An Open Letter to our Resident Constitutionalist

[Grumblenuts]

So to answer your key question how would we go about protecting all parties and political ideologies from each other

1. Use a mix of party structures and media resources including internet to set up Councils with Reps from the various parties per district to address and resolve policy issues, objections and solutions inclusively

2. Where parties agree on policies these can be written up as either local, state or federal policies for those areas and audiences where agreement is reached on the most ethical cost effective sustainable means of meeting public objectives. This can be agreed to by consensus or people may agree to a 3/4 majority, 2/3 or 51% majority depending on the subject and policy matter. But any objections should be resolved, and not suppress or overrule issues for convenience.

3. If people cannot agree on major issues, because of beliefs which govt cannot force anyone to adopt or to change, they should consider ways to separate funding and policies and democratize the process to avoid imposing on each other as long as people take responsibility for their differences and don't impose burdens or complications on others.

3. As for paying costs of separating and democratizing districts and programs, the restitution owed to taxpayers for past abuses can be assessed and used to justify refinancing govt to implement reforms that will generate and pay back the investment Costs over time. Again the reforms and refinancing should be set up by consensus to make sure all objections and corrections are included and agreed to.

All the parties I know have longstanding grievances against wasteful abuses by other party members. Redressing all those grievances and reimbursing Taxpayers the credits for debts and damages gives plenty of leverage and equity to finance reforms. Instead of arguing to charge taxpayers more or raise taxes on the wealthy, we can better unite and demand credit for past expenditures that we did not agree to pay.

Same thing. You're proposing a government that somehow governs itself by chasing its
tail rather than through checks, balances, or other "estates" which barely functions as it is. And what the hell is wrong with raising "taxes on the wealthy"? You need money, you go to the bank. The bank that always ends up paying far less tax as a percentage of their income than the working slob.

I would put* Libertarians in charge of

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! What's their platform or agenda this time? Still destroy all government?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Grumblenuts
First, though I'm obviously not PP I have one, so thanks for showing up and responding in some detail. Next, why @José thinks you're Vietnamese beats the hell out of me? Not to mention, member zaangalewa who is obviously an opinionated German guy with many strange notions and one who loses much English language nuance in translation.

lol Grumblenuts...

You see... I'm far from being an expert on the vietnamese language (the only word I know is Pho, and even then I don't even know if the word has any other meaning besides the country's national dish) but nghiem sounds like a vietnamese surname to me... but again... I could be totally wrong.

As for zaangalewa I was led to believe he/she was female due to the lioness avatar and the "a" at the end of the name : )

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Much the same way people respect other religious groups having rights to run their own sects, schools, services etc by the beliefs of those members, that's how I see where are Parties are heading.

Except that religion is a private matter where as marriage-like it or not is inextricably tied to the public domain through civil law. As such, we cannot have separate systems or definitions of marriage under the auspices of a myriad of different entities. ,Yes yes, I know, you do not think that marriage should be a government matter at all and that is why this works for you. But the fact is we cannot untangle marriage from government at this point even if we wanted to. There is no political will, no need to do it, and no pragmatic way to do it. Marriage is fine the way it is. You are still trying to “fix” something that is not broken for the sole purposing of accommodating those who do not want to share their institution with people who they disapprove of.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We currently and historically have never allowed Hindus Muslims etc to form a majority in Congress and outvote dissenters to impose their groups beliefs

Most religious and ethnic minorities are simply not present in sufficient numbers or have the political power to form a majority in congress. No one is explicitly disallowing them, Jt is simply a function of demographics Those minorities who are in congress are not the ones who are attempting to impose their beliefs. The ones doing so are the majority Christians . I will add that ethnic and religious minorities are grossly underrepresented in congress
You seem to be trying to make the case that, if religious groups refrain from imposing their values and beliefs on others, then sexual minorities should also. That argument fails for reasons that I have stated before. Religious groups do indeed impose their beliefs on others in ways that effect the lives of believers and non believers alike. LGBT people are asking nothing from others. They do not expect anyone else to change how they live or what they believe. They simply want to be left alone have their place in society as human beings

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yet we allow Parties to do what Religions are not allowed to do.

Not true, religious groups as well as political parties do pretty much the same thing given the chanc

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We already have a precedent for how we keep religious groups from legislating by majority vote or judicial Ruling

Surly you don’t mean the Supreme Court

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The same way we let Parties run their own conventions and pass resolutions for their ownmembers, that's all I'm asking

Is we start treating and respecting party creeds platforms and agenda with the same standards we already apply to religious organizations that have their own biased beliefs and practices their members believe and have rights to practice

Yea, I know. You want political parties to decide on what marriage looks like, how its defined and what it’s called for their own members. Good grief! Like a marriage equality party, and a traditional marriage party? How about a plural marriage party. ? Where would it end. And how do you shoe horn all of the other issues that parties take a poition on that may or may not align with the parties definition of marriage. It all seems totally insane and unnecessary It ain’t broken , we don’t need to fix it!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

NOTE the most interesting difference between me and other Constitutionalists Is that I also and especially ask to treat Constitutionalism itself as a political belief system so it's treated equally as Statism, Liberalism, Anarchism Socialism Capitalism Communism Feminism Humanism Libertarianism etc etc.

All these should be voluntary practices so there is no abuse or oppression by any person or group of one creed infringing or imposing on another.

“no abuse or oppression by any person or group of one creed infringing or imposing on another”. Really? You mean except for sexual minorities , right? Common! Be honest. I have not heard one thing from you that convinces me that you stand for true equality for LGBT people , including gay marriage. That means that same sex couples who want to form a legal union get to call it marriage are part of the same institution as everyone else, with full rights, protects and benefits. If you say it I might believe it, but I would still be skeptical. Until then, there is nothing at all new here. Just a gigantic circular though process with a lot of verbiage that that makes a simple matter-marriage equality-into a nightmarish ball of confusion and obfuscation

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So to answer your key question how would we go about protecting all parties and political ideologies from each other

My key question??? What?? You are not getting off to a very good start here .When did I say that we need to protect “ all parties and ideologies from each other ? First of all you need to get past the idea that everything is an “ideology” Sexual orientation and gender identity are not ideologies. They are the essence of who people are. And we are talking about people, human beings. Try to remember that. Secondly, all groups, demographics or whatever you want to call them are not equally in need of being defended or protected. White supremacists neither need or deserve protection. We need to protect those who are vulnerable and who have been historically the victims of discrimination and violence. And, we do that through our system of laws, Constitutional principles and rational humanistic policies

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. Use a mix of party structures and media resources including internet to set up Councils with Reps from the various parties per district to address and resolve policy issues, objections and solutions inclusively

Do you stay up at night thinking about how things can be made more insane then are they already?. We have we have Congress, we have state legislatures and countless local government bodies. We have courts from state up to SCOTUS. Now you propose some sort of councils? I have no idea what that would look like and how it would work. You are like the Rube Goldberg of bureaucracy. Now you seem to want to add another layer and probably have no idea how the councils would interact with existing structures.
So tell us more about these councils. Who would they consist of ? Lets see” Reps from various parties”. Humm. Ok. Lets imagine a room where we have
The ACLU
MAGA Republicans
The Southern Poverty Law Center
The Proud Boys and the Oath keepers
Various LGBT Advocacy groups
Franklin Graham
Various Immigration Advocacy Groups.

There are others of course that you might want to invite, but you get the idea. So tell us. What policy issues do you think that they can resolve. What common ground do you think that they can find and how would anything that they happen to agree on be implemented? You have not really thought this through , have you? This tripe is just another attempt by you to accommodate all sides, no matter how vile and objectionable they may be in the name of fairness while concealing to more nefarious agenda of giving equal time to the autocrats, tyrants and bigots who do not deserve it
I am going to end here for now. Can’t stand it any more

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you stay up at night thinking about how things can be made more insane then are they already?. We have we have Congress, we have state legislatures and countless local government bodies. We have courts from state up to SCOTUS. Now you propose some sort of councils? I have no idea what that would look like and how it would work. You are like the Rube Goldberg of bureaucracy. Now you seem to want to add another layer and probably have no idea how the councils would interact with existing structures.
So tell us more about these councils. Who would they consist of ? Lets see” Reps from various parties”. Humm. Ok. Lets imagine a room where we have
The ACLU
MAGA Republicans
The Southern Poverty Law Center
The Proud Boys and the Oath keepers
Various LGBT Advocacy groups
Franklin Graham
Various Immigration Advocacy Groups.

There are others of course that you might want to invite, but you get the idea. So tell us. What policy issues do you think that they can resolve. What common ground do you think that they can find and how would anything that they happen to agree on be implemented? You have not really thought this through , have you? This tripe is just another attempt by you to accommodate all sides, no matter how vile and objectionable they may be in the name of fairness while concealing to more nefarious agenda of giving equal time to the autocrats, tyrants and bigots who do not deserve it
I am going to end here for now. Can’t stand it any more

1. Actually I have been networking across diverse factions and parties for 20-25 years trying to piece these things together in the most natural way that everyone can see is fulfilling their goals without conflict

2. We already have Parties and Media networks where people like you and me "represent ourselves directly"

It only makes sense to use these institutions more productively. My friend Ray Villeneuve who is an Atheist Liberal from Canada found a Smart Politics group that is seeking to coordinate communication better online between groups. We are on the same page but he comes from a liberal atheist background and can't stand the Religious Rightwing which I work equally with.

3. This isn't reinventing the wheel. But taking all the wheels we already have and running on them where the body is balanced and we can drive down the same road not go in opposite directions fighting for control of the steering wheel

 

[emilynghiem]

First, though I'm obviously not PP I have one, so thanks for showing up and responding in some detail. Next, why José thinks you're Vietnamese beats the hell out of me? Not to mention, member zaangalewa who is obviously an opinionated German guy with many strange notions and one who loses much English language nuance in translation.

That said, what you ask is ridiculous on its face. Government exists because left to their own devices people just end up killing one another until the strongest individual forces compliance upon the rest. That system can only work for a very limited number, as it does only for a limited number of lions and gorillas.

Our advantage is that we're best adapted to solve problems simply through communication rather than violence. This requires secure places to meet in meaningful numbers and a willingness to do so. Being able to "meet" now on the interwebs remains too new for us to broadly accept as a workable alternative to traditional "government."

Now if, as you propose, every Tom, Dick, and Harriet with an "idea" of their own were to be invited and treated as an equal, proposing/voting member,.. you're just creating chaos again, inevitably ending up with the loudest, fittest, most arrogant asshole running the entire show and ignoring everyone other than their willing toadies.

Having everyone express their private take would take forever. Nothing would ever get done. Families can accommodate such things, peaceful communities require much more.

My parents were both born in Vietnam . I was born in Texas which best fits my political cultural take. Self governance, Texas Nationalist type but balanced with Buddhist Christian Universalist approach to Constitutional laws and ethics.

I don't speak Vietnamese or anything other than American Texas English

I know enough about hardheaded Vietnamese and Texas Southern culture to let everyone do things their own way and we all get along.

 

[emilynghiem]

TheProgressivePatriot

Hi PP: the part that gets into ideologies is the "belief" on either side of these debates: (a) whether orientation and transgender identity is "natural or unnatural" (b) can be changed or not, is it a choice or innate by birth (c) and if not all cases of homosexual or transgender identity are the same, then which people are natural or unnatural, or can change or not change?

Clearly this is Internal Personal area and NOT for govt to establish a policy for anyone.

The part that govt can protect is the expression and exercise of "beliefs" or creeds. So we could agree to classify all beliefs about this as "sexual beliefs or sexual rights" and not specify "which beliefs govt will approve or punish" which is not the job of Govt to regulate.

The same way it's not Govts business to decide that Atheists or Buddhists need specific mention and protection from harassment by people who disagree with those beliefs, the beliefs about LGBT being "natural or unnatural" varies with each person or case and belongs to individuals not govt.

As for what science is showing with LGBT identity/orientation :
A. No these things are not genetic. Studies on twins do not show "100% correlation/matches" so there are external conditions outside the DNA/genes that affect orientation.
B. The chemical changes in the womb during pregnancy and prenatal development could possibly show where these changes are taking place "before birth" but are not in the genes. Some studies suggest higher stress levels during pregnancy correlate with greater probability of the children "born homosexual".

It is possible to document the cases of people reporting homosexuality or transgender identity "causes by abuse" and then document the rates or ability of such people to "change their orientation/identity" by healing therapy "in cases that these were NOT natural from birth but were connected with "unnatural abuse".

Because not all cases are the same, and it isn't govt's business to dictate which cases of internal identity are natural or unnatural, that's where the faith based preferences come in.

Trying to protect beliefs about LGBT being natural is like trying to protect Atheist beliefs as someone's choice or natural predisposition. Some people are naturally Atheistic or Nontheistic like Buddhists. That's not Govts business to define which religions need special protection from excess harassment. It is already illegal to discriminate on the basis of Creed whether Christian Atheist Muslim etc. But it has to be a govt or public institution to enforce the civil rights policies against discrimination against persons.

A. Individuals cannot be forced by govt to change their beliefs or to comply with "your beliefs that all LGBT cases are natural by birth" or else face punishment by govt

B. Public institutions and businesses open to the public cannot discriminate and refuse to serve people based on their beliefs, creeds, including LGBT identity expressions or practices. But they cannot be forced to participate in expressions or practices that violate their beliefs.

PP I can respect your beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity equally as Christian beliefs that these can be changed by healing the abuse that causes a lot of the cases.

Govt is supposed to be neutral and all inclusive.

So the most objective position that respects all person's equally is to treat "sexual rights or beliefs" equally as other religious, political or ideological creeds.

That allows all people like you to be protected by law equally as the people of other beliefs. Either way, public institutions cannot discriminate against any people on the basis of your creeds.


If you want to add a new section to Civil Rights it should be a neutral all inclusive category like "sexual rights and beliefs" to cover the whole spectrum. So nobody is left out.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi PP: the part that gets into ideologies is the "belief" on either side of these debates: (a) whether orientation and transgender identity is "natural or unnatural" (b) can be changed or not, is it a choice or innate by birth (c) and if not all cases of homosexual or transgender identity are the same, then which people are natural or unnatural, or can change or not change?

Clearly this is Internal Personal area and NOT for govt to establish a policy for anyone.

I agree that those distinctions are not the concern of government and should not be factors in establishing public policy. Happily, throughout all of the legal wrangling over LGBT issues, none of those factors have been an issue

However, my concern is that there are those who-without evidence-adamantly claim that gender identity and sexuality “choices” and can be changed and that homosexuality is “unnatural.” They do so as a way to justify discriminatory laws and policies by painting LGBT people has having made frivolous choices and thus deserve whatever befalls them

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The part that govt can protect is the expression and exercise of "beliefs" or creeds. So we could agree to classify all beliefs about this as "sexual beliefs or sexual rights" and not specify "which beliefs govt will approve or punish" which is not the job of Govt to regulate.

I agree that government should not be regulating free speech to the extent that it does not cross the line and becomes hate speech that endangers others. I suppose that would have to include your freedom to continue to refer to sexual orientation and gender identity a “creeds” and “beliefs “ regardless of how offensive and annoying that is. By doing so, you prove yourself to be no better than those who seek to marginalize those minorities by implying that they have chosen to be who they are

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The same way it's not Govts business to decide that Atheists or Buddhists need specific mention and protection from harassment by people who disagree with those beliefs, the beliefs about LGBT being "natural or unnatural" varies with each person or case and belongs to individuals not govt.

The government does not decide that specific religious groups or sexual orientations need protection. Hate crime laws and laws against discrimination address violence and discrimination against ANYONE on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. The governments responsibility is –in the most basic terms- to regulate behavior that is harmful to others, not beliefs.
Few people besides you are still wringing their hands about what is natural or unnatural. Most of us have move on from that. Time for you to get on board

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As for what science is showing with LGBT identity/orientation :
A. No these things are not genetic. Studies on twins do not show "100% correlation/matches" so there are external conditions outside the DNA/genes that affect orientation.
B. The chemical changes in the womb during pregnancy and prenatal development could possibly show where these changes are taking place "before birth" but are not in the genes. Some studies suggest higher stress levels during pregnancy correlate with greater probability of the children "born homosexual".

Human sexuality Is complicated . It is also interesting but the reasons why people are gay is a question for academia, not law and public policy which is my concern. But for the record, you might want to do more research on twins and genetics. Identical twins are not necessarily identical genetically. You might want to google epigenetics. The absence of a “gay gene “ does not mean that it is not genetic. People really piss me off when they intone “there is no gay gene so therefor it’s a choice” displaying a profound ignorance of human sexuality. And you are emboldening them with your pointless and poorly informed musings

Stress level, chemicals? . Gay people are what they are, and they are WHO they are. There is no point is dwelling on any of this unless you want to find a “cure” for homosexuality, wish to paint it as an abnormality as opposed to a normal variation on the continuum of human sexuality or are looking for some reason to show that it’s a frivolous lifestyle choice.

Why don’t we put the same energy into analyzing why people are religious, or chose a particular religion, or why they are conservative, liberal, or something else? There has been some discussion on those topics but it is most often the LGBT people who are closely scrutinized for nefarious reasons such as identifying their pathology.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is possible to document the cases of people reporting homosexuality or transgender identity "causes by abuse" and then document the rates or ability of such people to "change their orientation/identity" by healing therapy "in cases that these were NOT natural from birth but were connected with "unnatural abuse".

Really? Well I know of no such documented cases where people became gay or trans as a result of sexual abuse, and I find your invoking that possibility –especially without documentation extremely disturbing. That assertion dovetails very nicely with the bigoted narrative that those sexual minorities are sexual predators who target (groom) others in order to “recruit” them into” the lifestyle” I had said previously that initially, I thought that some of what you promoted was born of ignorance and naiveite . This just reinforces my suspicion, which I expressed back then- that you harbor more sinister and nefarious motives . Your persistent theme that runs throughout your writing -that all views must be equally considered and respected – is just a thinly vailed wink and node to the bigots. There are not ”fine people on both sides.”

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because not all cases are the same, and it isn't govt's business to dictate which cases of internal identity are natural or unnatural, that's where the faith based preferences come in.

Faith based preferences ? WHAT ???? I am not going to bother with the rest of this inane screed. It is just more of the same strange ideas. You keep saying the say things in different ways, using different analogies expecting that it will somehow convince someone that it makes sense. It does not make sense. You are inventing problems and proposing unworkable and unnecessary solutions that accomplish nothing but to give bigots and tyrants equal time and consideration. Your vision is that of dystopian, social Darwinian society where the powerful eat the powerless. The stary eyed misguided idealist that I once thought you to be you are not


PS:

Yoou said: "If you want to add a new section to Civil Rights it should be a neutral all inclusive category like "sexual rights and beliefs" to cover the whole spectrum. So nobody is left out."

THAT is EXACTLY how laws against discrimination and hate crimes laws are already written. You really should better inform yourself on these things

 

[BackAgain]

A requirement of a state “license” on marriage is designed to address issue related to family law and things like estate law.

To that limited extent, with a little re-naming as a condition, I’d be ok with a state having a hand in the matter. But otherwise, marriage is more of a private & social and/or religious matter.

Consequently, I maintain that the province of any State, in regards to “marriage,” should be limited to issuing a license for something like a “domestic partnership” regardless of whether it’s straight or gay. The State can then keep its records relative to divorce and who gets custody of children and who has parental obligations relative to the offspring etc. it can also authorize the other party relative to matters of health care in and out of hospitals. It can help provide for things like estates and so forth.

But, the State can keep its nose out of the more religious aspects of “marriage.”

Couples who want the formality of a religious recognized “marriage” are free to go to the appropriate houses of worship. But the State avoids undue entanglement in religious matters.