• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

Misterveritis said:
Actually no. I am a conservative. Studies show we are much happier across the board (meaning in every surveyed category ever tested) than liberals or those who claim to be slightly conservative.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss.

Oh and boring as ****
 
Misterveritis said:
It is all you have, my liberal friend. It is all you have. Cling to your ignorance.
Click to expand...

You'r "Iam rubber you are glue response" is duly noted.

Enjoy your blissful happiness.
 
Navy Pride said:
Its just a matter of time before the people of Vermont speak up on this issue, just like they will in NJ when activist legislatures go crazy for votes.......
Click to expand...

You've been wrong about this before... in fact, right here in this thread. You'll be wrong again.
 
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'.
 
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Misterveritis said:
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?
Click to expand...
The constitution


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Misterveritis said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is a federal issue because of the full faith and credit clause.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
xpiher said:
Then I suppose you are ok with the masses voting to take your money to give it to those who need out more?
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
First, why not? (referring to people not being absolutely free to set ANY law which might be popular)
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
Has it not become tyrannical?
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't BECOME tyrannical...it was that way from the start.

Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
Those are good arguments to change the minds of the people. They are not good arguments for overturning the peoples' votes.
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
All groups are politically vulnerable.
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
I would predict on this phrase alone that you are a liberal.
Click to expand...

And you'd be more wrong than I expect you are currently capable of even conceiving.

Misterveritis said:
Liberals divide people into groups.
Click to expand...

Anyone doing analysis divides people into groups. Don't get sillier than you already are.

Misterveritis said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
Of course I am okay with the way the voters vote. It is the best way decide how we are to live.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Omgitsme said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Misterveritis said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

Misterveritis said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
Navy Pride said:
Your right no one owns it and no one can change it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Navy Pride said:
Your right no one owns it and no one can change it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
I cannot more clearly point out blatant hypocrisy. If a republican said these kind of things he would be burning in effigy. Wehn people that disagree with you on this site say these very things they are labelled intolerant, bigots, and homophobes. Hypocrisy...yeah...you has it.

Barack Obama on Gay Marriage - YouTube
Barack Obama on Gay Marriage - YouTube
Click to expand...

Im sorry that you cannot understand the difference Obama who has done more for gay rights then anyone else and an average republican who fights against gay rights. Its as simple as that.
 
Navy Pride said:
This should knockdown future gay marriages in this state and when the SCOTUS voids gay marriage then all those other marriages will be voided. Lets see how one of the most liberal states votes.


DARIUS DIXON | 3/21/12 7:11 AM EDT

The New Hampshire House is expected to vote Wednesday on whether to repeal the state’s two-year-old law that legalized gay marriage.
Republicans backing the rollback bill say it would define marriage as between a man and woman, while allowing the state’s nearly 2,000 existing same-sex marriages to remain valid, The Associated Press reports. If approved, the measure would take affect in March 2013 and re-establish civil unions for same-sex couples




Read more: New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

What a load of bull****. That's exactly like outlawing slavery but slave owners can still keep the slaves they currently own. No, you have to either kill all SSMs or you have to continue to allow them. This is just a pro-ssm stunt to get the court to say that ssm is a right.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry but bigots do not have exclusive control over words.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Or to put it in legal terms:

The state has a compelling interest in the social cohesion derived from *refraining* from unwarranted de jure discrimination against gays and lesbians. Irrational discrimination by the state signifies a kind of second-class citizenship for members of groups targeted by such discrimination, which in turn -- quite rationally -- leads to the conclusion that the state upholds the interests of some citizens over others *without rational cause*.

The state has no interest whatsoever in preserving the sense of entitlement long enjoyed by privileged subpopulations in laying claim to the cultural meanings (plural) of an institution beyond the law (i.e. who, culturally speaking, is recognized as married, and what the cultural ramifications of a marriage are or arguments about what they should or shouldn't be).

The appearance of explicit discrimination without rational basis, whether or not such discrimination is borne out in substantive policy, is already more than enough to have a corrosive effect on civic life by giving targeted/excluded populations a clear rational basis for identifying the state as not representing their interests or upholding their rights equally.

Above and beyond all of these bases, it also remains the fact that all of the societal benefits associated with legally recognized marriage which have been used as a rationale for legal recognition of marriages entered into by heterosexual couples...apply just as readily to homosexual couples.


Appeal to popular bigotry, and to traditions of theocracy, have no place in valid legal argument here.
 
Misterveritis said:
I believe that is already covered. It would require due process.

Your argument is foolish because it is both outlandish and unimaginative.
Click to expand...
Also, it doesn't balance both sides of the equation: "What if Congress decides it wants you dead?" "Mob rule" is an insult used by those who want Snob Rule.
 
notquiteright said:
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'.
Click to expand...
Without majority rule, we get ruled by special interests. Minority groups can combine with others and become a majority, or at least a plurality. But that would make them politically active, which those who insult the majority don't want. It would make them less fanatic and willing to compromise to form a coalition, which the anti-majority elitists don't want. Those who preach that the majority is a tyrant want the many ruled by the few. The Snob Mob show their contempt for the majority of their fellow Americans, using minorities to humiliate the majority, which is itself is not in the minorities' best interest, though they are brainwashed to think so by those who seek to manipulate them.
 
PrometheusBound said:
Those who preach that the majority is a tyrant want the many ruled by the few.
Click to expand...

Actually -- like damn near everything -- it's not so simple.

Instead of flat majoritarian rule (which, by the way, we've never had here), or some version of oligarchy (rule by the few...on whatever basis)...

I endorse substantive democracy, in which the composition of and weight of influence of deciders of a particular policy or decision changes according to an analysis of how strongly constituents are likely to be affected. For example, this is the core of the principle by which people object to outsiders (those with no real stake in a decision) butting their noses into others' private business, like who they marry. On similar grounds, your neighbor wouldn't have much say in what color toothbrush you use, but would likely have substantial say in what kind of fence (or no fence) is raised between your respective yards. Continuing this principle, the actual producers in a given workplace should have more say over work conditions (including safety, pacing, assignment of work roles, etc.) than someone who merely holds title to a business...and so on.

This would be NEITHER a few ruling the many, nor the many ruling the few, but the many ruling the many...with widely varying subsets within the many being instrumental to a particular decision.

As this is an inherently cooperative basis for policy, it is and will continue to be fought against tooth and nail by various proponents of coercive rule, but a basic part of our own liberation is taking responsibility for change instead of waiting for others to come along and lead the way.
 
PrometheusBound said:
Also, it doesn't balance both sides of the equation: "What if Congress decides it wants you dead?" "Mob rule" is an insult used by those who want Snob Rule.
Click to expand...

I use Mob Rule and I do not support Snob Rule.

Simple Democracy does not work in a nation of our size. It also does nor work in some manners of discrimination. That is why we have the Judicial Branch to check the laws against the Constitution.
I promise you that if left to a vote, interracial marriage in the deep south would have been illegal much longer than it was. Even now a shockingly large percentile of people still feel that way LINKAGE

The SCOTUS is there for a reason. IMHO it's most important job is to defend the small group against the Mob. Without the SCOTUS, interracial marriages would still be the law in a couple of states.
 
Chiefgator said:
I use Mob Rule and I do not support Snob Rule.

Simple Democracy does not work in a nation of our size. It also does nor work in some manners of discrimination. That is why we have the Judicial Branch to check the laws against the Constitution.
I promise you that if left to a vote, interracial marriage in the deep south would have been illegal much longer than it was. Even now a shockingly large percentile of people still feel that way LINKAGE

The SCOTUS is there for a reason. IMHO it's most important job is to defend the small group against the Mob. Without the SCOTUS, interracial marriages would still be the law in a couple of states.
Click to expand...

Snob rule? Really?

As for SCOTUS's job...it is suppose to be a neutral position, catering neither to the mob or the individual. Basing their rulings on the constitution's letter and spirit.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Snob rule? Really?

As for SCOTUS's job...it is suppose to be a neutral position, catering neither to the mob or the individual. Basing their rulings on the constitution's letter and spirit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was what I said when I read his comment... Snob rule?

I agree about the SCOTUS being neutral. When I said "defending the small group" I meant it as the SCOTUS being neutral and not listening to what mob say. Compare the law vs. the Constitution and leave public opinion out of it. Sorry, I didn't state it very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom