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.
Yes gay marriage should be upheld. But I have no doubt the current right wing Supreme Court has gay marriage and church-state separation in their sights next. This is why religious evangelicals shouldn't be on the Court.
For you left-wingers who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016, these are the consequences.
And here I thought judges were supposed to be fair not retaliatory
Women don't dictate that, MEN do lol. 99% of war and military based crap is all because of MEN.
As long as you aren't molesting children in your basement or something else vile, I don't care what people do in their properties. Thats what right wingers do. They wanna even tell you that you can't smoke a joint in your backyard after work.
Are you serious?
Do women not comprise 50% of voters (roughly)? If men dictate decisions on abortion, based on your logic how do women not dictate that men are forced to sign up for the selective service? The only way that women would not dictate to men via the selective service is if women didn't vote on the issue at all (in this instance, via the representative democratic process). Also, numerous women in Congress voted to authorize military action in Iraq as an example, which shreds your retort in another way, too. And women have voted for warmonger politicians in large numbers in the past, too, which further goes to my point of women making decisions/casting votes on matters that don't impact them (women represent a tiny fraction of combat forces and that is something relatively recent, too).
Moving on, that you don't care what people do in their properties generally is hardly the point. This isn't about you individually or specifically. The point is that, in our representative democratic system, people get to chime in and vote for policies that don't affect them directly (or at all). That's how things work. This isn't some secret.
I think Democrats are blowing these comments out of proportion, but for what it’s worth, I voted “no” even though my political views tend to be more conservative.
Blowing these comments out of proportion??
We have 3 Trump-appointed Supreme Court who promised under oath that they would uphold Roe v Wade. They didn't keep that promise, so why should we trust their intentions whatsoever at this point?
This is not about what we think about gay marriage. This is about our constitution. Marriage law clearly falls under the 10th amendment. The gay marriage ruling was always an offense to the constitution. Overturn it now. Very few states would make an effort to undo gay marriage, way too complicated to nullify millions of legal marriages. The constitution must be respected.....activist courts have to be stopped. Courts should never take the place of the legislative branch, nor should it obstruct the rights of the states.
All of this is about the constitution. Each state has a right to have laws that reflect its culture and values. If you are in conflict with the values of the state you live in you are free to move. The only thing that will save our Union is respecting the rights of fellow Americans in other states who have differing values. Our constitution is set up to accomplish that goal, all we have to do is follow it. If we refuse to respect our fellow citizens rights to have laws contrary to our personal values then our Union is done for. We can either follow our constitution or we can go down the dark road of disunion. We have been there before in the 1860s....do we want to go back there?
Simple question. For this poll I am only adding yes or no as options. You either support it or you don't.
Should interracial marriages be overturned as well. Why are we letting government dictate our lives telling us how we should live and not live. That is not freedom. I've seen posts here comparing democrats to Orwell's 1984. But it's republicans who are going there.
I philosophically disagree with the term "marriage" because it's a religious ceremony. But all adults should be free from unreasonable restriction on who they have a civil union with.
Marriage is not just a religious ceremony.
One can get married without a church or ANY religious affiliation.
"Protect life." You mean like how the police in Uvalde protected the lives of those innocent children in Texas? Or the gun lobby protects life by making it easier for maniacs to get a gun? Or how red states were protecting lives by prematurely ending covid restrictions at the height of the pandemic?
1. Maniacs don't obey gun laws.
2. There is no excuse for arriving police to fail to immediately go into the school and kick the maniac's ass.
Of course, that's a long drawn out process even under the best circumstances.
A better solution would be to have someone like me (former military) or a retired cop already inside the school wearing body armor and well armed, i.e., ready to throw down.
Locking the doors would help too, but we have to plan for the worst case and that is a maniac inside the school.
I have also long advocated for armed teachers - remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
On another thread, I explained how a small town in Florida confronted a rash of convenience store robberies by announcing to the local media that police officers armed with pump shotguns would be posted in the back rooms of select area convenience stores, but they didn't say which ones.
If you wanted to rob a convenience store after the announcement, you would have to roll the dice about a well-arm cop being already there and ready to light your ass up.
Needless to say, the robberies stopped immediately.
That's why I prefer the "already there and ready to light your ass up" approach to school safety.
Gee-wiz Pincho-toot, onerous lockdowns saved countless lives in New York, New Jersey and here, in my home state of Michigan!
Anyways, the best way to make sure a child lives long enough to be endangers by maniacs and Covid-19 is to not abort them in the first place.
The SCOTUS decision that mandated states allow it should be overturned. There's no basis in the constitution for that mandate.
If individual states want to allow it that's fine. I just don't see any basis for it being a constitutional right.
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.
