The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: jinxmchue on September 15, 2009, 02:51:35 PM
-
So can someone tell me why gay marriage apparently can be enacted by judges and lowly city mayors?
-
So can someone tell me why gay marriage apparently can be enacted by judges and lowly city mayors?
So you're saying the right thing can only be done my a massive constitutional effort?
-
So you're saying the right thing can only be done my a massive constitutional effort?
I'm saying the right thing to be done is a massive constitutional effort. Put the whole damn issue to rest once and for all.
-
I'm saying the right thing to be done is a massive constitutional effort. Put the whole damn issue to rest once and for all.
Nope, this should remain a state issue. The federal government should not get involved in this at all.
I'm thinking you'd like this to be made a Constitutional Amedment because at this time the majority of American's would support it, thereby bypassing the states having to accept the law of places like Massachussets.
-
So I guess slavery and women's suffrage should've been left to the states, too.
BAD! BAD ABOLITIONISTS! BAD SUFFRAGETTES! HOW DARE YOU MAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN A RIGHTS QUESTION!
I'm thinking you'd like this to be made a Constitutional Amedment because at this time the majority of American's would support it
Oh, okay. Up yours, too. I'm thinking ahead to where the issue will end up in a few years. It has to. Gay couples married in one state will demand that their marriages be recognized in other states. The fed will have no choice but to get involved. Let's just end the issue now.
-
So I guess slavery and women's suffrage should've been left to the states, too.
BAD! BAD ABOLITIONISTS! BAD SUFFRAGETTES! HOW DARE YOU MAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN A RIGHTS QUESTION!
Oh, okay. Up yours, too.
:whatever:
You do realize that you're compairing amendments that GIVE rights to US Citizens, to something that would TAKE THEM AWAY from US Citizens.
-
:whatever:
You do realize that you're compairing amendments that GIVE rights to US Citizens, to something that would TAKE THEM AWAY from US Citizens.
There is no right to whatever one feels an physical urge to do. On the contrary physical urges are the most heavily regulated of all human endeavors in all times and places. Re-framing the debate as a right to feel an urge and act upon it is not a right only a bastardization of language.
The rights the COTUS enshrines are the rights of a free people to representative government and equal participation in the political process but you are very right in that it is primarily a state issue as it is not a federal issue. Yet the comity clause is another issue. The stickier wicket comes from when State A recognizes a marriage that State B does not but the spouses, orginally married in State A move into State B. However, I'm sure precedent exists for dealing with matters of ages of majority which can also vary from state to state.
BTW - this thread is to be punted to GD as it is a matter of expository supposition not a presentation of evidence.
-
:whatever:
You do realize that you're compairing amendments that GIVE rights to US Citizens, to something that would TAKE THEM AWAY from US Citizens.
You do realize that you've attributed the status of "rights" to something that, in fact, is not a right. No one has any right to marry.
-
You do realize that you've attributed the status of "rights" to something that, in fact, is not a right. No one has any right to marry.
So your saying local government officials have no authority to allow it, when the right to vote took a constitutional amendment, but then go and say marriage is not a right...
I think you're tying yourself up here.
-
So your saying local government officials have no authority to allow it, when the right to vote took a constitutional amendment, but then go and say marriage is not a right...
I think you're tying yourself up here.
No, what he is saying since it is not a universal right government is free to restrict it.
A psycho-physiological urge is not the same as the right of the consent of the governed...of which homosexuals have full, equal rights.
-
:whatever:
You do realize that you're compairing amendments that GIVE rights to US Citizens, to something that would TAKE THEM AWAY from US Citizens.
They have exactly the same rights as everyone else. Exactly. They can't marry either parent, a first cousin, or someone of the same sex...exactly like my rights, exactly like your rights. MAINTAINING that legal position takes nothing away. They can't lose a right that doesn't exist.
-
The stickier wicket comes from when State A recognizes a marriage that State B does not but the spouses, orginally married in State A move into State B. However, I'm sure precedent exists for dealing with matters of ages of majority which can also vary from state to state.
No state has ever been required to recognize something from another state that is illegal in their state. If the lefties decide push gay marriage from this angle, I want Texans and Floridians to start carrying their pistols in Massachussetts. By that logic, Mass. couldn't refuse to honor a Texas Concealed Handgun License.
-
No state has ever been required to recognize something from another state that is illegal in their state. If the lefties decide push gay marriage from this angle, I want Texans and Floridians to start carrying their pistols in Massachussetts. By that logic, Mass. couldn't refuse to honor a Texas Concealed Handgun License.
YEP! The only thing thet'll tell you is; "You ain't in Texas any more Toto"