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.
Social conservatives and the modern liberal both believe their views are morally superior and that coercion is just fine to force others to follow their beliefs.
Wow, in your three months you've become quite the expert. So us right wingers in the South can't be trusted with the truth, but you in your three months have discovered more than we have in our entire lifetimes. Do you realize how utterly stupid that sounds?
It's not stupid to people who believe they are smarter and "morally superior" to everyone else.
That's great, and shows we all don't fit neatly into a little box. But statistically, Liberals overwhelmingly oppose gun rights. Some would even support complete gun confiscation. Liberal views don't start and end with gay rights, there are lots of issues where the left wing tries its best to impose its values on the rest of society.
Its not OK when either side does it.
Actually, on most gun rights issues both R and D poll closely. Guns
There are some areas with a bigger difference, but not too many. I personally believe that stance on gun rights is more closely tied to location. Here in the boonies both Rs and Ds seem to be on the same page.
That's great, and shows we all don't fit neatly into a little box. But statistically, Liberals overwhelmingly oppose gun rights. Some would even support complete gun confiscation. Liberal views don't start and end with gay rights, there are lots of issues where the left wing tries its best to impose its values on the rest of society.
Its not OK when either side does it.
I know far fewer Liberals who want to ban gun rights, than Conservative who want to ban human rights.
the stereotype is fully representative of neither. (Most liberals support gun rights as per the 2nd amendment. The disagreement is in regards to where those rights stop. Supporting the need for background checks is not the same as an outright ban. OTOH, being against same sex marriage is in fact the same as an outright ban on some people marrying their lover.)
just because its legal doesn't mean its the right thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
That's what your bigot grand-relatives said about interracial marriage too. It didn't happen.
History is not on your side.
Funny thing too, look how many outspoken conservatives have turned out to be closet gays. Nothing wrong with being gay (until everyone realizes it's not your foot that's in your mouth. In fact it's not yours AND it's not a foot.)
You realize that there are amendments after the 10th, right? Those are every bit as valid as anything in the US Constitution. Including the 14th. Here is the text in question, I've underlined the important parts for your convenience (and for dramatic effect):
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So it's okay to be a bigot, it's our moral standard?
Slavery was our moral standard too, it was here since the inception of our country. We realized it was a pretty bad moral standard and changed it, however. I would like to think we're a nation that evolves past our mistakes and injustices...
First the Bill of Rights absolutely has more clout than does the amendments that follow them. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution in order to get states to sign on to the constitution. They were part of the deal, without them some of the states would not agree to the constitution. That being the case, violating the amendments in the Bill of Rights is really breaking the contract that is our federal union. You say violating the 10th amendment is ok??? Well that amounts to nullifying our constitution. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are also often assaulted by liberals, and with the same constitutional consequences.
Now the equal protection clause wielded by liberals like a club, the one that you cited along with countless other supporters of this judicial tyranny in this thread could be used for many other fringe causes. The first group that comes to mind is the polygamists, they are being denied equal protection under the laws too are they not??? Should they also have the right to marry who they want??? If you don't support their right to marry 10 women then you must be a bigot right??? What about people who want to marry their cousin, or sister???? They are out there, they have rights too. How about people who want to marry an animal, or themselves??? We have laws banning ex cons from voting in some states, they have paid for their crime right??? those laws could be challenged using this clause In the 14th amendment. The law makes judgments about behavior all the time(discriminates), and homosexuality is a behavior. Also the 14th amendment was written to protect the rights of racial minorities, not the rights of every fringe group that would rise up over the next 150 years. They (congress) could never have imagined the causes it would be used for or it would have been more specifically worded.
The state of Alabama has every right to pass laws that reflect its value system. So does the state of Massachusetts. If you cannot live with Alabama gay marriage bans then you are free to move to a northern state that has willingly passed laws allowing for gay marriage. Different regions of the nation have different values, and the beauty of a free nation is that we can move to where we feel comfortable. What we don't have the right to do is use the federal power to violate the rights of the states or people of the south because the prevailing political power in Washington currently is in the hands of radical liberals. These tactics will not force the people of the south or any other red states to accept gay marriage, it will make them bitter, angry and even more resentful of extreme federal power. Pick up a history book and look and see how we have reacted to overbearing federal power in the past. I am not saying this issue could cause secession or civil war, but this heaped on with all the other insults could contribute to an environment where it becomes more possible. Has anyone seen those billboards here in the south that say "secede", or does anyone remember the petitions signed by millions in 2012 that called for the secession of many conservative states after Obama was restored to his throne in 12'? If you violate peoples rights they become angry, and it shows you have no respect for the rights of people who don't hold the values that northern liberals expect they should have.
It would take a constitutional amendment to be able to pass any law requiring churches to marry any couple.
Certainly didn't require an amendment to force businesses to serve gay ppl. All you have to do is claim discrimination. They can do the same to churches who conduct public weddings.
Your initial post full of all the stereotypes and claims was wrong, nonsense, and you've been trying to squirm your way out of it ever since by turning it around on me. Don't know who you think you're fooling.
You're projecting. I'm waiting for you to post even the beginning of a response to what I actually wrote. All you've been doing is complaining that I posted, polluting the thread with your pointlessly tangential nonsense. How about staying on topic instead of engaging in metadiscussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
First the Bill of Rights absolutely has more clout than does the amendments that follow them.
False.
Arguably, it could be said that the later amendments take precedence over the Bill of Rights. As a matter of fact, later amendments often explicitly rescind provisions placed into the Constitution earlier. And, the provisions by which a later amendment could reverse earlier Constitutional provisions were in the Constitution before the Bill of Rights were adopted, so no one could claim ignorance of the possibility.
So the reality is that all tenets of the US Constitution have the same "clout", the earlier provisions with regard to what they say as amended, not with regard to their original composition, and all provisions in the context of all other provisions, again each having the same "clout". Where Constitutional provisions conflict, the proper resolution is somewhere between the conflicting extremes. When where that line is unclear, that's what the judiciary is for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
The state of Alabama has every right to pass laws that reflect its value system.
As long as they don't conflict with the US Constitution.
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.
