iNow

Not sure where you stand in regards to God's great plan and morals? You should try the Moral Master 2.0! In just 10 short questions, you can see how moral you truly are. h/t

Is this an academic exercise, or can you actually name any single market on the planet that is "free?" Good question. In some sense, I speculate that this has been somewhat good for companies like Honda (although, they too are facing tough conditions as consumers avoid big ticket items like cars). The reason I put this forward is that some people are recognizing how strong they are as a result of their smart decisions, and how much safer it is to invest with them over GM, Ford, and Chrysler. http://www.cnbc.com//id/27895948 Japan's Nikkei 225 Average [JP;N225 8094.83 184.04 (+2.33%) ] jumped 4 percent, as a surge in U.S. shares on Washington's decision to rescue Citigroup [C 5.95 2.18 (+57.82%) ] encouraged investors to buy equities, with exporters such as Kyocera bought after the yen remained below last week's high. Another big exporter, Honda Motor, rose 5 percent. They were up 5% today, but their year over year sales are down more than 20% (not bad relative to Ford and GMs YoY being down more than 30 and sometimes closer to 40%). Honda sales are also up 3% month over month. Toyota is in a similar place, but Honda has definitely performed better (Toyota down almost 25% YoY, and only up 1.7% MoM). http://www.cnbc.com/id/27889826/site/14081545

Yeah, that's a very fair point. I may have been too quick with my words in that previous post. My intent was not to support the bailout per se, but to describe some of the key differences between bailing out Citibank and bailing out the automakers. In the process, I may have "over stated" my case. Thanks for the correction.

The fundamental difference is that Citigroup has tons of sectors where they make money. They are diversified and pull in cash from multiple avenues of offerings and services. Their difficulty right now is not the result of their own mistakes, but of the market. However, the automakers manufacture cars that have poor fuel standards and which nobody really wants right now, and desperately needs to retool their plants to allow for manufacture of higher efficiency cars with less time and less cost. These are completely different, especially since the possibility of Citi paying back the loan to the government (with interest) is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than the possibility of the automakers paying back the loan to the government (even after they come up with a "plan" to remain viable and not just ask for more in 3 months).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6mH44rWD9yyZf_AZ7YxQDVFL7WwD94LJF9G0 Bush pardons 14 and commutes 2 prison sentences President George W. Bush has granted pardons to 14 individuals and commuted the prison sentences of two others convicted of misdeeds ranging from drug offenses to tax evasion, from wildlife violations to bank embezzlement, The Associated Press learned Monday. The new round of White House pardons are Bush's first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list also include offenses involving hazardous waste, food stamps, and the theft of government property. One hot topic of discussion related to pardons is whether Bush might decide to issue pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office to government employees who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some constitutional scholars and human rights groups want the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to investigate possible war crimes. If Bush were to pardon anyone involved, it would provide protection against criminal charges, particularly for people who were following orders or trying to protect the nation with their actions. But it would also be highly controversial. At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little — if any — chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.

Rubbing one's genitals on razor wire isn't a very good idea, but that hasn't been banned in democratic countries either. I'm neither speaking for nor against unions, just indicating that the arguments you've presented "for" appear lacking.

What does any of that have to do with these 11th hour appointments by Bush?

I went down to the university last week for a free showing of a film called "The Atom Smashers" in our physics department. There were two high energy particle physics professors taking questions after the film, and one mentioned that LHC probably wouldn't turn back on until March or April. We knew there would be bumps in the road, but it's too bad they hit such a large one so early (the folks at FermiLab are probably happy to have more time to try reaching the Higgs finish line first, though).

