Hmm, i see you using a lot of straw man arguments.. I think I said that people voting on a ballot is thier will, how ISNT it? Or do you only see freedom by denying the will of a majority by implementing government laws they dont want?
Hawaii and Indiana proving me right...
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
Hmm, i see you using a lot of straw man arguments.. I think I said that people voting on a ballot is thier will, how ISNT it? Or do you only see freedom by denying the will of a majority by implementing government laws they dont want?
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
This may be true, but just because people vote something into being doesn't mean it is right or legal. That is indeed what the supreme court is for, and why satya brought it up. I am sure you will agree that people en mass are not the most intelligent things around.
im no fan of humans, we all know that. But this isn't exactly a bunch of rednecks voting to segregate peoples drinking fountains and schools. No one is stopping gays from marrying or being together.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
That is a huge misnomer. There are plenty of people out there that are trying to stop gays from marrying. If there was not, this would not be the issue in the first place. That, and I have reason to believe that a rather large portion of people who do not want gay marriege, do not want it simply because they dislike the idea of people being gay, and have not thought about it beyond that.
oppression by majority is still oppression, and the basic idea of this nation (though it has been implemented horrifically) is to end oppression.
Also, in your argument "No one is stopping people from marrying" I think you're implying that people simply have to move to an equality state to get married, so no biggy. However, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" I find this quote to be rather true.
Also, in your argument "No one is stopping people from marrying" I think you're implying that people simply have to move to an equality state to get married, so no biggy. However, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" I find this quote to be rather true.
Last edited:
Change will happen. But people need to change first. I'm convinced that my generation's children will scoff at the idea of banning same sex marriage. Just like we scoff at the idea of segregation and slavery. Things are bound to change soon.
Let me put it this way for you Billy. Same sex marriage is only a state issue because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA makes it so that a same sex marriage performed in one state does not need to be recognized in other state, despite being a contract. That is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution of the United States. As such, the Supreme Court could easily overturn DOMA or declare same sex marriage as a right, and thus void every state constitutional amendment ban on same sex marriage passed by the people through ballot initiative.
When such an event occurs, then the people could only do 3 things...
1. They could pass a US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
2. They could pass a Constitutional Amendment restricting the Supreme Court's powers.
3. They could pass a Constitutional Amendment overturning the entire Constitution.
The only way that a Constitutional Amendment can be passed is with 3/4ths of the states and 2/3rds of Congress. Far beyond a simple majority. People would have to elect a serious number of representatives who supported one of the three options above.
That is because America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. What the people vote for in a ballot initiative to make a state constitutional amendment means absolutely nothing if the Supreme Court rules otherwise. The Supreme Court exists to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And the will of the people is the Constitution of the United States, and it will remain so until the people elect enough representatives to pass a Constitutional Amendment overturning the Constitution of the United States. If they do so, then they can set up a democracy where a ballot initiative is the will of the people.
As such, same sex marriage officially became a federal issue when DOMA was passed. It has not been a state issue since the days of Clinton. It has only been restricted to states.
This civics lesson brought to you by Satya.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Oh how I abhor cold logic...
This is true in most cases, but really really really should not be true. Thankfully, people are changing so that more people in newer generations put a high value on personal happiness of others, regardless of moral context.
Gay marriage is a national problem, not a state problem. We all have the right to be subjected to the same laws under the constitution, states can have certain differences but this is to much of a national problem to be restricted to certain states as people who are in favor and are fighting for this cause are all over the US, besides that throughout history it has been shown that states are all subjected to national law, this is a country after all, the states are not separate countries therefore we depend on a national set of laws and government. I find it ludicrous that a person has to move to a particular state like CT, just to be able to be happy, this reminds me of the restrictions on interracial marriages. For gods sake this is the 21st century or do you want to segregate gay couples into particular states? such idea to me is unfair.
S
Shai Gar
International Problem. Our last PM overruled every single gay rights bill that came to parliament. So is our current one.
True, but there is no body that can force all the nations of the world to legalize and recognize gay marriage. Therefore, it has to be dealt with on individual nation's terms.