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.
Maybe Christie needs it explained to him that civil rights is not based upon majority rules.
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.
The point is that it is a ridiculous premise to have a "referendum" make the decision as to what is civilly right. Our Constitution does that.
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.
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.
Please point to the article/clause in the US Constitution that supports your claim (which shall remain a lie, until then).
Your claim is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Can't prove a negative. What we do find there is governments' responsibilities to ensure personal freedoms (Bill of Rights), a framework to the government and then some. Looking forward to your edition of the US Constitution from which you spew such claims.
Your claim is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Can't prove a negative. What we do find there is governments' responsibilities to ensure personal freedoms (Bill of Rights), a framework to the government and then some. Looking forward to your edition of the US Constitution from which you spew such claims.
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.
Quote:
The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, delineates specific rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and residents. No state can remove or abridge rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, provides that every individual who is born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen and ensures that a state may not deprive a citizen or resident of his or her civil rights, including Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of the laws. Congress is also empowered to enact laws for the enforcement of these rights.
Please explain how this does not appy to the rights of consenting adults to marry any other consenting adult that they choose to.
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.
Please explain how this does not appy to the rights of consenting adults to marry any other consenting adult that they choose to.
Until SCOTUS rules that it is a civil right under the definition that you provide or an amendment is added then it remains a state issue. Nothing your present will dispute that fact. Hence the reason each state currently needs to decide if GAY marriage is appropriate for their state.
Beat your head against the wall if you wish but it won't change the facts.
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.