There is nothing more I enjoy than driving, provided no one is blocking my way, but this becomes and issue when there are unrealistic and unfair speed limits. The city I live in is in violation of our state speed limit standards which further emphasizes the point that speed limits are there for revenue, here is an excerpt from an article in our local paper:
"The Michigan Legislature passed Public Law 85 of 2006, effective Nov. 9, 2006. This revised the Michigan Vehicle Code to add a new method for cities to post legal speed limits using a sliding scale of access points (driveways and intersections) to post realistic speed limits of 25, 35, 45 or 55 mph proportional to the level of road development.
This method was in addition to the one using an engineering and traffic investigation including speed studies to find safest 85th percentile travel speed that is authorized for cities which have adopted the State Police Uniform Traffic Code. Investigations are usually used by the State Police and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) or the county road commissions to post safe and realistic speed limits on our highways and county roads, including when they pass through cities."
It goes on to say
"Yet, right up to today, the illegal posted limits on Huron Parkway and Nixon Road remain unchanged. The city continues to issue speeding tickets in these and other speed traps, secure in the knowledge that most people do not understand how to legally object in court. Most improperly ticketed drivers continue to pay fines they could have dismissed if they knew how to object legally to the arbitrarily low posted limits that do not conform to state law or proper engineering practices."
- James C. Walker is an Ann Arbor resident, a board member of the National Motorists Association and executive director of the National Motorists Association Foundation (www.motorists.org).
Although scrapping speed limits would be a drastic step a systematic re-evaluatuion might be in order and further use of the 85th percitile system would improve all streets.
85th Percentile System:
"Officials monitor traffic along a selected stretch of road and determine what speed 85 percent of the traffic is moving at or below during normal conditions. If the speed limit is too low then it creates a speed problem for officers because it is set artificially low.
People generally will drive at the rate they feel is comfortable and safe despite the posted speed. After hundreds of speed tests changing the speed limit has very little effect on how fast motorists drive.
For example, raising the speed limit by 5 mph doesn’t mean motorists who were already driving 5 mph over the original limit will suddenly speed up." - Abridged/Edited from Article by Tom Perkins
I think (1) is a bit simplified. It's more like the Clinton Administration forced Fannie and Freddie to back risky loans, with HUD (run by current Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo) pressuring banks to comply. Fannie and Freddie appeared to be making so much money off the limited number of loans they were backing that many other lenders leaped in and started making even more risky loans (that's more 'risky loans', not 'more risky' loans), that weren't targeted at the poor. This is where (2) & (3) really come in.
So (1) served as the trigger, or primer, but the real charge was in (2) and (3).
You folks are carrying on well, kudos to your sense of respect for others.
I wont throw much of my wacky Gnostic/Eastern Mystic/Longhouse religious beliefs at you as they scare the heck out of me and I own them! :o) Maybe a few that many are not familiar with.
A personal belief which stems from my gnosticism which delinates sins of the soul and sins of the flesh ( really natural law versus cannonical law), does Jesus really hate gays? He didnt hate on "whores", who many consider to be sexually deviant. Why would he then hate on gays? Does Jesus understand that being gay is more an issue of genetics, like race, than of raw epistemology? An extension of The Creator would know the answer implicitly. And btw, Jesus, in his spiritual form, really cant hate on ANYTHING or ANYONE. Pure logic there. Creators dont destroy, he allowed Himself to be destroyed.
From my longhouse self, where beliefs are drawn from observations of nature principally, being gay is as unnatural as flying in an airplane. ( I do it all the time!) Is it an affront to nature? Only if 100% of the species was gay and procreation halted, that would be irrational and suicidal. Yet, if some percentage of the population, say 10%, is wired differently, and the species is still pro-creating properly, the affront to nature is not measurable. What we can say about human nature through observation is that we do tend to prefer coupling than running solo, as many of Creation's lessor creature also do. NOT allowing people to couple in a socially acceptable way then, would be more of an affront to nature in that context. The only affront to Mother Nature then is the 90% not accepting the different wiring of the 10% causing unneccesary strife and division amongst the species. QED. Dig?
Tying the two together is pretty wild, lets do it with a quote from the Man that you've likely not read (unless the sky's your home), as follows:
The Savior said, "All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots. Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body. That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of nature."
Just somethings to think about from other persepctives. Please dont comment on my personal beliefs here, they're quite bizzare to most. You are certainly free to call me out in private as I put it out there, but I warn you, the sky's not the limit with me, tis my home, so be careful what you wish for!
In these pages, let us continue our good civil discussion.
To the above point re marriage, 28% of US kids live in a single family home. 14% globally. Say what about marriage? Near a third of our kids are born out of it.
The term sanctity of marriage is false, as it fails almost 50% of the time. Statistically speaking a 50% failure rate does not constitute sanctity.
As Whigs, let's cut the BS right out.
Chuck Morse drills this point home in his MWP Primer. Whigs do not visualize a perfect world or claim to be working towards some utopian ideal. Quite the contrary, we accept fully the vagaries of human nature and deal with them in our own way by accepting them(us) for what they(we)are and espousing a governmental framework which does not inhibit the free human spirit, but only gently guides it to the good by a loose framework, the good works of others and free collaboration in a community of equals with resepct for all.
Now, far be it from me to tell this little truth to the American Familes Network, TP, JBS/CP, et al, but they will fail at their attempt to 'restore' American family values until we all respect/accept one another a whole lot more. I understand they do not see the illogic of their position.
Additionally, if you were to run a regression analysis of measures of family strength on mid income economic opportunituies ( the manufacturing sector lets say), with some natural lag effect ( the home falls apart a while after dad loses his job), I think you'd find one huge correlation, i.e, the unraveling of the American family IS the unraveling of the middle class. Potentially one and the same.
It is absolute proof that absolute free trade is a fallicy and that the word that Whigs will be using often, TARIFFS, can have the desired effect of stimulating domestic employment in productive endeavors ( not moving paper or flippin' burgers). There is a shard of an industrial policy here, one which like the allspark in the kids' fantasy Transformers, can be used to grow into a true broadly implemented IP.
To me, it represents marching orders for unveiling our Renewed American System, and the industrial policy (IP) which lies at its core.
