ironic that Roberts, the alleged conservative, seemed to be giving constitutional status to a positive right (a "right to marry") that the document never mentions, while one of the alleged arch-liberals would have been more of a strict textualist on the 14th Amendment.

Anyway, if the above description is correct, it would be a rare case of turning government licensing into a constitutional mandate: the government many not have to drivers, doctors, cosmetologies or anything else, but it MUST license marriages.

As an alternative, and to make things make more logical sense, how about government not license marriages, but instead just treat all marriage contracts the same as any other contract?

Then any person with standing could enter a marriage agreement with any other person with standing. Plus, it would end a lot of shennanigans that go on with marriage not being treated like the contract it really is.

Your reply made me realize how many typos I had in my original post - ugh. I've tried to fix them in the original.

Not sure what the Cruz campaign's 'major announcement' this afternoon will be, but looking more and more like we will see a Clinton v Trump general election. I think this might be as ugly an election as we've seen in a while.

But don't worry, it all be over in six short months!

Edit: Announcement was Fiorina as his hypothetical running mate...

The media is couching Indiana as a must-win for Cruz next week. 30 delegates go to statewide winner, 3 delegates go to winner of each of state's nine congressional districts.

Leebron and his wife were at the White House Correspondence's Dinner last night. I don't care if you like Obama or not, he actually does a very good job at this event (although I don't think his material last night was as strong as past years). I actually think Cruz would be a worthy successor - he has a solid sense of humor and delivery.

Clinton would be a disaster. Her comedic sense of timing is not good. Trump, as always, would be a complete wild card. When everything that comes out of your mouth is a joke, it's tough to realize whether what you're hearing is actually intended to be considered funny or not.

(05-01-2016 07:04 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Leebron and his wife were at the White House Correspondence's Dinner last night. I don't care if you like Obama or not, he actually does a very good job at this event (although I don't think his material last night was as strong as past years). I actually think Cruz would be a worthy successor - he has a solid sense of humor and delivery.

Clinton would be a disaster. Her comedic sense of timing is not good. Trump, as always, would be a complete wild card. When everything that comes out of your mouth is a joke, it's tough to realize whether what you're hearing is actually intended to be considered funny or not.

I think you nailed it.

Trump:
"And (Ted Cruz's) father, you know, was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's, you know, being shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous," Trump said in an interview on "Fox and Friends." "I mean what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It's horrible."

Cruz:
"He is proud of being a serial philanderer ... he describes his own battles with venereal diseases as his own personal Vietnam."

Murrow:
"The reputation of Messieurs Lincoln and Douglas is secure."

Well, that's that. Now Kasich has Trump right where he wants him!

I guess Rice won't get the Cruz Presidential Library until 2028 at the earliest now? The track/soccer stadium is safe for now.

Amazing. Up until the first votes were cast, I was certain* that Trump was a joke and that not even Republicans were crazy enough to nominate that guy.

Dead wrong.

*So certain that I'm going to lose a significant amount of money on PredictIt once the nomination is official. Oh well, live and learn.

(05-03-2016 08:25 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Well, that's that. Now Kasich has Trump right where he wants him!

And apparently Kasich will exit the race this afternoon.

(05-03-2016 09:33 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I guess Rice won't get the Cruz Presidential Library until 2028 at the earliest now? The track/soccer stadium is safe for now.

I really wish we had the George H. W. Bush Library. President Bush was a class act, and the complement to the Baker Institute would be pretty cool. I don't know if was quite ours for the taking, but we certainly had a chance. Given our smaller campus, it would have been different from what was eventually built in College Station -- it might have looked more like the LBJ Library in Austin. But it would have been in Houston, which is where Bush's library belongs, and it would have attached Rice's name to a high-profile institution, which is pretty rare.

Instead, Rice has:
- No presidential library, unlike UT, A&M, SMU, Harvard, Stanford, Michigan...
- No government laboratory, unlike Cal, Caltech, Stanford, Chicago, Iowa State, Stony Brook, Tennessee...
- No private contract laboratory, unlike UT, MIT...
- No astronomical observatory, unlike Caltech, UT...
Even the BRC (which remains largely empty) doesn't carry the Rice name; in fact, the word "Rice" was added to the facade only as an afterthought -- and almost invisibly.