There's a group of commas out in the world looking for a home. Can you help these poor abandoned punctuations? http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69 Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUVs on Mars, CO2 can't be causing global warming. Answer: Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes. The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change. As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years). Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles. See Global Warming on Mars? from RealClimate for much more detail about this issue. Turning to the outer reaches of the solar system: in the icy cold and lonely Kuiper Belt was observed a difference in Pluto's atmospheric thickness, inferred from two occultation observations 14 years apart. But a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from observations spanning less than even a single season, let alone enough years to even establish the climate's normal state. Anyone trying to draw conclusions about what is happening here on earth from all this might as well be from another planet. Back to Mars for a quick summary: On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect. One Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to believe that ... one spot is melting. More data at the link. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data. A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum. So what is causing Martian climate change now? Mars has a relatively well studied climate, going back to measurements made by Viking, and continued with the current series of orbiters, such as the Mars Global Surveyor. Complementing the measurements, NASA has a Mars General Circulation Model (GCM) based at NASA Ames. (NB. There is a good "general reader" review of modeling the Martian atmosphere by Stephen R Lewis in Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 44 issue 4. pages 6-14.) Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are. In 2001, Malin et al published a short article in Science (subscription required) discussing MGS data showing a rapid shrinkage of the South Polar Cap. Recently, the MGS team had a press release discussing more recent data showing the trend had continued. MGS 2001 press release MGS 2005 press release. The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states. Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…

There's a group of commas out in the world looking for a home. Can you help these poor abandoned punctuations? http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69 Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUVs on Mars, CO2 can't be causing global warming. Answer: Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes. The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change. As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years). Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles. See Global Warming on Mars? from RealClimate for much more detail about this issue. Turning to the outer reaches of the solar system: in the icy cold and lonely Kuiper Belt was observed a difference in Pluto's atmospheric thickness, inferred from two occultation observations 14 years apart. But a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from observations spanning less than even a single season, let alone enough years to even establish the climate's normal state. Anyone trying to draw conclusions about what is happening here on earth from all this might as well be from another planet. Back to Mars for a quick summary: On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect. One Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to believe that ... one spot is melting. More data at the link. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data. A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum. So what is causing Martian climate change now? Mars has a relatively well studied climate, going back to measurements made by Viking, and continued with the current series of orbiters, such as the Mars Global Surveyor. Complementing the measurements, NASA has a Mars General Circulation Model (GCM) based at NASA Ames. (NB. There is a good "general reader" review of modeling the Martian atmosphere by Stephen R Lewis in Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 44 issue 4. pages 6-14.) Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are. In 2001, Malin et al published a short article in Science (subscription required) discussing MGS data showing a rapid shrinkage of the South Polar Cap. Recently, the MGS team had a press release discussing more recent data showing the trend had continued. MGS 2001 press release MGS 2005 press release. The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states. Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…

I denied nothing, Lance. I shared the exact quote, and demonstrated how silly you were for interpreting it the way you did. I love how instead of addressing my challenges directly you simply label me as "one of the extremists" and assert that I "don't like being identified as such." I'm again done with your silliness. You seem to live in your own little reality, one which I'm no longer interested in visiting.

They dismissed the case "on the merits." This is: http://law.jrank.org/pages/6005/Decision-on-Merits.html An ultimate determination rendered by a court in an action that concludes the status of legal rights contested in a controversy and precludes a later lawsuit on the same CAUSE OF ACTION by the parties to the original lawsuit. A decision on the merits is made by the application of SUBSTANTIVE LAW to the essential facts of the case, not solely upon technical or procedural grounds. I'm struggling a bit, as it very much appears to me that they had their minds made up before the case was even tried. Like, "of course two people of the same gender cannot marry, that's what the rules say." That is, of course, my interpretation of the "substantive law" statement. I'll need to keep chewing on this, but I think it's time to work on overturning Baker v. Nelson, as it was decided without trial 37 years ago, and should be revisited. Overturning Baker v. Nelson is not out of the realm of possibility, as that is exactly what happened in similar cases such as Lawrence v. Texas when they overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, also in Loving v. Virginia when they overturned Pace v. Alabama, and Brown v. Board of Education when they overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. What I am struggling most with, I suppose, is how they seem to see some clear difference between race and sexuality, and how the 14th amendment applies to one, but not the other. I'm searching for the secular reason this is so. It has been suggested that the state has an interest in marriage between heterosexual couples due to procreation and health, but unhealthy and infertile people are not required to prove viability of offspring in order to obtain a license. I'll keep searching. My gut tells me this is wrong, now I just need to find a way to prove it using the tools available to me in our constitution. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment. In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964). The State finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court." McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 188. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [n11] We have consistently denied [p12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered. It appears that all justices agree that the spirit of the 14th amendment is that all citizens should be granted rights equally, not denied rights based on genetic traits, and that laws should not be made which are discriminatory in nature, or which prefer one group of people over another... Unless, of course, you're a gay citizen. If you're gay, none of the equality which is guarenteed in the 14th applies to you. Just replace the word "racial" with "sexual" in the text from Loving v. Virginia above and it seems so clear that the law preventing people of the same gender from marrying is about discrimination and nothing more, and so should be overturned.

