Page 80 of 89 FirstFirst ... 30707879808182 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 884

Thread: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #791
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I wish no one sinned in the homosexual act just as I do straight in illicit sex but what they do is not against the law its just a mortal sin and even if allowed to marry that will never change in the eyes of the church..
    So is adultrey Navy....actually...."Thou shalt not commit adultrey is one of the ten commandments". "Though shalt not get gay married", however, isn't.

    Aside from that....it is quite funny to hear you preaching morals and values when not even a week ago you were "bragging" about galavanting around whorehouses and getting tail from prostitutes when you were in the Navy. Can you say...a little hypocritical?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #792
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    then he is not grasping my position at all
    Your kind of right about that. I dont see how the two situations you posted are at all similar.

  3. #793
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Well speaking for me I hope gay marriage is outlawed so we won't have to worry about it.
    As long as it is illegal or not allowed, it will always be an issue because at least half the country believes that same sex marriage should be legal. Eventually, same sex marriage will be legal all over the US. Likely it will be within the next decade or less. But even if it takes longer, it will happen because more and more people, especially younger generations, see outlawing same sex marriage as a civil rights violation so they will keep fighting for it til it is legal.

    This is true even if a Constitutional Amendment does happen to be put in place defining marriage between a man and a woman because we know from history that Amendments can be repealed by another Amendment and eventually enough people will be for same sex marriage being legal to get it repealed. Honestly though, I do not believe that an anti-SSM Amendment stands a chance of getting through the Amendment process right now since it requires a lot more than a majority vote to pass an Amendment and more and more states are legalizing same sex marriage.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #794
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by BooRadley View Post
    No, but it violates the very concept of a free country.
    Not really, in large part because "free country" is in and of itself a vague and nebulous notion. Indeed, an equally strong argument could be made that granting marriage rights and privledges to anyone inherently goes against the concept of a free country as the state is placing limitations on some people.

    The idea that you should have to prove a need to be allowed to do something private before the government grants you a right to do it, as opposed to the idea that you're free to do whatever the hell you want to do, unless the government can prove that it has a need to stop you, is the antithesis of a free society.
    Wow that's a convoluted sentence. Going to do my best to follow the logic hear...

    First, "marriage" of any kind that is recognized by the state isn't "something private" first and foremost. There's to my knowledge no substantial movement in this country by the GOP to have the government force same sex people to not be able to enter into a private marriage pact.

    Second, the issue with ANY form of societal right is the fact that it IS constrained by the social contract and as such government and society can attach various strings to it. That's the inherent disadvantage and weakness of societal rights compared to natural ones.

    Third, based on your definition of what is a free society...which seems to be that you must be free to do whatever hte hell you want to do unless the government can "prove" that is has a "need" to stop you (two more nebulous vague terms)...then we've not been a free country for the majority of our existance.

    Fourth, all of that had little to do with talking about the government allowing people additional benefits from the government but rather was speaking about doing things in private and the government limiting those...which doesn't really apply to government recognized same sex marriage.

    The idea of a "constitutionally limited federal government" is nice, but to what end? We could write fascism, communism, or anything else into the Constitution through amendments, and then have a "constitutionally limited federal government", but not a free country.
    Absolutely correct. That IS possible. It's also likely the point where you have a number of individuals finally break from the social contract and attempt to part ways with the seeming majority that would be catagorically changing the mindset of how America should function. That said, part of the beauty of the Constitution is that its extremely difficult to change (at least in the manner it actually lays out for changing it) making your hypothetical a long shot unless a large majority of the country agrees.

    An empty framework may be nice, but not that nice.
    No worse than an empty framework of a "Free" country that uses nebulous terms like you presented earlier that places all the power into whatever majority gains control and gets to deem what is "proof" and what constitutes a government "need".

    If the objective is individual freedom, then simply following the framework isn't meaningful, without considering what you're putting into it.
    Individual freedom is the philosophical mentality to push for as much as possible, within the framework of the constitution. If the care was truly singularly about individual freedom then there wouldn't be "freedom of speech"...because If I have the ability to force you to shut your mouth and not talk if you don't let me do that you're limiting my individual freedom. We wouldn't have the various rights against search and seizure, because you're limiting my individual freedom if you disallow me the ability to take whatever I can from you. The very concept of any society typically relies upon the notion that, through the social contract, we're agreeing to give up portions of our individual freedom for the time that we coexist within that contract.

    Conservatives seek to strive for pushing the ideal of individual freedom, but seek to do so within the framework of our social contract which is generally outlined within the Constitution.

  5. #795
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Conservatives seek to strive for pushing the ideal of individual freedom, but seek to do so within the framework of our social contract which is generally outlined within the Constitution.
    That sounds a whole hell of a like "Conservatives believe in individual freedom, but only for the things they want".

  6. #796
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Christie said he vetoed the bill because it wasn't a state referendum where the voters could vote on it (like in almost every other state). I agree with the veto in this case.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #797
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Christie said he vetoed the bill because it wasn't a state referendum where the voters could vote on it (like in almost every other state). I agree with the veto in this case.
    So voters should vote on other people's civil rights?

  8. #798
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    That sounds a whole hell of a like "Conservatives believe in individual freedom, but only for the things they want".
    If you're own political biases and prejudices creates phantom words in place of what I've actually said there's nothing I really can do about that. Individual Freedom is inherently limited to certain degree's in our political system...be it in the notion that ones rights end where anothers begins or in the fact that, technically, an individual is limited in what they should be able to accomplish through the use of the federal government as opposed to the state governments based on the limitations and privledges bestowed to both of those groups. Anyone outside of a true anarchist can not claim, to a truthful extreme, to be focused solely on individual liberty.

    It is only when people decide to be purposefully obtuse that they take something said in the context of the typical mainline US political spectrum and act like it must be meant in its truest of extremes. When talking about "individual freedom" in the context of Conservatism in the United States it is speaking about individual freedom functioning within the limitations and confines set forth by the Constitution.

    While individuals who lean on the conservative side may not actually adhere to conservative principles 100% of the time, or they may choose one portion of the ideology as more important than another portion when instances of ideology can come into conflict, that does not reflect on what the ideology suggests but merely reflects on the individuals own actions.

  9. #799
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    So voters should vote on other people's civil rights?
    Of course, considering marriage is a civil contract given out by the state. The state issues the marriage license, marriage is a social contract, and therefore the state's populace can vote on how to define marriage and that civil contract.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #800
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    So voters should vote on other people's civil rights?
    Legally speaking thus far, homosexuals are still considered a bottom tier protected category with regards to their constitutional protection under the law and thus far there has been nothing shown in the court that matters that the Government does not have the required reasons to legally discriminate against them. Even the position I hold, which is concerning gender discrimination, hasn't made it to the SCOTUS yet to have a true final say.

    As such, while there is recognized as a constitutional right in this country to allow for marriage, at this time the law does not recognize a constitutional right that said words definition must emcompass same sex couplings. While this may change, and one may hold the OPINION that it is unconstitutional, the case law as it resides in this country currently suggest otherwise.

    Due to this, the issue of defining marriage is one that is left ot the states not the federal government. I see no issue, at this point, in allowing the people of a state to vote on a state issue to determine what the state's law will be as long as it adhere's to the supremacy clause. As such, since case law clearly demonstrates that marriage can not be barred based on race, a state could not vote that marriage be only between people of the same race. However, until such time that case law says otherwise, no such proteciton is affored to same sex restrictions.

    So, in answer to your strawman leading question that actually didn't respond to what he talked about....no, voters shouldn't do direct votes regarding constitutionally protected civil rights.

    In answer to the generalized question you asked to what he ACTUALLY said...yes, voters should be able to vote on state laws that do not violate federal law or constitutional protectoins.

Page 80 of 89 FirstFirst ... 30707879808182 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •