100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Supreme Court to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
well for what it's worth i'm here to tell ya that once it's legal it aint half as much fun 
 that's what some straight people say now too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good post Pointy1! Thanks
I dont really think the "heterosexual couples breed" argument can be successfully waged anymore simply because the planet is vastly overpopulated now as it is because people breed with impunity. So part of the solution would be loving same sex couples who wont reproduce themselves yet will adopt some of these children that end up being brutally abused in foster care very often. Not all gay/lesbian married couples want to start families but it seems many do. That's in fact part of the reason some want to marry to begin with. Zaz is right but the "perception" of most US voters is that marriage primarily exists to provide stability for the environment to raise children. A lot of the news media issues dealing with gay marriage focus on issues with property rights, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., which really have nothing to do with raising children. When given a choice, voters believe a child should have a mother and a father, not two of each. So if the issue is raising children, voters think hetro is better and it should be left that way, with marriage reserved for a man/woman combo. But two women together .... Whew!!! that is HOT!!!! Except that this argument does nothing to address the substantial 4th and 14th amendment issues at stake here. Let's be serious. The only arguments that the anti-gay folks have are normative ones. They do nothing to address the legal arguments posited by the pro gay rights folks. Perhaps the voters should not be given a choice in the first place as a result of the constitutional issues at stake here. Let me put it this way: Say voters in vermont feel that owning a gun interferes with their ability to raise their kids safely. Recently, in this hypothetical situation, there have been numerous kids shot and killed as a result of gun violence. Accordingly, an interest group in vermont gets the signatures needed to secure an initiative to be on the ballot in the November election. At this election the voters vote to completely ban guns from their state. But wait! this new law would never hit the books because it conflicts with the U.S. constitution--it violates the 2nd amendment to the consitution. The issue is no different with gay marriage. The voters voted on a law that blatently violates the 4th and 14th amendments to the constitution. It is that simple. If the issue is the other rights, voters think the side benefits belong to the couple who is "married" and gays don't deserve the side benefits otherwise people who are just roommates could claim to be married to get tax breaks or whatever. It is a distillation of American Culture. Mom, apple pie, and no gay marriage. I don't follow the logic here. If I am unserstanding you correctly, you are saying that it is OK to deny rights to certain US citizens because they are gay? Congratulations, you just set the United States back 200 years. The 'separate but equal' doctrine was knocked down over 50 years ago. See Plessy v Fergeson, Brown v Board of education etc. The way i see it, this is a legal issue, not a normative one. We are a nation of rights and laws, and in this case these rights and laws are not being applied to everyone equally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the California Supreme Court was kinda handcuffed on this one. They weren't asked if gay marriage was good or bad or right or wrong
they were asked if it was legal for the California voters to amend the state constitution while effectively excluding a portion of the state's population aparently it was naturally it'll get appealed to the Federal Supreme Court to determine if it is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. and I imagine it'll get reversed there |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the California Supreme Court was kinda handcuffed on this one. They weren't asked if gay marriage was good or bad or right or wrong they were asked if it was legal for the California voters to amend the state constitution while effectively excluding a portion of the state's population aparently it was naturally it'll get appealed to the Federal Supreme Court to determine if it is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. and I imagine it'll get reversed there Why does each state have a constitution, isn't one for the whole country enough or does this allow each state to ignore the country's constitution? Sorry if this is a stupid question... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The law is always arranged like this. The purpose? To be able to rule the way one likes.
