This was unconstitutional

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think we agree then that the system is not perfect, though there is certainly no easy answer to fixing it. Also that in the wider perspective- it's been a relatively successful experiment.

I take your point on representative democracy, and it's been the main caveat to true democracy politicians have always cited; that we can't trust ourselves to make the best decisions.. I'm just not sure, perhaps to paraphrase Churchill, we might make the least worst decisions.

'we the people' don't have votes, voting records, party affiliation, physical appearance, media savvy, favors, etc etc to affect our influence and decisions.
I think there is a good reason juries are stocked with 'we the people' and not legal experts, because an unbiased amateur beats a biased professional any day.

Part of the rationale for representation was also to do with the logistics of collecting individual votes on varying issues across such distances, todays technology makes that argument redundant.

Maybe it comes down to - who would you trust more; the average citizen or average politician? I know a lot of people, friends and loved ones who would vote differently from me, but out of their own honest opinions, so I'm fine with that, maybe they're right and I'm wrong.

Yep, we agree much. I've always thought that government might work better if we just randomly selected people--I used to say from the phone book, but since most people aren't in phone books anymore...). Yes you'd get incompetents and people who would try to use the system, but you'd avoid the problem of experienced politicians who have developed extensive relationships with special interest donors. Downside of that is that they would have to depend heavily on staff...

 

[clerick]

It still is a state issue. Why don't you point out a part in the Constitution where the Federal Government has a say of who can be married and who can't. Let me say it for you. You can't, hence it cannot be debated. It IS still a state issue, like it was before. Before, if you wanted to get married, you went to another state where it was legal. Now you have no choice. And this is supposed to be a free country. Really?

Any powers that are not part of the Federal Government is up to the states. Free speech is federal thing, not a state thing, so every state must agree with it to be apart of the union. However gay marriage is not in one of the federal governments powers. Hence it is a state issue. But the Supreme Court says "Nuh uh, we're gonna make it legal everywhere whether you like it or not.

I'm telling you, this is a seriously bad sign and you'll all regret being in favor of something like this.

Technically States have some say the decision is tied to government licensed marriage if States decided to no longer issue licenses and grandfather in the existing marriages for everyone then its a matter of private contracts and so forth but if a State has marriage for straight couples they can't refuse to same-gender couple.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe you should focus on things that make you happy. Go worship some trees before Christian fundamentalists decide to try to ban it.

Or before many are ceremoniously sacrificed, decorated, and discarded with no real appreciation for the tree in a frew month

I think the decision was a good one btw insofar as legality is concerned, but not in a religious context if the law forces the hand of religions.

I don't think there is any danger from this, as far as the government is concerend.
Now, the future generation of worshippers, on the other hand, that is where the churches real threat will come from.

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.

So the massive grid-locks on capital hill and the government shutting down didn't actually happen then, because Obama just gets his way?

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.

Now, if we just rewind the clocks, people were saying the same exact thing about granting slaves their freedom. But, of course, only the real bigots are the ones who are still going on about it. We were supposed to regret women's rights, but there is no regret there, except from the real bigots. It will be the same with gay marriage. But within two generations gay marriage just not be an issue, and banning it will be unthinkable, just as racial segregation is unthinkable and something that can only be fueled by hatred and prejudice to my generation.

What does history say will happen?

That the "post letter" generations won't care about banning it, they will probably think of gay marriage as just marriage, and they will wonder what it takes to make someone hate homosexuals so much that they wouldn't even let them get married.

I think we agree in principle though, why not let us the people vote on it state by state rather than a handful of politicians?

Because too many states were banning it on unconstitutional grounds, refusing to acknowledge the marriages of other states on too many grounds, and there are more than a few Federal regulations that make it a Federal issue.

Leave the Jews out of this. Nothing to do with us.

Hence the term "quasi."

 

[Lyndon]

Leave the Jews out of this. Nothing to do with us.

Without the influence of Judaism, Islam as we know it would not exist, much the same for Christianity.

 

[Levite]

Hence the term "quasi."

Not even quasi.

Humanity first evolved in Africa: doesn't make me black. Same principle at work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not even quasi.

Humanity first evolved in Africa: doesn't make me black. Same principle at work.

From the perspective of some of us life long heathens, Jews look to be proto-Xians ("proto-Christians" to those of us who dislike abbreviations).
Xians & Jews are close in geological time compared to homo (& hetero) sapiens & their australopithecine brethren (& sistern).
But it's not something we bring up often though.....it seems impolitic.

 

[Lyndon]

Not even quasi.

Humanity first evolved in Africa: doesn't make me black. Same principle at work.

I'm sure if you have your DNA tested you will find a percent of Black African genes.

 

[Levite]

From the perspective of some of us life long heathens, Jews look to be proto-Xians ("proto-Christians" to those of us who dislike abbreviations).
Xians & Jews are close in geological time compared to homo (& hetero) sapiens & their australopithecine brethren (& sistern).
But it's not something we bring up often though.....it seems impolitic.

The problem is that "Jews as proto-Christians" buys into the Christian paradigm, portraying Jews as somehow incomplete, Judaism as somehow insufficient. Jews and Judaism are complete unto themselves.

Maybe it's less like the relationship betwen homo sapiens and earlier evolutions of genus homo, and more like certain individuals who dislike knowing that all humanity originated in Africa because they believe the highest evolution of homo sapiens is Caucasian.

 

[Levite]

I'm sure if you have your DNA tested you will find a percent of Black African genes.

Again, having a percent or two of black African genes doesn't make me black.

 

[Lyndon]

You are, and we all are, part Black, admit it!!

In America, sometimes just a few percent of American Indian genes classifies you as Indian, able to receive benefits from the tribe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In America, sometimes just a few percent of American Indian genes classifies you as Indian, able to receive benefits from the tribe.

It takes more than just a "few percents." More like within a few generations of offspring that aren't produced by two Natives.

 

[Levite]

You are, and we all are, part Black, admit it!!

In America, sometimes just a few percent of American Indian genes classifies you as Indian, able to receive benefits from the tribe.

Having some African genes doesn't make anyone black. Not in the physical sense of having dark skin and sub-Saharan African features. And definitely not in the cultural sense of having the experience of being African, or African-American, or African-anything else.

For God's sake people share like 50% of their genetic code with bananas, doesn't make any of us bananas, either.

 

[averageJOE]

This was forced against everyone who didn't want same sex marriage, against religious people who didn't want it. No one asked if they were ok with this. It was just forced on them against their will. No one sees a problem with this?

Holy crap!!! You're being forced to marry someone of the same sex now???

 

[averageJOE]

Marriage is not (should not) even be a governmental matter whatsoever. The supreme court far as I know is empowered to interpret the law. Not legislate it.

Givin the ruling, it seems appros as it deals with one's right to the pursuit of happiness for which people desiring same sex recognition are no doubt a part of.

Sorry buddy. But that ship sailed looong time ago.

 

[Jainarayan]

Having some African genes doesn't make anyone black. Not in the physical sense of having dark skin and sub-Saharan African features. And definitely not in the cultural sense of having the experience of being African, or African-American, or African-anything else.

For God's sake people share like 50% of their genetic code with bananas, doesn't make any of us bananas, either.

That's exactly right. What I learned from having a DNA test done is that we all have what's called "background noise" in our DNA. I have something like .5% Sub-Saharan African DNA, and even some East Asian and Native American, about .1%. But that is only the remaining DNA "noise" on my autosomal chromosomes (the 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes), legacy ancient DNA. The East Asian and Native American only means that I share some ancient DNA noise with people living in East Asia and with Native Americans, not that I have Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Native American ancestry. As time passes and genes intermix and mutate, we either lose or keep our original DNA on the autosomal chromosomes, the ones that make up our physical appearances and personality traits.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The federal government didn't have to stick their noses in it. People act as if every state had slavery. Some didn't and it wasn't just the south either. The North had slaves, too. You can phase those things out without having it forced on everyone. Once you use force, you create more problems.

Funny how gays talk of getting married, but a lot of them are promiscuous and wouldn't stay married. Anyone who's known gay people knows it doesn't usually last long. Also there are gays that even spoke out against homo marriage and having them adopt children, but you don't see the news report that, do you? It ends up ruining the family because both a mother and father are needed to balance things out. Again, not to many children with homo parents turn out well. Diseases are spread more because they tend to be more promiscuous. Lots of strippers and porn stars are gay or at least bi. AIDS was more common in gays than hetero couples. That and with messing up the family, THAT is the reason why religions were against it, not just because it's disgusting and weird.

Ah well...that post clears things up. How noble to apply the ruse of states rights to cover for homophobia and biphobia as the motivation. Cheers!

 

[averageJOE]

It does apply, but only within terms by which federal and state recognises any marriage for legal purposes. It should never be enforced on religious grounds using governmental power. At least that is my take.

If the Catholic Church bans gay marriage for instance, it shouldn't be legally forced to perform gay marriages in scope of it's religious disposition just because the law dictates it.

I think the decision was a good one btw insofar as legality is concerned, but not in a religious context if the law forces the hand of religions.

Churches already have that right. No one is taking it away. There are churches out there that will not perform marriages on people who are different race, people who are different religions, some only perform marriages of people who are members of that church. And that is their right. The government cannot force a Jehovah's Witness Elder to perform a Jewish marriage in a Kingdom Hall. No church has to perform ANY marriage.

 

[JoStories]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

I've read it all. Have you? Something about unalienable rights?? Does that sounds familar? I see nothing in there about ONLY this one or that. I guess maybe you do?

 

[JoStories]

Um...no it's not a good idea to enact legislation everywhere. Otherwise, what's the point of having states? That's why we had states to begin with. We already know what the federal governments powers are and anything that aren't the federal government's responsibility is up to the states. There's a reason why some say America is becoming more socialist. This is one of them. Where everyone just does what the feds say and make it legal or illegal everywhere. This was forced against everyone who didn't want same sex marriage, against religious people who didn't want it. No one asked if they were ok with this. It was just forced on them against their will. No one sees a problem with this?

37 states had already ratified this issue. The other 13, mostly, oxymoronic or no, were in the BIble belt with a few exceptions. The decision was the right one. I suggest you either get over this or move to another country.

 

[JoStories]

The federal government didn't have to stick their noses in it. People act as if every state had slavery. Some didn't and it wasn't just the south either. The North had slaves, too. You can phase those things out without having it forced on everyone. Once you use force, you create more problems.

Funny how gays talk of getting married, but a lot of them are promiscuous and wouldn't stay married. Anyone who's known gay people knows it doesn't usually last long. Also there are gays that even spoke out against homo marriage and having them adopt children, but you don't see the news report that, do you? It ends up ruining the family because both a mother and father are needed to balance things out. Again, not to many children with homo parents turn out well. Diseases are spread more because they tend to be more promiscuous. Lots of strippers and porn stars are gay or at least bi. AIDS was more common in gays than hetero couples. That and with messing up the family, THAT is the reason why religions were against it, not just because it's disgusting and weird.

Well sir, assuming you are a sir, I am trying very hard to remain civil here. My cousin has been married since Mass agreed to SSM and if I had had the chance, I would still be married to my late partner, who died 16 years ago and furthermore, SIR, I remain celibate in memory of my late partner as she was my soul mate. And if you find that disgusting, I suggest you take a very long and hard look in your mirror.