U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:00 AM
 
25,631 posts, read 30,310,140 times
Reputation: 23111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
It takes an idiot to try and prove a negative, just as it does take one to present one as an argument. In other words, we would need TWO idiots, if that is the direction you demand.
The problem is with your logic not the fact that I stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,821,962 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
The problem is with your logic not the fact that I stated.
Facts you claim to be, aren't present in the US Constitution. At least not in the version I believe in. May be your version is a recently revised one? Why not spell things out of it so we can discuss? Unless, you would rather avoid... that will work just fine. We will have this issue settled in a different way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:05 AM
 
26,297 posts, read 17,198,522 times
Reputation: 10273
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico View Post
Advisory referendum's are commonplace across the country ... if that's what the Governor is suggesting. There are strong arguments favoring marriage as a states-rights issue. And if one buys-into and agrees with those arguments than allowing the voters to make the decision is the democratic way to govern. From the people up. Not from the officials down.
That is the issue. If you read the OP, it clearly explains why majority ruling on a very clear and succinct civil rights issue is absurd. Why do some people have such a difficult time seeing the hypocrisy and cherry picking and how this counters what the Constitution states as to the defintion of "Civil Rights"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:11 AM
 
25,631 posts, read 30,310,140 times
Reputation: 23111
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Facts you claim to be, aren't present in the US Constitution. At least not in the version I believe in. May be your version is a recently revised one? Why not spell things out of it so we can discuss? Unless, you would rather avoid... that will work just fine. We will have this issue settled in a different way.
My language is plain and clear. This is currently a states right issue.

It will be settled by each individual state until SCOTUS rules differently or an amendment is added.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:11 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,207 posts, read 13,969,115 times
Reputation: 6462
government allowed marriage is not a right...its a privialedge that you must PAY FOR (a license)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,821,962 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
My language is plain and clear. This is currently a states right issue.

It will be settled by each individual state until SCOTUS rules differently or an amendment is added.
I thought you actually were talking about the US Constitution with some authority and using it to make a point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Guess you need to study the Constitution a little more. Marriage has always been a states right issue. Until SCOTUS rules otherwise or an amendment is added it will stay that way.
... I was clearly wrong in assuming that.

Now, not to rely solely on assumptions based on your statements, I must make sure that when speaking of marriage, and it being recognized and being a "right" only at state level, you're ignoring heterosexual marriages, right?

In that case, why is it okay for state governments to infringe on individual freedoms? I thought you all were all about individuals being above governments. Or, is government supposed to be bigger than an individual and his/her freedoms as long as it is a state government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:28 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,775 posts, read 7,791,930 times
Reputation: 13083
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
Being "gay" is not a right.
You know, when I was a grade-school student in Catholic school, I was taught that 'God made me'...that 'God is the Supreme Being who doesn't make mistakes'...etc., ad nauseum.

Well, if God made gay people, God obviously wants them, right?

We might ask ourselves "why did God make ugly people"? Should ugly people just stay inside of their homes so the good-looking people don't have to see them? Should ugly people have the right to procreate? Would these questions fall under the domain of State's rights or Federal rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 11:42 AM
 
25,631 posts, read 30,310,140 times
Reputation: 23111
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I thought you actually were talking about the US Constitution with some authority and using it to make a point...

... I was clearly wrong in assuming that.

Now, not to rely solely on assumptions based on your statements, I must make sure that when speaking of marriage, and it being recognized and being a "right" only at state level, you're ignoring heterosexual marriages, right?

In that case, why is it okay for state governments to infringe on individual freedoms? I thought you all were all about individuals being above governments. Or, is government supposed to be bigger than an individual and his/her freedoms as long as it is a state government?
I have presented no assumptions only facts, there in lies the problem with your line of questioning. Your assumption is that States refusing to recognize same sex marriage as infringement is flawed. Gay marriage has not been ruled to be a civil right under the definition provided in the Constitution. As such it remains the domain of States to define the recognition of such "marriages"

That is just a fact. Like I stated to the OP beating your head against the wall won't change that fact. Only SCOTUS and/or the Congress can change that fact
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 12:00 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,775 posts, read 7,791,930 times
Reputation: 13083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Gay marriage has not been ruled to be a civil right under the definition provided in the Constitution.
Has ANY type of marriage been ruled a 'civil right' in the constitution?
Does it specifically call out marriage as a right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
1,075 posts, read 820,887 times
Reputation: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Having a Referendum on Gay Marriage is Wrong



Having a Referendum on Gay Marriage is Wrong

Maybe Christie needs it explained to him that civil rights is not based upon majority rules.
IF what the author of the article says is true, then why wouldn't they be happy to have the votes going to the people on this? Since the "majority" of the state & the country seem to be favoring Gay Marriages, then you'd think the liberals would be thrilled that instead of this being something that can/would be vetoed by the governor, he's giving the decision to the people.

I think it's great, because I think the people probably will vote it in. If they don't then they can try again next year.

Really, the gays should be working on getting government OUT of the marriage business all together instead of trying to get the word marriage, they should be separating marriage from legal union so that they can have equal legal rights and let the word marriage be up to the individual church/religious organizations.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top