As with some of my other postings, I have no realpolitik experience or machinations in the full macro/micro workings as to whether or not this issue is either positive or negative within the construct of appropriate policies. I have my concerns but these may be colored by unreal expectations. For this reason, I would like to see membership folks who have solid economic, practical experience to offer both pros and cons of such a problem...and then utilize same to produce a potential beneficial response. I suppose the Whig Roundtables would be a good avenue of approach...
Gene, I agree with you in regards to reinstating Glass-Stegall.
If I remember right, Democrats, at Clinton's urging, and Republicans were both responsible for it's repeal.
My view is that this near depression was brought on by three main factors.
1. The Clinton administration and Democrats forced banks to make risky mortgage
loans.
2. Republicans and Democrats removed the wall between Banks and Wall St. with the
repeal of Glass-Stegall.
3. Those risky mortgages were packaged into derivatives that no one could
effectively evaluate, thereby creating a house of cards.
I know that that isn't a very sofisticated summary but the point is, I think it
gives us, the MWP, an issue that we can criticize both major parties on. We can
criticize both parties for malfeasance and allowing ideology to override common
sense.
@jonf - I would say that a more convincing rebuttal to your point B is that marriage, at its most essential, is simply a legally-recognized committed monogamous union. In that context, same-sex marriage (SSM) is simply a minor extension of marriage, not a major change. How can it be a major change? How would any past, present or future heterosexual marriage be affected in any way?
And, viewed that way, SSM has the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriage does.
There's no strict connection between reproduction and marriage, as proven by the many out-of-wedlock births. The value of marriage is not in relation to reproduction, but in the support it provides for families, whether the family is just two people who care for each other (which benefits society) or whether it includes children (which also benefits society), no matter if those children are the biological offspring of the parents or are adopted.
Gene, I updated the post to state the second convention. We tried convention 12 and 2012 convention and national convention, all too long and it messes up the navigational tabs at the top,so we just go with convention.
There is an agenda being formed. It is at about 75 ish percent. We just need to nail down some particulars and then format an hour by hour schedule. The plan is also to have q and a's with speakers and even roundtables there amongst speakers to talk about different issues.
Also we will be going over the Roundtables themselves, state and local chapters 101, Whig Academy stuff, and also the Renewed America System. We of course will also go over the website Whig Thinking, look at adding input from the polls or not and the text. As well as potential change to the bylaws. I contact Jeff Vanke and he is not attending but he and the budget group he is working for wants to put together presentations and q and a on different budget proposals and and showing how taxes and spending cuts will work under various circumstances. I would also want to try to do a Solutions Roundtable where we get the prez candidates and even congressional candidates to talk about different issues and try to come to consensus and collaboration on the issues. This would be great for the party and also great to show the American people that this is how public servants should operate within government to create effective ideas and solutions.
I welcome ever input as we need to make this as best as it can be.
Or maybe a better question, as I am unsure we as MWP can solve this denial of basic rights but maybe we can ask a better question to reframe the discussion, to wit, and in light of Bendel's story,
REFRAME **
What if we were to consider gay citizens as a RACE?
You were born white, or born black, or born gay. None of which that gloriously colorblind ( if WE make it!!!) document, Our Constitution, can 'see'.
Maybe MWP ought spearhead that debate. Is being born gay ( implicit acknowledgement there), identical to being born a certain race?
And I must say this publicly again, my deep concern is not particularly for our gay citizens, nor for our gun-toting citizens (me!), but for the strength and sustainability of our Republic, and for refining ( or wrighting as I like to call it) that Republic to a place where more of us can experience the Promise of America.
Now, color me "queer', but the union I made with my wife of over twenty years had nothing to do with the state or a permit or any other human being. I dont give a rats arse what y'all or anyone calls it, or what the paper says. It should NOT matter a lick.
Heaven is where the heart is. Its also where your marriage vows lay. The state ougth ONLY have the right to call it a union , for EVERYONE. MY opinion, not offical MWP. Yet. ;o)
I am a CFA Charterholder and therefore can be officially called an expert even though my baliwick is ensuring Ma and Pa Kettle are properly invested for their retirement, and not institutional transactions.
Jim, I'll give the story its due when I have a moment, but in very general terms there are two issues, 1.) putting the viability of institutions at risk wherein everyday savers, and not just qualified investors, have their savings/loans placed at risk and 2.) the unregulated nature of many of these OTC swaps.
It would be truly costly to try and police these transacations thoroughly, yet, many of them are bonafide transactions for the bank's client, or their own book. Or both at the same time if you are Goldman Sachs! ( Ok, I'll leave value judgments on individual institutions out).
In lieu of prohibitng them ( impossible in a global marketplace as London or Hong Kong will pick up the slack), or policing them thoroughly, the simple answer is, let Wall Street be Wall Street where the strong lions eat the weak BUT we will not place public funds,or the public trust in the fray of these unregulated transactions. Therefore, they must be separately capitalized and separately accounted for from the banks main lending and consumer operations. I.E., we need to re-erect the barriers that Glass-Stegall put in place so that depositors funds and taxpayer funds are not put at risk again, and that the American banking system in its entirety isnt put at risk by such trasnsactions going awry.
Modest portions of this have already been put into place after the debacle of 2008-2009. Yet, they are not bold as the simpler yet more holistic Contra-Too-Big-To-Fail policy outlined above.
Finally, with interest rates at all time lows, where they may stay for a bit, traditional banking operations do not provide a very big spread to work with. So the issue is to not do too much to hinder banks ability to survive, but also, to ensure that they know that Uncle Sam is no longer a part of their risk management department or treasury.
The key to making something like a simple, bonzai-style, policy like Glass/Stegall work well in this context without further damaging the American banking system, is to give them reason to lend,particularly in business formations/expansions.
BTW, housing is a perma-flat line, so any policy directive that tries to stimulate housing and mortgage lending is sailing against the wind, effectively hindered by macro trends. Kee[p this in mind when you hear policy discussions. The only logical effective course for economic stimulation is through private business expansion and formations. Banks will do well once it heats up a bit more. The payrolls will bolster their consumer side.
The sale to the public is tough. We need more corporate 'welfare' as the fools call it. Yeah fools, we do. To companies that can create livelihoods, we certainly do.
Thumbnail forecast is that the contra-TBTF policy might disintermediate the money centers more from the consumer and give mid level and local institutions more market share. This is a trend that the consumer is effecting today. Also, banks ought become stronger and more durable as a result, albeit in lessor numbers than we have today due to comrpessed margins. All of which is good for our Renewed American System.
I'm not an expert, but it appears to me that neither are the "experts."
My view is that these products are a house of cards and move too fast, too furious for even the experts to manage. Some of these are credit instruments that generally obscure the risk. They are constructed using highly complex calculus formulas and based on the movement of the markets. It appears to me that today's computerized markets move too fast for traders managing these billion dollar bundles to react.
If it comes to regulating them, then the trick is to define which products are to be regulated. For example I would increase the margins that speculators need to put down in commodity trading. When someone buys a commodity like oil or corn, etc. if they are not going to use it in their normal course of business like an oil company or farmer then they would have to put down a larger deposit on their trade. I think a citizens commission ought to look at how to regulate these risky trading products because Republicans will lobby against them and Democrats will probably over-regulate them.
I am leaning toward an outright ban on risky credit derivatives. The reason is because investors can lose tremendous amounts of money in an instant when these things go bad.
When the most respected people in the industry lose their butts with these things, then it's time to evaluate whether these products are viable or not.
Again, the trick is to determine which one's need to be regulated and how.
I'm from Newport News and I feel the same way. I attended the Republican convention yesterday for District 2. It was nothing more than a mutual admiration society. Everything was determined before the convention took place. Americans need to understand we have more choices. It's not just coke vs pepsi or McDondalds vs Burger King.
Gene - your challenge to craft a story is a good one. Maybe it turns out to be an epic tale or instead a library full of short stories with a common theme. Over 50 years ago my parents -- one Catholic, the other Protestant -- caught grief for wanting to marry. My wife and I technically have an interracial marriage, and just a year or two ago didn't someone (Louisiana county clerk?) lose his post for denying a permit to an interracial couple? Amazing and sad that type of discrimination can still exist.
Changing gears a bit, on one hand I agree with the points being made about "civil unions" vs. "marriages." Perhaps that's the right approach. But it also makes me feel uneasy. Couldn't you imagine an uproar if your state said it was going to henceforth refer to all its present married couples as "civil unions" instead of "marriages"? It's only hypothetical, but I could see a very strong push back not from bigots or religious zealots, but from "traditionalists" who don't want the state to change how it refers to their current union/marriage.
1) Remove the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax, but don't increase those benefits. Anyone making that kind of money should definitely be taking care of their own retirement.
2) Get rid of ObamaCare, Medicare and Medicaid. Instead implement a real single payer system, with copays. One system, one interface, with aggressive seek and destroy for fraud. Yeah, that'll increase taxes, but nobody will be paying health insurance premiums, so it should be a wash for most. And it takes healthcare off the contract bargaining table.
3) Review the disability system, with an eye to getting marginal cases off the system and back to work.
I would love the opportunity. Just tell me how, when and where and Ill see to it.
( new to the site, still not sure how the roundtables work, though I did read the posts in the forum, and watched the video)
In my oh so humble opinion, its the inflexability of the current system that has caused so much strife. When people hold firm to ideaologies and political views, they are more often than not unwilling to sway from them for the sake of compromise. This is the current state of things in our system. I am new to the party( as in I registered as MWP today )so I am still learning but I believe that a flexable entity is far better suited to weather any storm than a rigid one is.
We as Americans have over the past forty or so years solidified ourselves ar progressive or conservitave, which are blanket terms at best, for the polorization of our political system. Many Americans feel disenfranchised by this polarity, and as such many people are finding that they are far more flexable in their convictions than they once believed, I am among them. People can be moved, and more importantly, they can taught things that can, and sometimes do, change their views and stances.
Is it for us, the MWP, to set rigid standards and cement ourselves in one set of ideas or another? IMHO, absolutly not. MWP's appeal, or its appeal to me anyway, is that it is not bound by the ideology of political stances. We can be moved by our members through our methods and through education, not to cement what MWP stands for and against, but to figure out whats wrong, how to fix it, and ultimatly fix the proplem. Its our flexablilty that makes us attractive in a landscape defined by rigidity and polorization.
It is the gathering of many personal view points that makes this flexability possible. When all Ideas are considered, weighed, measured and found acceptable or wanting, than all ideas were included, not just those deemed appropriate for the parties ideology.
We're actually now producing more oil, and a larger proportion of our total consumption of crude, than we have in years. We have so much refinery capacity that we're exporting more refined product than we import.
Most of our problem with fuel is that we don't have a rational energy policy. For example, witness the furor over Keystone XL. At the same time the oil companies want to build a pipeline to carry more Canadian crude to the Gulf Coast, we've got refineries on the East and West coasts that are closing because all they can get is higher-priced imported crude.
Wouldn't it make more sense to build pipelines to carry the crude where the country can get some benefit from it, instead of where just the oil companies benefit?
And, yeah, most of the problem with nuclear is what to do with the waste.
You have made wonderfully valid and eye opening points here, and you are correct in everything you said. These are the disscusions that need to be had, all the time, to ensure that everyone is treated with fairness and equality.
Equality is the goal in my mind. Our country has existed for 235 years, and in that time we have made great strides to achieve that equality.
You seem rather learned so I wont give a history lesson, but I will say that in the face of adversity, Americans always rise to the occasion. With the presidents recent announcment of his support for same-sex merriage, I feel that the LGBT communities time has come. and I feel that Americans will once again rise to the occasion and do what is right.
As for reason c)...(In writing this, I assume that the sin to which you refer is from the Bible, spacificly Leviticus 18:22) Homosexuality, as im sure you know, is not the only sin. For people to use this argument aginst same-sex merriage, they should consider that Jesus said "Let he without sin cast the first stone". Any Christian can tell you that in the eyes of the Lord we are all sinners. No one sin is greater than another, save maybe for suicide(a sin that one cannot ask forgiviness of). If you are a Christian, that you know we all sin, from the choir boys to the man or woman behind the pulpit, we all sin. In a nutshell, I believe its rather hypocritical for Christians to harp on one group of sinners, when they themselves sin.
Aside from all that, I am not a Christian. I do not believe in the idea of Hell or the Devil or eternal damnation. I do not believe in the idea of "sin" as do so many Americans. Why then should anyone be held to a religious standard to which they do not aggree or comply with? That, in my oh so humble opinion, violates the first amendment. Passing laws based in a set of one religions tenents, and enforcing that law on those who do not value those tenents is, again in my humble opinion, what the first amendment was intended to prevent.
I leave you with this:
"Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state, not because they are beneath the interests of the state but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state."
"God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government."
Isaac Backus in 1773, colonial Baptist from New England, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty.
I'm afraid my response is quite long winded, but I think it is worth having a thorough discussion.
Why are homosexuals persecuted?
The Mathew Shepard example is not an example of persecution "by the powers that be", but an example of persecution by two idiots who were found guilty and sentenced to life in prison by "the powers that be".
The example you give that can constitute "persecution by the powers that be" is DOMA. I would definitely consider it more like "unfair discrimination", and that is the topic of my long answer.
The requirements for a legal marriage in states where same-sex marriage has not been legalized:
1) Both people must be at least the legal age to marry
2) The people must not be close relatives
3) The people must be opposite sex
4) A person can only be married to one other person at a time (i.e. no bigamy)
You are saying 3) infringes upon a homosexual's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". I disagree with you on life, but I will agree with you on liberty and pursuit of happiness. But don't requirements 1), 2), and 4) also infringe on the liberty and pursuit of happiness of some other group?
My point is that any body of laws will legally discriminate against groups of people. We deprive convicted criminals of their liberty, and in some cases even deprive them of their rights to vote or bear arms after they have done their time. We deprive minors of liberty and pursuit of happiness because we restrict how they old they have to be to work, obtain a drivers license, make a legal contract, marry, etc.
The question then is not whether a law is discriminatory; all laws are because they define one group or action as legal or illegal. The question is whether a law fairly discriminates; whether it has a legitimate purpose and is consistent with the rest of our legal philosophy. All four requirements above are discriminatory because they restrict the right to marry. 1) can be justified on the grounds that it has a legitimate purpose of protecting minors - consistent with other laws preventing minors from entering into legally binding contracts. 2) can be justified on the grounds that it has a legitimate purpose of reducing risk of undesireable recessive traits - also that it is consistent with laws against incest. I'm not really sure about 4). The Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), but I understand it was really more about finding that religious belief did not exempt the citizens from obeying the law. I guess you could argue that 4) has a legitimate purpose because allowing multiple spouses greatly complicates legal marriage rights including inheritance and power of attorney.
So does 3) have a legitimate purpose? Is it consistent with the rest of our legal philosophy? You say "no". Let me point what I think are the three strongest arguments that 3) has a legitimate purpose:
A: Children are better off in general when they are raised by both of their biological parents who love them. Where this is not possible, children are better off with a situation as close to the above as possible: a married husband and wife who love them but are not necessarily the biological parents. Removing the restriction on homosexual marriage would inevitably lead to homosexual married couples receiving the right to adopt children on an equal footing with heterosexual married couples, which is not in the best interest of adopted children.
B: Changing the definition changes the thing. In other words, redefining marriage to include homosexual unions changes what marriage is beyond recognition. It is similar to redefining murder so that no one has to actually die for something to be murder. The heterosexuality is fundamental to the definition because it includes the possibility of reproduction.
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply here, because homosexual couples do have marriage rights the same as heterosexuals, i.e. they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
The majority of people may think redefining marriage is makes sense, but this is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Just because the majority of people thinks something is true, does not make it so.
C: Homosexual actions are a sin. People are less happy in this life and the next if they commit sin. Any action by government to recognize homosexual sexual relations as legitimate will increase the amount of people that engage in those relationships and is therefore not in the best interest of the people. So we should maintain laws barring homosexual marriage.
Now the refutations:
A: Though it makes some intuitive sense that children are better off being raised by loving parents, it is unproven that children raised by heterosexual couples do better than those raised by homosexual couples.
Despite the evidence of ill health effects on the children when the parents smoke, we do not restrict the rights of smokers to marry. Even though they might have children that will be worse off because of the parents. It is then unfair to discriminate in marriage against homosexuals because they might adopt children that might be worse off because of the parents.
B: Changing the definition may change the thing, but what if the thing is unfairly discriminatory? The murder analogy is inappropriate because we already have definitions for acts that don't result in death. This is different. That the possibility of reproduction is the reason for the need for a heterosexual-only definition of marriage is absurd - that would mean you wouldn't allow marriage for, say, infertile couples.
Whether the 14th Amendment applies is, of course, at matter of opinion. How do you define the current state of marriage? If you define it as, "You can marry someone of the opposite sex," then everyone has that right. If you define it as, "You can marry someone you are attracted to," then only heterosexuals have that right and so the 14th Amendment is violated.
It is true that this is not a pure democracy, but how to interpret the constitutional limits on democracy is ultimately up to the people and their elected representative.
C: This is a religious/moral argument. Though you are allowed to make your voice heard and vote for laws that are consistent with your belief, laws must be constitutional, which ensures that that are consistent with basic principles. This requirement of constitutionality ensures that laws based only on religious belief, as you propose, are struck down in order to maintain freedom of religion.
If it a law is unconstitutional, your vote no longer matters unless you and a sufficient majority vote to change the constitution.
What do I believe? It's complicated - some combination of B, C, and the refutations of B and C.
In conclusion:
-All laws discriminate, so to make a good argument for allowing homosexual marriage, you have to show that not allowing consitutes unfair discrimination.
-People that don't want to allow homosexual marriage have stronger arguments than, "I'm a backwards, religious, doofus." In order to convince the smart, rational ones, you have to address their strongest arguments and also point out that a free society can't have laws based soley on religious dogma.
-Incidently, labeling opponents of homosexual marriage as "homophobic" implies that you think they are irrational from the outset of a discussion and generally prevents rational debate.
There is nothing more I enjoy than driving, provided no one is blocking my way, but this becomes and issue when there are unrealistic and unfair speed limits. The city I live in is in violation of our state speed limit standards which further emphasizes the point that speed limits are there for revenue, here is an excerpt from an article in our local paper:
"The Michigan Legislature passed Public Law 85 of 2006, effective Nov. 9, 2006. This revised the Michigan Vehicle Code to add a new method for cities to post legal speed limits using a sliding scale of access points (driveways and intersections) to post realistic speed limits of 25, 35, 45 or 55 mph proportional to the level of road development.
This method was in addition to the one using an engineering and traffic investigation including speed studies to find safest 85th percentile travel speed that is authorized for cities which have adopted the State Police Uniform Traffic Code. Investigations are usually used by the State Police and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) or the county road commissions to post safe and realistic speed limits on our highways and county roads, including when they pass through cities."
It goes on to say
"Yet, right up to today, the illegal posted limits on Huron Parkway and Nixon Road remain unchanged. The city continues to issue speeding tickets in these and other speed traps, secure in the knowledge that most people do not understand how to legally object in court. Most improperly ticketed drivers continue to pay fines they could have dismissed if they knew how to object legally to the arbitrarily low posted limits that do not conform to state law or proper engineering practices."
- James C. Walker is an Ann Arbor resident, a board member of the National Motorists Association and executive director of the National Motorists Association Foundation (www.motorists.org).
Although scrapping speed limits would be a drastic step a systematic re-evaluatuion might be in order and further use of the 85th percitile system would improve all streets.
85th Percentile System:
"Officials monitor traffic along a selected stretch of road and determine what speed 85 percent of the traffic is moving at or below during normal conditions. If the speed limit is too low then it creates a speed problem for officers because it is set artificially low.
People generally will drive at the rate they feel is comfortable and safe despite the posted speed. After hundreds of speed tests changing the speed limit has very little effect on how fast motorists drive.
For example, raising the speed limit by 5 mph doesn’t mean motorists who were already driving 5 mph over the original limit will suddenly speed up." - Abridged/Edited from Article by Tom Perkins
I think (1) is a bit simplified. It's more like the Clinton Administration forced Fannie and Freddie to back risky loans, with HUD (run by current Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo) pressuring banks to comply. Fannie and Freddie appeared to be making so much money off the limited number of loans they were backing that many other lenders leaped in and started making even more risky loans (that's more 'risky loans', not 'more risky' loans), that weren't targeted at the poor. This is where (2) & (3) really come in.
So (1) served as the trigger, or primer, but the real charge was in (2) and (3).
You folks are carrying on well, kudos to your sense of respect for others.
I wont throw much of my wacky Gnostic/Eastern Mystic/Longhouse religious beliefs at you as they scare the heck out of me and I own them! :o) Maybe a few that many are not familiar with.
A personal belief which stems from my gnosticism which delinates sins of the soul and sins of the flesh ( really natural law versus cannonical law), does Jesus really hate gays? He didnt hate on "whores", who many consider to be sexually deviant. Why would he then hate on gays? Does Jesus understand that being gay is more an issue of genetics, like race, than of raw epistemology? An extension of The Creator would know the answer implicitly. And btw, Jesus, in his spiritual form, really cant hate on ANYTHING or ANYONE. Pure logic there. Creators dont destroy, he allowed Himself to be destroyed.
From my longhouse self, where beliefs are drawn from observations of nature principally, being gay is as unnatural as flying in an airplane. ( I do it all the time!) Is it an affront to nature? Only if 100% of the species was gay and procreation halted, that would be irrational and suicidal. Yet, if some percentage of the population, say 10%, is wired differently, and the species is still pro-creating properly, the affront to nature is not measurable. What we can say about human nature through observation is that we do tend to prefer coupling than running solo, as many of Creation's lessor creature also do. NOT allowing people to couple in a socially acceptable way then, would be more of an affront to nature in that context. The only affront to Mother Nature then is the 90% not accepting the different wiring of the 10% causing unneccesary strife and division amongst the species. QED. Dig?
Tying the two together is pretty wild, lets do it with a quote from the Man that you've likely not read (unless the sky's your home), as follows:
The Savior said, "All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots. Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body. That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of nature."
Just somethings to think about from other persepctives. Please dont comment on my personal beliefs here, they're quite bizzare to most. You are certainly free to call me out in private as I put it out there, but I warn you, the sky's not the limit with me, tis my home, so be careful what you wish for!
In these pages, let us continue our good civil discussion.
To the above point re marriage, 28% of US kids live in a single family home. 14% globally. Say what about marriage? Near a third of our kids are born out of it.
The term sanctity of marriage is false, as it fails almost 50% of the time. Statistically speaking a 50% failure rate does not constitute sanctity.
As Whigs, let's cut the BS right out.
Chuck Morse drills this point home in his MWP Primer. Whigs do not visualize a perfect world or claim to be working towards some utopian ideal. Quite the contrary, we accept fully the vagaries of human nature and deal with them in our own way by accepting them(us) for what they(we)are and espousing a governmental framework which does not inhibit the free human spirit, but only gently guides it to the good by a loose framework, the good works of others and free collaboration in a community of equals with resepct for all.
Now, far be it from me to tell this little truth to the American Familes Network, TP, JBS/CP, et al, but they will fail at their attempt to 'restore' American family values until we all respect/accept one another a whole lot more. I understand they do not see the illogic of their position.
Additionally, if you were to run a regression analysis of measures of family strength on mid income economic opportunituies ( the manufacturing sector lets say), with some natural lag effect ( the home falls apart a while after dad loses his job), I think you'd find one huge correlation, i.e, the unraveling of the American family IS the unraveling of the middle class. Potentially one and the same.
I do so dig the disarming irony of raw logic!
It is absolute proof that absolute free trade is a fallicy and that the word that Whigs will be using often, TARIFFS, can have the desired effect of stimulating domestic employment in productive endeavors ( not moving paper or flippin' burgers). There is a shard of an industrial policy here, one which like the allspark in the kids' fantasy Transformers, can be used to grow into a true broadly implemented IP.
To me, it represents marching orders for unveiling our Renewed American System, and the industrial policy (IP) which lies at its core.
As with some of my other postings, I have no realpolitik experience or machinations in the full macro/micro workings as to whether or not this issue is either positive or negative within the construct of appropriate policies. I have my concerns but these may be colored by unreal expectations. For this reason, I would like to see membership folks who have solid economic, practical experience to offer both pros and cons of such a problem...and then utilize same to produce a potential beneficial response. I suppose the Whig Roundtables would be a good avenue of approach...
Gene, I agree with you in regards to reinstating Glass-Stegall.
If I remember right, Democrats, at Clinton's urging, and Republicans were both responsible for it's repeal.
My view is that this near depression was brought on by three main factors.
1. The Clinton administration and Democrats forced banks to make risky mortgage
loans.
2. Republicans and Democrats removed the wall between Banks and Wall St. with the
repeal of Glass-Stegall.
3. Those risky mortgages were packaged into derivatives that no one could
effectively evaluate, thereby creating a house of cards.
I know that that isn't a very sofisticated summary but the point is, I think it
gives us, the MWP, an issue that we can criticize both major parties on. We can
criticize both parties for malfeasance and allowing ideology to override common
sense.
What do you think?
@jonf - I would say that a more convincing rebuttal to your point B is that marriage, at its most essential, is simply a legally-recognized committed monogamous union. In that context, same-sex marriage (SSM) is simply a minor extension of marriage, not a major change. How can it be a major change? How would any past, present or future heterosexual marriage be affected in any way?
And, viewed that way, SSM has the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriage does.
There's no strict connection between reproduction and marriage, as proven by the many out-of-wedlock births. The value of marriage is not in relation to reproduction, but in the support it provides for families, whether the family is just two people who care for each other (which benefits society) or whether it includes children (which also benefits society), no matter if those children are the biological offspring of the parents or are adopted.
From what I hear, how well the VA system works depends a lot on the current political climate.
Been meaning to update this for a while now. Jim and I are in the process of updating this on the site as well.
P.O. Box 20124
Greenville, NC 27858
Gene, I updated the post to state the second convention. We tried convention 12 and 2012 convention and national convention, all too long and it messes up the navigational tabs at the top,so we just go with convention.
There is an agenda being formed. It is at about 75 ish percent. We just need to nail down some particulars and then format an hour by hour schedule. The plan is also to have q and a's with speakers and even roundtables there amongst speakers to talk about different issues.
Also we will be going over the Roundtables themselves, state and local chapters 101, Whig Academy stuff, and also the Renewed America System. We of course will also go over the website Whig Thinking, look at adding input from the polls or not and the text. As well as potential change to the bylaws. I contact Jeff Vanke and he is not attending but he and the budget group he is working for wants to put together presentations and q and a on different budget proposals and and showing how taxes and spending cuts will work under various circumstances. I would also want to try to do a Solutions Roundtable where we get the prez candidates and even congressional candidates to talk about different issues and try to come to consensus and collaboration on the issues. This would be great for the party and also great to show the American people that this is how public servants should operate within government to create effective ideas and solutions.
I welcome ever input as we need to make this as best as it can be.
Or maybe a better question, as I am unsure we as MWP can solve this denial of basic rights but maybe we can ask a better question to reframe the discussion, to wit, and in light of Bendel's story,
REFRAME **
What if we were to consider gay citizens as a RACE?
You were born white, or born black, or born gay. None of which that gloriously colorblind ( if WE make it!!!) document, Our Constitution, can 'see'.
Maybe MWP ought spearhead that debate. Is being born gay ( implicit acknowledgement there), identical to being born a certain race?
And I must say this publicly again, my deep concern is not particularly for our gay citizens, nor for our gun-toting citizens (me!), but for the strength and sustainability of our Republic, and for refining ( or wrighting as I like to call it) that Republic to a place where more of us can experience the Promise of America.
Now, color me "queer', but the union I made with my wife of over twenty years had nothing to do with the state or a permit or any other human being. I dont give a rats arse what y'all or anyone calls it, or what the paper says. It should NOT matter a lick.
Heaven is where the heart is. Its also where your marriage vows lay. The state ougth ONLY have the right to call it a union , for EVERYONE. MY opinion, not offical MWP. Yet. ;o)
I am a CFA Charterholder and therefore can be officially called an expert even though my baliwick is ensuring Ma and Pa Kettle are properly invested for their retirement, and not institutional transactions.
Jim, I'll give the story its due when I have a moment, but in very general terms there are two issues, 1.) putting the viability of institutions at risk wherein everyday savers, and not just qualified investors, have their savings/loans placed at risk and 2.) the unregulated nature of many of these OTC swaps.
It would be truly costly to try and police these transacations thoroughly, yet, many of them are bonafide transactions for the bank's client, or their own book. Or both at the same time if you are Goldman Sachs! ( Ok, I'll leave value judgments on individual institutions out).
In lieu of prohibitng them ( impossible in a global marketplace as London or Hong Kong will pick up the slack), or policing them thoroughly, the simple answer is, let Wall Street be Wall Street where the strong lions eat the weak BUT we will not place public funds,or the public trust in the fray of these unregulated transactions. Therefore, they must be separately capitalized and separately accounted for from the banks main lending and consumer operations. I.E., we need to re-erect the barriers that Glass-Stegall put in place so that depositors funds and taxpayer funds are not put at risk again, and that the American banking system in its entirety isnt put at risk by such trasnsactions going awry.
Modest portions of this have already been put into place after the debacle of 2008-2009. Yet, they are not bold as the simpler yet more holistic Contra-Too-Big-To-Fail policy outlined above.
Finally, with interest rates at all time lows, where they may stay for a bit, traditional banking operations do not provide a very big spread to work with. So the issue is to not do too much to hinder banks ability to survive, but also, to ensure that they know that Uncle Sam is no longer a part of their risk management department or treasury.
The key to making something like a simple, bonzai-style, policy like Glass/Stegall work well in this context without further damaging the American banking system, is to give them reason to lend,particularly in business formations/expansions.
BTW, housing is a perma-flat line, so any policy directive that tries to stimulate housing and mortgage lending is sailing against the wind, effectively hindered by macro trends. Kee[p this in mind when you hear policy discussions. The only logical effective course for economic stimulation is through private business expansion and formations. Banks will do well once it heats up a bit more. The payrolls will bolster their consumer side.
The sale to the public is tough. We need more corporate 'welfare' as the fools call it. Yeah fools, we do. To companies that can create livelihoods, we certainly do.
Thumbnail forecast is that the contra-TBTF policy might disintermediate the money centers more from the consumer and give mid level and local institutions more market share. This is a trend that the consumer is effecting today. Also, banks ought become stronger and more durable as a result, albeit in lessor numbers than we have today due to comrpessed margins. All of which is good for our Renewed American System.
Gene Chaas
New York
I'm not an expert, but it appears to me that neither are the "experts."
My view is that these products are a house of cards and move too fast, too furious for even the experts to manage. Some of these are credit instruments that generally obscure the risk. They are constructed using highly complex calculus formulas and based on the movement of the markets. It appears to me that today's computerized markets move too fast for traders managing these billion dollar bundles to react.
If it comes to regulating them, then the trick is to define which products are to be regulated. For example I would increase the margins that speculators need to put down in commodity trading. When someone buys a commodity like oil or corn, etc. if they are not going to use it in their normal course of business like an oil company or farmer then they would have to put down a larger deposit on their trade. I think a citizens commission ought to look at how to regulate these risky trading products because Republicans will lobby against them and Democrats will probably over-regulate them.
I am leaning toward an outright ban on risky credit derivatives. The reason is because investors can lose tremendous amounts of money in an instant when these things go bad.
When the most respected people in the industry lose their butts with these things, then it's time to evaluate whether these products are viable or not.
Again, the trick is to determine which one's need to be regulated and how.
I'm from Newport News and I feel the same way. I attended the Republican convention yesterday for District 2. It was nothing more than a mutual admiration society. Everything was determined before the convention took place. Americans need to understand we have more choices. It's not just coke vs pepsi or McDondalds vs Burger King.
Gene - your challenge to craft a story is a good one. Maybe it turns out to be an epic tale or instead a library full of short stories with a common theme. Over 50 years ago my parents -- one Catholic, the other Protestant -- caught grief for wanting to marry. My wife and I technically have an interracial marriage, and just a year or two ago didn't someone (Louisiana county clerk?) lose his post for denying a permit to an interracial couple? Amazing and sad that type of discrimination can still exist.
Changing gears a bit, on one hand I agree with the points being made about "civil unions" vs. "marriages." Perhaps that's the right approach. But it also makes me feel uneasy. Couldn't you imagine an uproar if your state said it was going to henceforth refer to all its present married couples as "civil unions" instead of "marriages"? It's only hypothetical, but I could see a very strong push back not from bigots or religious zealots, but from "traditionalists" who don't want the state to change how it refers to their current union/marriage.
Wish I had a better answer.
1) Remove the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax, but don't increase those benefits. Anyone making that kind of money should definitely be taking care of their own retirement.
2) Get rid of ObamaCare, Medicare and Medicaid. Instead implement a real single payer system, with copays. One system, one interface, with aggressive seek and destroy for fraud. Yeah, that'll increase taxes, but nobody will be paying health insurance premiums, so it should be a wash for most. And it takes healthcare off the contract bargaining table.
3) Review the disability system, with an eye to getting marginal cases off the system and back to work.
I would love the opportunity. Just tell me how, when and where and Ill see to it.
( new to the site, still not sure how the roundtables work, though I did read the posts in the forum, and watched the video)
In my oh so humble opinion, its the inflexability of the current system that has caused so much strife. When people hold firm to ideaologies and political views, they are more often than not unwilling to sway from them for the sake of compromise. This is the current state of things in our system. I am new to the party( as in I registered as MWP today )so I am still learning but I believe that a flexable entity is far better suited to weather any storm than a rigid one is.
We as Americans have over the past forty or so years solidified ourselves ar progressive or conservitave, which are blanket terms at best, for the polorization of our political system. Many Americans feel disenfranchised by this polarity, and as such many people are finding that they are far more flexable in their convictions than they once believed, I am among them. People can be moved, and more importantly, they can taught things that can, and sometimes do, change their views and stances.
Is it for us, the MWP, to set rigid standards and cement ourselves in one set of ideas or another? IMHO, absolutly not. MWP's appeal, or its appeal to me anyway, is that it is not bound by the ideology of political stances. We can be moved by our members through our methods and through education, not to cement what MWP stands for and against, but to figure out whats wrong, how to fix it, and ultimatly fix the proplem. Its our flexablilty that makes us attractive in a landscape defined by rigidity and polorization.
It is the gathering of many personal view points that makes this flexability possible. When all Ideas are considered, weighed, measured and found acceptable or wanting, than all ideas were included, not just those deemed appropriate for the parties ideology.
All the best,
David Wilson
Tampa Bay, Florida.
We're actually now producing more oil, and a larger proportion of our total consumption of crude, than we have in years. We have so much refinery capacity that we're exporting more refined product than we import.
Most of our problem with fuel is that we don't have a rational energy policy. For example, witness the furor over Keystone XL. At the same time the oil companies want to build a pipeline to carry more Canadian crude to the Gulf Coast, we've got refineries on the East and West coasts that are closing because all they can get is higher-priced imported crude.
Wouldn't it make more sense to build pipelines to carry the crude where the country can get some benefit from it, instead of where just the oil companies benefit?
And, yeah, most of the problem with nuclear is what to do with the waste.
I too have grown ill of the two party system and its incompetence. I look forward to many debates and to the sharing if ideas! Welcome!
Hello and welcome!
Sounds like a wonderful idea! You can count me in!
You have made wonderfully valid and eye opening points here, and you are correct in everything you said. These are the disscusions that need to be had, all the time, to ensure that everyone is treated with fairness and equality.
Equality is the goal in my mind. Our country has existed for 235 years, and in that time we have made great strides to achieve that equality.
You seem rather learned so I wont give a history lesson, but I will say that in the face of adversity, Americans always rise to the occasion. With the presidents recent announcment of his support for same-sex merriage, I feel that the LGBT communities time has come. and I feel that Americans will once again rise to the occasion and do what is right.
As for reason c)...(In writing this, I assume that the sin to which you refer is from the Bible, spacificly Leviticus 18:22) Homosexuality, as im sure you know, is not the only sin. For people to use this argument aginst same-sex merriage, they should consider that Jesus said "Let he without sin cast the first stone". Any Christian can tell you that in the eyes of the Lord we are all sinners. No one sin is greater than another, save maybe for suicide(a sin that one cannot ask forgiviness of). If you are a Christian, that you know we all sin, from the choir boys to the man or woman behind the pulpit, we all sin. In a nutshell, I believe its rather hypocritical for Christians to harp on one group of sinners, when they themselves sin.
Aside from all that, I am not a Christian. I do not believe in the idea of Hell or the Devil or eternal damnation. I do not believe in the idea of "sin" as do so many Americans. Why then should anyone be held to a religious standard to which they do not aggree or comply with? That, in my oh so humble opinion, violates the first amendment. Passing laws based in a set of one religions tenents, and enforcing that law on those who do not value those tenents is, again in my humble opinion, what the first amendment was intended to prevent.
I leave you with this:
"Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state, not because they are beneath the interests of the state but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state."
"God has appointed two kinds of government in the world, which are distinct in their nature, and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government."
Isaac Backus in 1773, colonial Baptist from New England, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty.
I'm afraid my response is quite long winded, but I think it is worth having a thorough discussion.
Why are homosexuals persecuted?
The Mathew Shepard example is not an example of persecution "by the powers that be", but an example of persecution by two idiots who were found guilty and sentenced to life in prison by "the powers that be".
The example you give that can constitute "persecution by the powers that be" is DOMA. I would definitely consider it more like "unfair discrimination", and that is the topic of my long answer.
The requirements for a legal marriage in states where same-sex marriage has not been legalized:
1) Both people must be at least the legal age to marry
2) The people must not be close relatives
3) The people must be opposite sex
4) A person can only be married to one other person at a time (i.e. no bigamy)
You are saying 3) infringes upon a homosexual's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". I disagree with you on life, but I will agree with you on liberty and pursuit of happiness. But don't requirements 1), 2), and 4) also infringe on the liberty and pursuit of happiness of some other group?
My point is that any body of laws will legally discriminate against groups of people. We deprive convicted criminals of their liberty, and in some cases even deprive them of their rights to vote or bear arms after they have done their time. We deprive minors of liberty and pursuit of happiness because we restrict how they old they have to be to work, obtain a drivers license, make a legal contract, marry, etc.
The question then is not whether a law is discriminatory; all laws are because they define one group or action as legal or illegal. The question is whether a law fairly discriminates; whether it has a legitimate purpose and is consistent with the rest of our legal philosophy. All four requirements above are discriminatory because they restrict the right to marry. 1) can be justified on the grounds that it has a legitimate purpose of protecting minors - consistent with other laws preventing minors from entering into legally binding contracts. 2) can be justified on the grounds that it has a legitimate purpose of reducing risk of undesireable recessive traits - also that it is consistent with laws against incest. I'm not really sure about 4). The Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), but I understand it was really more about finding that religious belief did not exempt the citizens from obeying the law. I guess you could argue that 4) has a legitimate purpose because allowing multiple spouses greatly complicates legal marriage rights including inheritance and power of attorney.
So does 3) have a legitimate purpose? Is it consistent with the rest of our legal philosophy? You say "no". Let me point what I think are the three strongest arguments that 3) has a legitimate purpose:
A: Children are better off in general when they are raised by both of their biological parents who love them. Where this is not possible, children are better off with a situation as close to the above as possible: a married husband and wife who love them but are not necessarily the biological parents. Removing the restriction on homosexual marriage would inevitably lead to homosexual married couples receiving the right to adopt children on an equal footing with heterosexual married couples, which is not in the best interest of adopted children.
B: Changing the definition changes the thing. In other words, redefining marriage to include homosexual unions changes what marriage is beyond recognition. It is similar to redefining murder so that no one has to actually die for something to be murder. The heterosexuality is fundamental to the definition because it includes the possibility of reproduction.
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply here, because homosexual couples do have marriage rights the same as heterosexuals, i.e. they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
The majority of people may think redefining marriage is makes sense, but this is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Just because the majority of people thinks something is true, does not make it so.
C: Homosexual actions are a sin. People are less happy in this life and the next if they commit sin. Any action by government to recognize homosexual sexual relations as legitimate will increase the amount of people that engage in those relationships and is therefore not in the best interest of the people. So we should maintain laws barring homosexual marriage.
Now the refutations:
A: Though it makes some intuitive sense that children are better off being raised by loving parents, it is unproven that children raised by heterosexual couples do better than those raised by homosexual couples.
Despite the evidence of ill health effects on the children when the parents smoke, we do not restrict the rights of smokers to marry. Even though they might have children that will be worse off because of the parents. It is then unfair to discriminate in marriage against homosexuals because they might adopt children that might be worse off because of the parents.
B: Changing the definition may change the thing, but what if the thing is unfairly discriminatory? The murder analogy is inappropriate because we already have definitions for acts that don't result in death. This is different. That the possibility of reproduction is the reason for the need for a heterosexual-only definition of marriage is absurd - that would mean you wouldn't allow marriage for, say, infertile couples.
Whether the 14th Amendment applies is, of course, at matter of opinion. How do you define the current state of marriage? If you define it as, "You can marry someone of the opposite sex," then everyone has that right. If you define it as, "You can marry someone you are attracted to," then only heterosexuals have that right and so the 14th Amendment is violated.
It is true that this is not a pure democracy, but how to interpret the constitutional limits on democracy is ultimately up to the people and their elected representative.
C: This is a religious/moral argument. Though you are allowed to make your voice heard and vote for laws that are consistent with your belief, laws must be constitutional, which ensures that that are consistent with basic principles. This requirement of constitutionality ensures that laws based only on religious belief, as you propose, are struck down in order to maintain freedom of religion.
If it a law is unconstitutional, your vote no longer matters unless you and a sufficient majority vote to change the constitution.
What do I believe? It's complicated - some combination of B, C, and the refutations of B and C.
In conclusion:
-All laws discriminate, so to make a good argument for allowing homosexual marriage, you have to show that not allowing consitutes unfair discrimination.
-People that don't want to allow homosexual marriage have stronger arguments than, "I'm a backwards, religious, doofus." In order to convince the smart, rational ones, you have to address their strongest arguments and also point out that a free society can't have laws based soley on religious dogma.
-Incidently, labeling opponents of homosexual marriage as "homophobic" implies that you think they are irrational from the outset of a discussion and generally prevents rational debate.
Thain,
Nowhere in your comment do I read any opposition to illegal immigration.
Nowhere in your comment do I read any opposition to the poor treatment of illegal immigrants.
Nowhere in your comment do I read any opposition to companies exploiting an illegal workforce for personal gain.
In short, I disagree with your stance.