Author Topic: It took constitutional amendments to abolsh slavery and enact women's suffrage  (Read 2817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jinxmchue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3841
  • Reputation: +114/-26
So can someone tell me why gay marriage apparently can be enacted by judges and lowly city mayors?

Offline djones520

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Reputation: +181/-146
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?
"Chuck Norris once had sex in an 18 wheeler. Some of his semen dripped onto the engine. We now call that truck Optimus Prime."

Offline jinxmchue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3841
  • Reputation: +114/-26
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.

Offline djones520

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Reputation: +181/-146
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.
"Chuck Norris once had sex in an 18 wheeler. Some of his semen dripped onto the engine. We now call that truck Optimus Prime."

Offline jinxmchue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3841
  • Reputation: +114/-26
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!

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 03:30:28 PM by jinxmchue »

Offline djones520

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Reputation: +181/-146
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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 03:39:39 PM by djones520 »
"Chuck Norris once had sex in an 18 wheeler. Some of his semen dripped onto the engine. We now call that truck Optimus Prime."

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23568
  • Reputation: +2487/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
: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.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline jinxmchue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3841
  • Reputation: +114/-26
: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.

Offline djones520

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Reputation: +181/-146
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.
"Chuck Norris once had sex in an 18 wheeler. Some of his semen dripped onto the engine. We now call that truck Optimus Prime."

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23568
  • Reputation: +2487/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
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.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline MrsSmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
  • Reputation: +466/-54
: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.
.
.


Antifa - the only fascists in America today.

Offline Tantal

  • Right Wing Hardliner
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
  • Reputation: +106/-15
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.
Never demand that which you are incapable of taking by force, DUmmie.

Offline AllosaursRus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11672
  • Reputation: +424/-293
  • Skip Tracing by Contract Only!
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"
I'm the guy your mother warned you about!