- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,963
- Reaction score
- 855
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I would expect nothing less from the capital.
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."
Absolutely right.
If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.
No one was circumvented. There are three branches of government and one was exercised. The other two have the right to weigh in now if they want.
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."
Absolutely right.
If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.
Actually that is incorrect.
The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics on Tuesday denied a petition to put a ballot initiative before city voters that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.
D.C. vote on gay marriage denied - Washington Times
See gay marriage supporters can't win with the people voting on the issue so they circumvent the people.
We the people ELECTED our City Council to represent us. Why should the people have to approve every single thing that our representatives pass? How is it "circumventing the people" for elected representatives to pass laws? If the people are that pissed about it, they can vote the City Council out of office next time they're up for election.
Then explain how they didn't circumvent the people when they denied a vote on this very issue?
go ahead.
The group also has a lawsuit pending from earlier this year, when it tried to get an initiative on the ballot asking voters to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The elections board again cited the human rights law in saying no. A hearing in that case is scheduled for January.
Funny how you neglected to mention that part, and only quoted half the paragraph.
Because it doesn't answer the question.
You can't hide behind a human rights argument to deny people their right to vote.
Because it doesn't answer the question.
You can't hide behind a human rights argument to deny people their right to vote.
If the law is in place, and is relevant, you in fact have to use it. Some of you conservatives are all law and order, right up till the law is inconvenient.
There is no human rights law. Nice try.
So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing human rights you would support it as well?
Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly....
So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council who supported it denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing "human rights" you would support it as well?
We just get a little antsy when the legislature deny the people the right to vote on an issue. Not something you liberals care much about as long as its in your favor.
And there is no human rights law. Nice try.
So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council who supported it denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing "human rights" you would support it as well?
Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly....
How about we revisit that one when 12 year olds are able to legally enter into contracts?
The legeslature is elected for a reason. Want to take a guess what that reason is?
The topic is gay marriage. Nice attempt to make an emotional trap question, but I am not playing.
How about we visit it now?
The entire point is the hypocrisy of this argument by the pro gay marriage crowd.
They only cite this "human rights" bs when its on this particular issue but they as whole ignore it when other alternative lifestyles would try for the same "right"
Last time I checked we were all human so it should apply to everyone. :roll:
Its hypocrisy at its finest and its the same argument the religious right makes citing a moral reason to deny gay marriage. To claim it is a "human right" but only limit the definition to people who want a 2 person same sex marriage is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Are you trying to make a wedge of cheese or what? At least it will give something to nibble on.
hint: I'm speaking metaphorically in realtion to your avatar
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?