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.
You can vote on anything you want, but if the law passed does not pass the constitutional muster then it can and probably will be overturned.
People could go vote tomorrow to ban all religious practice, but the law would not stand since it violates the 1st amendment.
Then legislation should pass the muster of the constitution before being put up for a vote. That way no one one gets demonized for voting for or against it by their opposition. It's just ridiculous the way that the desires of the American public are overturned by judges after the fact.
Again, the age of consent has gone UP since this countries founding. The AOC was 10-12 in most of the colonies.
Guess it was ok to change THAT "tradition".
How about if someone desires to marry their dog or cat? I mean where does this BS about civil rights end? Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Why can't gays be happy with a civil union instead? Let them fight within their own states to make that happen instead. I just don't think that re-defining what a "traditional" marriage is is the right thing to do.
Because society changes, the will of the people changes, and therefore interpretations change. The constitution is a living document that must respond to changing times, like all living things.
Well which is it then? First you libs claim to support the Constitution as it is and then you want it to change with the times. Well guess what? Not all Americans think it should be changed from its original intent.
Then legislation should pass the muster of the constitution before being put up for a vote. That way no one one gets demonized for voting for or against it by their opposition. It's just ridiculous the way that the desires of the American public are overturned by judges after the fact.
I agree, all laws SHOULD be checked against the constitution before going up for a vote, but legislators seem to like to try to pass crap laws that make them look like they are doing something.
The judges are only doing their job. That is what they are supposed to do, rule on the constitutionality of laws in some cases. Peoples "desires" still don't trump constitutional protections. Doesn't matter how much some people want something, if it is unconstitutional the only option is amending the constitution.
How about if someone desires to marry their dog or cat? I mean where does this BS about civil rights end? Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Why can't gays be happy with a civil union instead? Let them fight within their own states to make that happen instead. I just don't think that re-defining what a "traditional" marriage is is the right thing to do.
Dogs and cats are not capable of legal consent to enter into a contract. They also don;t have constitutional protections since animals are not considered American citizens.
At one time I might have been happy with a civil union as long as it was equal to marriage, but even that was banned for me.
No one is redefining marriage any more than allowing women and blacks to vote redefined the word voter. Get over it.
Why can't gays be happy with a civil union instead?
Stop pretending civil unions were ever offered as a sort of compromise, because they absolutely were not. They were, in fact, carefully banned in over a dozen states.
Well which is it then? First you libs claim to support the Constitution as it is and then you want it to change with the times. Well guess what? Not all Americans think it should be changed from its original intent.
Those Americans would be white land-owning males, one presumes.
Dogs and cats are not capable of legal consent to enter into a contract. They also don;t have constitutional protections since animals are not considered American citizens.
At one time I might have been happy with a civil union as long as it was equal to marriage, but even that was banned for me.
No one is redefining marriage any more than allowing women and blacks to vote redefined the word voter. Get over it.
Yes it is re-defining marriage. You are comparing apples to oranges here about voting rights. A civil union is the same as marriage in regards to finances and rights of survivorship. Why the need for a "traditional" marriage in the true sense of the word as defined between a man and a woman? The majority of Americans do not want a traditional marriage for gays. You get over it.
Does the South always have to be the last area of the country to achieve social progress and be forced by the federal government to adapt these changes despite the opposition from its conservative politicians. From integration to education to gay rights it always seems like the South lags far behind the rest of the country. Will it always be this way or will the federal government always have to drag it kicking and screaming into the modern era?
And for those who say I don't understand the South I lived in North Carolina from age 6 to age 26.
I'm on the side of any state that doesn't take kindly to the federal gubment "dragging it kicking and screaming" into anything--which you apparently think is just fine since you mentioned it twice.
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.
