3rd March 2010, 2:31 PM
3rd March 2010, 5:17 PM
FABULOUS!!!!
3rd March 2010, 5:57 PM
Very good... now all we need is for an actual majority of Americans to support gay marriage, so that it'd win in referendums. Right now I don't believe there is one state in America where it'd win in an election, as we have seen.
Of course, it's mostly just a factor of age. With time that will inevitably come. For instance, inter-racial marriage is legal, and has been for some time, but did you know that a sizable majority of Americans over 65 are still opposed to it? They eventually lost and it became legal through the courts. Similar things are happening with gay marriage too.
Of course, it's mostly just a factor of age. With time that will inevitably come. For instance, inter-racial marriage is legal, and has been for some time, but did you know that a sizable majority of Americans over 65 are still opposed to it? They eventually lost and it became legal through the courts. Similar things are happening with gay marriage too.
3rd March 2010, 6:50 PM
Yeah, the younger generation is more accepting of homosexuality, and so a nationwide legalization of same-sex marriages is inevitable. Nevertheless, this is just one more great step towards a more tolerant America. :)
4th March 2010, 4:31 AM
Against most of my entire political philosophy, this is one issue where I'd prefer to see the courts simply legalize it pro bono. It'd be nice if the people would get their asses together on this, yet, at the same time, do we have the right to decide, even by democratic process, how other people live their own lives?
My marriage rights are already nice and secure. Honestly, it should not be my privilege to decide if Jim and John should be allowed that same right, just as I would not want them having a say in my like affairs.
My marriage rights are already nice and secure. Honestly, it should not be my privilege to decide if Jim and John should be allowed that same right, just as I would not want them having a say in my like affairs.
4th March 2010, 7:23 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N959P_zJD9M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N959P_zJD9M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
4th March 2010, 8:08 PM
Weltall Wrote:Against most of my entire political philosophy, this is one issue where I'd prefer to see the courts simply legalize it pro bono. It'd be nice if the people would get their asses together on this, yet, at the same time, do we have the right to decide, even by democratic process, how other people live their own lives?I see nothing wrong with voting to secure a particular group's rights. Voting to take their rights away is another story. True, the government has no right to decide how people live their lives so long as they're not interfering with the rights of others, but such a law would merely protect those groups from discrimination by any individual state governments that may try to outlaw same-sex marriages (i.e. the entire Bible Belt).
My marriage rights are already nice and secure. Honestly, it should not be my privilege to decide if Jim and John should be allowed that same right, just as I would not want them having a say in my like affairs.
4th March 2010, 8:12 PM
Quote:I see nothing wrong with voting to secure a particular group's rights.
What about the implication that ±half of the electorate will be voting to make insecure a particular group's rights?
5th March 2010, 12:26 AM
Quote:I see nothing wrong with voting to secure a particular group's rights.Shouldn't human rights extend high above the ballot? Politically, I can't think of anything worse than my rights being decided by the electorate. They should exist for the simple fact of being born.
5th March 2010, 1:58 AM
Yeah, and that is why the judiciary is the best place to decide rights... sometimes the legislative branch does have to do it, but really, yes, you're right -- it should be something that is guaranteed, ideally.
Of course, though, in reality, it is a quite valid part of the legislature's business because the decisions of what should and should not be covered are not exactly easy. You can say "this should obviously be included as a human right" or something, but the specifics of how that should be legislated are really complicated, even if the people involved DO agree that something should be protected...
And also, what should and should not be included? Should things like having a job, going to college, etc. be included in the list? In Europe for example college is generally free... but on the other hand, they have many tests over the years that shunt lower-scoring people into educational paths that do not include college, so despite the costs, America actually has the best higher education system in the world. We don't make it free or a "protected human right", but we believe in equal opportunity to a greater degree than most European countries.
Of course, in health care that same analysis breaks down and fails, while America's basic philosophy isn't too different, which is the problem there... but I'm just saying, there ARE plusses and minuses to each system.
For gay rights it's not too complex in the long run, sure, but the general issue of what should and should not be a right is very, very complicated.
Of course, though, in reality, it is a quite valid part of the legislature's business because the decisions of what should and should not be covered are not exactly easy. You can say "this should obviously be included as a human right" or something, but the specifics of how that should be legislated are really complicated, even if the people involved DO agree that something should be protected...
And also, what should and should not be included? Should things like having a job, going to college, etc. be included in the list? In Europe for example college is generally free... but on the other hand, they have many tests over the years that shunt lower-scoring people into educational paths that do not include college, so despite the costs, America actually has the best higher education system in the world. We don't make it free or a "protected human right", but we believe in equal opportunity to a greater degree than most European countries.
Of course, in health care that same analysis breaks down and fails, while America's basic philosophy isn't too different, which is the problem there... but I'm just saying, there ARE plusses and minuses to each system.
For gay rights it's not too complex in the long run, sure, but the general issue of what should and should not be a right is very, very complicated.
5th March 2010, 5:21 AM
Yeah, I will agree that this is better decided by the Supreme Court than the White House or Congress. A Supreme Court case, rather than passing a law, would declare that this "right" of homosexuals to marry within their gender already exists and that the legislative branches of all governments (federal, state, and local) cannot take away this right. Rather than passing a law, the Supreme Court would instead interpret our most basic law of human rights to include same-sex marriages.
Though correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't abolition and women's suffrage guaranteed by amendments to the Constitution? I guess that's why I'm not totally against the intervention of the legislative branch so long as it's to secure the rights of homosexuals and not trample on them. Would it be Constitutional for the legislative branch to pass such a law dealing directly with the rights of a particular group? That's a matter of interpretation best left up to the judicial branch.
Though correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't abolition and women's suffrage guaranteed by amendments to the Constitution? I guess that's why I'm not totally against the intervention of the legislative branch so long as it's to secure the rights of homosexuals and not trample on them. Would it be Constitutional for the legislative branch to pass such a law dealing directly with the rights of a particular group? That's a matter of interpretation best left up to the judicial branch.
19th March 2010, 10:32 PM
Quote:Would it be Constitutional for the legislative branch to pass such a law dealing directly with the rights of a particular group?If you're directing that question toward the issue of gay marriage, then the answer would be no. Under the power of the tenth amendment, marriage is an issue that is only reserved for the states. It is not up to the government to rule on whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal. The people of each state need to get together and come to a conclusion on the issue with the people deciding the outcome.