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.
Hey! We have had the most awesome winter I can ever remember!
December was almost the driest December since something like 1876 and it would have shattered that old record if we hadn't gotten hit with a bunch of rain the last week of 2011.
January had a run of great weather, too, followed by a bunch of snow (and ice in some places). I had two feet of snow and was snowed in for a week but that was ok (I don't like going anywhere anyway).
And then the first week of February was like SPRING. Warm and comfortable (a little on the windy side, though). Today was the first day of rain we've had for a while and it wasn't terrible.
So.....marriage equality and great weather! What more could you ask for (we even have a couple of volcanoes!)?
I'm a fan of Midwestern weather myself. I'm more of a snowstorm and thunderstorm person (with sunshine in between), and I like constantly changing weather. So I would likely be miserable up there.
Oh, I can also do without the Volcanoes.
I'm probably going to settle for Chicago though when it's all said and done.
I did. no mention of marriage. Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex in each state. If gay marriage becomes legal, then everyone has an equal right to marry whoever they want. And as I said, I'm fine with that as long as I get to vote on it. Either way it passes constitutional muster. Some liberals seem to come up with new "rights" all the time that we don't actually have. Do we have a right to marry someone we love? Someone we're attracted to? How broadly/narrowly do we define those concepts? Those are such vague terms that we could find ourselves with a host of unintended consequences. Applying the 14th amendment is such a stretch that I don't know how it is so widely used in these cases.
I did. no mention of marriage. Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex in each state. If gay marriage becomes legal, then everyone has an equal right to marry whoever they want. And as I said, I'm fine with that as long as I get to vote on it. Either way it passes constitutional muster. Some liberals seem tveronique up new "rights" all the time that we don't actually have. Do we have a right to marry someone we love? Someone we're attracted to? How broadly/narrowly do we define those concepts? Those are such vague terms that we could find ourselves with a host of unintended consequences. Applying the 14th amendment is such a stretch that I don't know how it is so widely used in these cases.
Civil rights should never be up to majority rules. Sorry.
If gay marriage becomes legal, then everyone has an equal right to marry whoever they want. And as I said, I'm fine with that as long as I get to vote on it.
You can vote however you want, but if the judicial branch of government finds the law to be unconstitutional, then you've pretty much wasted your time and energy.
You can vote however you want, but if the judicial branch of government finds the law to be unconstitutional, then you've pretty much wasted your time and energy.
And you're absolutely right. It's a shame the judicial branch made such a political decision. The Constitution is plain as day, but it's amazing how much some people read into it
Marriage is not a right. I'll try to read the Constitution again, maybe you guys are seeing something I'm not...
It's up for debate since the Supreme Court said in the 1960s that marriage is "a civil right of man". I doubt they had same-sex marriage in mind, however.
I agree with you about the 14th Amendment. The "discovery" of new rights gives the impression that the written word really doesn't mean much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmsterp
And you're absolutely right. It's a shame the judicial branch made such a political decision. The Constitution is plain as day, but it's amazing how much some people read into it
I wouldn't call it a political decision. Some people just "see" rights that others don't. They have good intentions, I'm sure. The problem is that these types of decisions make the Constitution less meaningful, as it's written.
Maryland has a good shot at it this year as well. I don't oppose same sex marriage. If it were on the ballot, I would vote for it. But that's the thing, I think it should be on the ballot. And I don't think activist judges should be the ones making that decision (ie- Iowa and California). I've read the Constitution and there is no right to marriage (heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise). The people should be able to collectively define what marriage ought to mean in their state through democratic means.
How about if we put whether you can get married or not up for a vote ? NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHTS PUT UP FOR A VOTE ! No human being should be treated as a second class citizen. There will be no marriage equality in this country until there is a federal law granting this. ...with liberty and justice for ALL...ALL means EVERYONE !!!
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.
