If you could change ONE existing law... (1 Viewer)

[radcen]

If you could change ONE existing law... which law would you change, and why?

I would eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Completely. Wipe it off the books. Why?

1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.

 

[Thrilla]

.. it's like Lay's potato chips for me.... one law is just not enough.

 

[radcen]

.. it's like Lay's potato chips for me.... one law is just not enough.

I hear ya. My list is long, but civil asset forfeiture always remains at the top.

 

[Your Star]

DOMA

No question.

 

[Thrilla]

I hear ya. My list is long, but civil asset forfeiture always remains at the top.

I have pretty long list too...a reeeeealy long list, as a matter of fact.... but none that stick out as Numero Uno.

civil asset forfeiture is bad mojo... on that we would agree.

 

[Keridan]

I would be torn between DOMA and the Patriot Act

 

[Thrilla]

DOMA

No question.

not being disparaging here,but is marriage really your top priority?

I think we sort of agree on DOMA... but probably not in all the details or the rationale.

 

[Your Star]

not being disparaging here,but is marriage really your top priority?

I think we sort of agree on DOMA... but probably not in all the details or the rationale.

Yep, I want to be able to get legally married someday, it's the biggest issue for me personally.

 

[jamesrage]

If you could change ONE existing law... which law would you change, and why?

I would eliminate civil asset forfeiture. Completely. Wipe it off the books. Why?

1. It's too easily and too often abused by those who utilize it, as it places a profit motive where none should be.
2. It completely ignores the concepts of "justice" and "innocent until proven guilty".
3. It unfairly and unjustly punishes people who are indeed innocent.

I do not think I could just settle for one.Its like taking a fat man to his favorite all you can eat buffet and telling him he can only have one thing from the all you can eat buffet.

Civil forfeiture would be on the list but so would making abortion illegal, stripping the TSA of their ability to virtually strip search and invasively pat down passengers, remove most the anti-2nd amendment laws, and a whole **** load of other laws be on that list.

 

[Thrilla]

Yep, I want to be able to get legally married someday, it's the biggest issue for me personally.

understandable... just keep in mind the DOMA doesn't really have much bearing on your personal life.... your state laws will be paramount.


I don't think anyone, gay or straight, should have to be concerned with a federal law pertaining to their marriage...I feel regulating marriage is outside the scope of federal powers.


..with one exception.
it should be against federal law for all lesbian marriages not to include Thrilla as the official marriage consummation witness.

 

[Your Star]

understandable... just keep in mind the DOMA doesn't really have much bearing on your personal life.... your state laws will be paramount.


I don't think anyone, gay or straight, should have to be concerned with a federal law pertaining to their marriage...I feel regulating marriage is outside the scope of federal powers.


..with one exception.
it should be against federal law for all lesbian marriages not to include Thrilla as the official marriage consummation witness.

But it's my understanding that once DOMA does come off the books that every state will have to give full faith and credit to marriage licenses from every state just like opposite sex marriage, so in essence once DOMA goes off the books SSM will basically be legal everywhere.

 

[Keridan]

understandable... just keep in mind the DOMA doesn't really have much bearing on your personal life.... your state laws will be paramount.


I don't think anyone, gay or straight, should have to be concerned with a federal law pertaining to their marriage...I feel regulating marriage is outside the scope of federal powers.


..with one exception.
it should be against federal law for all lesbian marriages not to include Thrilla as the official marriage consummation witness.

One of governments constitutional obligations is to ensure that if you have a right in one state, it is honored in others (paraphrasing, obviously). If she has the right to get married in CA or IA, it must be honored in TX.

If nothing else, it's absurd that the government is even involved in marriage. It's dispicable that they favor straight marraige. It's disgusting that it's a law based directly on religion.

 

[Thrilla]

One of governments constitutional obligations is to ensure that if you have a right in one state, it is honored in others (paraphrasing, obviously). If she has the right to get married in CA or IA, it must be honored in TX.

If nothing else, it's absurd that the government is even involved in marriage. It's dispicable that they favor straight marraige. It's disgusting that it's a law based directly on religion.

well, I don't think the federal government should be forcing marriage reciprocity between states.... but I don't mind if state decide those matters among themselves.
I don't mind if one state decides not to honor the licensing of another state.

I don't think your opinion that the laws are based directly on religion is accurate... I think they are based more on fiscal policy than anything.
regulating marriages opens up a whole new set of issues to be regulated.. taxes, benefits, etc

 

[Slartibartfast]

Campaign finance reform (at whatever level is necessary to keep the supreme court from shooting it down) to give all citizens equal speech rights that are not dependent on their means or what group they happen to be part of.

