It is within the state's purview to do such a thing. The trick is in making sure that you do not let the people get that opportunity. The more often that happens with minority matters, the better. Democracy is dangerous for the rights of the few.
States should be able to do what they want? Should states be able to ban inter-racial marriage? Afterall...states should be able to do what they want, right? Should states be allowed to say that marriage is restricted to those who can prove fertility? Should states be allowed to say that marriage is only between "Christians"?
Or....should States only be able to do what they want when it comes to the limited category of same sex marriage?
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.
Your right to vote ought not extend to determining what rights I shall be granted, when the many cannot understand the needs of the few, or disregard them entirely. One right is more necessary than the other.
The word "rights" should not be tossed around so liberally. SSM is a policy issue typically addressing the legal definition of marriage. Unless the court or a state constitution rules otherwise there is no right for homosexuals or their supporters to force all states to redefine marriage or prevent people from democratically upholding their views. In my mind such oppression is tyranny. There is a right to vote, there is a legal framework for states to enact laws or amend their state constitutions. It is not unlawful to uphold traditional marriage and as such the right to vote should be preserved for the issue. The violation of rights comes in when people are barred from having their lawful opinions reflected in law or prevented from directly voting on the issue with all things being lawful.
Unless the court or a state constitution rules otherwise there is no right for homosexuals or their supporters to force all states to redefine marriage or prevent people from democratically upholding their views. In my mind such oppression is tyranny.
I never said I wanted it, I just noted that I find it interesting how the states that legalize SSM do not do so on the constitutional level like most states that legalize/uphold traditional marriage do so. I've always supported a state's right to define marriage for their state. I don't like it though when that decision is made by politicians when that doesn't reflect popular opinion (which is what I feared here).
It is hardly liberal when marriage comes with newly granted rights.
The democrat's version of tyranny is the restraint from being able to use the mob to accomplish their ends, whenever they please? How awful.
And here they come, the tolerant liberals..
Tim-
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.
If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.
Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.
Using the mob? It's a public policy issue, the population who disagree or agree on an issue are not a mob. It is tyranny to silence opinion, prevent people from having their beliefs reflected in law, and not allowing a population to lawfully enact laws that do not violate the Constitution.
I know a couple of gay couples raising children. They're as well-behaved, and more well adjusted than my children. While I agree that a man and a woman is optimal, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Gay parents is better than no parents. Ask my kids what no parents is like, they'll tell you it sucks unequivocably.
I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.
Tim-
I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.
Tim-
If you're actually concerned about out of wedlock childbirths, the obvious upside to SSM is more married couples raising children. Also, y'know, not discriminating against people, but that's clearly not much of a priority for you.
Promoting a two-parent household, which we know through social science, increases educational and life outcomes for children-is now bad because it's two daddies or two mommies, rather than the time and effort they can afford to spend guiding their children?
Why would they need to be married? Moreover, despite the fact that heterosexual marriages are at an all time high in divorce, we already know that homosexual relationships are even more at risk of dissolving within the first 5 years. No upside, and discriminating isn't a convincing argument coming from your side. We ALL discriminate buddy, whether it makes you feel comfortable or not admitting that is not my cause.
Depends on what you mean by wrong side. You're entitled to your opinion as am I, but if it isn't self evident to you what constitutes the most successful family type in the history of the Earth and encompassing all species that lives and has ever lived, then apparently it isn't as self evident.
By the way... In this context and your apparent refusal to accept what is self evident, I'd say you're the one being narrow minded. Do you feel any guilt? Is it why you're so open to the idea of destroying marriage further? In Sweden a once vibrant family culture, the intact families are in the minority already. In 10 YEARS, they have become the minority in favor of out of wedlock child births.
SSM is only a reason to avoid such a future for ourselves. Tell me, what is the upside to gay marriage?
Tim-
By the way, it passed the Senate vote (not a surprise to most I'm sure), 37-30. In a few days, after the governor signs the bill, it will make 12 states.
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.
If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.
Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.
I find it interesting how many states that uphold traditional marriage do so via state constitutional amendments voted on by people. States that legalize SSM appear to like doing so at the legislative level without having the people vote on it.
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.
If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.
Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.
Using the mob? It's a public policy issue, the population who disagree or agree on an issue are not a mob. It is tyranny to silence opinion, prevent people from having their beliefs reflected in law, and not allowing a population to lawfully enact laws that do not violate the Constitution.
I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.
Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.
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?