U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 02-12-2012, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
17,356 posts, read 20,521,273 times
Reputation: 9063

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
First of all, the notion that we would still have slavery if left up to the voters is asinine. When the majority of the people have had enough of something, they will rightfully overturn it with their votes. Arizona wouldn't have the MLK day if not for voters having the final say. Steel jaw traps and cockfighting would still be legal in this state if not for the voters outlawing them. And do you think the current Legislature would even remotely approve the legalization of medicinal marijuana? The voters did two years ago. Those are just a few of many examples of why the final decision should always rest with voters, and no legislative or judicial involvement after that.

I don't personally favor same sex marriage, but I don't think we need to protect something that married couples could easily protect themselves. Even so, the majority of the voters obviously believed that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman, so that's how they voted, and that's why we have the law. Power to the people prevails.
Simpy put (again) there is no valid state interest in banning marriage between consenting adults of the same sex. There is no need for a vote of the people so that they can impose religious biases on a minority of gay people. And yes, we would live in a terrible society devoid of our most basic of freedoms if the public, not the courts, were the final arbiter of what freedoms minorities should have. When a majority removes or denies certain rights accorded a minority, the minority may appeal to the courts. I would not have it any other way. An independent judiciary, not a majority, is our defense against tyranny.

Last edited by Ponderosa; 02-12-2012 at 05:30 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2012, 11:57 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,352 posts, read 10,513,624 times
Reputation: 7587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Simpy put (again) there is no valid state interest in banning marriage between consenting adults of the same sex. There is no need for a vote of the people so that they can impose religious biases on a minority of gay people. And yes, we would live in a terrible society devoid of our most basic of freedoms if the public, not the courts, were the final arbiter of what freedoms minorities should have. When a majority removes or denies certain rights accorded a minority, the minority may appeal to the courts. I would not have it any other way. An independent judiciary, not a majority, is our defense against tyranny.
Bravo! Very well said.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 02:05 AM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,134 posts, read 3,168,255 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
First of all, the notion that we would still have slavery if left up to the voters is asinine. When the majority of the people have had enough of something, they will rightfully overturn it with their votes. Arizona wouldn't have the MLK day if not for voters having the final say. Steel jaw traps and cockfighting would still be legal in this state if not for the voters outlawing them. And do you think the current Legislature would even remotely approve the legalization of medicinal marijuana? The voters did two years ago. Those are just a few of many examples of why the final decision should always rest with voters, and no legislative or judicial involvement after that.

I don't personally favor same sex marriage, but I don't think we need to protect something that married couples could easily protect themselves. Even so, the majority of the voters obviously believed that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman, so that's how they voted, and that's why we have the law. Power to the people prevails.

If it were up to voters, slavery would have lasted much longer. So would segregation.

Left to voters and legislatures, gay marriage nationwide isn't very far off. I think 53% of Americans now support it. I think a big part of that is that libertarianism is now fashionable.
BTW same sex civil unions became legal here in HI on January 1st and all hell didn't break loose. I haven't seen any straight marriages falling apart as a result. Being straight there is no effect on me.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2012, 08:25 AM
 
Location: In an alternate universe according to some, AKA Aspergers
10,649 posts, read 11,731,853 times
Reputation: 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
If it were up to voters, slavery would have lasted much longer. So would segregation.

Left to voters and legislatures, gay marriage nationwide isn't very far off. I think 53% of Americans now support it. I think a big part of that is that libertarianism is now fashionable.
BTW same sex civil unions became legal here in HI on January 1st and all hell didn't break loose. I haven't seen any straight marriages falling apart as a result. Being straight there is no effect on me.
Not from the history I've been reading as of late. If it were up to only some of the south then maybe but comparing slavery and this topic is apples and oranges (unless you're a married man, then it can be same/same. ).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2012, 09:57 AM
Status: "SSRIs = school shootings = MKULTRA = Pol Pot America" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Meth capital of the world.
8,325 posts, read 5,666,880 times
Reputation: 4375
Just my prediction.

