Minnesota Politicians more concerned about Gay Love then the Budget Crisis

[Arakhor]

They should make marriage a federal issue, then. You shouldn't need to reapply for a licence every time you move state.

 

[NovaKart]

Quoting yourself numerous times out of context is a good way to make yourself misunderstood. It's all well and good to support states rights until the state decides to deny you your own rights. Putting someone's rights up for a vote is unjust. Marriage absolutely should become a federal issue, that way it would take care of immigration problems for one thing.

If someone objects to gays getting married because they can't procreate then why shouldn't they object to women past menopause getting married or people unable to reproduce for whatever reason. Children is not the main reason for marriage. Plenty of people these days have children without getting married.

 

[GhostWriter16]

They should make marriage a federal issue, then. You shouldn't need to reapply for a licence every time you move state.

No. The Constitution rightfully does not allow this.

And all VRWC meant was that the individual state decides marriage law, and he's correct. He offered no judgment on what each state should do.

 

[NovaKart]

This leads to the problem that certain backwards states decide they want to discriminate against certain citizens which is why a national law allowing same-sex marriage is a pretty good idea. Is inter-racial marriage a state issue? If a state wanted to make that illegal would that be allowed?

 

[GhostWriter16]

This leads to the problem that certain backwards states decide they want to discriminate against certain citizens which is why a national law allowing same-sex marriage is a pretty good idea. Is inter-racial marriage a state issue? If a state wanted to make that illegal would that be allowed?

First off, you are misunderstanding how US Law works. In the US, if it isn't specifically forbidden by the Constitution, it is to the states.

If you wanted to pass a constitutional amendment, fine, but you can't pass a law like that without amending the constitution. If the Federal Government does so (I wouldn't be surprised) they are violating the constitution.

Interracial discrimination is already banned in the 13th and 14th amendments AFAIK, so the constitution (Rightfully) covers it. Before the amendment, it was a state issue.

I think homosexual marriage should be a state issue, though I feel any federal tax benefits and such should be received by any couple, straight or gay.

 

[NovaKart]

Again the problem is when you have certain states that want to discriminate against gays. The federal government should protect its citizens against such discrimination by whatever means necessary, whether it's a consitutional ammendment or some other method. People in a number or states are doing their best to keep families apart for no other reason than their own personal prejudices.

Why are people so quick to defend states rights at the expense of citizens rights?

 

[Arakhor]

So the Constitution covers it, because the Amendments to the Constitution cover it? That's a circular argument.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or because they genuinely think calling something that's not heterosexual marriage marriage is silly. This is generally religious, but does not have to be so; I've met plenty of people who don't base their objections to gay marriage on religious ideas. It's simply untrue to say that "the only reason people in America" can have for not supporting gay marriage is religious in nature.

Since just about everybody nowadays is willing to provide exactly the same benefits to gay couples who don't want to claim to be "married" instead of civilly joined, I don't think these arguments have much, if any, weight. Do you?

Aren't they really just the usual secular window dressing used to rationalize why so many people really oppose the notion of gay marriage? That it somehow taints the relationship for heterosexuals if people they will likely never have sexual contact with have similar vows, performed in similar places by a minister who is more than willing to do so?

Isn't it true that it doesn't taint your religious practices at all if there are other religious groups which have somewhat different practices than your own? That those differences are protected by federal and state laws? How is this any different?

And I have yet to see someone who isn't religious be vehemently opposed to gays getting married to the point where they think laws should be enacted to restrict it. Perhaps these individuals do exist, but they appear to be extremely rare.

I think this is clearly a religious issue instead of a secular one.

Get back to me when an attorney in Missouri doesn't have to get another license to practice law in California.

And you think this is a good thing? That the huge additional cost of maintaining separate and distinct state laws is really warranted in this day and age? That we would all be better off if the laws were the same in every state, instead of slightly different based on demographics and local religious views?

 

[Incodcito]

They found a wedge issue and are using it, nothing more... I just wish the left was better at it then the right.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If by left you mean Democrats, they used to be much better at it. It used to be the Democrats who were more willing to use nearly any means to perpetuate their political power. That all changed after the 1968 DNC. It further changed with Watergate, and it became pervasive after the Southern Strategy was adopted.