• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judge upholds Oregon Gay Marriage ban

hipsterdufus said:
That was then. This is now.
The principle is the same: government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If you want to change things, convince the people that the change is desirable.
 
KrazyKarl said:
Do you really want a society in which the vote of the American people replaces the judicial branch of government's check on the constitutionality of laws? Joe Schmo American knows nothing about his state's Constitution and how it applies to new law. Even if he did, he feels no pressure to apply the Constitution.

Mob rule is no way to run a democracy. Look at Malaysia. 50% of the population consists of ethnic Malays. With such an upper hand, the thin ethnic Malay majority gives themselves affirmative action benefits every year at the voting booth, with no entity to keep their power in check.

So you say voting for something is mob rule..........Well you can always go to Cuba or North Korea..........They don't vote there............
 
dragonslayer said:
I am a liberal and can see no reason for gays men or women to have a formal marriage. Heck i don't have nothing against gays as long as they don't hassle me. Hell I feel the same way about most americans.

the only americans that I have a problem with is the NeoConservative right antiamerican types and our current fascist government. They are trying to harm the sick, the elderly, the poor, civil rights, and the oppressed. they are racists and they are fake christians.

God Bless America and please save our country from Bush, Cheney, endless, war, the antiamerican greed and ravages of the NeoConservatives.

Well when it comes to gay marriage you are in the minority so you can stay angry about that or get over it.........

I will give you credit my friend you have the left wing liberal talking points down pat.........The problem is again you are in the minority,,,,,,,,Most Americans are moderate to conservative so again you can stay angry or get over it.............

It is pretty obvious to are a Michael Moore and Ward Churchill follower and a Bush hater so you have very little creditability.........

Did I cover it all...........Yeah.........
 
Navy Pride said:
So you say voting for something is mob rule..........Well you can always go to Cuba or North Korea..........They don't vote there............

It is when the population isn't held accountable. Put up a referendum which will give free twinkies to all white males. It'll get passed, regardless of how unfair it is.

I never said voting was a bad idea. Vote for president, your senator, whatever. Just don't put human rights up to a vote.

There are two kinds of marriage, and they are mutually exclusive...legal and religious. Since legal marriage is a state/federal run operation, it can't be limited by the people's prejudices...racism, sexism, homophobia. Marriage benefits should be distributed equally between all parties, whether that means giving gays all the rights they are denied (visitation, custody, etc...) or taking them away from heterosexual couples. Personally, I think the latter option isn't feasible, nor would I want to take away visitatation rights and the like.
 
KrazyKarl said:
I never said voting was a bad idea. Vote for president, your senator, whatever. Just don't put human rights up to a vote.
It always has been put up to a vote in this country, in the original Constitution and every amendment since then. It is the people of this country who will decide who is covered, to what extent, and just what "human rights" means.
 
Diogenes said:
Yes it did, beginning in Wyoming when the territory became a state. If you ever get out to South Pass City, a restored ghost town about 30 miles south of Lander, stop in and learn something about the early history of the movement. The movement gained momentum, particularly in frontier states where it was difficult to ignore the obvious contribution of women, and spread among the states until it achieved the necessary super-majority to become a national constitutional amendment almost half a century later.

It's the American way for the people, not the courts or other black-robed priesthood, to define the parameters of their society.

In 1919 the 19th ammendment was adopted by Congress and sent to the states to ratify. There was no public vote on it.
 
Diogenes said:
It always has been put up to a vote in this country, in the original Constitution and every amendment since then. It is the people of this country who will decide who is covered, to what extent, and just what "human rights" means.

I don't recall voting on the 27th amendment. (not that I don't agree with it.)

I have no problem with the people of this country deciding who is covered, to what extent, and just what "human rights" means. However, as a minor technicality, the first and fourteenth amendments must first be repealed.
 
Kelzie said:
In 1919 the 19th ammendment was adopted by Congress and sent to the states to ratify. There was no public vote on it.
In a representative democracy such as ours, our legislators cast the votes. The state and national legislators presumably reflect the will of the people (except in California and a few other rogue states where citizen initiatives are required to keep the legislators in line).

KrazyKarl said:
However, as a minor technicality, the first and fourteenth amendments must first be repealed.
Why is that?
 
Diogenes said:
In a representative democracy such as ours, our legislators cast the votes. The state and national legislators presumably reflect the will of the people (except in California and a few other rogue states where citizen initiatives are required to keep the legislators in line).

Why is that?

That was my point. It was never voted on by the people.
 
Back
Top Bottom