The gay marriage issue will EVENTUALLY make its way to the Supreme Court. A favorable, broad based ruling will EVENTUALLY be issued..............THEN.....gay marriage will quickly become the law of the land.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2012, 12:09 AM
 
9,122 posts, read 9,862,934 times
Reputation: 6605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Simpy put (again) there is no valid state interest in banning marriage between consenting adults of the same sex. There is no need for a vote of the people so that they can impose religious biases on a minority of gay people. And yes, we would live in a terrible society devoid of our most basic of freedoms if the public, not the courts, were the final arbiter of what freedoms minorities should have. When a majority removes or denies certain rights accorded a minority, the minority may appeal to the courts. I would not have it any other way. An independent judiciary, not a majority, is our defense against tyranny.
The hypocrisy bothers me. Conservatives criticize government intervention but too readily embrace it when it comes to issues they support. It's a doublt standard. True conservatives support gay marriage; they don't have to embrace the concept of homosexuality but they would honor the right of another person to engage in a consensual relationship and call it whatever they want.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 03:04 PM
Status: "NIMBYs be gone!!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
3,527 posts, read 4,592,173 times
Reputation: 3195
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
The hypocrisy bothers me. Conservatives criticize government intervention but too readily embrace it when it comes to issues they support. It's a doublt standard. True conservatives support gay marriage; they don't have to embrace the concept of homosexuality but they would honor the right of another person to engage in a consensual relationship and call it whatever they want.
Absolutely right! Unfortunately, what we think of as a true conservative is no longer considered mainstream by today's GOP. True conservatives like Barry Goldwater (who not only preached less government, but demonstrated it in his actions) are now classified as Libertarians. Today's Republican party (with the exception of Ron Paul) has steered further away from the Libertarian principles of the past. In fact, some Republicans are so adamantly against same sex marriage that they even go as far as to call for an amendment in the U.S. Constitution banning the practice.

Issues like this should definitely be left to the states, but only if registered voters have the final say. It should never be in the hands of a legislative or judicial body. If we continue to let judges & legislatures overrule what the majority of citizens vote for, we might as well just forget about voting completely and let them pick our elected officials, right up to (and including) the President. Welcome to dictatorship (and heaven help us) if that happens!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2012, 03:21 PM
 
4,403 posts, read 3,621,260 times
Reputation: 2859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
Issues like this should definitely be left to the states, but only if registered voters have the final say. It should never be in the hands of a legislative or judicial body. If we continue to let judges & legislatures overrule what the majority of citizens vote for, we might as well just forget about voting completely and let them pick our elected officials, right up to (and including) the President. Welcome to dictatorship (and heaven help us) if that happens!
My view is that states rights should only be applicable to those issues that actually vary from state to state. Human rights are universal and so a gay marriage ruling (allow/disallow) should be federal while the actual details, paperwork, licensing, etc. for getting married may vary from state to state. I personally prefer a strong federal government because we are such a mobile society. Why have so many differences where they are not necessary? Even the rules of the road should be the same from coast to coast.

I'm glad about today's ruling and predict gay marriage will become the law of the land in every state within the next 10 years, perhaps sooner. There is no justifiable reason to oppose it and the courts are clearly proving that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 09:21 AM
Status: "NIMBYs be gone!!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
3,527 posts, read 4,592,173 times
Reputation: 3195
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
I personally prefer a strong federal government because we are such a mobile society. Why have so many differences where they are not necessary? Even the rules of the road should be the same from coast to coast.
You're going against what our founding fathers envisioned. States' rights is part of the Constitution ... and besides, what's so wrong with each state having their own laws, rights, and privileges? That's one of the reasons WHY people are mobile: if they dislike the laws or political atmosphere in one state, they can move to another where they might be more comfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
I'm glad about today's ruling and predict gay marriage will become the law of the land in every state within the next 10 years, perhaps sooner. There is no justifiable reason to oppose it and the courts are clearly proving that.
I don't like the idea of government protecting "traditional" marraige. The way I see it, the only ones who should protect marriage are married couples themselves ... as in protecting their OWN marriages! At the same time, I don't like the way a lot of judges legislate from the bench and overrule what the majority of people voted for. I personally believe that same sex marriage will become law of the land as well, but it will be because of societal changes in attitudes toward gays ... not because of what some arrogant judge says.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2012, 06:51 PM
 
Location: A circle of Hell so insidious, infernal and odious, Dante dared not map it
623 posts, read 620,179 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
Issues like this should definitely be left to the states, but only if registered voters have the final say. It should never be in the hands of a legislative or judicial body. If we continue to let judges & legislatures overrule what the majority of citizens vote for, we might as well just forget about voting completely and let them pick our elected officials, right up to (and including) the President. Welcome to dictatorship (and heaven help us) if that happens!
And by that, you are including issues like Jim Crow laws and women's suffrage... right?
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top