Page 24 of 42 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 418

Thread: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

  1. #231
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,625

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    it is always interesting to hear the 'conservative' talking points when a decision goes against they POV. 'Unaccountable' judges is always a good one trotted out when the Court strikes down all or part of a law as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Yet that is false, most state judges stand for election, it is the way here in Oklahoma. ALL Judges can be removed from office but it isn't easy. Nor should it be. What is most laughable is the 'conservatives' have had more years to appoint these 'unaccountable' judges than the liberals have. Yet of course any ruling against the right wing agenda gets lambasted as unaccountable judges!

    There is a most excellent reason the check of Judicial Review was part of the Constitution. Without a body to decide if a law, new or old, passes constitutional muster mob rule would ruin the Republic.

    Example- Desegregating the South. The majority of people in Mississippi or Alabama felt blacks should not be permitted in public buildings where whites lived/worked/learned unless they were there to clean-up. They felt it was perfectly legal to deny blacks a place in white-only restaurants, movie houses, hotels and make voting a much harder process for non-whites.

    If left to the states and 'will of the people' who knows if desegregation would ever happen.

    Courts struck down many separate but equal laws, 'sundown' laws, and voter tests. The Federal Government passed massive Equal Rights laws that were upheld in the courts and in some cases enforced by Federalized troops.

    You can call that tyranny I suppose, but we supposedly have unalienable rights that are for all men, not just ones who like 'innies' and not 'outies'.

  2. #232
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    So you are another wannabe tyrant who prefers the opinion of an unaccountable judge over the votes of the citizens. Um-kay.
    Did the people vote to keep blacks from marrying whites? I cannot recall that they did.
    Then I suppose you are ok with the masses voting to take your money to give it to those who need out more?

    When the constitution is violated, which would be the case here, its the courts job to make the law follow the constitution

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I am quite content with my understanding. Do you have an answer to the question I posed? Who gets to decide if not the people who voted?

    This issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people in 31 states. In every case the people said no. If the government goes against the will of the people, expressed in 31 separate votes, who has the sovereign power to overturn their will? If you believe the government then where did the government get the power to overturn the will of its citizens? If they do overturn the will off the people how is that not tyranny?
    The constitution


    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    The courts are no longer checked. I think you know that. It is easy to get a case.
    This is not a federal constitutional issue. It is a state issue. Have the Supremes heard a case and decided? Or have all of the courts been lower courts as happened in California?
    Thirty-one states have put the question to their citizens and thirty-one times the people, from whom government power comes have said no, thanks. And you believe that nine unaccountable people should decide? That is goofy. Are you a citizen? Or a subject in the failed state of California?
    It is a federal issue because of the full faith and credit clause.

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  3. #233
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Then I suppose you are ok with the masses voting to take your money to give it to those who need out more?
    Isn't that already happening?

    When the constitution is violated, which would be the case here, its the courts job to make the law follow the constitution
    There is a disconnect between your view of the world and the 31 states where the question has been voted upon. No state would allow the people to vote on an issue already addressed by the Constitution. Would they?

    It is a federal issue because of the full faith and credit clause.
    Explain please? If my state votes on and issue and decides a way opposite of any other state am I always doomed to the results overturned by a court? Why not overturn the other state's law if that is your argument. The people are sovereign. The states are sovereign. The federal government's rights to act are granted to it by us.

    Perhaps I do not understand your point.

  4. #234
    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: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Isn't that already happening?

    There is a disconnect between your view of the world and the 31 states where the question has been voted upon. No state would allow the people to vote on an issue already addressed by the Constitution. Would they?

    Explain please? If my state votes on and issue and decides a way opposite of any other state am I always doomed to the results overturned by a court? Why not overturn the other state's law if that is your argument. The people are sovereign. The states are sovereign. The federal government's rights to act are granted to it by us.

    Perhaps I do not understand your point.
    Perhaps you don't understand that the government's rights are granted by the Constitution, including all the Amendments that go with it. The SCOTUS upholds the Constitution. It doesn't matter if something is voted as law by representatives or the people directly, it still must be within the bounds of the Constitution.

    The people cannot directly vote on whether you should have to be Christian or Jewish or an atheist within that state than the state government could without having it eventually overturned by the SCOTUS because it violates the US Constitution.
    "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.

  5. #235
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Hmmm. Gay marriage, yes or no. Two options. One side wins. The other side loses. The side with the most cast votes wins. The other side does not. I believe you are simply wrong.
    You clearly don't know the difference between plurality vs. majority.

    Plurality = the position or candidate with largest number of ACTUAL VOTES in an electoral contest or initiative...wins.

    Majority = the position or candidate which/who gains the MAJORITY support (i.e. half the POPULATION +1)...wins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    First, why not? (referring to people not being absolutely free to set ANY law which might be popular)
    Many reasons. Legally speaking, there IS such a thing as constitutional muster. Certain kinds of laws -- for example, ones which are recognized as being examples of a select few kinds of barred discrimination -- are preempted by federal requirements (the US Constitution).

    ETHICALLY speaking, which is the far more important basis, conscientious people who have more than a passing trivial interest in working towards a cooperative and productive form of civilization recognize that any variant of rule which can be boiled down to a contest of raw numbers (i.e. votes, dollars spent, TV stations owned, etc.) is vulnerable to domination through means OTHER THAN reasonable appeal and genuine public interest. Put another way...the commonsense recognition that a policy need not be fair or constructive in order to be popular and legally prevalent leads to concerns over protection of certain minimal rights of the politically vulnerable. This is why, for example, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW POPULAR certain kinds of discriminatory laws are...they are still NOT permissible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Second, if the sovereign people are not the source of the laws what entity is? If the source of the state's power is not derived from the willing consent of the governed what is the point of maintaining the government?
    I'd happily agree that the source of LEGITIMATE sovereignty would be informed genuine consent of the people. That consent NEVER HAPPENED in the United States, or in just about any current country on earth, as far as I can tell. Coercive rule is, sadly, the dominant norm. In terms of where current U.S. sovereignty ACTUALLY comes from, it comes from force and threat of violence. You can't opt out of living under U.S. rule; you'd have to engage in a successful armed revolt to do so. If you move to another country, you just trade one unjust government without a mandate from the people for another one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Has it not become tyrannical?
    No, it hasn't BECOME tyrannical...it was that way from the start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    If the people are voting then the state is compelled to listen to the votes results. The losing side will have to continue to change the hearts and minds of enough citizens to win the next time the voters choose.
    The will of the prevailing plurality of voters is not necessarily the will of the people of the state. BUT...Even if we suspend reality and pretend that such votes actually DO unambiguously relate the political will of the state (for example, some landslide win in a miraculously high -- 90%+ -- voter turnout), it would STILL be the case that there are certain minimum conditions which no proposed law may violate.

    I completely understand the mob rule position which asserts that a state government should just do whatever the prevailing voters want...but I reject it. It is possible (and lately, as in Arizona) to achieve electoral victory for laws which are blatantly discriminatory, and unjust laws warrant no allegiance.

    If the alleged "will of the people" was to take your children from you and imprison them for no valid reason, would you be singing such high praise for the premise of voters'-will-above-all? I doubt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Those are good arguments to change the minds of the people. They are not good arguments for overturning the peoples' votes.
    There are some things people shouldn't get to vote on in the first place. This is a perfect example. To suggest otherwise (i.e. that it's OK for complete strangers with far greater numbers to get to vote on matters which don't affect them at all, but may have profound impact on others -- like gay and lesbian couples) is to endorse the principle of mob rule, in which any rational basis for supporting or opposing a policy is tossed out the window and the only thing which effectively matters is how much support you do or don't have for a policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    All groups are politically vulnerable.
    Wrong. Some groups are privileged (they enjoy dominance, they get their way on most issues as a matter of routine, and it's rare for them to need to put up a fight in order to have their interests well-represented), some groups are targeted/oppressed (meaning they normally do NOT have their interests represented, they fight a constant uphill battle, and in political contests they normally lose), and many groups are somewhere in between. Back here in the real world, life is easier (materially, socially, economically) -- other things equal -- if you are "white" instead of a person of color, if you are rich instead of poor, if you are male instead of female, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I would predict on this phrase alone that you are a liberal.
    And you'd be more wrong than I expect you are currently capable of even conceiving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Liberals divide people into groups.
    Anyone doing analysis divides people into groups. Don't get sillier than you already are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Citizens are individuals. Voters clearly believe they have a stake in the outcome or the vote would have had a different outcome. If not the citizens then who should get to decide?
    As above. YES, the people should decide...but NO...NOT every person should have a substantial say in every decision. For example, I shouldn't have the slightest bit of say in who you choose to marry, because it doesn't affect me at all (while it affects you and your spouse-to-be quite a lot). That's still people deciding, but not everyone has equal input.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Of course I am okay with the way the voters vote. It is the best way decide how we are to live.
    That's easy to say when you are among the privileged rather than the targeted. It's the same kind of false populism pushed by all kinds of people who are not facing any kind of threat. Would you feel differently if you were a Jew (or a real socialist, or a homosexual, or a dissident) in Nazi Germany? Or an atheist in an explicit theocracy, facing life imprisonment for heresy/non-belief?
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  6. #236
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Omgitsme View Post
    I cant make it any more clear for you. I cannot consider someone a bigot when they have done more for LGBT rights then anybody else. And your personal attacks dont really help your point btw.
    Bigotry and having major positive influence upon policy are not exclusive.

    Winston Churchill was a white supremacist (check his comments on Gandhi, on Palestine, etc. some time), and yet he still did many things of positive influence.

    I personally don't think Obama's ideologically homophobic...instead, he's concerned first and foremost with managing his political career. If you had the chance to ask him about many major issues (including homosexuality in general) and he didn't have the potential fallout (one way or another) of his answers weighing heavily upon his consciousness, he'd likely give very different answers than what we see in press conferences. I would expect the same of any politician.

    Obama absolutely could be doing far more to promote equality under the law for gays and lesbians, but (as with anything he does), that's not his top priority.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by missypea View Post
    Attachment 67124725

    Oh NP. It's just a word people use. No-one owns a word.
    Your right no one owns it and no one can change it.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  8. #238
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Isn't that already happening?


    There is a disconnect between your view of the world and the 31 states where the question has been voted upon. No state would allow the people to vote on an issue already addressed by the Constitution. Would they?
    Sure they would. I WISH there was a prerequisite for checking the state-level and federal-level constitutionality of a proposed law BEFORE setting it in front of voters, but there is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. That's precisely why states can, and occasionally do, allow voters to vote on an issue already dealt with explicitly or implicitly by the U.S. constitution.

    While a colossal and destructive waste of time, there is indeed nothing preventing patently unconstitutional initiatives from being proposed in a great many states, because U.S. and state laws are generally RE-active, not proactive with regards to determining constitutionality. California's Prop 8, for example, could not have its constitutionality ruled upon by any courts until it was first passed into California law...there's no mechanism for getting a court to rule on the constitutionality of a *proposed* law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Isn't that already happening?
    Explain please? If my state votes on and issue and decides a way opposite of any other state am I always doomed to the results overturned by a court?
    It has nothing to do with matching or not matching other states. It has everything to do with matching or not matching the relevant requirements and prohibitions set forth in the U.S. and (possibly also) relevant state constitutions.
    Last edited by cmakaioz; 03-24-12 at 07:53 PM.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  9. #239
    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: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Your right no one owns it and no one can change it.
    Sure we can change it, officially anyway. The only thing we can't change about marriage is what you believe it should be. That is purely your own opinion and only you can change that.
    "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.

  10. #240
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Your right no one owns it and no one can change it.
    One: Words change naturally over time and use.

    Two: The definition of marriage has changed lots over the centuries.

    Three: Every word may have the same basic meaning but they also have slightly different meanings to different people.

    Four: You cannot stop number one.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 24 of 42 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •