CDZ Why Not Let States Decide?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

So you are a states-right liberal? That makes you a unique puppy. The federal minimum wage law is exactly the same kind of intrusion you describe. It's a state and local issue in which Washington has no biz.

So called "states rights" as it is today, is ridiculous.

The bottom line to this is that no religion and no government, at any level, should have a say in who consenting adults choose to marry.

Minimum wage has nothing at all to do with that issue. Please don't try to derail the thread with such an enormous reach.

So you are only for states rights when it impacts a subject you find appropriate. That's very liberal of you.
The name of the thread is "Why Not Let States Decide" and I believe there's a long list of issues which are none of Washington's biz (including marriage). Any state law that does not conflict with the Constitution and does not represent a tyranny of the majority should be the law of that state.

And state measures that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law conflict with the Constitution and represent the tyranny of the the majority – which is why such measures were invalidated by the courts.

The states are at liberty to enact laws and measures they deem necessary and proper, but the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow each American citizen who resides in the states access to those state laws, including marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Liberals hate the idea of letting states decide anything because people have the ability to move. This thwarts their ideological inclinations as those who object to their ruinous policies have a say when it comes to voting with their feet. If they can force all states to abide by their will there is little else for people to run to and they are forced to subject themselves to liberal policies that they cant run away from. Thus, democrats are the exact opposite of the root word in their name.

This is a lie, and comprehensively ridiculous, ignorant, and wrong.

'Liberals' have no issue with the states deciding matters appropriate to the states in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, 'liberals' would much rather the states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to state marriage law they're eligible to participate in – thus avoiding getting the courts involved at all.

And American citizens 'leaving' a state is not a 'remedy' to that state seeking to violate citizens' civil rights, the notion is idiocy.

 

[PratchettFan]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

Instead of asking why states should not be Peeping Toms, how about you ask why they should?

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

Most social conservatives support free markets and small government but their stand on homosexuality and abortion sets them at odds not just with liberals but also fiscal conservatives.

I disagree. Most social conservatives have no idea what a free market is and they are sure not for small government. It far more than just homosexuality and abortion. Social conservatives want the imposition of some mythical 1950's sitcom and if you are willing to promise them that, they will go along with just about any other program you like.

When I say support free markets and small government, I mean they go alone with fiscal conservatives because if they don't the only other voting option is democrats which would be unthinkable. You're right about turning back the clock. I've never met a social conservative yet that didn't yearn for the good old days which of course were never that good and for the most never even existed.

This points out the real dilemma. Fiscal conservatives have courted the social conservatives in order to form a coalition and increase the power of the GOP. To the extent that has gotten control of much of the state governments and significantly increased control of the Congress, this has been successful. However, the two groups are not in sync and so while they have the power - they can't use it. You can't shrink the government when half the party wants to increase it. In order to attain the influence they need to accomplish their goals, they have made it impossible to use that influence and so accomplish nothing. This is precisely what Goldwater warned us about.

 

[SAYIT]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

So you are a states-right liberal? That makes you a unique puppy. The federal minimum wage law is exactly the same kind of intrusion you describe. It's a state and local issue in which Washington has no biz.

So called "states rights" as it is today, is ridiculous.

The bottom line to this is that no religion and no government, at any level, should have a say in who consenting adults choose to marry.

Minimum wage has nothing at all to do with that issue. Please don't try to derail the thread with such an enormous reach.

So you are only for states rights when it impacts a subject you find appropriate. That's very liberal of you.
The name of the thread is "Why Not Let States Decide" and I believe there's a long list of issues which are none of Washington's biz (including marriage). Any state law that does not conflict with the Constitution and does not represent a tyranny of the majority should be the law of that state.

And state measures that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law conflict with the Constitution and represent the tyranny of the the majority – which is why such measures were invalidated by the courts.

The states are at liberty to enact laws and measures they deem necessary and proper, but the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow each American citizen who resides in the states access to those state laws, including marriage law.

Sooo ... we are in agreement! States should be the primary legislator with the SCOTUS acting as defender of the Constitution. As such, the fed gov't has no biz sticking its nose into the min wage issue (other than grandstanding by lame pols pandering to the demands of Big Gov Leftists).

 

[RKMBrown]

Taking away a persons rights, treating them like they are sub-human, is a gut punch, a punch to the brain. I'm pretty sure you understand exactly what you are doing to them. How's it feel to be so high and mighty so "christian" like?

What rights do they not have that we don't have? To marry? Please. If you want to see what real deprivation of rights looks like, look overseas. Look at all the gay people there who are being treated like animals and slaughtered by radical Islamists. No gay person in America has to face that kind of danger. Gays can make money, own property, speak freely, act freely, do whatever it is they want without being marked for death by extremists. Do you see any Christians doing that?

Yes, I see people like you doing that. Do you go around bashing gays over the head every day, or do you just hide behind your keyboard to do it?

Do you see me/us killing them because they are gay? What makes you sincerely believe I am so hostile that I would resort to violence against them? What I say via the written word is free speech. So I kindly ask that you pipe down.

So that would be a yes you just take their rights away from a safe distance.

That would be you putting words in my mouth.

People like you are so trigger happy, "oh I got you this time, my pretty!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but I made clear a few months ago I am for gay rights. But how they get those rights are at the expense of those with religiously held beliefs, being religious as I am, I have to stand for my own brethren, too. If you want anyone else jumping on board, you'll have to do better than "you hate them and want to strip them of their rights! You want them to die!"

Seriously, is that all you can come up with?

No, I smiled when Ireland voted to allow gay marriage. That's how it should be done. Nobody forcing anyone to do anything. Not so here. When people voted in the opposite, they are those who "just" want to take the rights of gay people away. Instead, they have their collective wills overridden by their government. What good is voting for anything if your vote is trumped by your own government? It would be like your government telling you what guy to vote for for president, even after you voted for the other guy.

Surely you are ignorant of what rights gays do have here as opposed to elsewhere.

Please provide a link to the evidence that gay people strapped you down and forced you to submit to their gayness.

 

[SAYIT]

No, I smiled when Ireland voted to allow gay marriage. That's how it should be done. Nobody forcing anyone to do anything. Not so here. When people voted in the opposite, they are those who "just" want to take the rights of gay people away. Instead, they have their collective wills overridden by their government...

Overridden by the SCOTUS which exists, in large part, to insure that state laws comply with our Constitution. When the "collective will" is found to be a "tyranny of the majority" it is rightfully trashed. Voting on the rights of a minority is a ride down a slippery slope from which America would never recover.

Surely you are ignorant of what rights gays do have here as opposed to elsewhere.

Red Herring.
The issue isn't how "gay rights" in America compare to Iran's gay rights but rather how they compare to America's heterosexual rights. You know ... apples to apples.

 

[SAYIT]

Big Government right wingers want lots and lots of invasive laws. They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.

So you are a states-right liberal? That makes you a unique puppy. The federal minimum wage law is exactly the same kind of intrusion you describe. It's a state and local issue in which Washington has no biz.

So called "states rights" as it is today, is ridiculous.

The bottom line to this is that no religion and no government, at any level, should have a say in who consenting adults choose to marry.

Minimum wage has nothing at all to do with that issue. Please don't try to derail the thread with such an enormous reach.

So you are only for states rights when it impacts a subject you find appropriate. That's very liberal of you.
The name of the thread is "Why Not Let States Decide" and I believe there's a long list of issues which are none of Washington's biz (including marriage). Any state law that does not conflict with the Constitution and does not represent a tyranny of the majority should be the law of that state.

And state measures that deny same-sex couples access to marriage law conflict with the Constitution and represent the tyranny of the the majority – which is why such measures were invalidated by the courts.

The states are at liberty to enact laws and measures they deem necessary and proper, but the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow each American citizen who resides in the states access to those state laws, including marriage law.

And I not only agree with that, I said so in response to TC in post #106.
I take it this brings to an end our disagreements regarding a federally mandated min wage. Thank you.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I smiled when Ireland voted to allow gay marriage. That's how it should be done. Nobody forcing anyone to do anything. Not so here. When people voted in the opposite, they are those who "just" want to take the rights of gay people away. Instead, they have their collective wills overridden by their government...

Overridden by the SCOTUS which exists, in large part, to insure that state laws comply with our Constitution. When the "collective will" is found to be a "tyranny of the majority" it is rightfully trashed. Voting on the rights of a minority is a ride down a slippery slope from which America would never recover.

Surely you are ignorant of what rights gays do have here as opposed to elsewhere.

Red Herring.
The issue isn't how "gay rights" in America compare to Iran's gay rights but rather how they compare to America's heterosexual rights. You know ... apples to apples.

That isn't the issue either, because there is no such thing as "gay rights". There are only rights and they apply to everyone the same.

 

[SAYIT]

No, I smiled when Ireland voted to allow gay marriage. That's how it should be done. Nobody forcing anyone to do anything. Not so here. When people voted in the opposite, they are those who "just" want to take the rights of gay people away. Instead, they have their collective wills overridden by their government...

Overridden by the SCOTUS which exists, in large part, to insure that state laws comply with our Constitution. When the "collective will" is found to be a "tyranny of the majority" it is rightfully trashed. Voting on the rights of a minority is a ride down a slippery slope from which America would never recover.

Surely you are ignorant of what rights gays do have here as opposed to elsewhere.

Red Herring.
The issue isn't how "gay rights" in America compare to Iran's gay rights but rather how they compare to America's heterosexual rights. You know ... apples to apples.

That isn't the issue either, because there is no such thing as "gay rights". There are only rights and they apply to everyone the same.

Not when the majority votes to limit the rights of some.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I smiled when Ireland voted to allow gay marriage. That's how it should be done. Nobody forcing anyone to do anything. Not so here. When people voted in the opposite, they are those who "just" want to take the rights of gay people away. Instead, they have their collective wills overridden by their government...

Overridden by the SCOTUS which exists, in large part, to insure that state laws comply with our Constitution. When the "collective will" is found to be a "tyranny of the majority" it is rightfully trashed. Voting on the rights of a minority is a ride down a slippery slope from which America would never recover.

Surely you are ignorant of what rights gays do have here as opposed to elsewhere.

Red Herring.
The issue isn't how "gay rights" in America compare to Iran's gay rights but rather how they compare to America's heterosexual rights. You know ... apples to apples.

That isn't the issue either, because there is no such thing as "gay rights". There are only rights and they apply to everyone the same.

Not when the majority votes to limit the rights of some.

The key there is "rights". Those right don't exist because you are white, black, gay, straight, rich, poor, or anything else. They exist because you are an American citizen and for no other reason. When the majority attempts to remove the rights of a citizen because they are in some minority group, that is when the Constitution and the structure it created is supposed to step in.

 

[Flopper]

Yup, repubs are in our bedrooms and dems are in our wallets. What to do? What to do?

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

Most social conservatives support free markets and small government but their stand on homosexuality and abortion sets them at odds not just with liberals but also fiscal conservatives.

I disagree. Most social conservatives have no idea what a free market is and they are sure not for small government. It far more than just homosexuality and abortion. Social conservatives want the imposition of some mythical 1950's sitcom and if you are willing to promise them that, they will go along with just about any other program you like.

When I say support free markets and small government, I mean they go alone with fiscal conservatives because if they don't the only other voting option is democrats which would be unthinkable. You're right about turning back the clock. I've never met a social conservative yet that didn't yearn for the good old days which of course were never that good and for the most never even existed.

This points out the real dilemma. Fiscal conservatives have courted the social conservatives in order to form a coalition and increase the power of the GOP. To the extent that has gotten control of much of the state governments and significantly increased control of the Congress, this has been successful. However, the two groups are not in sync and so while they have the power - they can't use it. You can't shrink the government when half the party wants to increase it. In order to attain the influence they need to accomplish their goals, they have made it impossible to use that influence and so accomplish nothing. This is precisely what Goldwater warned us about.

I don't know if it's correct to make the assumption that social conservatives in the GOP want to increase the size of government, that is spending. I think the real problem is the social conservative issues such as abortion and gay rights don't sit well with many fiscal conservatives. These issues cut across party lines. They are personal issues for many millions of voters. Hardly a family exists without either friends or family members that are gay or who have had to deal with the abortion issue. The anti-abortion and anti-gay issues are becoming increasing unpopular and are becoming millstones around the neck the GOP.

 

[PratchettFan]

Take the Republican Party back from the social conservatives - who are just as much in your wallet as the Democrats.

Most social conservatives support free markets and small government but their stand on homosexuality and abortion sets them at odds not just with liberals but also fiscal conservatives.

I disagree. Most social conservatives have no idea what a free market is and they are sure not for small government. It far more than just homosexuality and abortion. Social conservatives want the imposition of some mythical 1950's sitcom and if you are willing to promise them that, they will go along with just about any other program you like.

When I say support free markets and small government, I mean they go alone with fiscal conservatives because if they don't the only other voting option is democrats which would be unthinkable. You're right about turning back the clock. I've never met a social conservative yet that didn't yearn for the good old days which of course were never that good and for the most never even existed.

This points out the real dilemma. Fiscal conservatives have courted the social conservatives in order to form a coalition and increase the power of the GOP. To the extent that has gotten control of much of the state governments and significantly increased control of the Congress, this has been successful. However, the two groups are not in sync and so while they have the power - they can't use it. You can't shrink the government when half the party wants to increase it. In order to attain the influence they need to accomplish their goals, they have made it impossible to use that influence and so accomplish nothing. This is precisely what Goldwater warned us about.

I don't know if it's correct to make the assumption that social conservatives in the GOP want to increase the size of government, that is spending. I think the real problem is the social conservative issues such as abortion and gay rights don't sit well with many fiscal conservatives. These issues cut across party lines. They are personal issues for many millions of voters. Hardly a family exists without either friends or family members that are gay or who have had to deal with the abortion issue. The anti-abortion and anti-gay issues are becoming increasing unpopular and are becoming millstones around the neck the GOP.

If you wish to impose a morality upon a populace you require more government to do this. Prohibition created an army of bureaucrats and law enforcement for just that reason. So has the war on drugs and abortion is doing likewise. The more laws passed trying to enforce it, the more government you need to make that happen. Immigration is a case in point. In order to accomplish what the social conservatives want we would have to increase both law enforcement and the judiciary to a massive degree. Then there is drug testing for welfare recipients, a proven failure requiring even more government to enforce. Certainly they will not advertise that their positions will increase the size of government, but I do not accept they are not aware it will. I agree their it is not their intention to increase the size of government, but that does not change the ultimate results.

So you end up with two sides depending upon the other to attain power, but preventing either from exercising power.

 

[Syriusly]

Taking away a persons rights, treating them like they are sub-human, is a gut punch, a punch to the brain. I'm pretty sure you understand exactly what you are doing to them. How's it feel to be so high and mighty so "christian" like?

What rights do they not have that we don't have? To marry? Please. If you want to see what real deprivation of rights looks like, look overseas. Look at all the gay people there who are being treated like animals and slaughtered by radical Islamists. No gay person in America has to face that kind of danger. Gays can make money, own property, speak freely, act freely, do whatever it is they want without being marked for death by extremists. Do you see any Christians doing that?

That is like saying its okay if we decide to make Orthodox Jews shave their beards- because hey- look at how worse things are being done to Jews overseas!

Gays and Christians both face actual violence overseas that they do not face here.
But- Christians are protected by law here in the United States in ways that homosexuals are not- and yes- gays are discriminated against when it comes to marriage.

Luckily most of the other egrigious discrimination has been eliminated- not because Christians said "hey lets stop discriminating against homosexuals' but because of hard fought battles in the court and legislatures to eliminate legal discriminations such as sodomy laws

 

[daws101]

as to anything TK spews it has no value...

 

[Flopper]

Most social conservatives support free markets and small government but their stand on homosexuality and abortion sets them at odds not just with liberals but also fiscal conservatives.

I disagree. Most social conservatives have no idea what a free market is and they are sure not for small government. It far more than just homosexuality and abortion. Social conservatives want the imposition of some mythical 1950's sitcom and if you are willing to promise them that, they will go along with just about any other program you like.

When I say support free markets and small government, I mean they go alone with fiscal conservatives because if they don't the only other voting option is democrats which would be unthinkable. You're right about turning back the clock. I've never met a social conservative yet that didn't yearn for the good old days which of course were never that good and for the most never even existed.

This points out the real dilemma. Fiscal conservatives have courted the social conservatives in order to form a coalition and increase the power of the GOP. To the extent that has gotten control of much of the state governments and significantly increased control of the Congress, this has been successful. However, the two groups are not in sync and so while they have the power - they can't use it. You can't shrink the government when half the party wants to increase it. In order to attain the influence they need to accomplish their goals, they have made it impossible to use that influence and so accomplish nothing. This is precisely what Goldwater warned us about.

I don't know if it's correct to make the assumption that social conservatives in the GOP want to increase the size of government, that is spending. I think the real problem is the social conservative issues such as abortion and gay rights don't sit well with many fiscal conservatives. These issues cut across party lines. They are personal issues for many millions of voters. Hardly a family exists without either friends or family members that are gay or who have had to deal with the abortion issue. The anti-abortion and anti-gay issues are becoming increasing unpopular and are becoming millstones around the neck the GOP.

If you wish to impose a morality upon a populace you require more government to do this. Prohibition created an army of bureaucrats and law enforcement for just that reason. So has the war on drugs and abortion is doing likewise. The more laws passed trying to enforce it, the more government you need to make that happen. Immigration is a case in point. In order to accomplish what the social conservatives want we would have to increase both law enforcement and the judiciary to a massive degree. Then there is drug testing for welfare recipients, a proven failure requiring even more government to enforce. Certainly they will not advertise that their positions will increase the size of government, but I do not accept they are not aware it will. I agree their it is not their intention to increase the size of government, but that does not change the ultimate results.

So you end up with two sides depending upon the other to attain power, but preventing either from exercising power.

Good Point

 

[Publius1787]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Liberals hate the idea of letting states decide anything because people have the ability to move. This thwarts their ideological inclinations as those who object to their ruinous policies have a say when it comes to voting with their feet. If they can force all states to abide by their will there is little else for people to run to and they are forced to subject themselves to liberal policies that they cant run away from. Thus, democrats are the exact opposite of the root word in their name.

This is a lie, and comprehensively ridiculous, ignorant, and wrong.

'Liberals' have no issue with the states deciding matters appropriate to the states in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, 'liberals' would much rather the states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to state marriage law they're eligible to participate in – thus avoiding getting the courts involved at all.

And American citizens 'leaving' a state is not a 'remedy' to that state seeking to violate citizens' civil rights, the notion is idiocy.

Oh that's how the constitution magically changed to allow corporate and individual welfare at the expense of the general welfare of the population. Lets not pretend that when liberals and less so conservatives don't simply make up a power within the Constitution when it fits their authoritarian schemes. The most useless amendments in the U.S. Constitution in the 20th century are the 9th and the 10th. No deference is given to either. Don't tell me that the reason those amendments have diminished to federal authority is because the ink magically slid off the parchment.

 

[Syriusly]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Liberals hate the idea of letting states decide anything because people have the ability to move..

Conservatives hate the idea of the Constitution being enforced, because they want States to be able to ignore the Constiution.

 

[daws101]

We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.

I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.

Liberals hate the idea of letting states decide anything because people have the ability to move. This thwarts their ideological inclinations as those who object to their ruinous policies have a say when it comes to voting with their feet. If they can force all states to abide by their will there is little else for people to run to and they are forced to subject themselves to liberal policies that they cant run away from. Thus, democrats are the exact opposite of the root word in their name.

This is a lie, and comprehensively ridiculous, ignorant, and wrong.

'Liberals' have no issue with the states deciding matters appropriate to the states in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, 'liberals' would much rather the states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to state marriage law they're eligible to participate in – thus avoiding getting the courts involved at all.

And American citizens 'leaving' a state is not a 'remedy' to that state seeking to violate citizens' civil rights, the notion is idiocy.

Oh that's how the constitution magically changed to allow corporate and individual welfare at the expense of the general welfare of the population. Lets not pretend that when liberals and less so conservatives don't simply make up a power within the Constitution when it fits their authoritarian schemes. The most useless amendments in the U.S. Constitution in the 20th century are the 9th and the 10th. No deference is given to either. Don't tell me that the reason those amendments have diminished to federal authority is because the ink magically slid off the parchment.

kinda late to be bitching about that now don't cha think?

 

[jwoodie]

Conservatives hate the idea of the Constitution being enforced, because they want States to be able to ignore the Constiution.

Here you have an example of Liberal thought: Conservatives are evil; therefore, anything they support must be opposed a priori.

 

[daws101]

Conservatives hate the idea of the Constitution being enforced, because they want States to be able to ignore the Constiution.

Here you have an example of Liberal thought: Conservatives are evil; therefore, anything they support must be opposed a priori.

ah, guess you don't know what priori is for.