Can you support any of that with research? You seem to have made it up, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to share studies which: 1) Show that cats can differentiate between concepts such as night and day 2) Show that the "most developed specialized part of their brain structure is the amygdala" 3) Show how their feelings of changes in "natural lighting, which subtly change behaviors" is any different than what happens in humans.

His opinion was "if temps continue to rise, so will sea levels." There is nothing unjustified here, with the exception of your strange desire to spin this into something it's not. Of course, he didn't! The first three words of his sentence were, "In my opinion." No, look again. He said, "If temps keep rising, then sea levels would rise." You have a very serious problem in your perceptions if you're reading more into it than that. No, it's not. The only thing exaggerated here is your response to (as swansont called it) a math word problem. So, now you assert that he was pretending it was scientific? He did no such thing, and if you claim he was, then you're either lying or fantastically ignorant (then again, these aren't mutually exclusive I suppose). Yes, there are extreme views. Why not? They are first humans, and they are first part of humanity. If the science about which they are experts lends to concerns about our collective futures, then there is nothing wrong with them raising the alert and trying to motivate action. You are the one who is exaggerating, Lance, and everyone here knows it except you.

You've been already corrected on this point repeatedly. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=431539#post431539 And again, previously in that same thread ~200 posts earlier: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=422791&postcount=238 (emphasis added) Note the conditional. This is not a prediction of what will happen, it's what could happen if certain conditions are met. The fact that it has happened before means such conditions have existed and are thus achievable. I agree with the Cap'n. Your incredulity is not credible. Further, your use of this as an argument against warming models is incorrect. At least learn from the mistakes you make, and move on once you've been corrected. For the love of Thor, man...

Doesn't matter what you "feel," Jackson, that's not how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_License UNITED STATES Every state in the United States has a requirement for marriage licenses to be obtained. A marriage is not valid if the marriage ceremony is performed without a marriage license being previously obtained..... .....The requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying..... ......In the early part of the twentieth century, the requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.[3] By the 1920s 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts. CONTROVERSY Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license. Most would object to a birth license as it would imply that people must gain permission to be born. Following that same logic, many refuse to accept a marriage license and exercise their right to marry without obtaining permission from the state.

Oh, I love you, Pioneer. Nonsequitur and faulty premises galore. Those conclusions you form based on faulty premises are themselves false, you do realize, right? If any of your conclusions are accurate it tends to be by accident. It was also really great when you equivocated lack of theism (atheism) with "anything goes." You're almost cartoonish in your responses sometimes, and I thank you for the great big ear-to-ear smile it brings to my face. By the way, the posts you're making continue to conflict with the empirical data being shared. Who cares about reality, right?

Thank you, DJBruce, for addressing the question I put forward. I need to sort through this a little while longer to explore what it means and how it might be overcome. This part struck me as staggering, that 37 years ago SCOTUS dismissed the case: This precendent has served for future rulings at the state level since 1972. The SCOTUS didn't even bother parsing out the constitutionality, but instead just dismissed it out of hand, agreeing when: I need to explore the constitutional definition of "common sense" a bit more closely, it appears, and also how the commonsense decision in Minnesota back in 1972 still caries such weight in 2008. Either way, thank you for responding to the question I put forward. You've given me a new puzzle to solve, and I appreciate that. Mr Skeptic - What secular purpose does preventing homosexual unions from being recognized by the state serve? What harm to others does it cause, if not simply an affront to personal and religiously based morality? Further, I am only responsible for the words I use in my posts, not how others may interpret them. Please consider this and how it relates to the arguments you are attempting to make against me in this thread.

Hi TBK, We're already discussing the exact article over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36234 Come join us. Let us know what you think about it. Cheers.

No, I don't. Interesting question, but tangential from the study I shared. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/the-religious-support-beh_b_145180.html Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk. There is no question about it. Church-going Black Americans, tithe-paying Mormons, mass-attending Latinos, and Evangelical whites all joined forces in "protecting marriage." The underlying reason religious people voted to revoke from gays and lesbians the legal right to marry is doggedly theological: God doesn't like it. And when a society or culture does things that God doesn't like, that society or culture will suffer. This is a central tenet of every religion, and has been ever since the first shaman first claimed to be able to discern the will of the Almighty by examining the patterns in a bowl full of crushed berries. And it simply isn't true. If God punishes societies that violate his commandments and rewards those that do, this just isn't apparent by looking at the state of the world today. The sociological fact is that the most irreligious nations right now are among the most successful, humane, moral, and free, while the most religious nations tend to be among the most destitute, chaotic, crime-ridden, and undemocratic. A similar pattern also holds true within the United States: those states and counties that boast the greatest numbers of strong believers and regular church attenders tend to have higher poverty rates, child abuse rates, violent crime rates, and lower educational attainment rates than those states and counties characterized by more secular populations. Consider the nations of Scandinavia specifically. These countries are noteworthy because they were among the first nations to make abortion legal and readily available and they were also among the first nations (along with Holland) to allow for gay marriage. Indeed, gays and lesbians have been able to wed in these countries of Northern Europe for nearly 20 years now. And what is the state of society in these relatively irreligious nations, where weekly church attendance is among the lowest in the world and belief in God is markedly thin? They lead the world on nearly all indicators of societal well-being. From economic prosperity to low crime rates, from equality between men and women to excellent child welfare, from life expectancy to low rates of H.I.V., the relatively godless (or at least God-indifferent) nations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Holland suggest that secularity - and acceptance of gay marriage, specifically -- doesn't bring down the wrath of God at all. And yet when we look at the most religious nations in the world - especially those that severely condemn homosexuality, such as Iran, Angola, and Mauritania -- we see extreme poverty, high violent crime rates, oppression of women, dictatorship, warfare, corruption, etc.. Where is the best place to be a mother and raise children? According to the latest Save the Children Report, it is relatively godless Sweden. The worst? Extremely Godful Niger. How about murder rates? Highly religious Columbia leads the globe, while highly secular Japan is near the bottom. What about strong economies? According to the World Economic Forum, of the top ten nations boasting today's most competitive economies, nine are relatively irreligious (the USA being the sole exception). According to the latest Global Peace Index, the top five most peaceful nations are simultaneously among the most secular, such as Denmark, which ranks in at #2. Even when it comes to suicide rates, it is the former Soviet nations that lead the pack, some of which are fairly secular, but most of which are quite religious, such as Lithuania.

I am arguing on constitutionality, and asking for explanations how Prop 8 could possibly be accepted as legal at the federal level... consistent and reconcilable with the constitution of the United States and its amendments. How you go from that to: ...is ABSOLUTELY beyond me. Funny. I don't remember arguing that we needed to pass new laws. Can you offer a quote for that one? (Probably not, as you seem to have a penchant for accusing me of saying or doing things I never said or did... you failed to produce a quote the last time I asked as well... you're oh for two). Also, if I'm not mistaken, my entire approach to this thread has been in terms of existing constitutional amendments and provisions, that all of this is ALREADY covered. Is it not supporters of Prop 8 relying on judicial fiat in all of this? </rhetorical question to which I already know the answer> I'm not arguing hearts and minds, Pangloss, no matter how much you wish it so. I'm arguing purely on legality and constitionality, so please stop trying to "bludgeon" me into an approach I have long ago accepted as futile.

Yeah. I didn't think you'd be able to find a quote where I was "bludgeoning" anyone. Thanks for the confirmation. So, you've called my argument ignorant, you've repeated my own concession about bias, you've said that I've called them ignorant bigots, and that I've been hostile, and I can't see anywhere in this thread where I've done that. Further, you've not shared where in this thread I've been "ignorant." You quoted this particular text and said it was ignorant: Yeah, I should be ashamed of myself for stating such a thing. Really, am I the only one who's baffled right now by Skeptic's post? I'll restate my question since you are both trying to displace the topic of conversation on to me instead of answering it. I am looking for help to understand any reason why such a ban at the state level should be allowed given our current legal and constitutional setup at the federal level.

I suppose that's possible, but do you at least have a source so I can read more about it?

Last.

I've always heard good things about Cal Tech for both topics, but can't offer first hand knowledge.