The law is one big scam. Supposedly, it is there to insure that everyone lives by the same code. Nope. You will never see that in practice. The law is purposefully made either complicated or directly contradicting it's own parts, so that in each particular case, it could be ruled either way, depending on the bribe offered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boo..I may be wrong..but it's so each state can be their own states. this is the United States. all the states form the country. did I confuse you more? lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boo..I may be wrong..but it's so each state can be their own states. this is the United States. all the states form the country. did I confuse you more? lol Actually yes, thank you. Didn't think I could be more confused by you answered that for me.. grin. Guess we are not so united if each state needs it's own constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boo..I may be wrong..but it's so each state can be their own states. this is the United States. all the states form the country. did I confuse you more? lol Actually yes, thank you. Didn't think I could be more confused by you answered that for me.. grin. Guess we are not so united if each state needs it's own constitution. welcome to my world
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the California Supreme Court was kinda handcuffed on this one. They weren't asked if gay marriage was good or bad or right or wrong they were asked if it was legal for the California voters to amend the state constitution while effectively excluding a portion of the state's population aparently it was naturally it'll get appealed to the Federal Supreme Court to determine if it is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. and I imagine it'll get reversed there I agree with most of your post. While the gay rights movement will appeal it remains to be seen whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case. They decide which cases they hear, it they have been avoiding the gay marriage issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boo..I may be wrong..but it's so each state can be their own states. this is the United States. all the states form the country. did I confuse you more? lol Actually yes, thank you. Didn't think I could be more confused by you answered that for me.. grin. Guess we are not so united if each state needs it's own constitution. and anything not commanded or denied by the Constitution is up to the states to decide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boo..I may be wrong..but it's so each state can be their own states. this is the United States. all the states form the country. did I confuse you more? lol Actually yes, thank you. Didn't think I could be more confused by you answered that for me.. grin. Guess we are not so united if each state needs it's own constitution. and anything not commanded or denied by the Constitution is up to the states to decide what he said |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. (No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.) Section 3 - New States New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section 4 - Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
AHAAAAAA!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the California Supreme Court was kinda handcuffed on this one. They weren't asked if gay marriage was good or bad or right or wrong they were asked if it was legal for the California voters to amend the state constitution while effectively excluding a portion of the state's population aparently it was naturally it'll get appealed to the Federal Supreme Court to determine if it is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. and I imagine it'll get reversed there Why does each state have a constitution, isn't one for the whole country enough or does this allow each state to ignore the country's constitution? Sorry if this is a stupid question... Each state has a constitution because states are independent within their own sphere of jurisdiction. While our country was in its infancy, there was a major debate as to whether have a strong centralized government, a government that had a loose confederation of states (see the articles of confederation) one that had different layers to facilitate participation (i.e. a federalists system of governance). A major debate occurred and I am sure you are at least somewhat familiar with the federalist paper penned by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and to a lesser extent John Jay). It turned out that there were many problems associated with a loose confederation of states with a weak national government. The ability to provide national defense and a unified currency for example (both of which had major implications for our young country) were things that a loose confederation could not provide. On the other hand, the founding father had serious concerns with a strong centralized government. After all, had just fought a war with Britain so that we would not be ruled under their monarchy. So the federalists argued for a "marble cake" form of governance--federalism. As I am sure you know, the federalists won this debate and this is the type of governance that we have now. With a federal form of governance in mind, the constitution was written to give powers to both the states and the federal government. For instance the 10th amendment reserves powers that are not given to the federal government and are not prohibited by the states to the states. Accordingly, states will set up their own constitutions to enumerate their powers. The constitution is a beautiful document. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 wow ... my answer seems stupid now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow ... my answer seems stupid now
Not at all! Your answer was exactly right! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow ... my answer seems stupid now
Not at all! Your answer was exactly right! at least you understood what I said....can you explain it to me now? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Pointy1
on
Thu 05/28/09 02:11 PM
|
|
wow ... my answer seems stupid now
Not at all! Your answer was exactly right! at least you understood what I said....can you explain it to me now?
What you wrote was the basics of federalism. Each state is independent within its own sphere. Collectively, these states form the United States of America where the federal government is independent in its own sphere. Of course this is a simplified version of it. In real life you add in local governments which are creations of state governments but they also have that interplay with the federal government through Block Grants, emergency assistance and other aids. Some have also been arguing that there is a fourth face of federalism that resulted of Nixon's new federalism and the devolution that occured under the Reagan and Bush administrations. This fourth face would be private organizations that local governments contract out with as a result of cuts in aid. There have been massive amounts of emperical studies done to assess whether or not contracting out is beneficial for citizens but I suppose I am starting to ramble. Let's toast to federalism! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's what I said...yep that's it
|
|
|
|
|
