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.
So what if the public voted to put all people that practiced Islam into camps (like what we did to Japanese people in the 1940s) because, you know, TURRISTS. And then a judge came back and said "Nah, you can't discriminate like that." Would that be alright that the judge overturned the people?
What if NC voted that inter-racial marriage was illegal? Would that be acceptable to overturn via the courts?
Discrimination isn't legal, doesn't matter if it passed the public vote unanimously. This isn't late 30's Germany.
Your argument is ridiculous and has no similarity to the marriage issue. No one is putting anyone in camps. So I won't address this further.
Any law that discriminates against someone from doing what you have the right to do should be overturned. Bigotry is no basis for any law and has no place in our society.
Personally, I think the Republicans are missing the big, big picture here. Marriage shouldn't even be a government function, it only is due to taxes and benefits. Marriage is a religious ceremony, in reality.
Personally, I think the Republicans are missing the big, big picture here. Marriage shouldn't even be a government function, it only is due to taxes and benefits. Marriage is a religious ceremony, in reality.
The republicans knew exactly what they were doing and it had zero to do With religion. Hence why civil unions also were banned.
They purposefully demonized a minority to whip up their core supporters.
If this were truly about religion, civil unions would not have been banned. The sanctity of civil unions, an oath to government... The holy union between man and woman as the government intended?
Elected officials have to uphold the Constitution. It's in their oath of office. The court system makes rulings on constitutionality of laws when they are challenged. The courts keep finding these marriage bans unconstitutional. What's so difficult to understand?
The three branches of government are in tension with each other on purpose.
The same sex marriage is a brand new thing and we have yet to see the consequences of this decision in our society.
If marriage is deemed to be a 'right', then a right cannot be denied to anyone, and this a road we have not traveled down yet.
It's been ten years since Marriage was brought to the US in Massachusetts. What sort of unintended negative, scary, consequence have we seen and how long does one wait? For example: Saying that you don't want your children exposed to others' marriage and their own definition of family is not enough because, frankly, we don't live in a country with a monolithic culture. We have this thing that the Right/conservatives love to talk about: "Freedom". We don't have conform to any particular person's belief system and if current systems that are in place are so weak as to need to suppress others, oh well. I'd bet that if people with strong convictions didn't choose to put their beliefs upon and force laws under which all must live and suppress the rights of others, they would be left alone to do whatever they want with their lives. In this particular case, it's easy to describe how gay couples' right are trampled. There are tangible examples and objective consequences to their lives that can be enumerated. For the life of me, I cannot think of one tangible way that a heterosexual couple's life and marriage changes with this ruling. What tangibly changes? Give me examples. How are you not provided something that you used to have now that the same things are extended to gay couples?
Staying in the world of the nebulous and unproven is a nice tactic. It breeds fear and contempt and somehow makes those who have been oppressing feel as if they are the victims. It's a brilliant but unhealthy strategy for society. I suppose the problem for many with this issue is that it's an intangible that you can't shoot with a gun.
As for marriage being a "right", it's important to remember that nobody is asking any particular faith or church to recognize any marriage. The Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, etc. can say whatever they want about their recognition of marriage. Nobody is stopping them from doing so. Heck, I know for a fact that the Catholic church won't recognize any member's marriage if they haven't gone through the proper channels as dictated by the church. I say have at it; knock yourself out if that's what you want to do.
That said, this is about actual rights and responsibilities that come with a LEGAL marriage. So, yes, if it's impactful to ones life legally, it's a right.
The citizens of NC should be upset that a vote only 2 years go by more than 60% was overturned by a pen stroke.
The issue should have never been put to a vote in the first place; that's the real problem.
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.
