• 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

VanceMack said:
Chicken **** answers are chicken ****. Oh...theres no problem with protesting at mormon churches or attacking republicans for daring to believe the exact same way as Obama...but liberals dont have the balls to protest black churches, Hispanic groups, democrat politicians. Gutless...spineless. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

This is why Obama is not criticized by people who favor LGBT rights.

 
Your Star said:
This is why Obama is not criticized by people who favor LGBT rights.

Click to expand...


No...it's not. He isn't criticized because he is a democrat. As candidate Obama he met panels and respectfully disagreed with them on gay marriage while maintaining his position. Shockingly...it was accepted (a courtesy I have never seen anyone here have the decency to do, including you). No glitter bombs. No accusation of homophobia. Same with every other democrat candidate.
 
VanceMack said:
No...it's not. He isn't criticized because he is a democrat. As candidate Obama he met panels and respectfully disagreed with them on gay marriage while maintaining his position. Shockingly...it was accepted (a courtesy I have never seen anyone here have the decency to do, including you). No glitter bombs. No accusation of homophobia. Same with every other democrat candidate.
Click to expand...

Eh, you just have a bone to pick.
 
Navy Pride said:
We have been through this a dozen times but take your ass to some black church on Sunday morning and ask them what they think about gay marriage if you have the guts...........
Click to expand...

Hey NP... you never addressed my comment in post #121.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not really talking about them..............I am talking about the "Feel Good Liberals" that stick their nose in where its not wanted..............What is ironic if you did not practice your in your face militancy which turns off a lot of people that might be sympathetic to your cause.........
Click to expand...

NP... YOU'RE the one sticking your nose where it's not wanted. Stay out of other people's bedrooms. Your morality is not welcome there.
 
Navy Pride said:
God willing we will never defile the name of Holy Matrimony for SSM
Click to expand...

Marriage was never originally about the church. The church didn't even start getting into marriage until 1563. A mere 449 years ago. Which is less time than when Columbus first discovered the America's in 1492.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not really talking about them..............I am talking about the "Feel Good Liberals" that stick their nose in where its not wanted..............What is ironic if you did not practice your in your face militancy which turns off a lot of people that might be sympathetic to your cause.........
Click to expand...

I don't see you offering the LGBT community anything better than the Liberals. At least libertarians have "live and let live". The Conservative mantra is, "Why can't dem gays go back into the closet?"
 
Navy Pride said:
And of course you have never criticized me right........Do you know what a HYPOCRITE is? Look in the mirror...........
Click to expand...

Did I ever say in that post that I didn't criticize you? Don't put words in my mouth Navy; I'll just spit them right back in your face.
 
roguenuke said:
Funny how you refuse to address the point that many states had laws against interracial marriage in the 1960s and they were voted on in the proper way.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of that. Which states put it on their ballots to let the voters in their states vote?

In fact, many polls from that time period showed that many felt that interracial marriage should be against the law.
Click to expand...

A poll is not a vote.

If there would have been a complete voter referendum, as is being called for now in almost every state, on whether to allow/ban interracial marriage, it likely would have been the will of the majority to continue to ban interracial marriages, particularly in the South.
Click to expand...

In other words the people did not vote.

The SCOTUS stepped in via Loving v VA and struck down interracial marriage laws. This is likely what will eventually happen with state laws banning same sex marriage since the only difference is that instead of the characteristic the restriction is based on being race it is now sex.
Click to expand...

I suppose the difference is that we have had votes to express the will of the people and the people have said no. To hold a vote and then overturn the express will of the people through the courts does harm to the courts, the state and the people. it lessens the legitimacy of the courts and the state in the eyes of the people.

That is absolutely why we have a US Constitution in the first place. To try to ensure the majority cannot vote away rights of minority groups.
Click to expand...
Well, no. The Constitution is not there to make sure that the will of he people can be overturned by a court. It is there to limit the power of the state.
 
cmakaioz said:
U.S. and state electoral contests are not majoritarian, but plurality votes. An electoral candidate or ballot initiative need not obtain explicit majority support, and no effort is made to assess whether or not majority support has been obtained or not.
Click to expand...
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.

Governments deal in laws, not mores.
Click to expand...

Therefore what? Do you think that means the people do not get to choose their mores? In matters like this which comes first? Do the customs people prefer to live within come first or do laws?

Obviously, popular mores can and do influence policy, but they are not policy.
Click to expand...
Obviously.


As for determining the laws of their state, as things currently stand the voters of a state do NOT actually have a legal right to set any law they wish; there are still substantial constraints on which legislation they may propose, and how they may go about supporting it.
Click to expand...

First, why not? 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? Has it not become tyrannical? 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 plain fact of the matter is that heterosexuals have their marriages recognized by law, and homosexuals do not. UNLIKE discrimination in early childhood education (for example, you're not allowed to work with young children if convicted of certain offenses), there is NO RATIONAL BASIS for legally recognizing the marriages of hetero couples while denying such recognition to homosexual couples. There is no grounds for LEGAL policy justification for recognizing hetero marriages which doesn't apply just as well to homosexual marriages.
Click to expand...
Those are good arguments to change the minds of the people. They are not good arguments for overturning the peoples' votes.


That's incredibly arrogant, entitled, and easy to say when you can take for granted what others must struggle for. Segregationist "whites" said the same thing of equal legal rights for people of color, i.e. Oh Just Wait and Make Your Case...
Click to expand...
Huh? If the people don't get to decide then who does? What makes a person wearing a black robe the arbiter over the millions of voters? The arrogance is in overturning the expressed will of the people. We are citizens, not subjects. The state is our servant, not our master.

HELL NO. Justice deferred is justice denied.
Click to expand...

That would make a good bumper sticker.

More to the point, the notion that politically vulnerable groups (whether numerically minor or not) must wait around for equality to come from the eventual enlightenment and change in attitudes among a privileged population completely ignores the fact that the privileged group has no substantive stake in the matter. It costs hetero couples nothing to have homosexual marriages legally recognized, while it costs homosexual couples denied recognition quite a lot: socially, financially, and legally.
Click to expand...

All groups are politically vulnerable. I would predict on this phrase alone that you are a liberal. Liberals divide people into groups. 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?

So if a plurality of voters wants something -- no matter how LITTLE or even nonexistent a stake they have in the matter -- you're OK with making that the prevailing policy?
Click to expand...
How else would things be decided? Shall we return to trial by combat? Of course I am okay with the way the voters vote. It is the best way decide how we are to live.

For example, let's say the state you live in proposes a ballot initiative which bans you, specifically, from all auto travel. The only car ride you're allowed to have is in a squad car if you get arrested. Let's say it turns out many people (or at least enough to soundly achieve victory in the initiative process) are dead set in favor of the law. Are you truly OK with that?!? You don't see anything wrong with it?
Click to expand...
What a silly argument. That sort of argument will change no one's mind.
 
Last edited:
I am a Constitution Guy. I believe in it, support it, and defend it with vigor.
IMHO the 14th very clearly covers SSM rights.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

This is not a 10th amendment issue as long as Federal Income Taxes have a block for "MARRIED".

Take away the tax break for "Married Filing Jointly" and the ability to claim a spouse as a dependant: and then we can discuss it on a States Rights level.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not really talking about them..............I am talking about the "Feel Good Liberals" that stick their nose in where its not wanted..............What is ironic if you did not practice your in your face militancy which turns off a lot of people that might be sympathetic to your cause.........
Click to expand...

It is rather hypocritical to condemn them....while participating and supporting the big government/big brother right-wingers that feel the need to CONSTANTLY stick their noses where it not only is not wanted, but also they have no business. It is the big government right wing social agenda that turns off a lot of people.
 
Chiefgator said:
I am a Constitution Guy. I believe in it, support it, and defend it with vigor.
IMHO the 14th very clearly covers SSM rights.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


This is not a 10th amendment issue as long as Federal Income Taxes have a block for "MARRIED".

Take away the tax break for "Married Filing Jointly" and the ability to claim a spouse as a dependant: and then we can discuss it on a States Rights level.
Click to expand...
Do you then agree that I have the right to carry my concealed weapon authorized by my state into every other state in the nation?
 
Navy Pride said:
We have been through this a dozen times but take your ass to some black church on Sunday morning and ask them what they think about gay marriage if you have the guts...........
Click to expand...
No one is claiming that blacks can't be just as bigoted and homophobic as the next guy. Thank GOD however, that the vast majority of the people in this country have come around and the old bigoted views of the past are dying out. Every day the numbers turns against you and your ilk navy. Look at where the numbers were even 5 years ago to where they are today. Today, the majority of people in this country are in favor of same sex marriage. You can continue to cling onto your hopes, but gay marriage is inevitable, so I suggest that you get used to it, very very soon. The people of this great country are not going to allow the bigots of this world to hold onto one of the last bastions of discrimination and injustice. America, may not always be quick to get it right, but eventually always comes around.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Do you then agree that I have the right to carry my concealed weapon authorized by my state into every other state in the nation?
Click to expand...

I see no problem with that. In fact, I don't think one should need permission from government to carry a gun concealed or open. Nor do I see government as having proper tool from preventing two people from exercising their right to contract and engaging in the terms of the Marriage License.
 
VanceMack said:
Chicken **** answers are chicken ****. Oh...theres no problem with protesting at mormon churches or attacking republicans for daring to believe the exact same way as Obama...but liberals dont have the balls to protest black churches, Hispanic groups, democrat politicians. Gutless...spineless. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
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
 
Navy Pride said:
Well you got 2 strikes on you in that you believe in infanticide in the womb and gay marriage...................Especially the butchery in the womb........It boggles the mind how anyone could sleep at night after the 42,000,000 innocent defenseless babies that have been killed since 1972.
Click to expand...

Really? Apparently you don't know a lot about me do you? You might want to check up on my stance on abortion there.
 
Misterveritis said:
I was unaware of that. Which states put it on their ballots to let the voters in their states vote?

A poll is not a vote.

In other words the people did not vote.

I suppose the difference is that we have had votes to express the will of the people and the people have said no. To hold a vote and then overturn the express will of the people through the courts does harm to the courts, the state and the people. it lessens the legitimacy of the courts and the state in the eyes of the people.

Well, no. The Constitution is not there to make sure that the will of he people can be overturned by a court. It is there to limit the power of the state.
Click to expand...

This sounds like your entire complaint is that we are not a direct democracy. We are not supposed to be a direct democracy where everyone gets to vote on every single issue. Get over it.
 
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...

Show me a Republican or anyone who has said exactly what Obama said there, and still got attacked, and you can call it hypocritical (of course, I'm not personally being hypocritical because I haven't even called anyone homophobic for being against same sex marriage).

And most people are labeled intolerant or bigots for trying to legally keep marriage only between a man and a woman. Obama very specifically said that he would not do that. He may believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but that doesn't mean the same thing as trying to prevent marriage from being between two men or two women as well.
 
Navy Pride said:
They can do anything they want.......Just don't call it marriage.....that name is taken.
Click to expand...

You nor religion owns that word.

The word means a union that makes two people legal family. That has included same sex couples for a small while now.
 
Your Star said:
Yes, you are talking about them.
Click to expand...

I don't know a lot of gay people but the ones I do know just want equal rights and don't care what you call it.....Like I said with the exception of a few militant gays it is the "Feel Good Libs" who are pushing this issue.
 
roguenuke said:
Show me a Republican or anyone who has said exactly what Obama said there, and still got attacked, and you can call it hypocritical (of course, I'm not personally being hypocritical because I haven't even called anyone homophobic for being against same sex marriage).

And most people are labeled intolerant or bigots for trying to legally keep marriage only between a man and a woman. Obama very specifically said that he would not do that. He may believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but that doesn't mean the same thing as trying to prevent marriage from being between two men or two women as well.
Click to expand...

That same perspective is taken by MANY people. It mirrors mine and many people have said the exact same thing here. We know how well that goes over. If a republican said he of she believed that the states should have the right to choose, that they were not in favor of gy marriage but supported civil unions and protections he would not receive protective fire from the gay community. He or she would be labelled an intolerant bigot and homophobe for dating to suggest the states should have the right to choose to prevent gay marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom