To those who argue for "states' rights" (legal, polls, healthcare)
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.
As you can see, when the U.S. Supreme Court forced the states to allow same-sex marriage in all states, only a small majority of American approved of it. So here we are today, with some arguing that same-sex marriage should only be allowed when a majority approves of it. I understand that argument, but it's certainly not congruent with the history of interracial marriage in this country.
I hate what I'm about to do, because it appears insincere, but I promise you my sincerity, but can you provide the link to the stat from Gallups second hand reporting. i.e the actual poll from 1994? Thanks
I hate what I'm about to do, because it appears insincere, but I promise you my sincerity, but can you provide the link to the stat from Gallups second hand reporting. i.e the actual poll from 1994? Thanks
My friend, all you have to do is scroll down to the first graph on that page and it shows Gallup's history of polling on interracial marriage since 1958.
It wasn't until 1991 that their poll showed a plurality in favor of interracial marriage, and it wasn't until 1997 that a majority was in favor of it.
My friend, all you have to do is scroll down to the first graph on that page and it shows Gallup's history of polling on interracial marriage since 1958.
It wasn't until 1991 that their poll showed a plurality in favor of interracial marriage, and it wasn't until 1997 that a majority was in favor of it.
How far do you go with that argument? Should the southern states have been forced to integrate their schools? Should the bans on interracial marriage still be in place where a majority of the people disapprove of it?
Should the federal government have any control over state laws at all?
No, the federal government should be very weak--all the control should be within the various states themselves. In fact, I'd advocate us splitting into 50 different countries.
Really? Based on what? It wasn't until the 1990s that a majority of Americans approved of interracial marriage. I would imagine that even in 2009, there would be at least a few states where interracial marriage could be repealed in a referendum.
There you go again, proving something to be true, and then arguing against the fact based upon your "imagination"..
And where do you get your 1990's figure from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
My friend, all you have to do is scroll down to the first graph on that page and it shows Gallup's history of polling on interracial marriage since 1958.
It wasn't until 1991 that their poll showed a plurality in favor of interracial marriage, and it wasn't until 1997 that a majority was in favor of it.
So? You do undestand that these things are often overseen by the Governor and not put up for a "vote" right? You dont think we would have gone through the same process on "interacial marriage", which is LEGAL to most state constitutions, and "gay marraiges" which is illegal in most state constitutions. All it would have taken was ONE lawsuit and the legality of banning "interacial marriages" would have fallen all across the nation.
The problem with "gay marriage" (I'm presuming this is why you started the thread) is that its unconstitutional in the states and states need to change their constitutions. Ok, "problem" is a wrong use of terminology but thats what limits the act from taking place. There is nothing in state constitutions which would have limited marriages to opposite sex individuals based upon color of skin.
We should just follow the constitution as it is written... that should answer your question.
Of course states-rights is a Republican thing, so the flip question for liberals is "how far do you take your Democracy?" (USA is a Rupublic, FYI) If the majority of people want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, do you accept that as the majority? Of course liberals do not accept that. Just check out the outrage in this thread here... Maine abolishes same-sex marriage
I don't think it should be up to people who live hundreds of miles away to impose their will on a state with a totally different culture. It seems sort of anti-democratic to me. Why force certain states to allow gay marriage if the majority of people reject the idea? Or the death penalty? Or banning/legallizing abortion? States like Massachusetts and Arkansas or New York and Alabama have completely different cultures, experiences, demographics, and history. Some individual states are so different that it seems like they belong in different countries. They are fundamentally different in every way, from politics to religion to dialect to even what types of food they eat. And the most populous states (California, New York, ect.) exert much more control over the federal government than states like Oklahoma and Mississippi. Why force all these separate cultures to adhere to federal laws mainly created by representatives from totally alien places? If small percentages of people disagree with state laws, they have the freedom to relocate somewhere else, but I doubt anyone is going to pick up and move because they don't agree with the states' position on gay marriage or state sactioned execution, mainly because most people are apathetic. (A generallization, there are plenty of exceptions, I'm sure) I just believe the founding fathers never dreamed of this level of federal control. But I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure.
The federal government should only have control over state laws when those powers are expressly designated to them by the Constitution of the United States.
The federal government should not be abusing the interstate commerce clause or blackmailing states with highway funding to forces states to adopt laws or using the Supreme Court to trample states rights and impose the values of whatever liberal or conservative majority is on the bench on every state in the country.
Some examples of what I consider an abuse of state's rights:
National 21 drinking age
Federal Hate Crime laws
No Child Left Behind
National speed limit of 70 on interstate/55 on any other road
Anything marriage related. That is expressly delegated to the states by the Constitution.
Federal gun control laws
This health plan if it does not allow states to opt out
Non federally funded entitlement programs
Roe v Wade
There is no need for me to say anymore. You have expressed my opinion completely. Thank you for your post!
The federal government should only have control over state laws when those powers are expressly designated to them by the Constitution of the United States.
The federal government should not be abusing the interstate commerce clause or blackmailing states with highway funding to forces states to adopt laws or using the Supreme Court to trample states rights and impose the values of whatever liberal or conservative majority is on the bench on every state in the country.
Some examples of what I consider an abuse of state's rights:
National 21 drinking age
Federal Hate Crime laws
No Child Left Behind
National speed limit of 70 on interstate/55 on any other road
Anything marriage related. That is expressly delegated to the states by the Constitution.
Federal gun control laws
This health plan if it does not allow states to opt out
Non federally funded entitlement programs
Roe v Wade
i agree the federal gov, should do what the constitution allows it to.
Provide for a common defense and treaties. I agree with the rest of your list well said
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.
