dustind
Member
Thee is a Vermont secesion movement, and there is also a movement for several cities in Vermont to join New Hamspheir over tax battles.
What will be the straw that breaks the union's back?
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
- Status
bjengs
Member
No way Hawai'i goes without some sort of natural disaster. On tiny Oahu alone, there are four military bases (one for each branch) and a military airport, and a good chunk of the island is an outdoor training facility. It's a depressing little socialist Sparta.
As for Alaska, I suppose its remoteness and small population make it seem a likely candidate, but it's very valuable in terms of natural resources.
As for Alaska, I suppose its remoteness and small population make it seem a likely candidate, but it's very valuable in terms of natural resources.
jimpeel
Member
Sean Smith
Many, here, have wondered why the same is not true of CCW licenses; but that is too politically incorrect an issue to address at any level even though a plurality of states have passed licensing schemes for CCW.
I guess you missed that part about:
If gay marriage becomes legal in MA or CA then, by the tenets of the full faith and credit clause, all states of the union must recognize those marriages as legal and binding.
Many, here, have wondered why the same is not true of CCW licenses; but that is too politically incorrect an issue to address at any level even though a plurality of states have passed licensing schemes for CCW.
JohnBT
Member
It'll take more than one straw.
Is this a great country or what?
John
Is this a great country or what?
John
jimpeel
Member
The competition for secession, and who will be first to secede, are these (in no particular order):
Montana, Hawaii, Texas, Alaska, Idaho.
Of those, only two, Hawaii and Texas, have a chance in Hell of making it on their own. Alaska is detatched from the contiguous U.S. but doesn't have tghe industrial base they need to secede other than the petroleum industry. At that, they send most of what they pump overseas anyway so wouldn't be missed much except by D.C. They would be all upset by the loss of tax revenue.
Idaho and Montana are landlocked against the Canadian border. They could become Canuks, I guess.
Montana, Hawaii, Texas, Alaska, Idaho.
Of those, only two, Hawaii and Texas, have a chance in Hell of making it on their own. Alaska is detatched from the contiguous U.S. but doesn't have tghe industrial base they need to secede other than the petroleum industry. At that, they send most of what they pump overseas anyway so wouldn't be missed much except by D.C. They would be all upset by the loss of tax revenue.
Idaho and Montana are landlocked against the Canadian border. They could become Canuks, I guess.
Sean Cloherty
Member
For those who think that gay marriage is a blip and economic problems will be the downfall then listen up.
If you now have a large number of new married folks, the non-working partners of these gay couples will be able to claim all the same expenive benefits from the working partner's employer, the state, and FEDGOV.
If Social Security is near the point of collapse, this must certainly be adding some stress. Employer benefits are getting too expensive and the costs to employess are increasing or the benefits being terminated or scaled back.
Now I don't know what the numbers will be, but form the last count from just S.F. there are over 1700 new potential beneficiaries, surviving spouses, etc.
That is going to be very expensive.
If you now have a large number of new married folks, the non-working partners of these gay couples will be able to claim all the same expenive benefits from the working partner's employer, the state, and FEDGOV.
If Social Security is near the point of collapse, this must certainly be adding some stress. Employer benefits are getting too expensive and the costs to employess are increasing or the benefits being terminated or scaled back.
Now I don't know what the numbers will be, but form the last count from just S.F. there are over 1700 new potential beneficiaries, surviving spouses, etc.
That is going to be very expensive.
Joe Demko
Member
The notion that anything to do with homosexuality would cause the dissolution of the Union is rather quaint, I think.
jimpeel
Member
Golgo-13
It is NOT the issue of homosexuality. It is the issue of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution forcing the states to recognize gay marriage.
Master Blaster
Member
I know a few gays work in my department, the ones I know about all have co habitatiting commited other halfs who work, and get their own benefits. I doubt that this will put as much of a burden on the social welfare state as all of the illegal aliens that come across the border do.
The flip side of gay marraiage is that all those married gays who become ill from some disease, injury or old age, or dont work will have a spouse to be responsible for their care, rather than the government.
Joe Demko
Member
If they aren't upset about the homosexuality issue, why would they care about being "forced" to recognize gay marriage? I suspect a whole lot more people were upset when the feds forced a 55mph speed limit on everybody a while back. Don't recall any states declaring themselves independent of the Union, though. So, I'd say not enough people object to gay marriage for the full faith and credit clause to be used as an excuse for secession.
fix
Member
Retracted for thread hijack. If you want to know what was said, PM me. I have a copy. I'll stand by it, but it doesn't belong here.
Last edited:
jimpeel
Member
Jonesy9
The thread is about what issue, in the opinion of this assemblage, will be the issue which will cause one, or several, states to secede.
The gay marriage issue was merely my personal opinion of which issue would cause this. It will not be the gay marriage issue which will cause secession but the full faith and credit clause forcing states to recognize those marriages.
Please get this straight and know the difference; or are you trying to get the thread closed?
Although the thread seems to be degenerating into a debate on the gay marriage issue, it is not about that at all.
The thread is about what issue, in the opinion of this assemblage, will be the issue which will cause one, or several, states to secede.
The gay marriage issue was merely my personal opinion of which issue would cause this. It will not be the gay marriage issue which will cause secession but the full faith and credit clause forcing states to recognize those marriages.
Please get this straight and know the difference; or are you trying to get the thread closed?
jimpeel
Member
Golgo-13
In a word: costs.
Easy there big fella, I'm not trying to get your thread closed. I understood what your thread was about, hence my earlier reply addressing your opinions.
I did not follow that you meant the full credit clause would be the cause of internal strife. Especially since if you approach gay marriage from a strictly constructionist poitn of view, that clause is irrelevant since there is no consitutional argument that can be made against gay marriage due to the 14th. Of course, one can take the moral relevatism approach and deny the existence of the equal protection clause or better yet, sponsor an amendemnt to strike down the 14th or word it to only apply to distnct groups, but that won't pass.
The "costs" to society are a blip on the screen. As I stated earlier, the country was adamantly opposed to interracial marriage in the 50's and the states didn't secede. The world didn't end. Saving the sanctity of marriage for the Liz Taylors and Dennis Rodmans or allowing all Americans mariage will not cause more than a couple small protests IMHO. Americans have much bigger concerns these days.
I appreciate a good wedge issue, this one just doesn't seem to have much gas.
dustind
Member
I agree with Jonesy9: If racial marriages and speed limits did not cause the end of the union this marriage issue will not either. Few people care about other's rights or privileges, and those that do are divided.
Fix: If anyone replies to parts of your post I imagine the thread would be closed.
Fix: If anyone replies to parts of your post I imagine the thread would be closed.
Jay Kominek
Member
Tough? They can go to my coworker. He is a pastor for one of those silly churches that'll make anyone a pastor.
He'll marry anyone to anything that won't run away. He'll marry people that are standing too close just because he gets a kick out of it, and then you have to ask him to have it annulled! They might not get any sort of benefits out of it, but they can tell anyone they're married, and if they think they are, they are and no piece of paper will ever make it otherwise.
You want to right down to it, eh?
In the most general sense, "Marriage" is an arrangement between n number of entities, where according to the popular religions in the country at the moment n is 3: a man, a woman, and some spiritual entity which is concerned about the promises people make to each other before cohabitating. (Not trying to be offensive, lets just be as clear as possible about the relevent attributes of the parties involved.)
And they're going to do that, how? A proclamation in the town square: "Hey you gay people, you're not married anymore! neener neener!"?
If they think they're married, they're married, and noone can tell them otherwise. I suppose, perhaps, we could restrict free speech such that they're no longer allowed to say they're married, and they're forbidden from making promises to be faithful or nice or whatever to each other. That'd be just swell.
To address the topic, I'm in agreement that financial troubles will cause the breakup of the union. (If anything does! I'd almost suspect that the whole thing will just fall apart before particular bits and pieces would decide to break off.) People will be vastly more concerned about their own joblessness and inability to pay for HBO and Cinemax and get Starbucks coffee and play golf on the weekend than whether or not the two nice young men next door are buggering each other and have a pair of matching rings.
fix
Member
Well one can think they are anything, but that doesn't make it so.
I dropped my earlier post because it doesn't relate to the original question. Sorry for the thread hijack.
jimpeel
Member
I will agree with the above when the fourteenth applies to the Second Amendment.
Gordon Fink
Member
These fascinatingly inaccurate statements above may illustrate what is truly wrong with Americans (and people in general).
No mere straw will break the American camel’s back. It will take the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of total economic collapse (tens of millions dying in the process) to accomplish that. Fortunately, that day is still at least decades off and, for that matter, still not totally inevitable. (Though please see my sig.) Minor though instructive squabbles over such inane issues as homosexual marriage or Janet Jackson’s breast will not destroy the union.
For at least 70 years, various groups have actively, tirelessly, and quite successfully worked to suppress the natural rights of a heavily armed segment of the American population. In all this time, the agrieved parties have pursued only peaceful, non-violent means of resistance. They have slain not a single one of their political persecutors. If these Americans will not fight, what could possibly persuade anyone else to turn away from the ample comforts of the modern lifestyle in favor of the hard sacrifices of revolution?
If and when an economic and civil collapse does occur, people would indeed come together and work to solve the problems. However, they would probably do so on a regional level. Thus when civilization re-emerges in North America, it would probably do so with different political boundaries than we see today.
~G. Fink
Gordon Fink
Member
Jonesy, accepted history has the continuous human occupation of North America going back for about 10,000 years. To the best of my knowledge, there are no human societies that do not practice some form of marriage. Therefore, the “first marriages in the new world†must have been performed well before even the 16th century A.D.
I apologize for the necessarily implied insult, but I couldn’t let those two disheartening statements stand unchallenged. I suppose I could have been more coddling about it and less arrogant, so you have me there. Of course, then you could have accused me of being patronizing.
~G. Fink
I apologize for the necessarily implied insult, but I couldn’t let those two disheartening statements stand unchallenged. I suppose I could have been more coddling about it and less arrogant, so you have me there. Of course, then you could have accused me of being patronizing.
~G. Fink
MacViolinist
Member
I am not sure that anything could cause enough Joe Americans to overcome the fear of resisting police, let alone the military, if they became involved, to the point that would be necessary to seceed. I would like to think that if martial law was declared, that would do it, but I am not sure.
-drew
-drew
Gordon Fink
Member
But those defending homosexual marriage are not.
~G. Fink
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked