This was unconstitutional

[Father Heathen]

Gun control, multiple welfare programs, having less freedom because you might "offend" someone, healthcare that's crappy and forced upon others, these are all things socialist countries do. How do you not see this? Social security is something a socialist would do. Trying to spread the wealth around is a socialist trait.

Wait. Now I'm confused. So are you pro-freedom or anti-freedom?

 

[Father Heathen]

Come to think of it both Republicans and Libertarians win, because now their position on Gay Marriage doesn't matter much.

No real libertarian would oppose gay marriage, as doing so flies in the face of libertarian principles. The root word of libertarian is liberty, after all.

 

[Father Heathen]

But as to the debate on whether this was a constitutional action or not, some who know constitutional law say yes, and some say no. One thing we have seen for sure in the Obama empire is that he will get what he wants one way or the other no matter what the constitution says. There is a pattern in which the will of the people and the will of the states has been overridden, and laws have been either ignored or enacted as needed for that.

Promoting and pursuing freedom is what defines this nation, son.

 

[Father Heathen]

It smells like crap which is what you are full of. I know anyone who supported this will regret it. I've read history too many times. You don't study it, you repeat it.

 

[dgirl1986]

Very true Shadow. I have the unique position to have been an exile, of a sort, in two categories. I am Bisexual and I am Native American, both of which are seen as 'less' than the white community because we are not 'true' Americans. If being NA makes me out to be an untrue American, I would rather it remain that way.

I bet you get overlooked a lot

 

[dgirl1986]

This can change with enough outcry, evidently.

I think you missed the point

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A separate "jury" for each proposed law? I kind of like that.

Well that way there are more than enough of us to divide this important task far more efficiently than handfuls of politicians do- focusing far more thoughtful attention on each issue as warranted- and none whatsoever on PR, baby kissing or speech reading practice.

Moreover, everywhere in the world- juries, compared with panels of legal experts, err on the side of caution, they have no axe to grind, no expectations to fulfill, no special parties to please, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail as they say!

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, join the crowd of people who are moving to Canada over America legalizing gay marriage, even though Canada legalized it along time ago.

Maybe one day I'll understand how sharing this nation with others is interpreted in ways such as "living as exiles in our own country." It's pretty bad when I used to be one of them and I still can't understand it.

And I believe Mexico has made it legal as well, so they have to go to some island nation nearby if not just cross the ocean

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well that way there are more than enough of us to divide this important task far more efficiently than handfuls of politicians do- focusing far more thoughtful attention on each issue as warranted- and none whatsoever on PR, baby kissing or speech reading practice.

Moreover, everywhere in the world- juries, compared with panels of legal experts, err on the side of caution, they have no axe to grind, no expectations to fulfill, no special parties to please, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail as they say!

The whole point of a democratic republic is that you elect people to go legislate. At the state level, it would just be too big and chaotic to not have representatives.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The whole point of a democratic republic is that you elect people to go legislate. At the state level, it would just be too big and chaotic to not have representatives.

In the days of the pony express I think that was a great argument. But in the 21st C. millions of us private citizens cast our votes instantly all the time, in our own personal affairs, as employees, shareholders, etc, we even vote on what videos are most entertaining! would these operate more efficiently with a professional team of career middle men making 'better' decisions for us? never voting in their own interests of course, we know politicians are the most honest impartial thoughtful intelligent members of our society right?

We only require an internet connection, not 50 mini replicas of the Vatican to cast our votes.

 

[BSM1]

I think you missed the point

Uh-huh.

 

[dgirl1986]

Uh-huh.

Our marriages and relationships are not detrimental to society no matter how much people believe it to be.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

votes instantly all the time, in our own personal affairs, as employees, shareholders, etc, we even vote on what videos are most entertaining!

Those things, such as videos, are not voting, and they are not freedom. They are things produced by a few mega-corporations who are telling you what to like. Employees, especially in America, have little power. Shareholder votes are often reserved for the wealthiest, and they do not include hundreds and thousands.

We only require an internet connection, not 50 mini replicas of the Vatican to cast our votes.

Do you have any idea how prone that would be to hacks, data corruption, and other problems?

 

[Neo Deist]

Yeah....we'll leave it to the states so Alabama can still bar anyone who isn't white from going to a university.

We are far removed from 1963.

What you refer to is Governor Wallace trying to maintain his image and promise of segregation forever. It was a political stunt by one man.

If anything, we welcome blacks at the University of Alabama. We have more championships to win!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are far removed from 1963.

What you refer to is Governor Wallace trying to maintain his image and promise of segregation forever. It was a political stunt by one man.

If anything, we welcome blacks at the University of Alabama. We have more championships to win!

I have no doubts the state has moved on. But it still remains that some issues the states shouldn't be able to handle on their own, and for good reason.
I can throw in Mike Pence insisting that county clerks didn't have to sign marriage licenses to gay couples after the SC struck down Indiana's gay marriage ban.

 

[Nakosis]

This statement about America becoming more socialist is absolute non sense, America as a country is becoming less socialist, If it where becoming more socialist we would have free socialized medicine, not a capitalist Obamacare program designed to benefit capitalist Heath Insurance companies, we would be seeing an increase in social welfare programs and in increase in Food stamps, we would be seeing socialized payed parental leave for parents of newborn children. We would be seeing easing of the strict rules for getting unemployment insurance, elimination of the time limits on receiving welfare for mothers with children, America is not moving to the left, it is rapidly moving to the right, and the right wing is brainwashing people to not notice it by trying to say it is getting MORE socialized, absolute rubbish!!

PS gay marriage has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with equal rights as outlined in the constitution.

It's never left enough or right enough for some folks. Personally I suspect both parties are in bed with each other on the politician level. They just put on a circus to keep folks distracted from anything important that's going on.

Whatever is going on that people don't like can be blamed on the other party.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I already know people will regret it. Because by allowing the feds to do this, you'll let them overrule everyone and states will become non existant.This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to avoid. a big federal government. Not all amendments are good either like the income tax amendment. What I wonder is if the 14th amendment gives them a right to have gay marriage, why didn't you see it legalized everywhere in the states? This amendment protects privileges. Marriage is not a privilege but a commitment. People love to twist that around. Like the people who say healthcare is a right. Entitlements are not rights and this isn't a privilege.

 

[metis]

There's the Supremacy Clause as found in Article Six, Clause Two of the Constitution.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

There's the Supremacy Clause as found in Article Six, Clause Two of the Constitution.

What about it? That means if there is a conflict feds overrule, marriage has never been the federal governments responsibility. That's why it was always left to the states. Really the intention was to have the fed basically oversee the states and the states would act like countries of their own but still work together and agree on the federal governments conditions, not have all of them do whatever the federal government says with no questions asked.

 

[Jainarayan]

I already know people will regret it. Because by allowing the feds to do this, you'll let them overrule everyone and states will become non existant.This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to avoid. a big federal government. Not all amendments are good either like the income tax amendment. What I wonder is if the 14th amendment gives them a right to have gay marriage, why didn't you see it legalized everywhere in the states? This amendment protects privileges. Marriage is not a privilege but a commitment. People love to twist that around. Like the people who say healthcare is a right. Entitlements are not rights and this isn't a privilege.

You need to read and understand the US Constitution, specifically Amendments 9, 10, and 14.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia