|
It's really depressing how the single most stable and successful party in post-WWII European politics is still the loving CSU. As a non-German it keeps amazing me how dominant the CSU manages to stay in Bavarian politics. Why is that? It's not like other traditions haven't been active in Bavaria previously (certainly in Munich).
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
It's a multitude of reasons: Bavaria used to be (and still is in some parts) a deeply Catholic country. The CSU's predecessor, the BVP, was an explicitly Catholic party that cooperated openly with the clergy; until the war it often happened that the priests would tell their flock to vote BVP. The CSU inherited this, and therefore for a long time it used to be the duty of all proper Catholics to vote CSU. In some circles, it still is. Secondly, it is a urban-rural split as well: Bavaria still is quite rural (I seem to remember a statistic that 2/3rds of the population live in towns with less than 20,000 inhabitants, but don't quote me on that). Even in the cities, the "rural life" and its traditions are often somewhat glorified. Thirdly it's the fact that the CSU is an exclusively Bavarian party. Bavaria has a long tradition of independence - it's one of the oldest states of Europe actually, dating back to 817 (there had been an even older Bavarian duchy that had been subsumed by Charlemagne into his empire a couple of decades before). Many Bavarians see themselves as Bavarians first and Germans second, and the clear self-identification of the CSU as Bavarian scores with this crowd. The CSU is also impressingly good with messaging and PR, much more so than the other parties. It managed to permanently associate the positive image of Bavaria as a state successfully combining a rich tradition with an openness to the future with itself: In a sense, the CSU *is* Bavaria, at least in the eyes of the public. Its politicians are mostly supremely good with approaching the voters on their level. I can only speak for the town in which I grew up, but everybody knew the local CSU candidate and he in turn knew everyone. In contrast to that, the SPD candidate was a rare sight. I always had the impression that she actually disliked going to the festivals and whatnot of the region and chatting with the people - she let herself be seen only rarely and when she did, she didn't seem to enjoy herself at all. I've been told by friends that aparetnly this is not a singular experience, but happens quite often throughout Bavaria. It also helps that Bavaria really is highly successful. Why change a running system? And finally, I think that the CSU is really unique in its all-encompassing drive for power. Previously held opinions and stances don't count for poo poo when they're unpopular with voters. The only reason for the CSU to exist is its continuing success in Bavaria. Without that, it is nothing, and because of that everything else is utterly unimportant compared to the Holy Grail of 50+ %. When the CSU loses and has to sit on the opposition bench, it can't just bide its time like the other parties, but has to fear for its very existence instead. How to justify the existence of a separate conservative party in Bavaria when it isn't more successful than the CDU? This is also why a defeat (or simply a considerable loss in votes) means an instant out for people in charge. Just look at how fast Huber and Beckstein got the boot after the debacle of 2008. System Metternich fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Sep 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Randler posted:There is no path for gay marriage in any realistic coalition because there are constitutional problems with expanding marriages that way. I fully expect marriages and civil unions to exist independantly from each other but with the same rights and obligations for a very long time. Out of curiosity, why is that? I'm by no means a constitutional scholar, but article 6 of the GG (which I guess is what you're referring to?) only grants a special protection to the institution of marriage and family and does not actually make any mention of the genders of the people involved. Is there some other law where that is actually legally defined that way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Out of curiosity, why is that? I'm by no means a constitutional scholar, but article 6 of the GG (which I guess is what you're referring to?) only grants a special protection to the institution of marriage and family and does not actually make any mention of the genders of the people involved. Is there some other law where that is actually legally defined that way? No, there is no other party in the constitution explicitly defining marriage, as used in the constitution, as being between a man and a woman. The institution of marriage only encompassing what is commonly known as "traditional marriage" is the result of legal interpretation, which takes into account the historic and legal context as well as the originally intended function of the norm. How a phrase is used during everyday conversation years after the passing of a law has little influence on this. So people calling civil unions "Homoehe" does not retroactively influence the legal meaning of the word "Ehe" in article six. If common usage of words would be the sole deciding factor of legal meanings, absurd consequences would follow. In this case, you could make the argument that since common language uses the phrase "Vielehe" article six also protects the right of a person to marry multiple other people at the same time. A similiar issue arises when people are talking about Art. 5 I 1 -"Eine Zensur findet nicht statt." A lot of people call the cutting and rating of media censorship. But that does not make it a censorship in the legal sense of Art. 5, because Art. 5 was only ever intended to ban the classical "Zensur" of old, where publications had to be approved before before being published. Finally, this is an excerpt from BVerfGE 115, 1 (Rn. 60). Bolding mine. (Online version) Bundesverfassungsgericht, Beschluss vom 06.12.2005, Az. 1 BvL 3/03 posted:Bei der Ausformung der Ehe muss der Gesetzgeber die wesentlichen Strukturprinzipien beachten, die sich aus der Anknüpfung des Art. 6 Abs. 1 GG an die vorgefundene Lebensform in Verbindung mit dem Freiheitscharakter des verbürgten Grundrechts und anderen Verfassungsnormen ergeben (vgl. BVerfGE 31, 58 [69]; 105,BVerfGE 115, 001 (018) BVerfGE 115, 001 (019)313 [345]). Zum Gehalt der Ehe, wie er sich ungeachtet des gesellschaftlichen Wandels und der damit einhergehenden Änderungen ihrer rechtlichen Gestaltung bewahrt und durch das Grundgesetz seine Prägung bekommen hat, gehört, dass sie die Vereinigung eines Mannes mit einer Frau zu einer auf Dauer angelegten Lebensgemeinschaft ist, begründet auf freiem Entschluss unter Mitwirkung des Staates (vgl. BVerfGE 10, 59 [66]; 29, 166 [176]; 62, 323 [330]; 105, 313 [345]). Mit diesem sich aus Art. 6 Abs. 1 GG ergebenden Gehalt der Ehe steht in Einklang, wenn der Gesetzgeber verhindert, dass auch gleichgeschlechtliche Partner die Ehe schließen können, wobei er dabei bisher ganz offensichtlich von der personenstandsrechtlichen Geschlechtszuordnung der Partner ausgeht. Um dem Nachdruck zu verleihen und die Ehe von anderen Rechtsinstituten abzugrenzen, ist es auch legitim, Regelungen zu treffen, mit denen der Gesetzgeber versucht, schon den Anschein zu vermeiden, die Ehe stehe auch für gleichgeschlechtliche Partner offen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Art.6 doesn't prohibit gay marriage, it's just that the term 'marriage' doesn't include gay people, as it was used to exclusively refer to a union between man and woman when the article was written, so it doesn't provides a constitutional right for gay people to get married. That was the point of the 1993 ruling, resulting from the Aktion Standesamt. However, that does not actually forbid changing that definition.
e X fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Wouldn't the more recent decision by the BVerfG regarding the Ehegattensplitting at least imply that it has moved on from its traditional interpretation? I mean, they've had decision declaring a ban on homosexuality to be constitutional in the 60ies, and I have my doubts that they would still judge the same today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
The fact that the constitution grants special protection to marriage does not mean that other forms of marriage/civil unions can not be granted those same protections as well. It just means that, unlike with marriage, those rights/protection could theoretically be taken away again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
Here are some election stats: Total results:  Age:  Even young people don't like the Pirates in Bavaria. Gender:  Religious denomination:  Education: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Gender: Someone please explain to me what is going on in this one. Did genderless people vote? Also I'd love to see some people in #deutschgoons this sunday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
I dunno. Exit polls being exit polls I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
http://www.wahlen.bayern.de/landtagswahlen/index.php - Second link has the provisional results I looked into them because I wanted to know how "other" split up. The Bayernpartei and ödp got more votes than the Pirates and only slightly less than Die Linke. The NPD got less votes than the Partei für Franken. :cryingbocksbeutelflag: Lucy Heartfilia posted:Age: frankenfreak fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Sep 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:http://www.wahlen.bayern.de/landtagswahlen/index.php - Second link has the provisional results We had close to 20 percent Bayern Partei votes down here in the south. Most of the time they came in second after the CSU...
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Education: There is something really really funny here. Mostly that the least educated are voting for the party most likely to gently caress them over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
KaneTW posted:Mostly that the least educated are voting for the party most likely to gently caress them over. The universal constant in politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
You'll find the FDP shares go down with less education. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
That kind of makes sense though; not so much the CSU part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
How will Die Linke and SPD do? Any chance for a Left victory?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Nah, the CSU has a pretty solid absolute majority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Absolutely none. Even if there would be a majority for a red-red-green coalition, the SPD would rather enter a coalition with the Union than with the Left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
 Bi-Lingual Posting Ahead e X posted:Art.6 doesn't prohibit gay marriage, it's just that the term 'marriage' doesn't include gay people, as it was used to exclusively refer to a union between man and woman when the article was written, so it doesn't provides a constitutional right for gay people to get married. That was the point of the 1993 ruling, resulting from the Aktion Standesamt. However, that does not actually forbid changing that definition. If they get a 2/3 majority, they could probably change the constitution to include a definition saying, "Marriage also includes partnerships of the same sex". Without a constitutional change, that is doubtful. Art. 6 GG ist kein bloßes Schutzrecht gegen den Staat. Der Schutz von Ehe und Familie ist auch eine sogenannte Einrichtungsgarantie hinsichtlich der Ehe. Das bedeutet, dass der Staat die Einrichtung "Ehe" im Kern als rechtliches Institut aufrechterhalten muss. Insofern ist es gerade die Zielrichtung von Artikel 6 GG, dass der Gesetzgeber eben nicht alles einfachgesetzlich dem Zeitgeist anpasst. Er muss das Rechtsinstitut der Zivilehe bewahren und darf es nicht in seinen Grundzügen ändern. Er kann also zum Beispiel grundsätzlich das Alter der Ehefähigkeit hoch- oder runtersetzen, aber er könnte zum Beispiel nicht erlauben, dass die Ehe von vorne herein auf Zeit geschlossen wird, wie es in manchen Kulturkreisen üblich ist.("auf Dauer angelegte Lebensgemeinschaft") Entsprechend würde der Gesetzgeber wohl auch daran gehindert sein, die Zivilehe für gleich- und verschiedengeschlechtliche Personen zu öffnen. Das alles berührt aber, wie auch schon von elwood gesagt, nicht die Möglichkeit des Gesetzgebers ein entsprechendes Rechtsinstitut wie die Lebenspartnerschaft zu kreieren. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in seiner Entscheidung zur eingetragenen Lebenspartnerschaft im Übrigen ausdrücklich festgestellt, dass die Lebenspartnerschaft als separates Institut das Institut der Ehe nicht verletzt. Denn zwei Personen können miteinander entweder nur die Ehe oder nur eine Lebenspartnereschaft eingehen. Denn Erstere setzt Verschiedengeschlechtlichkeit voraus, während letztere Gleichgeschlechtlichkeit voraussetzt. ArchangeI posted:Wouldn't the more recent decision by the BVerfG regarding the Ehegattensplitting at least imply that it has moved on from its traditional interpretation? I mean, they've had decision declaring a ban on homosexuality to be constitutional in the 60ies, and I have my doubts that they would still judge the same today. Not at all, the decision on "Ehegattensplitting" has nothing to do with how the legal term "Ehe" in article six has to be understood. Die Verfassungwidrigkeit der Regelungen zum Ehegattensplitting rührt aus dem allgemeinen Gleichheitsgrundsatz und nicht aus dem Schutz von Ehe und Familie. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hatte bereits vorher entschieden, dass der Gesetzgeber nicht gehindert war ein Rechtsinstitut zu normieren, welches die Lebens- und Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft zweier Personen gleichen Geschlechts rechtlich absichert. Fraglich war, ob es sich bei der Ungleichbehandlung im Rahmen der Einkommenssteuerveranlagung um eine verfassungswidrige oder um eine verfassungsgemäße Ungleichbehandlung handelte. Denn das Grundgesetz verbietet nicht jede Ungleichbehandlung. Verfassungsrechtlich unzulässig ist lediglich die Ungleichbehandlung von Wesentlich gleichem. Ob zwei Sachverhalte im Wesentlichen gleich sind hängt immer auch davon ab, in welchem Kontext wir uns befinden. Für den Kontext der Steuerveranlagung sieht das Bundesverfassungsgericht die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft und die bürgerliche Ehe als im Wesentlichen gleich an. Denn der Gesetzgeber hat für gleichgeschlechtliche Partner eben ein der Ehe entsprechendes Rechtsinstitut eingerichtet. Hierzu war er zwar nicht verpflichtet, aber wenn er ein solches Institut schafft, dann darf er es nicht einfach willkürlich in Situationen anders behandeln, wo kein praktischer Unterschied zur bürgerlichen Ehe besteht. I'm also pretty sure they would not decide the same way regarding criminal laws against homosexual behaviour anymore. It's actually a really interesting if somewhat complex decision to read. It also has some passages where the court explicitly says that their assessment on the matter might change with what science on sexuality will discover. frankenfreak posted:You'll find the FDP shares go down with less education. It's hard to gently caress somebody over if you can't even get the key to the shabby motel room. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Yeah, i've given up on anything left of a great coalition which would be almost indistinguishable from solo CDU anyway. I still have some hope that the FDP might get 4.9% though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
They'll get enough tactical voters to pass 5%. An FDP who is in parliament by grace of the CDU is the best case for Merkel. The SPD might get the idea that they have a say in certain matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
I'm guessing you mean Erststimme CDU, Zweitstimme FDP. Isn't that kind of tactical voting obsolete with the Überhangmandat reform? And the CDU is actively discouraging their voters from giving their Zweitstimme to the FDP from what i've heard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Bistromatic posted:I'm guessing you mean Erststimme CDU, Zweitstimme FDP. Isn't that kind of tactical voting obsolete with the Überhangmandat reform? Why would it be? The zweitstimme is the only way a small party can hope to get seats. IIRC, in 2009 FDP and Grüne together didn't get 5 direct mandates. The voters in other areas would presumably still have a preference between the SPD/CDU direct candidates. quote:And the CDU is actively discouraging their voters from giving their Zweitstimme to the FDP from what i've heard. They aren't actively encouraging it. There is a difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
I'd like to apologize to everybody from Bavaria. On numerous occassions, I have called Bavaria an undemocratic one-party state of hickfolk. Thankfully, the electoral district of Bayreuth has shown me the errors of my way. Nobody gets more passionate about voting than the Bavarians!  
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
The site won't load for me. Care to tell where exactly this magical polling station is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Randler posted:I'd like to apologize to everybody from Bavaria. On numerous occassions, I have called Bavaria an undemocratic one-party state of hickfolk. Bayreuth has like 68% or so. I don't know what those idiots responsible for the Bayreuth website are doing. Here: http://www.wahlen.bayern.de/lw2013/vorl-ergebnis.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:The site won't load for me. Care to tell where exactly this magical polling station is? A place called Emtmannsberg, where they apparently count write-in votes from other districts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
That's so typically German it hurts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Well, this may be true but the text passage is still rather ambiguous. And the constitutional court can use any of the still pending cases against marriage discrimination to declare same-sex marriage compatible with the relevant part of the Basic Law. But even if this does not bear fruit, we at least have a sensible procedure to amend our constitution. Which party is against same-sex marriage now anyway? Only the CDU/CSU, with the CSU much more opposed than the CDU. The chance that the CSU would embrace or at least cease to fight against same-sex marriage is rather slim, but I have hopes for the CDU (go generational change!). Or perhaps the pro-SSM parties can get two thirds of the votes in both houses without the CDU... who am I kidding 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Well, this may be true but the text passage is still rather ambiguous. And the constitutional court can use any of the still pending cases against marriage discrimination to declare same-sex marriage compatible with the relevant part of the Basic Law. The impression I get is that even inside the CDU there are a fair few voices in favour of proper SSM. It seems (or at least I hope) that much of the leadership is mostly just blocking it for fear of alienating their conservative base rather than any particular conviction of their own. I wish the FDP had put more pressure on them while they still mattered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:The impression I get is that even inside the CDU there are a fair few voices in favour of proper SSM. It seems (or at least I hope) that much of the leadership is mostly just blocking it for fear of alienating their conservative base rather than any particular conviction of their own. I wish the FDP had put more pressure on them while they still mattered. Merging marriage and civil unions into one new type of marriage just isn't worth it politically. Functionally, civil unions are almost equivalent to marriages right now. And the constitutional court is pretty much guaranteed to follow up their current line of arguing to enforce equal standing in the remaining areas. Trying to make a new gender-neutral institution of marriage would only give the hardline conservatives another opportunity to take shots against homosexuals. Not to mention that a lot of other laws that referred only to the "old" marriage had to be changed for clarification's sake, because otherwise people would complain about those applying to the "new" marriage as well. Torrannor posted:Well, this may be true but the text passage is still rather ambiguous. And the constitutional court can use any of the still pending cases against marriage discrimination to declare same-sex marriage compatible with the relevant part of the Basic Law. Doubtful. The current civil unions ("Lebenspartnerschaften") are already compatible with the Basic Law. And the constitutional court is unlikely to decide about a hypothetical form of marriage ("Ehe") that would be open to people of the same sex as well as people of the different sex, because the constitutional court can only decide about stuff that is brought up to him. Randler fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Here's something interesting to play around with: http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/wahlland#2009/wahlkreis/211 It's a "map" showing the electoral districts' deviation from the federal average in the 2009 elections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
So the newspapers are full of revelations that the Greens used to have a segment of the party that advocated for legalizing sexual acts between children and adults. Apparently Jürgen Trittin once co-signed a document that advocated (among other things) for this. I think the CDU just gained some voters back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Should probably also mention that this was from 1981 and the investigation was started by the Greens themselves, not like we would see any similar effort put into an investigation like that from the CDU/Kohl/Schäuble and their party donations affair
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
Yes, because donating to a party is worse than molesting children.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
One is the chancellor of Germany accepting illegal donations and refusing to disclose the donators and the his party keeping secret bank accounts. The other is a small party adopting a position of sexual liberty that should have been highly morally questionable even then, then abandoning that position and distancing themselves from it long before they even got voted into the federal government. The CDU was a long established governing party, the Greens were in their formative years, had been around as a political party for all of one year and would remain in the opposition for 18 years if they got into parliament at all. It really kind of is a bigger deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:Here's something interesting to play around with: yeah but everyone was thinking about this stuff after the 60s, 70s, after the sexual revolution and whatnot the FDP, for instance: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/documents-reveal-links-between-german-fdp-and-pedophilia-activists-a-920092.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
german police statistics 2012 persons killed: 8 persons injured: 20 persons shot at overall: 36 35 incidents happened to end life threatening situations 1 incident happened to stop a fugitive 54 incidents with warning shots 14 incidents with shots fired at various objects (doors, tires) Number of incidents where police shot at persons since 1998: 656 Number of deaths since 1998: 109 http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/gebrauch-von-schusswaffen-polizisten-schossen-36-mal-auf-menschen-12579375.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
36 persons shot at is really low considering that 1762 policemen were injured last year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:41
|
|