|
Your Favorites for the Primary (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
that still doesn't mean an activity should enjoy protections under the Constitution. |
Under what law? |
|
|
| barbina |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Yes I do. Did you not understand me when I said the issue should be decided at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Reason? It shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility, and it would be much easier for the gay rights people to get some comprimise in having at least a few states endorse gay marraige.
Would barbina want no marriage rights, or at least some. I think she would want at least some. If a few states endorse it, that's better than none. |
the more the better. thats all im saying =) |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
omg dude, the Preamble does assign ANY power to the Federal Government.:rolleyes:
|
Precisely. The status quo should be that the federal government allows gay marriage - it is a right that a government can take away, not one that can be bestowed. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I agree, but the reality of the current situation makes the war a more important issue in terms of money, ethics, lives, etc. Realizing this, before we can debate a relatively minor social issue(in terms of people affected), we need to remedy our greatest problem which is the war. |
Again, I agree that the War is probably the issue garnering the most attention, but I think it would be a sore mistake to make it the only area of focus in the coming years. There are a lot of other problems in this country that can be addressed as the battle over Iraq policy continues. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by barbina
the more the better. thats all im saying =) |
well thats a crappy way defend a position you say you feel so passionately about. don't expect anything to get done in your favor. sorry. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Under what law? |
Federal law |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
well thats a crappy way defend a position you say you feel so passionately about. don't expect anything to get done in your favor. sorry. |
You're so ornery lately. I don't think she's defending anything, she's just stating that some progress is better than nothing. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Federal law |
No, under what constitutional amendment are gays prohibited from marriage? Or what amendment would support your case for refusing them marriage rights? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
No, under what constitutional amendment are gays prohibited from marriage? |
there are none. marriage in general in the U.S. is not an institution of the state but it's allowances are recognised at all levels of government begining at the civil juridiction of the county you are married in.
in addition, from a libertarian POV, on what grounds do you support the benefits of ANY marriage being upheld by Government? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
there are none. marriage in general in the U.S. is not an institution of the state but it's allowances are recognised at all levels of government begining at the civil juridiction of the county you are married in. |
So why do the Republicans want a constitutional amendment banning it?
| quote: | | in addition, from a libertarian POV, on what grounds do you support the benefits of ANY marriage being upheld by Government? |
Legally, married couples have to deal with issues such as wills, tax status's, next of kin notifications, emergency room access, etc. If no law forbids it, no one is victimized, and it's just equal status for gay couples as straight couples have under the law, what's wrong with it?
My libertarian views clearly support equal legal status of gay married couples to straight married couples. You still haven't, legally, or ethically, provided a competent argument for why it should not be recognized by the legal system... |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
there are none. marriage in general in the U.S. is not an institution of the state but it's allowances are recognised at all levels of government begining at the civil juridiction of the county you are married in.
in addition, from a libertarian POV, on what grounds do you support the benefits of ANY marriage being upheld by Government? |
I agree, it's an antequated fossil, a remnant of religious tradition. Who needs a piece of paper to show love? Anyone can have a ceremony.
Oh, that's right, marriage ensures lots of new state "priveleges" to the married. That doesn't seem very seperationy of church and statey.
Now, as for me, I wonder what the candidates stance on transgender marriage rights are. Anyone can jump on the bandwagon, but let's see who actually gives a about the most neglected members of our society, instead of simply hoping on for a buck or a vote to the next big civil rights circus show that shouldn't even exist in the first place if human beings weren't so ridiculously biased. :happy2: :eyespop: :tongue3 :tongue2 :toocool: |
|
|
| Zild |
Simple way to solve this problem. Take away all the illegal privileges married people enjoy in the first place.
And I'm sorry but I fail to see how an issue that really only deals with a very small minority of people is pertinent when there are many other issues that concern all Americans and if you think about it really the whole world because what we do hurts/helps a lot of other countries. |
|
|
|
|
