@comrade_Comrade
Isn't that what I said? That I merely used their selectivism as an example?
As I've understood it, nobody is asking the church to recognize anything; a state marrige or civil union is a legal matter in regards to family and inheritance. Now, I'm not going to pretend that I know how the american taxation system works, because I don't, but if the problem is that they don't want to fund same-sex marrige or abortion it seems like there would be more productive ways of doing so than a blanket ban, such as having individuals be legally required to cover such costs themselves. But as I said, I'm not very well-read in american social economics so there are probably aspects I don't know about.
That it was a judicial ruling rather than vote is a good point, because it isolates it from religion: if the citizenry does not agree with a law, imposing said law isn't terribly democratic regardless of why the citizens disagree. Of course, this would make it a matter of State VS Federation, and I don't have the perspective to objectively judge who is right (and I'm willing to assume you don't either). The problem is that I've never seen anyone attempting to make that point, the point is always "god hates fags". Then again, I'm not an expert in american internal politics; my knowledge is mostly concerned with what affects our hegemon-vassal* relation and friends I have in the US.
Although I have to agree with you that mostly anything is better than soviet 3.0, the constitutional limitations that apply to the conservatives also apply to the socialists; and although the far-left are highly collectivist the power wielded by the lobbies in the US should not be underestimated. If the worst comes to pass, that could be a good thing.
I'd also like to note that I don't agree with the logic of class struggle; that all American politics can, and will, be reduced to "that's racist" or "that's classist" by one side or the other prevents them from holding any real discussion and moving forward. Furthermore, I don't think it's a coincidence that areas that have abandoned class-think have less social issues, stronger economies, and lower inequality of income than areas that continue to insist that it's still the 1960ies.
*yes, it's a bit overdramatic to call it that, but who doesn't like drama? Nobody, that's who! (as you might be able to tell, I'm not 100% serious)
18
@comrade_Comrade
Isn't that what I said? That I merely used their selectivism as an example?
As I've understood it, nobody is asking the church to recognize anything; a state marrige or civil union is a legal matter in regards to family and inheritance. Now, I'm not going to pretend that I know how the american taxation system works, because I don't, but if the problem is that they don't want to fund same-sex marrige or abortion it seems like there would be more productive ways of doing so than a blanket ban, such as having individuals be legally required to cover such costs themselves. But as I said, I'm not very well-read in american social economics so there are probably aspects I don't know about.
That it was a judicial ruling rather than vote is a good point, because it isolates it from religion: if the citizenry does not agree with a law, imposing said law isn't terribly democratic regardless of why the citizens disagree. Of course, this would make it a matter of State VS Federation, and I don't have the perspective to objectively judge who is right (and I'm willing to assume you don't either). The problem is that I've never seen anyone attempting to make that point, the point is always "god hates fags". Then again, I'm not an expert in american internal politics; my knowledge is mostly concerned with what affects our hegemon-vassal* relation and friends I have in the US.
Although I have to agree with you that mostly anything is better than soviet 3.0, the constitutional limitations that apply to the conservatives also apply to the socialists; and although the far-left are highly collectivist the power wielded by the lobbies in the US should not be underestimated. If the worst comes to pass, that could be a good thing.
I'd also like to note that I don't agree with the logic of class struggle; that all American politics can, and will, be reduced to "that's racist" or "that's classist" by one side or the other prevents them from holding any real discussion and moving forward. Furthermore, I don't think it's a coincidence that areas that have abandoned class-think have less social issues, stronger economies, and lower inequality of income than areas that continue to insist that it's still the 1960ies.
*yes, it's a bit overdramatic to call it that, but who doesn't like drama? Nobody, that's who! (as you might be able to tell, I'm not 100% serious)