That one issue is the key to so many problems with this country.

 

[Thrilla]

But it's my understanding that once DOMA does come off the books that every state will have to give full faith and credit to marriage licenses from every state just like opposite sex marriage, so in essence once DOMA goes off the books SSM will basically be legal everywhere.

as I said, i'm not a fan of federally mandated reciprocity.

 

[haymarket]

I would reverse the ruling that corporations are persons and enjoy the rights of personhood. Unless we do that, we are on a collision course with a strain of right wing corporate/government fascism down the road.

 

[Thrilla]

I would reverse the ruling that corporations are persons and enjoy the rights of personhood. Unless we do that, we are on a collision course with a strain of right wing corporate/government fascism down the road.

think your stance on corporate personhood all the way through before you decide it shouldn't exist.

there's a saying about babies and bathwater that comes immediately to mind for me.

 

[Keridan]

well, I don't think the federal government should be forcing marriage reciprocity between states.... but I don't mind if state decide those matters among themselves.
I don't mind if one state decides not to honor the licensing of another state.

I don't think your opinion that the laws are based directly on religion is accurate... I think they are based more on fiscal policy than anything.
regulating marriages opens up a whole new set of issues to be regulated.. taxes, benefits, etc

You have to bear in mind that I want the government out of personal lives as much as reasonably possible. I don't think taxes should reward marriage, especially if only heterosexuals are allowed to be married. Benefits are (at least for the moment) up to the company that provides them. Luckily, a growing number of companies has removed their heads from the dark area and honor domestic partnerships until marriage is legalized.

I really can't prove that the law is based on religion, but I can't think of any other reason it would matter whether the couple was gay or straight. You might say two humans to remove polygamy and bestiality ... I could possibly support that. But to say a man and a woman smacks of religion to me. And I'm catholic

I think it's important, as a nation, that rights are the same in any state. It's a small cost to be a part of the union. I could go on about how I feel on the right to leave the union, but we've already hijacked this thread a little bit. Maybe a new one or resurrect an old one?

 

[radcen]

..with one exception.
it should be against federal law for all lesbian marriages not to include Thrilla as the official marriage consummation witness.

Ahem... Thrilla AND radcen.

I'd be ok with a video afterward, though. :2razz:

 

[haymarket]

think your stance on corporate personhood all the way through before you decide it shouldn't exist.

there's a saying about babies and bathwater that comes immediately to mind for me.

Please explain it then.

 

[Thrilla]

Please explain it then.

not the right thread for an explanation of corporate personhood.

 

[Your Star]

as I said, i'm not a fan of federally mandated reciprocity.

It's in the Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

not the right thread for an explanation of corporate personhood.

Sure it is. here is the wikipedia article on the subject

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What in there should cause me pause and maybe change my mind?

 

[Thrilla]

You have to bear in mind that I want the government out of personal lives as much as reasonably possible. I don't think taxes should reward marriage, especially if only heterosexuals are allowed to be married. Benefits are (at least for the moment) up to the company that provides them. Luckily, a growing number of companies has removed their heads from the dark area and honor domestic partnerships until marriage is legalized.

I really can't prove that the law is based on religion, but I can't think of any other reason it would matter whether the couple was gay or straight. You might say two humans to remove polygamy and bestiality ... I could possibly support that. But to say a man and a woman smacks of religion to me. And I'm catholic

I think it's important, as a nation, that rights are the same in any state. It's a small cost to be a part of the union. I could go on about how I feel on the right to leave the union, but we've already hijacked this thread a little bit. Maybe a new one or resurrect an old one?

well, we are mostly on agreement on the issue...excepting mandate reciprocity.
marriage, in it current form , is a legal right bestowed on a couple at the behest of a state government.
I see nothing inherently bad about one state saying the legal rights bestowed in one state must be respected in another.... especially if you allow for the individual states to decide for themselves.
I think most states would agree to reciprocity... but I don't see why mandating it is necessary or proper.

there are other licenses that do not have mandated reciprocity.. such as business licenses, association licenses, etc.... it's not unheard of not to mandate reciprocity, and I'm not sure why marriage is "special" enough for it to qualify for a mandate.

some aspect of marriage law were enacted as direct anti-religion measures.... such as the Morrill anti-bigamy act, which outlawed polygamy... that law directly targeted Mormons.
there is an inherent religious angle to gay marriage, sure thing... but i'm not willing to say it's basis stems directly from religion.
with most things, other, more constitutional, rationale is used to push the law into enactment

 

[Thrilla]

Sure it is. here is the wikipedia article on the subject

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What in there should cause me pause and maybe change my mind?

this thread is not about corporate personhood... start a new thread is you wish to examine it in depth.