A Fair Comprimise

[wanderingone]

You are assuming that when the states "don't do well" the federal government will. I can think of multiple examples where this is most certainly wrong.

The feds certainly don't always have their right mind about individual freedoms, and I wouldn't trust the current administration to uphold mine, however when it comes to guaranteeing that rights are not run over by the "majority" leaving it up to the states doesn't seem to work out well, we end up with the need for things like the Americans With Disabilities Act.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The feds certainly don't always have their right mind about individual freedoms, and I wouldn't trust the current administration to uphold mine, however when it comes to guaranteeing that rights are not run over by the "majority" leaving it up to the states doesn't seem to work out well, we end up with the need for things like the Americans With Disabilities Act.

This is, of course, assuming that the majority won't disagree with you. Majority rules, and it will always be the way, one way or the other. If there was a solid majority of the nation that saw something wrong in your marriage with your husband (I don't know, but I am just guessing it's interracial and am curious) then they would prohibit it, that is when the majority rules for the Federal Gov. However, let's look at states rights: if a solid majority of the nation beleived that your marriage was wrong, I'm sure that out of 50 states at least one would beleive that your marriage was right and would permit it and you could go to live there.

See? States rights works and permits MORE civil liberties, not less. As long as people are free to leave and their basic rights aren't violated states rights does the trick better than federal gov.

The difference with gay marriage is that people who beleive in states rights tend to be conservative, and those opposed to gay marriage tend to be conservative, so I can't see a national ban on gay marriage coming because most of those who oppose gay marriage likely think the states should decide, while most are for it think that the federal government should enforce acceptance and recognition of it.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Also, as a general statement about states rights, it seems quite clear to me that those who think it should not be up to the states think that the federal government would be supporting gay marriage and not opposing it. An ammendment to the American Constitution just a short while ago failed, but got a majority of the votes cast - and you all know what ammendment I'm talking about. This should be taken seriously. THE MAJORITY OF THE SENATE WAS OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE. Think that the Federal government would support gay marriage? Get real.

I support the states choice because I beelive in states rights, not because I think that the states would oppose it. I know that some would recognize gay marriage and some wouldn't, so gays who want their marriage recognized but live in a state that doesn't recognize it could leave and go to one that does! That is sensible: how come no one likes it?

If it was states choice there would always be somewhere for gay couples to go and be recognized, and if there was no state that recognized gay marriage the federal government sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Also, as a general statement about states rights, it seems quite clear to me that those who think it should not be up to the states think that the federal government would be supporting gay marriage and not opposing it. An ammendment to the American Constitution just a short while ago failed, but got a majority of the votes cast - and you all know what ammendment I'm talking about. This should be taken seriously. THE MAJORITY OF THE SENATE WAS OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE. Think that the Federal government would support gay marriage? Get real.

I support the states choice because I beelive in states rights, not because I think that the states would oppose it. I know that some would recognize gay marriage and some wouldn't, so gays who want their marriage recognized but live in a state that doesn't recognize it could leave and go to one that does! That is sensible: how come no one likes it?

If it was states choice there would always be somewhere for gay couples to go and be recognized, and if there was no state that recognized gay marriage the federal government sure as hell wouldn't.

Though many of the Christians here that are against gay marriage don't see it, your behaving exactly like the Conservative Christians that opposed Interracial Marriage behaved 30 years ago. And using almost the same arguments too.


I don't understand why the same group people keep making the same errors in judgement throughout history. When are you all going to learn that you can not dictate the lives of other people? When are you going to learn that somone being different than you does not make them evil or your enemy?

 

[Stuco]

Though many of the Christians here that are against gay marriage don't see it, your behaving exactly like the Conservative Christians that opposed Interracial Marriage behaved 30 years ago. And using almost the same arguments too.


I don't understand why the same group people keep making the same errors in judgement throughout history. When are you all going to learn that you can not dictate the lives of other people? When are you going to learn that somone being different than you does not make them evil or your enemy?

Do you even know why christians oppose homosexual mariage?

 

[Caylin]

Do you even know why christians oppose homosexual mariage?

Because they think I need to live according to their morals.

 

[Stuco]

Because they think I need to live according to their morals.

No. If we where trying to do that why would we be wanting to give everyone a vote? I dont want to dictate your morals.

 

[Stuco]

Also Im still waiting to see any other ideas about a comprimise everyone could be at least be content with.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Do you even know why christians oppose homosexual mariage?

The only objections I have seen all stem from your Bible. Well guess what, your Bible is NOT the law of the land. To enact Biblical law as national law when such laws have no reason beyond religious, is against the 1st Admendment of the Constituion.

You came a bit late to this debate. You might want to read back through the multiple ongoing threads that started last week about this issue. My position and understanding has been well established at this point.

 

[Stuco]

The only objections I have seen all stem from your Bible. Well guess what, your Bible is NOT the law of the land. To enact Biblical law as national law when such laws have no reason beyond religious, is against the 1st Admendment of the Constituion.

You came a bit late to this debate. You might want to read back through the multiple ongoing threads that started last week about this issue. My position and understanding has been well established at this point.

Well guees WHAT! I live HERE! I have my say on social affarirs and so do you. So you dont have a right to push your morals or beliefs on me either. You dont seem to want to comprimise. You want to have your way or nothing. I pay taxes I should have a say about our countrys moral policy and if that policy that came from my morals stems from the bible and the majority agrees with it it is fair. If I want my children to grow up in an area where the practice of homosexuality is not supported I should have that right and especially if other people agree with me. You dont seem to want to do things fairly and instead go around the people and get the courts to legeslate from the bench therfore undermining fair democracy. Democracy was meant to get away from the opressivenise of minority rule not majority rule. In fact the moto of the state I live in the state of Arkansas is "The people rule". Does that say some people or does that say only the people in the courts no it does NOT. It means everyone. Everyone has a say everyone has a vote and the majority rules. If you where to win in the vote I would not be sad or upset because I know that democracy had been carried out to its fulliest.

 

[OdwinOddball]

You certainly have the right to not approve. And you can certianly vote for legsilation that tries to push your morality on others. However, your little tirade here shows your true colors. its not about your rights, its about other people doing something you don't personally like and that doesn't affect you.

If you don't like Homosexuality, homosexual sex, or homosexual marriage, dont participate. But denying other people the chance for the happiness you and I take for granted is not at all what this country is about.

Despite what some Christians seem to think today, America is not, never was, and never will be a Christian Theocracy enforcing Christian laws.

 

[wanderingone]

This is, of course, assuming that the majority won't disagree with you. Majority rules, and it will always be the way, one way or the other. If there was a solid majority of the nation that saw something wrong in your marriage with your husband (I don't know, but I am just guessing it's interracial and am curious) then they would prohibit it, that is when the majority rules for the Federal Gov. However, let's look at states rights: if a solid majority of the nation beleived that your marriage was wrong, I'm sure that out of 50 states at least one would beleive that your marriage was right and would permit it and you could go to live there.

See? States rights works and permits MORE civil liberties, not less. As long as people are free to leave and their basic rights aren't violated states rights does the trick better than federal gov.

The difference with gay marriage is that people who beleive in states rights tend to be conservative, and those opposed to gay marriage tend to be conservative, so I can't see a national ban on gay marriage coming because most of those who oppose gay marriage likely think the states should decide, while most are for it think that the federal government should enforce acceptance and recognition of it.

So I should be limited to living in only specific states of my country because some wouldn't want to legalize "interracial" marriage? Loving didn't put it to a vote, it said my family and others like ours have the right to marry anywhere in these United States. --

As for conservatives thinking states should make the decision why are they then the ones asking for a federal definition of marriage?

 

[wanderingone]

No. If we where trying to do that why would we be wanting to give everyone a vote? I dont want to dictate your morals.

What other marriages require a vote?

 

[wanderingone]

Also Im still waiting to see any other ideas about a comprimise everyone could be at least be content with.

Why do you agree to compromise civil rights of individuals? Who had to compromise for me to have the right to get married? Who voted on my heterosexual privilege?

 

[Sundragon2012]

Civil liberties and equal protection under law issues via majority vote.....the mother of all bad ideas.

One can have any kind of personal religious or secular moral code one wishes in a pluralistic society that seperates religion from government. However, one's right to choose or not choose certain behaviors and/or practices cannot be used to determine another's rights in regard to said behaviors or practices. In other words feel free to take advantage of the liberties that this country provides, but never think that you have the right to prevent another from exercising their liberties or seeking equitable treatment under law.

No one has a right to deny another their liberties and then ask that if they want full access to their liberties they should move to a more appropriate community. The very thought is offensive. Maybe we should just give the homosexuals a couple of islands off the coast there they can get married so we clean living, freedom loving Americans can not have to see them and they won't damage our marriages.


)o(Blessed Be,

Chris

 

[Moros]

State's rights as much as possible.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

There are a lot of good things about democracy, however, there is also the chance that things may go wrong. Ideally, a democratic system or representative republic should have educated well informed people who all are willing and capable of participating in the process of making decisions.

That's a lot of assumptions.

By and large I favor state's rights. However, state's rights have had a very poor history with slavery. The result of which is that some states allowed it and others denied. I am not suggesting whether one side or the other of this debate is like slavery. I am merely saying that majority rule is a two sided sword which may perpetuate wrong doing as much as it encourages right. Nor am I suggesting that a dictatorship type of action to ignore the will of the people is any way to go.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well guees WHAT! I live HERE! I have my say on social affarirs and so do you. So you dont have a right to push your morals or beliefs on me either.

So I don't have the right to push my morals on you but you have the right to push yours on me?

You dont seem to want to comprimise. You want to have your way or nothing.

Actually, I think there are people willing to compromise, yet would you agree to a "compromise" that the majority could deny you equal rights simply because they felt like it?

I pay taxes I should have a say about our countrys moral policy and if that policy that came from my morals stems from the bible and the majority agrees with it it is fair.

If the majority passes a law, regardless of what it is based on, that is fine. The problem is that if this law discriminates unjustly against a group of citizens then it is unconstitutional.

If I want my children to grow up in an area where the practice of homosexuality is not supported I should have that right and especially if other people agree with me.

This is not true. This is similar to cities that have tried enacting laws or zoning regulations in an attempt to keep a segment of the population (usually based on race or economic status) out of certain areas. These laws are consistently struck down.

You dont seem to want to do things fairly and instead go around the people and get the courts to legeslate from the bench therfore undermining fair democracy.

Actually, it is not "legislating from the bench" but ruling on the constitutionality of law. For example, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled, they gave the legislature several months to make a law that was not discriminatory. The further ruled that if the legislature did not meet this deadline, the current law would still be in effect with the offending passages removed. In this case, the legislature did not create a new law so it is still the original law (minus the ban for couples of the same sex) that is used.

Democracy was meant to get away from the opressivenise of minority rule not majority rule.

An interesting twisting of history but it is not true. In fact, it was a minority rule when the Constitution took effect. The states typically only granted voting rights to male land owners (IOW, affluent white males). It wasn't until the 14th and 15th amendments (15th passed in 1870, almost 100 years into the countries history) that all males were granted the right to vote. It wasn't until the 19th amendment (1920) that women were granted the right to vote. Obviously, for roughly 150 years of our history it was minority rule.

In fact the moto of the state I live in the state of Arkansas is "The people rule". Does that say some people or does that say only the people in the courts no it does NOT. It means everyone. Everyone has a say everyone has a vote and the majority rules.

This is not true. I suspect that Arkansas would still have segregation and interracial marriages would still be illegal if it was simply "the people rule."

If you where to win in the vote I would not be sad or upset because I know that democracy had been carried out to its fulliest.

Except that we are not a pure democracy, we are actually a Federal Republic.

For a true compromise, I would suggest that the government no longer recognize any marriages. Instead, set up civil unions that would have the same rights and benefits as marriage currently does. This way, the government could treat homosexual couples equally without calling it marriage. Additionally, those that wanted (both homosexual and heterosexual) would be free to have a ceremony (marriage) celebrated according to the traditions of their church, though it would not be recognized by the government.

 

[TooCurious]

The United States is a constitutional republic. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it protects the rights of the individual from the vicissitudes of politics and popular whim. We do not live under mob rule. The will of the majority is not absolute; it is still subject to the Constitution. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens; these rights include, but are not limited to, life, liberty, property, basic well-being, and equality under law. These rights are considered inalienable and intrinsic to the human condition; they are not granted by the Constitution, but instead are protected by it.

Compromise is not relevant to issues of civil liberties. It is no more important to satisfy people who are against gay marriage than it would be important to satisfy me if I thought that Christians should not be allowed to marry, or to vote, or to practice their religion. These things are rights guaranteed to everyone and protected by the Constitution, so my opinion wouldn't matter--and neither does that of people who wish to deny gay couples the right to marry.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Civil liberties cannot and should not be put to a vote. To suggest that they should is as absurd as it is unconstitutional.

 

[JGG]

Well guees WHAT! I live HERE! I have my say on social affarirs and so do you. So you dont have a right to push your morals or beliefs on me either.

And how exactly does two men getting married affect you, and your life?

You dont seem to want to comprimise.

Its not up to me, its up to those whose rights are being denied. But if either you, or I were being denied our rights, we wouldn't want to compromise either.

I pay taxes I should have a say about our countrys moral policy and if that policy that came from my morals stems from the bible and the majority agrees with it it is fair.

So why did we dismantle the Taliban again?

If I want my children to grow up in an area where the practice of homosexuality is not supported I should have that right and especially if other people agree with me.

Iran is unlikely to change any time soon. Frankly, this is a ridiculous statement. Does that mean I have the right to have my children grow up in an area where they will not be exposed to the practice of Christianity I should have that right?

You dont seem to want to do things fairly and instead go around the people and get the courts to legeslate from the bench therfore undermining fair democracy.

How is that unfair. If this is what the law states, its what the law states. These laws reflect the idea that this country was founded on the idea of freedom for all, and supports the idea of equality for all. Do you?

I am curious though, what extra-biblical reasons do you have for opposing gay marriage?