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.
What if the straight person in Virginia owns a Bed and Breakfast and does not want them as a customer?
What if an interracial couple wants to stay at a B&B who doesn't want them as a customer? The owners' own prejudices should not dictate public accomodation. Frankly, most gay married couples would not want to spend their money at a place run by bigots, despite the handful of cases that have made the news.
Quote:
What if that gay couple moves to Virginia and tries to claim marriage tax credits offered to heterosexual couples on their STATE tax return if Virginia does not recognize the union ?
First, if Virginia does not recognize the marriage, they are not entitled to tax credits in Va. That's the whole point of "states' rights". Even if they were to obtain them, that's still not "spilling over into your rights".
On the contrary, you want your own beliefs to affect their rights and make them pay higher taxes and be banned from certain public accomodations. That is direct harm according to the law, while your "harm" is nonexistant. Nobody is making you marry a gay person or approve of their marriage. There are undoubtedly plenty of laws on the books that you don't agree with, but you don't get to claim that they "spill over into your rights".
So, explain again how "states rights" for same-sex marriage are any different than "states rights" for gun laws or alcohol sales?" Every resident of the state is treated equally.
Why can't the issue of "state's rights" be co-opted by the left? For example, couldn't the legalization of marijuana in Colorado be an example of it?
It's possible, but it generally doesn't conform to the Constitutional view held by people on the left (and many on the right as well) that the United States is not a loose federation of independent states, but a consolidated nation-state with somewhat autonomous (more for reasons of pragmatism and practicality than any underlying ideological principle), but absolutely not independent administrative subdivisions that in the in the end must conform to the will of the nation-state.
When what you're claiming as a "state's right" violates the US Constitution, as bans on marriage equality does, then its just tough that you don't like it. You will obey the constitution even if you don't like it.
its true the articles of confederation were a waste of paper, consider it a trial run for the constitution which provides for a federal government with specifically enumerated powers and limited scope, and where the states are empowered to deal with the rest of what the people need. law enforcement for instance is not a purview of the federal government, that is the states responsibility. dealing with foreign governments and treaties on the other hand is a federal purview, not the states, which is why we dont have 51 ambassadors for every country with which we have diplomatic relations with.
But the members of the US Senate were selected by the state legislatures, so that the states would have direct input on approval of those treaties.
But the members of the US Senate were selected by the state legislatures, so that the states would have direct input on approval of those treaties.
Well, it was indirect input since the Senators were representatives of the state govts, but you have the general idea.
US Senators were selected by their state govts, so that they would be loyal to those state governments, and would resist any attempt by the Fed govt to diminish State power by usurping powers rightfully reserved to the states.
It was one of the first things the leftist fanatics changed in 1913, with a massive campaign about how hard it was to get any legislation passed through Congress (and they said that like it was a bad thing). Along with a similar campaign to let the Fed govt tap into huge wealth to finance big-govt schemes, by making Federal income taxes legal for the first time.
The resulting 16th and 17th amendments laid the cornerstones of the huge, overbearing Federal government we have today.
But the members of the US Senate were selected by the state legislatures, so that the states would have direct input on approval of those treaties.
The states would not have direct input, were that the case, the state legislatures simply would have had a vote on treaties. The Senators voted on treaties and could vote however they liked. It may have meant they would not be returned to the Senate, but there was nothing to compel them to vote any certain way on any specific issue. State legislatures passed instructions for their Senators many times, but they were not legally binding on the Senators. The States chose their Senators but did not have any power to recall them in the middle of their terms. As history shows, on more than one occasion a Senator chose to ignore his state's instructions and paid the political price by not being returned to the Senate.
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 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.
