• 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!

Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban

Re: Idaho same-sex marriage ban overturned in federal court

Moderator's Warning:
Merging duplicate threads.
 
lets put this into perspective...


in many parts of america, local referendums have been used to take away rights of property owners, to want to have smoking in their business [ creating a local law]......this is what is know as direct referendum or direct democracy

and it has been applauded by the left....is using this sort of action.

this story deals with a state referendum, in which the whole state voted.......meaning the whole state used direct democracy to institute a constitutional amendment to the state......and the left is against it?


so much for democracy .when the left does not like it!


i myself say that direct democracy is a terrible thing [referendums], the founders hated them because it did not secure the rights of individuals citizens....as we see with smoking bans......and you saw with a constitutional amendment.

Oh i forgot in this case you think the "left" is the only people who use referendums. Tell me again about Prop 13 in Cali...
 
It's only the people when they agree with him, otherwise it's the force of government. Like any good socialist.

Sexuality issues now equate socialism? You do realize socialism is an economic policy right?
 
No, you misunderstand. Laws against SSM base their restrictions on gender, not orientation. Men are not allowed to marry men, and women are not allowed to marry women. No state has a law in place that I know of preventing gay people to get married. Using misleading terms leads to faulty arguments.

Either way, equal protection means just that, equal protection. The States cannot deny a Right based on gender anymore than they can deny a Right based on orientation.
 
my question to you is:

are you not one one the people on this forum who believes democracy and "will of the people"

since this is a constitutional amendment which the people approved of........:2razz:

A state constitutional amendment can not infringe on the rights of Americans. State rights for state issues.
 
Either way, equal protection means just that, equal protection. The States cannot deny a Right based on gender anymore than they can deny a Right based on orientation.

It is a somewhat important distinction since orientation would probably fall under Rational Basis Review, while gender falls under Intermediate Scrutiny.
 
Well said.

And, I see you're from the big city. I'm from Gaston County. The large metropolis of Dallas, NC - well, actually in the country about 5 miles outside of town.

My father lives in Gaston County. In fact, most of my father's family is from Gaston County. I was raised mainly in Cleveland County but spent part of my early childhood in a small town in Gaston.
 
if you read it said the congress decides what a republican form is.......that is false the constitution structure decides what a republican form is...


States were already direct voting for senators before the 17th amendment is ever created....that is unconstitutional...as is direct democrracy in america

Nowhere in the Constitution does it actually state exactly what a republic is or should be, nor that the people cannot, in a state, vote directly for laws. The definition of a republic that we generally think of the US as is actually from the Federalist Papers, not the Constitution itself. So there is nothing unconstitutional about referendums within states (not sure about federal government though). In order for something to be unconstitutional, then it must go against what the actual Constitution says. The main thing protecting our rights from the tyranny of the majority within our republican form of government is our constitutions, especially the US Constitution.

Now, personally I am against referendums and ballot initiatives. It think people become sheep in large voting numbers, willing to believe so many things, especially out of fear or anger. And I believe people, as a large group, are less likely to understand the way the law and government works than most elected politicians. Plus, politicians are going to be more cautious in their voting than the actual people. This goes into several things including thinking about their future and how future voters will vote on an issue (rather than being something that is only thought of for the moment, as is the case with voters voting on initiatives), where the money will come from for any monetary elements that go with the thing being voted on, and the likelihood of the law being challenged and therefore costing the government more money to defend, to name a few.

I also believe that it is just as wrong for people to insist that they have the right to vote on an issue directly as it is for others to claim it is unconstitutional for them to do so. I would absolutely support an actual Amendment to the US Constitution that banned voter initiatives, but I doubt this is going to happen.
 
Oh i forgot in this case you think the "left" is the only people who use referendums. Tell me again about Prop 13 in Cali...

no i didn't say that, i said you and the left...i have never not know someone from the left who did not like democracy.

there are plenty of people on the right who like democracy, and plenty that dont

people who like democracy are either ignorant of what it really is, or are socialist.
 
Nowhere in the Constitution does it actually state exactly what a republic is or should be, nor that the people cannot, in a state, vote directly for laws. The definition of a republic that we generally think of the US as is actually from the Federalist Papers, not the Constitution itself. So there is nothing unconstitutional about referendums within states (not sure about federal government though). In order for something to be unconstitutional, then it must go against what the actual Constitution says. The main thing protecting our rights from the tyranny of the majority within our republican form of government is our constitutions, especially the US Constitution.

Now, personally I am against referendums and ballot initiatives. It think people become sheep in large voting numbers, willing to believe so many things, especially out of fear or anger. And I believe people, as a large group, are less likely to understand the way the law and government works than most elected politicians. Plus, politicians are going to be more cautious in their voting than the actual people. This goes into several things including thinking about their future and how future voters will vote on an issue (rather than being something that is only thought of for the moment, as is the case with voters voting on initiatives), where the money will come from for any monetary elements that go with the thing being voted on, and the likelihood of the law being challenged and therefore costing the government more money to defend, to name a few.

I also believe that it is just as wrong for people to insist that they have the right to vote on an issue directly as it is for others to claim it is unconstitutional for them to do so. I would absolutely support an actual Amendment to the US Constitution that banned voter initiatives, but I doubt this is going to happen.

are you kidding, the Constitution has a guarantee in it that states , the federal government and the states are to be republican, and a republican form is the structure of government, which can be seen in the Constitution.

referendum is DIRECT DEMOCRACY....are you going to me tell the founders wanted states run by direct democracy?.....
 
are you kidding, the Constitution has a guarantee in it that states , the federal government and the states are to be republican, and a republican form is the structure of government, which can be seen in the Constitution.

referendum is DIRECT DEMOCRACY....are you going to me tell the founders wanted states run by direct democracy?.....

The states are not being run by referendum though. That is the difference. They are run via a constitution and a legislature/governor. Referendums can be used to put laws into place, but they are not the norm, and they can't be used to actually run the state governments either.
 
A state constitutional amendment can not infringe on the rights of Americans. State rights for state issues.

you would be correct IF we were operating on the constitution and how it was meant to be used.

because the USSC has deemed the federal bills of rights, as the supreme rights document.....state constitutions concerning rights....have turned into second bananas.

how many people do you know who say....."my right to speech has been violated by my state", and then seek state resolution to that violation...NO they run directly to the 1st amendment.

states are suppose to be a republican form of government, ...so that direct democracy can NEVER be used.......as a majority vote on people rights..........that is why the founders did not create a democracy...but a republic...of divided power
 
Last edited:
The states are not being run by referendum though. That is the difference. They are run via a constitution and a legislature/governor. Referendums can be used to put laws into place, but they are not the norm, and they can't be used to actually run the state governments either.

that was a sight error in my post, ..did not mean to say run, as in the big picture, ..but run as in instituting a law...i said in republican forms....you cannot have referendums...that is direct democracy, giving the people power to vote directly on issues,. like the Athens did...the founders hate that form of government and constructed the constitution [federalism] to prevent that...hence the guarantee.
 
Last edited:
you would be correct IF we were operating on the constitution and how it was meant to be used.

because the USSC has deemed the federal bills of rights, as the supreme rights document.....state constitution concerning rights....have turned into second bananas.

how many people do you know who say.....my right to speech has been violated by my state, and then seek state resolution to that violation...NO they run directly to he 1st amendment.

states are suppose to be a republican form of government, ...so that direct democracy can NEVER be used.......as a majority vote ,on people rights..........that is why the founders did not create a democracy...but a republic...of divided power

Actually, states see free speech cases too. They just aren't talked about as much as those that go the federal route.

In fact, it was state court decisions on same sex marriage violating state constitutions that led to at least some of the state amendments stating marriage is between a man and a woman only. Baehr v Miike, a state of Hawaii supreme court decision that stated not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was discriminatory, was actually one of the main catalysts for DOMA. It was a California state court decision that led to Prop 8.
 
Actually, states see free speech cases too. They just aren't talked about as much as those that go the federal route.

In fact, it was state court decisions on same sex marriage violating state constitutions that led to at least some of the state amendments stating marriage is between a man and a woman only. Baehr v Miike, a state of Hawaii supreme court decision that stated not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was discriminatory, was actually one of the main catalysts for DOMA. It was a California state court decision that led to Prop 8.

from what is stated, under constitutional law of the founders.

it should be rare for a citizen to ever be in a federal court.

because under constitutional law, the federal government [congress ]only has authority over 4 classes of citizens...they are listed in the constitution

citizens were meant to argue their rights in state courts, ....with the citizen able to petition the federal government to hear their case, if they felt the state had not given them justice.

today everyone always talks about the bill of rights on the federal level, instead of the states declaration of rights.

marriage as i stated before.......whether you believe marriage is a natural right or a civil right.......you cannot use a right on another citizen ONLY ON GOVERNMENT, CAN YOU EXERCISE A RIGHT ON.

you cannot use a natural right against a natural right , to force getting a license.

you cannot use a civil right against a natural right to force getting a license.
 
that was a sight error in my post, ..did not mean to say run, as in the big picture, ..but run as in instituting a law...i said in republican forms....you cannot have referendums...that is direct democracy, giving the people power to vote directly on issues,. like the Athens did...the founders hate that form of government and constructed the constitution [federalism] to prevent that...hence the guarantee.

Plenty of other countries with republican forms of government include referendums.

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were the first ones to define republic as not using direct democracy at all. And that definition was not actually enshrined in the Constitution itself, at least not in a way that limits the states to allow the people to vote on some issues.

List of Swiss federal referendums - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Referendum dates and results - Australian Electoral Commission
Referendums held in the UK - UK Parliament

Personally, as I've said, I disagree with ballot initiatives and/or referendums. However, I also recognize that they are not truly prohibited by the US Constitution, at least not on a state level. But then, both sides use referendums. In fact, the biggest argument being used right now to support bans on same sex marriage is that the people voted them in place. (Not a valid argument anyway, since whether voted in by the people or their representatives, makes no difference in whether those laws should be struck down as violating the US Constitution. It is still a law being enacted by the state/the majority that violates rights of others or part of the US Constitution.)
 
from what is stated, under constitutional law of the founders.

it should be rare for a citizen to ever be in a federal court.

because under constitutional law, the federal government [congress ]only has authority over 4 classes of citizens...they are listed in the constitution

citizens were meant to argue their rights in state courts, ....with the citizen able to petition the federal government to hear their case, if they felt the state had not given them justice.

today everyone always talks about the bill of rights on the federal level, instead of the states declaration of rights.

marriage as i stated before.......whether you believe marriage is a natural right or a civil right.......you cannot use a right on another citizen ONLY ON GOVERNMENT, CAN YOU EXERCISE A RIGHT ON.

you cannot use a natural right against a natural right , to force getting a license.

you cannot use a civil right against a natural right to force getting a license.

Your argument makes no sense. The government issues licenses for marriage. The government recognizes marriages as legal or not. So it is the government that is denying the right to marry to some citizens based on their relative sexes/genders. This is why the court cases are being challenged against the government.

And the state constitutional amendments on same sex marriage (or defining marriage as between a man and a woman only) is why they are going to federal court. Because they can't violate the state constitution if the thing being challenged is in the state constitution but violating the US Constitution.
 
Plenty of other countries with republican forms of government include referendums.

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were the first ones to define republic as not using direct democracy at all. And that definition was not actually enshrined in the Constitution itself, at least not in a way that limits the states to allow the people to vote on some issues.

List of Swiss federal referendums - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Referendum dates and results - Australian Electoral Commission
Referendums held in the UK - UK Parliament

Personally, as I've said, I disagree with ballot initiatives and/or referendums. However, I also recognize that they are not truly prohibited by the US Constitution, at least not on a state level. But then, both sides use referendums. In fact, the biggest argument being used right now to support bans on same sex marriage is that the people voted them in place. (Not a valid argument anyway, since whether voted in by the people or their representatives, makes no difference in whether those laws should be struck down as violating the US Constitution. It is still a law being enacted by the state/the majority that violates rights of others or part of the US Constitution.)

this is what you and others do not understand:

the founders constructed our republic on the roman republic....power is divided.........there is no concentrated power...... as democracy creates

to the founders a democratic republic is a oxymoron...no such thing existed in 1787

but during the French revolution of 1789, the french people overthrew the king and the aristocracy, ...this was a democratic movement, and the new government of France called itself a republic....this was false.

however the word republic "stuck" and today the modern interpretation of the word means " anything other than a monarchy."

in a true republic, ...its is not a democratic FORM of government....a republic only has 1 single element of democracy in it......Americas' government being the HOUSE....WHICH IS DEMOCRATIC.........the senate and the presidency is not a democratic body.

our republic is CLASSICAL REPUBLIC

Classical definition of republic - Definition | WordIQ.com

The American Republic

The history of mixed government in America goes back to the chief founders of New England. The early Massachusetts government was predominantly aristocratic. John Cotton and John Winthrop had an aversion to democracy. The Puritan preachers strongly believed that Scriptures only approved monarchy and aristocracy. "At best, Winthrop and his friends believed in what they called 'a mixt aristocracy'". 24 (See section below on "Occurrences of the word".)

When the Articles of Confederation failed, a constitutional convention was convened to bring about a better form of federal government on 25 May 1787. Well schooled in the Classics, the convention members had a deep distrust of democracy. Governor Robert Morris of Pennsylvania believed that the Senate should be an aristocratic body composed of rich men holding office for life. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, declared that he "abhorred" democracy as "the worst of all political evils". Edmund Randolph, the governor of Virginia, believed that Virginia's Senate was designed as check against the tendencies of democracy. John Dickinson, another delegate, strongly urged that the United States Senate would be structured as nearly as possible to the House of Lords. 25 Finally, Alexander Hamilton wanted the American government to mirror the British government and also proposed that the Senate be styled along the same lines as the House of Lords. 26

Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities..." 27 Professor John D. Hicks in his book on The Federal Union said "Such statements could be multiplied almost at will." 28

"All agreed that society was divided along class lines and the "'the most common and durable source of factions'" was "'the various and unequal distribution of property'", as Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10. The common philosophy accepted by most of the delegates was that of balanced government. They wanted to construct a national government in which no single interest would dominate the others. Since the men in Philadelphia represented groups alarmed by the tendencies of the agrarian interests to interfere with property, they were primarily concerned with balancing the government in the direction of protection for property and business."
 
Last edited:
you would be correct IF we were operating on the constitution and how it was meant to be used.

because the USSC has deemed the federal bills of rights, as the supreme rights document.....state constitutions concerning rights....have turned into second bananas.

how many people do you know who say....."my right to speech has been violated by my state", and then seek state resolution to that violation...NO they run directly to the 1st amendment.

states are suppose to be a republican form of government, ...so that direct democracy can NEVER be used.......as a majority vote on people rights..........that is why the founders did not create a democracy...but a republic...of divided power

It was not the USSC that deemed the Constitution as the supreme law...It was the states that agreed to that. Each sent representatives to sign the document ratifing each and every section and amendment of the constitution as supreme over all other laws.
 
Your argument makes no sense. The government issues licenses for marriage. The government recognizes marriages as legal or not. So it is the government that is denying the right to marry to some citizens based on their relative sexes/genders. This is why the court cases are being challenged against the government.

And the state constitutional amendments on same sex marriage (or defining marriage as between a man and a woman only) is why they are going to federal court. Because they can't violate the state constitution if the thing being challenged is in the state constitution but violating the US Constitution.


government ITSELF cannot deny you has a citizen your RIGHTS, they have to marry you...the state does........but you cannot exercise your rights on top of another citizen...because he has rights....

if i have a natural right........can you use your natural right and force me, to do something for you over my natural right?........you are threatening me!

you have a civil right[ which government gives out and honors only]........can you use your civil right and force me, to do something for you over my natural right?......you are threatening me!

by direct democracy the people of the state, they have use a democratic vote, to take away the marriage right of citiznes, which would be preformed by the state, or those willing to perform the service...........what do we have here.......majority rule!.....ruling over people rights.

the founders wanted NO majority rule!
 
It is a somewhat important distinction since orientation would probably fall under Rational Basis Review, while gender falls under Intermediate Scrutiny.

I'm not convinced it's all that important because I don't think same sex marriage bans can pass rational basis either. The state interest identified is usually procreation, and I'm not sure how someone can rationally believe same sex marriage bans create more babies.
 
My father lives in Gaston County. In fact, most of my father's family is from Gaston County. I was raised mainly in Cleveland County but spent part of my early childhood in a small town in Gaston.

Hell, we may even be related. Small world.
 
if you give 1 person all power...he will become a king, and a tyrant

if you give a few people all the power they will become and oligarchy, and rule the people like they are serfs

if you give the people all power , the 51% will control the 49% and rule over them taking away their rights......history has shown this to be true.

So you divide power into 2 half's, and no one has all the power to become a tyrant...because they don't have all power

everything i said is true about progressive in their early movement.

Try to stick to the topic. Two dudes getting married is not tyranny.
 
It was not the USSC that deemed the Constitution as the supreme law...It was the states that agreed to that. Each sent representatives to sign the document ratifing each and every section and amendment of the constitution as supreme over all other laws.

the bill of rights did not apply to states until after the civil war by.... USSC RULING....states did not obey the bill of rights because the restrictions by it are only federal.

by the USSC ruling states had to obey it....it placed NEW restrictions on states...THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE.

state could regulate firearms before the ruling...now they cant according to constitutional law..its prohibited.
 
Back
Top Bottom