Chiefgator
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 837
- Location
- Lake Jem, FL pop:35
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You are correct, up until the point that said marriage bestows upon the individuals benefits by the government that is based upon a foundation of citizens having input in what it does. At said point, it absolutely DOES become everyones right to tell another adult human who they can marry to gain government benefits as long as said restriction is within the boundries of the law.
You are 100% correct.
The boundaries of the law allows for equal protection under the law. So, as long as the Federal government allows the recognition of marriage for one group of people, so must they allow for recognition for all.
For the record...I have said it before...I would vote against it in my state (my opinion is identicval to that expressed by candidate Obama, President Clinton and MANY prominent democrats), but if the vote were for it, the sun would still come up. In my opinion, once the citizens of a state have been given a referendum and had the opportunity to vote for gay marriage and has voted to legalize gay marriage, I believe it is cruel to then change their mind and suddenly disallow gay marriages. This shouldnt be a revolving door issue based on the whims of political change. These are people and their lives that are being ****ed with. Very inappropriate IMO.I think Obama's position is more along the lines of I support it, but I need to protect my ass at least for the next six months.
But either way, not exactly respectable, I agree.
Im fine with people taking Obamas position of not supporting it but not fighting it. I will explain to them why I believe they should support it however. What I really dont like though is when people actively fight against SSM.
Are you implying that all sovereign power rests with the federal government and none with the people? Is that not the exact opposite of the reason and purpose of a revolution and our founding? If the people have no say then it is time for another revolution.You are 100% correct.
The boundaries of the law allows for equal protection under the law. So, as long as the Federal government allows the recognition of marriage for one group of people, so must they allow for recognition for all.
Are you implying that all sovereign power rests with the federal government and none with the people? Is that not the exact opposite of the reason and purpose of a revolution and our founding? If the people have no say then it is time for another revolution.
There are two issues. I was addressing where sovereign power originates. It originates in the people.If you are deciding for someone else who they can marry, you are seeking to control far more than either the federal government. Marriage is a personal decision. Assuring equal protection, both state and federal responsibility.
There are two issues. I was addressing where sovereign power originates. It originates in the people.
Marriage is a local issue. States can and should decide the mores and laws they prefer to live under.
If you are deciding for someone else who they can marry
Marriage is a personal decision.
Assuring equal protection, both state and federal responsibility.
You are not doing so. You are deciding who someone else may marry under the law
Same sex couples are in no way shape or form denied the ability to get married in a genearl sense. They're denied the ability to have said marriage recognized under the law.
The fact that it's a law and the government providing benefits makes it absolutely the business of each and every citizen.
It is.
Granting government benefits is a government decision, meaning voters have a say on it.
Equal Protection where its constitutionally mandated.
At this point, it is not constitutionally mandated on this issue.
I really see no difference. None at all. And believe it is still not anyone's business who I or anyone else marries without just cause.
And granting them for some and not others falls under equal protection.
I think is, and I think the courts have ruled rather consistently that it does.
Well that's fine. You're factually wrong. The moment you get PUBLIC benefits for having your marriage PUBLICLY recognized by Government it becomes the business of the PUBLIC.
Boo, you should actually take some time to understand the Equal Protection Clause.
This may come as a shock to you, but there are MANY things in this country that do not give equal protectoin under the law. Ever heard of Curfew laws for an example? Ever hear about the difference in standing between felons and non-felons? How about women in combat duty?
The government ABSOLUTELY can have unequal protectoin under the law IF said law meets certian requirements based on the classification that is being discriminated against.
Thus far, there is no SCOTUS ruling suggesting that the disallowing of gay or same sex marriage is a violation of the EPC. Until such time that it happens, you're just spouting your opinion as if its fact.
A few lower courts have, however at this point the one court that matters in regards to things on a federal level haven't weighed in on it yet. If they had, then the various states that have voted to allow or disallow gay marriage would've never been able to do so because it wouldn't have relevant. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to the federal stance on it at this point, states are absolutely free to allow or disallow civil unions/gay marriage on a state by state basis and that will continue to be the situation up until such point that the SCOTUS rules otherwise.
There are two issues. I was addressing where sovereign power originates. It originates in the people.
Marriage is a local issue. States can and should decide the mores and laws they prefer to live under.
I see we have two different views. We shall have to agree to disagree.As it applies here, marriage is a personal issue. Therefore a majority vote has no place. As it relates to equal protection, the law is the issue. If you want to change the law to say some are more equal than others, you have to through that process and not ask people to break the law.
Fore mores to be codified, when should first have to show harm. Sometimes people dress, talk, and act outside the mores of the majority, and do so at their own risk. But there are no laws that prevent them, nor should there be. Freedom requires allowing for the possibility that someone might be offended, or disagree, or even choose not to associate. But you cannot argue for less government and seek to have government choose one group over another, not logically anyway.
If the people of a state vote one way and then a court overturns the will of the people then that state has lost a great deal. It is far better to change people's minds than to use state power. It corrupts the process and the people.No one said SCOTUS ruling. The word was courts:
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the ruling said.
Right...like everyone was so vocal about the Catholics, blacks, and Hispanic majorities that were 'against' it in California. Oh....wait...no...no...again...gutless spineless attacks against others but not them. And I hear you...people can disagree with you as long as they just accept it. Keep digging...you are doing great.
If the people of a state vote one way and then a court overturns the will of the people then that state has lost a great deal. It is far better to change people's minds than to use state power. It corrupts the process and the people.
Give it time. But when you follow lower court rulings the odds increase that higher courts will rule the same. Not 100%. Not a certainty. But it is better and more likely than if ruled the other way.
Stick with me. When an individual state votes on the issue and a majority in that state decides why would the courts involve themselves? The people have a right to determine the laws and the mores of their state.So then in your opinion Loving v. VA and Brown v. the Board of Education rulings were wrong then since they both overturned the will of the people in many states?
Stick with me. When an individual state votes on the issue and a majority in that state decides why would the courts involve themselves? The people have a right to determine the laws and the mores of their state.
I know the homosexuals and their supporters want to equate the right to marry with a right to life, liberty, and property. Perhaps one day it will be viewed that way. When your side loses at the ballot you ought to have the decency to spend more time changing hearts and minds. You diminish the legitimacy of the state when unelected, unaccountable people overthrow the will of the people as evidenced by a vote.
Yeah I tend to not like it when people fight against equal rights for me.
Mrs. Loving disagrees with you.
I do not believe the citizens were called upon to vote on an issue very often. But they have been given the opportunity to vote on what marriage ought to mean to them, in their state. When the people speak the state has the responsibility to listen. Overturn the will of the people too often and the citizens will rise up to punish you. When unaccountable men in black robes overturn the will of the people they ought to be punished just as severely.The fact is that the SCOTUS has many times overturned the votes of the people in many states because the laws those states tried to enact went against part of the Constitution. That is their job. It is why they exist in the first place, to ensure the government does not enact laws, even by the backing of the people that violate the federal Constitution. Those Constitutional protections must be upheld by states as well as the federal government.
The court serves a very important role in our country in protecting the rights of all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Amendments from being violated, even by the majority vote of other citizens.
We have been through this a dozen times but take your ass to some black church on Sunday morning and ask them what they think about gay marriage if you have the guts...........
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?