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.
A) I am a libertarian Republican and as such, have always gone against my party on gay marriage. Living in California, I even voted against prop 8 myself, so I have walked the walk. My belief system is to empower people to make their own decisions, and I have no conflict with this. The main problems I see in America are that:
1. Both parties, but especially the Democrats, want to limit the control over American's lives by invading their wallets and robbing them blind for an ever increasing number of social programs. There is no freedom without economic freedom.
2. Whereas the Democrats claim to want more rights for people, even as they steal from you, it is they that are actually attacking your most important rights in terms of the first and second amendments. Political correctness is not compatible with freedom of speech, and yes, we see every day new attempts to take your guns.
3. Even the rights they are fighting for do not come with any corresponding sense of responsibility.
None of these problems have anything to do with gay marriage. My advice to fellow Republicans of a more classically conservative disposition is, now that this is a settled issue, don't waste your time re-fighting it. Go out and recruit those log cabin republicans, many of whom are quite well to do, to help us fight the creeping government takeover of the economy.
B) Obamare is a more mixed bag, but as much as I (and the rest of America) despise this law and wish it could have been struck down during the first case, this was, technically, the correct decision. From my limited understand, the courts have always ruled that once a bill becomes law, the government is given a wide degree of latitude in implementing it, even to the point of passing over such mistakes in the language.
Again, friendly advice. Accept it an run against it. Make the case over and over that this kind of fiasco is exactly what happens when you give Dems too much power. Remind the American public over and again that Hillary Clinton sponsored an even more Orwellian bill which lost the Dems power in America for a generation. Use this as the bludgeon to further beat down the Democrat party.
The Republican party, both its conservative and its smaller libertarian branch, is not going anywhere. It has been tough going in presidential elections, but the presidency is the easiest thing to win. We control the Senate to the point where Dems are backing off of their predications to take it back in the next cycle. Our dominance in the House, the people's boy, will not be changed for 6-7 election cycles if ever. We have 31 governorships compared to 17. We have monopolies in twice as many state legislatures. There will be another day on Obamacare when we repeal I the right way.
A) I am a libertarian Republican and as such, have always gone against my party on gay marriage. Living in California, I even voted against prop 8 myself, so I have walked the walk. My belief system is to empower people to make their own decisions, and I have no conflict with this. The main problems I see in America are that:
1. Both parties, but especially the Democrats, want to limit the control over American's lives by invading their wallets and robbing them blind for an ever increasing number of social programs. There is no freedom without economic freedom.
2. Whereas the Democrats claim to want more rights for people, even as they steal from you, it is they that are actually attacking your most important rights in terms of the first and second amendments. Political correctness is not compatible with freedom of speech, and yes, we see every day new attempts to take your guns.
3. Even the rights they are fighting for do not come with any corresponding sense of responsibility.
None of these problems have anything to do with gay marriage. My advice to fellow Republicans of a more classically conservative disposition is, now that this is a settled issue, don't waste your time re-fighting it. Go out and recruit those log cabin republicans, many of whom are quite well to do, to help us fight the creeping government takeover of the economy.
B) Obamare is a more mixed bag, but as much as I (and the rest of America) despise this law and wish it could have been struck down during the first case, this was, technically, the correct decision. From my limited understand, the courts have always ruled that once a bill becomes law, the government is given a wide degree of latitude in implementing it, even to the point of passing over such mistakes in the language.
Again, friendly advice. Accept it an run against it. Make the case over and over that this kind of fiasco is exactly what happens when you give Dems too much power. Remind the American public over and again that Hillary Clinton sponsored an even more Orwellian bill which lost the Dems power in America for a generation. Use this as the bludgeon to further beat down the Democrat party.
The Republican party, both its conservative and its smaller libertarian branch, is not going anywhere. It has been tough going in presidential elections, but the presidency is the easiest thing to win. We control the Senate to the point where Dems are backing off of their predications to take it back in the next cycle. Our dominance in the House, the people's boy, will not be changed for 6-7 election cycles if ever. We have 31 governorships compared to 17. We have monopolies in twice as many state legislatures. There will be another day on Obamacare when we repeal I the right way.
Peace.
More troubling than the end results are the process: Yesterday SCOTUS fixed a law passed by Congress by rewriting said law and, in so doing, attributing an intent to Congress to justify its actions that Congress did not have at the time the law was passed. Today, SCOTUS read a right into the Constitution that previously didn't exist and in so doing knee-capped the democratic process.
We live in a lawless society. While some might like these particular results, you may not like what happens down the road. Effectively, there are no checks and balances or even separation of powers anymore.
More troubling than the end results are the process: Yesterday SCOTUS fixed a law passed by Congress by rewriting said law and, in so doing, attributing an intent to Congress to justify its actions that Congress did not have at the time the law was passed. Today, SCOTUS read a right into the Constitution that previously didn't exist and in so doing knee-capped the democratic process.
We live in a lawless society. While some might like these particular results, you may not like what happens down the road. Effectively, there are no checks and balances or even separation of powers anymore.
I do agree with you to a large extent that the court is an activist court and nothing but. This will be a problem in maintaining the republic as the perception of the court as a non-political body is one of the cornerstones of our civilization.
That being said, I do understand that the general rule of thumb is to give the government wide degree of latitude in implementing laws. I will be listening to what constitutional scholars have to say about this.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 06-26-2015 at 03:43 PM..
Reason: Deleted quoted post
Although I believe Gays should have the right to marry, going about it by this supreme court ruling is not what the supreme court is designed to do.. they are designed to uphold the constitution... since there is nothing in the constitution about marriage, whether it be gay or heterosexual, ultimately it was inappropriate for them to rule based on their personal beliefs. It should be up to the states, unless they amend the constitution with an amendment which would be the appropriate way to address the issue.
The states can turn around and ignore this ruling, and there's not much the feds can do about it. I'd imagine most will comply in the end though. I oppose this ruling just like I oppose them banning confederate flags.. they are overstepping their power and need to be called out on it.
Although I believe Gays should have the right to marry, going about it by this supreme court ruling is not what the supreme court is designed to do.. they are designed to uphold the constitution... since there is nothing in the constitution about marriage, whether it be gay or heterosexual, ultimately it was inappropriate for them to rule based on their personal beliefs. It should be up to the states, unless they amend the constitution with an amendment which would be the appropriate way to address the issue.
The states can turn around and ignore this ruling, and there's not much the feds can do about it. I'd imagine most will comply in the end though. I oppose this ruling just like I oppose them banning confederate flags.. they are overstepping their power and need to be called out on it.
We live in a lawless society. This is apparently from Justice Scalia's dissent. I'm cutting and pasting from a blog discussing it, but I think this sums up how I feel about it:
"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per- sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar- riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti- tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit- tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav- agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im- portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."
Personally it makes no difference to me if the federal government now recognizes same sex marriage. I mean they also have actual law against growing and possessing marijuana. Colorado ignores it so I can ignore the supreme court especially since they do not pass laws.
Personally it makes no difference to me if the federal government now recognizes same sex marriage. I mean they also have actual law against growing and possessing marijuana. Colorado ignores it so I can ignore the supreme court especially since they do not pass laws.
The issue is enforcement. You can ignore anything you want.
2. Whereas the Democrats claim to want more rights for people, even as they steal from you, it is they that are actually attacking your most important rights in terms of the first and second amendments. Political correctness is not compatible with freedom of speech, and yes, we see every day new attempts to take your guns.
3
What laws have been passed that are "political correctness" infringing on freedom of speech?
What laws have been passed that are "political correctness" infringing on freedom of speech?
Fortunately for our civilization we are winning this argument and there is currently very little law obstructing our freedom of speech. But The left is actively attempting to restrict and outlaw speech by labeling it as "hate speech," and establishing what is socially acceptable "political correct" speech was the first step in this process.
George Orwell and Ray Bradbury predicted these things, and we are seeing them come to pass. In Europe the process is very far along.
From a moral and policy perspective I support gay marriage, but am still uncomfortable with the liberal justices making up rights which can only be tortured out of the language and generally legislating from the bench.
Wish this same thing had come out of congress and not the courts.
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.
