• 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

CaptainCourtesy said:
Hey, NP... I guess you were wrong... again. What have you got to say, NOW?
Click to expand...


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.......
 
I'm against narrow thinking, including those who think a particular basic stand is narrow-minded despite the fact that it is willing to make exceptions. So, I think homosexuality is neurotic, but denying homosexuals the right to marriage is an invasion of privacy. Then a third factor intervenes: referenda. I think it is the people's right to be wrong, especially since if they had more power than the legislators and the courts, they wouldn't be so narrow-minded. The people have so few chances of asserting the will of the majority on issues that they go overboard in invading privacy; not that they are against privacy, they are really against being powerless.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
In this case it is not the government directly. The votes represent the will of the sovereign people. And the sovereign people voting for or against are the proper way to decide such issues.

Above I see that gay marriage is inevitable. So get out there and convince additional people before the next vote.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...
you over reach. When the American people vote and decide who are you, or any judge to overturn their will?
 
Navy Pride said:
This should knockdown future gay marriages in this state and when the SCOTUS voids gay marriage
Click to expand...

What makes you think the SCOTUS will void all gay marriages? The most likely result will be the court will make all states who currently deny marriage benefits to married gay couples will be forced to acknowledge those rights granted by other states. Its call full faith and credit clause. Its why my IN drivers license works in TX, or why your marriage is recognized no matter where you move to.

Misterveritis said:
you over reach. When the American people vote and decide who are you, or any judge to overturn their will?
Click to expand...

Thankfully, we don't have direct democracy because if we did, mob rule would ruin the country. Theres a reason why the SCOTUS exist, and its to strike down laws such as these. There isn't any difference between this law and the one that denied interracial couples from marrying.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
you over reach. When the American people vote and decide who are you, or any judge to overturn their will?
Click to expand...

What if the american people take a vote, and decide they want you dead?
 
Define ironic...



A man (presumably) who's screen name is "Navy Pride", and who's avatar is an image of Popeye, being so outspoken against the idea of gay marriage.






Maybe that's breaking the rules, and if so, I apologize in advance....but I just couldn't read all of this, and not say it, lol.
 
xpiher said:
Originally Posted by Misterveritis
you over reach. When the American people vote and decide who are you, or any judge to overturn their will?

Thankfully, we don't have direct democracy because if we did, mob rule would ruin the country. Theres a reason why the SCOTUS exist, and its to strike down laws such as these. There isn't any difference between this law and the one that denied interracial couples from marrying.
Click to expand...
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.
 
KevinKohler said:
What if the american people take a vote, and decide they want you dead?
Click to expand...
I believe that is already covered. It would require due process.

Your argument is foolish because it is both outlandish and unimaginative.
 
Misterveritis said:
In this case it is not the government directly. The votes represent the will of the sovereign people. And the sovereign people voting for or against are the proper way to decide such issues.

Above I see that gay marriage is inevitable. So get out there and convince additional people before the next vote.
Click to expand...

Pure democracy does not and should not exist in our Republic. It's toxic and exposes people to tyranny of the majority. Though in the case of NH, I believe this was all done through legislation anyway. Regardless, the majority does not simply get its way because they are the majority; they are not to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the minority.

In the end, it always comes down to government force. Because you need that force to prevent people from exercising a choice. The force isn't always bad, it is sometimes justified. However, I do not see the justification in this case; not as long as the Marriage License exists as it currently does.
 
Misterveritis said:
you over reach. When the American people vote and decide who are you, or any judge to overturn their will?
Click to expand...

The courts, specifically the SCOTUS, was set up to overturn the will of the people goes against the Constitution.
 
Ikari said:
Pure democracy does not and should not exist in our Republic. It's toxic and exposes people to tyranny of the majority. Though in the case of NH, I believe this was all done through legislation anyway. Regardless, the majority does not simply get its way because they are the majority; they are not to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the minority.

In the end, it always comes down to government force. Because you need that force to prevent people from exercising a choice. The force isn't always bad, it is sometimes justified. However, I do not see the justification in this case; not as long as the Marriage License exists as it currently does.
Click to expand...
In your utopia who gets to decide if it is not the people through a vote?

"Same-sex marriage has been defeated in all 31 states where it has been put to a popular vote, though it is far from a sure thing that the result would have been the same in New Hampshire."
N.H. House Kills Repeal of Same-sex Marriage

Where does the government get its authority to act?
 
Misterveritis said:
In your utopia who gets to decide if it is not the people through a vote?

"Same-sex marriage has been defeated in all 31 states where it has been put to a popular vote, though it is far from a sure thing that the result would have been the same in New Hampshire."
N.H. House Kills Repeal of Same-sex Marriage

Where does the government get its authority to act?
Click to expand...

Some day, you should have somebody explain to you the concept of tyranny of the majority.
 
roguenuke said:
The courts, specifically the SCOTUS, was set up to overturn the will of the people goes against the Constitution.
Click to expand...
So you believe that the courts are the equivalent of earlier kings?

The Supreme Court should not be on the side of the states who overturn the will of the voting people. That is tyranny. It will lead inevitably to revolution. I am sorry to see that you are on the side of the tyrant.
 
Last edited:
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...

Who do you think guarantees your right to due process?
 
Gardener said:
Some day, you should have somebody explain to you the concept of tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Misterveritis said:
So you believe that the courts are the equivalent of earlier kings?

The Supreme Court should not be on the side of the states who overturn the will of the voting people. That is tyranny. It will lead inevitably to revolution. I am sorry to see that fdyou are on the side of the tyrant.
Click to expand...

oh the irony

See, from my standpoint, you are the one on the side of tyrants. The courts are checked by many factors, including the fact that they cant touch an issue unless it is brought to them. Also there are 9 of them with varying beliefs.

Oh and then there is the ultimate check put into the Constitution, the Amendment process which allows people to put into place what they want if it is a major concern of a supermajority of the nation. We learned how well that works with Prohibition.
 
roguenuke said:
oh the irony

See, from my standpoint, you are the one on the side of tyrants. The courts are checked by many factors, including the fact that they cant touch an issue unless it is brought to them. Also there are 9 of them with varying beliefs.

Oh and then there is the ultimate check put into the Constitution, the Amendment process which allows people to put into place what they want if it is a major concern of a supermajority of the nation. We learned how well that works with Prohibition.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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...

Angry much?

The issue is heading to the SCOTUS from a number of different states and angles. It will likely be at least on of those cases that, in the very least, brings down DOMA and requires the states to recognize SSM all over.
 
roguenuke said:
Angry much?
Click to expand...
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.

The issue is heading to the SCOTUS from a number of different states and angles. It will likely be at least on of those cases that, in the very least, brings down DOMA and requires the states to recognize SSM all over.
Click to expand...

I see. So you can tell the future. How very cool. In the meantime shall the sovereign people, from whom all political power flows, retain their voice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom