• 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!

Rand Paul All Right With 'Neutral' Federal Gay Marriage Law

They've proven themselves so throughout the last 200+ years. Ask black people how they liked states rights.

You are conveniently forgetting that the emancipation in the North was also an expression of the "state rghts". The federal authorities did not go much farther than banning the importation of new slaves under Jefferson. If Democrats would have succeeded at tipping the balance of power their way, the "state rights" would be now synonymous with the Underground Railroad and freedom for black people.
 
Last edited:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif]Read more @: Rand Paul All Right With 'Neutral' Federal Gay Marriage Law[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif]Rand Paul doesnt care if states decide to discriminate people, or withhold peoples civil rights! Yayy! As long as it goes along with "state rights"! [/FONT]

Part of me says the federal government has no business in telling the states or anyone who can or can't be married. That this is for the states and the people to decide. But the other part of me says what harm does it do. If the old saying love conquers all, then shouldn't love be the deciding factor? There are now 9 states that recognize gay marriages, so any gay couple can go to those states to get married.

What I do not want to see is another 5-4 decision. If the SCOTUS decides to overturn California ban on SSM, let it do so like it did in the Loving case 9-0. If the SCOTUS decides to let it stand, I hope the vote is at least 7-2 in favor of letting it stand. The SCOTUS ruled abortion legal by a 5-4 decision and we are still fighting over that ruling. We need a near unanimous ruling either one way or the other. If not, the fights will begin.
 
Rand Paul is right, DOMA should be struck down because it impedes on state's rights to define marriage.
 
Why do liberals support "states rights" when it comes to drugs or in this case gay marriage but are against "states rights" when it comes to immigration? Answer: The don't know their asses from a hole in ground.

Real answer: Because that's what the constitution says

Why dont rightwingers support "states rights" when it comes to drugs or in this case gay marriage but are for "states rights" when it comes to immigration? Answer: They don't know the constitution from a hole in ground
 
Part of me says the federal government has no business in telling the states or anyone who can or can't be married. That this is for the states and the people to decide. But the other part of me says what harm does it do. If the old saying love conquers all, then shouldn't love be the deciding factor? There are now 9 states that recognize gay marriages, so any gay couple can go to those states to get married.

What I do not want to see is another 5-4 decision. If the SCOTUS decides to overturn California ban on SSM, let it do so like it did in the Loving case 9-0. If the SCOTUS decides to let it stand, I hope the vote is at least 7-2 in favor of letting it stand. The SCOTUS ruled abortion legal by a 5-4 decision and we are still fighting over that ruling. We need a near unanimous ruling either one way or the other. If not, the fights will begin.

Good afternoon, Pero.

I believe that if gay couples want to marry, let them get married. However, from reading many posts on this subject, it seems that there is more than "marriage at stake here. It almost sounds like a business-like contract, or a pre-nup agreement, which takes it into the financial realm. For instance, if one dies, is the death benefit payable from the government? If either partner in the marriage had children that came with them, who is responsible for their care? In case of divorce, who gets what? If one is sued, is the partner also responsible for the debt?! These are not "love" things, but life worries. Just my opinion....
 
how about I ask same sex couples in States that allow Same Sex Marriage?

What about them? I'm advocating that states shouldn't be involved in deciding civil rights of American citizens. That's strictly a federal matter. :shrug:
 
Real answer: Because that's what the constitution says

Why dont rightwingers support "states rights" when it comes to drugs or in this case gay marriage but are for "states rights" when it comes to immigration? Answer: They don't know the constitution from a hole in ground

Each issue is different. Drugs are a tangible substance, gay marriage is a social issue. States are the ones issuing marriage certificates. But according to your logic leftwingers don't know the constitution from a hole in the ground either.
 
Good afternoon, Pero.

I believe that if gay couples want to marry, let them get married. However, from reading many posts on this subject, it seems that there is more than "marriage at stake here. It almost sounds like a business-like contract, or a pre-nup agreement, which takes it into the financial realm. For instance, if one dies, is the death benefit payable from the government? If either partner in the marriage had children that came with them, who is responsible for their care? In case of divorce, who gets what? If one is sued, is the partner also responsible for the debt?! These are not "love" things, but life worries. Just my opinion....

Yeah, lot's more to it than love. If it was only love, they could go to one of nine states and get married. But they wouldn't have the benefits and the drawbacks of marriage in the other 41 states.
 
Real answer: Because that's what the constitution says

Why dont rightwingers support "states rights" when it comes to drugs or in this case gay marriage but are for "states rights" when it comes to immigration? Answer: They don't know the constitution from a hole in ground

Please show us where the constitution specifically supports legalized drugs or gay marriage.:lol:
 
Each issue is different. Drugs are a tangible substance, gay marriage is a social issue. States are the ones issuing marriage certificates. But according to your logic leftwingers don't know the constitution from a hole in the ground either.

Each issue is different, but the constitution doesn't distinguish between "tangible substances" and "social issues". It clearly gives the states the power to regulate marriage, but it requires them to recognize the marriages performed in other states.

If you think the constitution distinguishes between "tangible substances" and "social issues", then you're not in a good position to judge other peoples' understanding of the constitution
 
Please show us where the constitution specifically supports legalized drugs or gay marriage.:lol:

The constitution gives the power to regulate marriage to the states but requires the states to recognize marriages performed in other states

Now show me where the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate drugs or immigration :lol:
 
The constitution gives the power to regulate marriage to the states but requires the states to recognize marriages performed in other states

Now show me where the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate drugs or immigration :lol:

I never said it did, you did. Please don't post to me when high, you never make any sense.
 
I said the govt has the power to regulate drugs?

Please quote me on that

Post 54, you should try reading before replying
 
Yes. I am and I do. They didn't make this up. I was there and saw it with my own 2 eyes.


Fine for everyone I know, how about you, do you know anyone from that time period?
 
The government DOES regulate drugs (FDA, DEA) and immigration INS, DHS).

That's why most drugs and most residents are legal or illegal.

The states have rights and that is good. However, the Federal government can and does establish basic guidelines. It has moved very slowly, tectonically one might say. Some states are way ahead of the Federal Government and some are way behind.







The constitution gives the power to regulate marriage to the states but requires the states to recognize marriages performed in other states

Now show me where the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate drugs or immigration :lol:
 
The government DOES regulate drugs (FDA, DEA) and immigration INS, DHS).

That's why most drugs and most residents are legal or illegal.

The states have rights and that is good. However, the Federal government can and does establish basic guidelines. It has moved very slowly, tectonically one might say. Some states are way ahead of the Federal Government and some are way behind.

I know that, but someone else in this thread seems to be having a problem understsnding the constitution
 
or maybe it's code for the adhering to the 10th amendment.....

I use it for code of building up enough states to then take gay marriage national, if possible. Gotta have multiple prongs on this one.
 
then explain why states right are only ok for their beliefs?

We've noticed that phenomenon regarding the myriad of difficulties with slavery. The state sovereignty argument was used in order to promote the interests of the southern planter class wherever possible, but when a state's rights problem was encountered (say with fugitive slaves), then the Planter class had no problem arguing for big government to get the slaves back from wherever the fugitives happened to be: in another state, international waters, etc.
 
There are now 9 states that recognize gay marriages, so any gay couple can go to those states to get married.
:doh
Is that the kind of nation you want to become? You really think its that easy? Oh you wanna get married go to Iowa get married then go back to Texas oh but when you return to Texas your marriage wont be recognized then you loose some benefits. What ever happen to "all men are created equal"?
 
it is probably your past job performance and not your sexuality but lazy people need every excuse to tip the scales in their favor

They have the power to fire anyone for being homosexual. You think thats ok? You dont think there should be protections for that? Would you be ok if the US gov could kill you for no apparent reason other than "an alternative lifestyle"? Does just having such a power worry you? You dont think homophobia runs rampant in our country?
And no there are many cases like it:
5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay, and the 29 States Where That is Still Legal
Teacher Legally Fired for Being Gay
This Llama Farmer Was Fired for Being Gay | Out Magazine
PageOneQ | Man fired for being gay dared by former boss to sue
 
:doh
Is that the kind of nation you want to become? You really think its that easy? Oh you wanna get married go to Iowa get married then go back to Texas oh but when you return to Texas your marriage wont be recognized then you loose some benefits. What ever happen to "all men are created equal"?

It might depend on whether one is marrying for love or marrying for benefits. when I married my wife it was for love, not an extra deduction on my form 1040. Also no one says anyone has to go to Texas either. If you are marrying for benefits, stay in one of the nine states where gay marriage is legal. If for love it shouldn't matter.

But give it time, states are coming around slowly, one by one, two by twos.
 
It might depend on whether one is marrying for love or marrying for benefits. when I married my wife it was for love, not an extra deduction on my form 1040. Also no one says anyone has to go to Texas either. If you are marrying for benefits, stay in one of the nine states where gay marriage is legal. If for love it shouldn't matter.

But give it time, states are coming around slowly, one by one, two by twos.

:roll:
So if someone wants to get married then they have to pack up move live in the state find a new job make new connections start over. Sounds so easy :roll: Then if you ever have to move again and reside in another state and that state doesnt recognized your marriage then i guess your SOL :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom