• 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

Rocketman said:
english please
Click to expand...

Pretty simple in the late 1800's-1960's how did civil rights work with state rights? Didnt we leave the idea of civil rights to states and howd that work out?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Pretty simple in the late 1800's-1960's how did civil rights work with state rights? Didnt we leave the idea of civil rights to states and howd that work out?
Click to expand...

Fine for everyone I know, how about you, do you know anyone from that time period?
 
Rocketman said:
Fine for everyone I know, how about you, do you know anyone from that time period?
Click to expand...

:lamo

Do you not remember basic American history? Jim Crow laws!? Segregation!?

2mrce91.jpg


6ynkfq.jpg


2qve4vd.jpg


efif4w.jpg
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo

Do you not remember basic American history? Jim Crow laws!? Segregation!?
Click to expand...

Now that you have deflected, show us what any of these asinine comments have to do with gay marriage?:roll::roll:
 
Rocketman said:
Now that you have deflected, show us what any of these asinine comments have to do with gay marriage?:roll::roll:
Click to expand...

:lamo
Its an example bud you seriously just claimed that civil rights and state rights worked out "fine" in the late 1800's-1960's apparently you dont know **** about American history! Well lets see here people are being denied civil rights because they are homosexuals, and we are leaving these decisions up to the states so the states can deny these civil rights to these homosexuals. Now look back at the black civil rights movements in the late 1800's-1960's throughout much of the south and some of the north blacks were denied their civil rights because states made laws denying them and we left that issue up to the states but for blacks to truly get their civil rights the federal gov had to step in, the same thing needs to happen with the gay rights movement, and im sure will happen.

Please learn American history.
 
Rocketman said:
then explain why states right are only ok for their beliefs?
Click to expand...

I'm for legal pot everywhere, as well. I don't really put it at the same tier of importance as the right to marry, but I'd be just fine with outright national legalization. if we don't do it that way, a few backwards states might continue to give people pointless criminal records while preserving local criminal black markets.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Sometimes, yes.
Click to expand...

well, if you answer is " sometimes.... the answer to my question of it being inherently at odds would be.. "no".

ya see, you too support States rights , depending on the issue..... so it makes little sense to go on the attack over States Rights in general.
hell, you too support the denial of civil rights by the states ( when it comes to RtKBA)... so it makes little sense for you to attack that angle as well.

I think it would be better to argue over the specific issue.... maybe by providing an argument as to why you do not believe the States have the power to determine regulations for the state sanctioned marriages?... maybe provide why you believe only the Federal government is empowered to make those laws?.... I dunno, provide some sort of argument that isn't self defeating.


as a question of law, it's undeniable that States can regulate the sanctioning of marriage within their borders( there is no such thing as a Federal Marriage License),the issuance and recognition of marriage licenses is a State function
the notion that States rights are somehow controversial to this issue is absurd.


I think you'll find that we agree on the issue of same sex marriage... just as you will find that we disagree on the way you are getting there.
 
Helix said:
I'm for legal pot everywhere, as well. I don't really put it at the same tier of importance as the right to marry, but I'd be just fine with outright national legalization. if we don't do it that way, a few backwards states might continue to give people pointless criminal records while preserving local criminal black markets.
Click to expand...

I could care less one way or another, like guns both can be abused in the wrong hands
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo
Its an example bud you seriously just claimed that civil rights and state rights worked out "fine" in the late 1800's-1960's apparently you dont know **** about American history! Well lets see here people are being denied civil rights because they are homosexuals, and we are leaving these decisions up to the states so the states can deny these civil rights to these homosexuals. Now look back at the black civil rights movements in the late 1800's-1960's throughout much of the south and some of the north blacks were denied their civil rights because states made laws denying them and we left that issue up to the states but for blacks to truly get their civil rights the federal gov had to step in, the same thing needs to happen with the gay rights movement, and im sure will happen.

Please learn American history.
Click to expand...
:lol: Sexual preference is not a "right' that has to be legislated! Holy ****. Homosexuality is not a race, damn wake the **** up
 
Do you think it is a choice?
Rocketman said:
:lol: Sexual preference is not a "right' that has to be legislated! Holy ****. Homosexuality is not a race, damn wake the **** up
Click to expand...
 
I support gay rights and equality in very real terms. Having given that qualification, while the Supreme Court should strike down any FEDERAL law banning gay marriage, I question if this should apply to state laws. The reason I ponder this is what about people's rights to have a polgamous marriage? I also fully support that right and equality as well.

It would seem the real question is NOT whether the Supreme Court will strike down the "Defense of Marriage Act" or any particular state law about SSM, but whether the Surpreme Court would rule the government has no authority to define marriage or give any preferential advantages or punitive disincentives for any manner of relationship between consenting adults. I can think of not consistent "freedom philosophy" that allowed a guarentee of the right to SSM, but not to Polygamy.

Government should completely get out of the marriage business at every level of government entirely.
 
Rocketman said:
:lol: Sexual preference is not a "right' that has to be legislated! Holy ****. Homosexuality is not a race, damn wake the **** up
Click to expand...

Marriage? The right to be married to someone? Being bared from marriage because of your sexuality, being bared from a job because of your sexuality, being denied the benefits of marriage because of your sexuality. All those are real and happen and all of those deal with the legislative process. "Wake the **** up" :roll:
 
Rocketman said:
I don't form opinions about other people's sex lives.
Click to expand...

well, that's a good thing.... and I would expand by opining that a person sex life or sexual preference is an ancillary issue to that of the legal right to contract between two people.

having sex with each other is not a prerequisite to marriage.... hell, SSM allows for 2 straight men or women to marry each other ( that probably wouldn't be the norm, but still)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Marriage? The right to be married to someone? Being bared from marriage because of your sexuality, being bared from a job because of your sexuality, being denied the benefits of marriage because of your sexuality. All those are real and happen and all of those deal with the legislative process. "Wake the **** up" :roll:
Click to expand...

sexual orientation really isn't the issue either....as mixed-orientation marriages are rather common.( plenty of example of a heterosexual marrying a homosexual of the opposite gender.)... homosexual can marry heterosexual freely, provided they are of opposite genders.

as I see it, the issue is entirely about gender mixing.

I can find no compelling state interest in disallowing gender-mixing pertaining to contracts <shrugs>

edit to add: I'm not sure about requiring a compelling interest pertaining to citizens democratically deciding the issue by referendum , though.
... but in general, i'm opposed to citizens being able to deny rights, privileges, immunities, or benefits by any process, democratic or not.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Marriage? The right to be married to someone? Being bared from marriage because of your sexuality, being bared from a job because of your sexuality, being denied the benefits of marriage because of your sexuality. All those are real and happen and all of those deal with the legislative process. "Wake the **** up" :roll:
Click to expand...

it is probably your past job performance and not your sexuality but lazy people need every excuse to tip the scales in their favor
 
captainawesome said:
States rights is modern code for deny civil rights.
Click to expand...

My state (WA) just had decriminalized marijuana (which I had enthusiastically voted for). This is in sharp contradiction with federal laws. If the feds decide to crack down on us, will you support the state rights or the federal lack thereof? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
My state (WA) just had decriminalized marijuana (which I had enthusiastically voted for). This is in sharp contradiction with fderal laws. If the feds decide to crack down on us, will you support the state rights or the federal lack thereof? Just curious.
Click to expand...

interestingly enough, nary a bad word is said about States Rights pertaining to States whom have decided to allow SSM...... which is why the attacks on the issue of States Rights is utter bull****.
 
Thrilla said:
do you believe states rights are inherently at odds with civil rights?
Click to expand...

They've proven themselves so throughout the last 200+ years. Ask black people how they liked states rights.
 
Cyrylek said:
My state (WA) just had decriminalized marijuana (which I had enthusiastically voted for). This is in sharp contradiction with federal laws. If the feds decide to crack down on us, will you support the state rights or the federal lack thereof? Just curious.
Click to expand...

The Federal laws against marijuana need to be repealed and grass decriminalized in all 50 states. That is what I support. I find it ludicrous that 1000's go to jail in one State for what it is legal in others. It violates equal protection.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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"!
Click to expand...

Let's parse it.

Item. We have legalized gay marriage in the State of Washington this last November. The DOMA prevents our married gay couples from being legally recognized in other states. This prohibition having been lifted would be a...good thing, no?

Item. Striking down the federal ban would open the path to elimination of discrimination on the federal level (as with the fiancee visas).

Item. Rand Paul is Senator from the conservative of state Kentucky which is not going to vote for gay marriage per se any time soon (although it may be inching toward "gay marriage in all but name"). How Sen. Paul's position - keeping in mind that he is operating on the federal level, by virtue of his office - functionally different from any all-out pro-gay-marriage position? (Also keep in mind that there's no mechanism by which the federal government could legally force recognition of gay marriages in any state).
 
Hatuey said:
They've proven themselves so throughout the last 200+ years. Ask black people how they liked states rights.
Click to expand...


how about I ask same sex couples in States that allow Same Sex Marriage?

nah , i couldn't do that... it would **** up your entire " States Rights are inherently at odds with civil rights" theory
 
iguanaman said:
The Federal laws against marijuana need to be repealed and grass decriminalized in all 50 states. That is what I support. I find it ludicrous that 1000's go to jail in one State for what it is legal in others. It violates equal protection.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The question is: Should we treat the state rights as a blessing whenever it suits our agendas and as a code word for something nasty whenever it doesn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom