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.
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.
How do you know they are wrong to resist change? Is respecting other folks opinions on subjects obsolete these days?
This is not a dictatorship, this is a union of states, a republic. States have a lot of power still.
Like slavery, or the fugitive slave act, or barring mixed race marriages, or women from voting, or prohibition, or putting Japanese Americans in jail during ww2 because they were Japanese.
Keep posting.
And ALL of those unconstitutional laws were overturned, just like same sex marriage bans. Thanks for proving my point.
That's just a bizarre statement. You are comparing two things that are not comparable.
Try building an argument. You said, and I quote: "No one gets their rights because they are married."
I pointed out that spousal privilege is a right under the law.
You have two options:
Argue that spousal privilege isn't a right, or
Argue that spousal privilege doesn't require you to be married.
Good. I'll certainly be waiting for them to quote the Constitution that extends marriage between gays as a "right" and that banning it violates their civil rights.
Easy. it will be on 14th amendment grounds.
The questions before the court are.
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Why wasn;t interracial marriage an issue until 1967? Why were voting rights not an issue until they were?
Because someone finally stood up and said this isn't right and sues states to change the laws.
Don't know but you cannot compare the discriminations above to SSM. It never was right to ban marriage between a man and a woman regardless of their race because marriage is identified as being between a man and a woman. All Americans as citizens should have had the right to vote. Since when has "traditional" marriage ever been about same sex couples and why should it be? One can still have every right afforded to them in a civil union as in a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage itself should not be re-defined, IMO. It's against the laws of nature for one thing.
I wan't alive in the early 1900s, so it was kind of impossible for me to be against anything. And Loving V Virginia was decided before I was born, so nice try.
It's the same thought process. If dense was a country, you'd be China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
I agree that government should not have decided to ban some people from getting married, but they did, and now that is being corrected.
Banning someone from marriage as well as forcing someone to accept it are equally bad. That's what you don't get.
Easy. it will be on 14th amendment grounds.
The questions before the court are.
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Don't know but you cannot compare the discriminations above to SSM. It never was right to ban marriage between a man and a woman regardless of their race because marriage is identified as being between a man and a woman. All Americans as citizens should have had the right to vote. Since when has "traditional" marriage ever been about same sex couples and why should it be? One can still have every right afforded to them in a civil union as in a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage itself should not be re-defined, IMO. It's against the laws of nature for one thing.
Could you explain how, to discriminate against a mans option to marry a man, it is not discrimination on the basis of sex?
Don't know but you cannot compare the discriminations above to SSM. It never was right to ban marriage between a man and a woman regardless of their race because marriage is identified as being between a man and a woman. All Americans as citizens should have had the right to vote. Since when has "traditional" marriage ever been about same sex couples and why should it be? One can still have every right afforded to them in a civil union as in a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage itself should not be re-defined, IMO. It's against the laws of nature for one thing.
Discrimination based on race = discrimination based on sex.
Marriage is a man made concept, it doesn't exist in nature.
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.
