- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And??????????
Do I really have to explain that?
And??????????
Do I really have to explain that?
Do I really have to explain that?
Are you "for" or "against" democracy? Make up your mind. As they say in Russia "или трусы наденьте, или крестик снимите".
Democracy only when it suits your agenda is not democracy.
Let me give you a basic Civics 101 lesson: Democracy does not mean that everything is put to a popular vote. The Constitution ensures that there are certain rights and privileges that should never be put to a vote.
When do we start voting on things like inter-racial marriage or better yet, restricting "marriage" to white christians?
Yes, please.
Wait a minute here, I thought that Maine voted down Homosexual marriage, not inter racial marriage, Am I missing something?
j-mac
When do we start voting on things like inter-racial marriage or better yet, restricting "marriage" to white christians?
When the majority of your society decided it wants to do so.
And let me remind you of one basic: it's a state with all its institutions, laws and constitutions that exists for the people, not people for the state. And if the majority of people decide they want a change in laws then it is the duty of the state to do so.
Loving vs Virginia.
Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced....
There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
I honestly don't see elena getting it. She's blinded by her hatred towards anal intercourse being done in her presence. :rofl
English might not be my first language, but I am quite capable of expressing my thoughts without employing a personal mouthpiece, thank you.
I think this is part of it. I support gay marriage, but I wasn't terribly thrilled with how this was decided for us. It's such a big issue that it *had* to be something we voted on.
I had said all along this fall that the outcome of this vote would give an idea just how conservative/liberal Maine really is. On one hand I'm surprised that the vote turned out this way, but on the other, I'm not really.
There's really not a huge gay population here from what I've seen. Gay guys tend to move to Boston/NYC. Most of Maine's gays are lesbians. Lesbians seem to like the woods. :2razz:
So while this outcome is disappointing (and I realize it's easy for me to minimize the effect since I'm legally married), I think the fact that it was so close is a huge step in the right direction. Civil change doesn't happen overnight. But it happens. Give it some more time. I do believe people will come around.
I just want to add as a Mainer, I'm sorry.
Apples and oranges....
New York Court of Appeals, Hernandez v. Robles, 2006
I voted NO which is to say I voted YES for allowing gay marriage.
And I wonder how many people did not vote as they wished to simply because the question was worded confusingly. Intentionally, I am sure.
Also, ads were all over the T.V. trying to persuade people that their kids were going to be taught deviant things from kindergarten, onward if the law remained intact. I say Hurray for Mainers that so many people saw their way through the morass of misinformation and came out 47% for tolerance.
All I can say is "Shame on People" who want rights for themselves and want to deny them to others.
True! If gay promoters want to have the rights to flaunt gayness in public, they should accept the right of the public to express their views on it.
Just so you know I believe that we are using the term "mob rule" in it's slang equivalent. Which among it's various definations is "the common people; the masses; populace or multitude." At least I am. Though admittedly it does seem like you were upset at what the legislators in your state did so....
True! If gay promoters want to have the rights to flaunt gayness in public, they should accept the right of the public to express their views on it.
So the New York Court of Appeals's interpretation of Loving v. Virginia outweighs the Supreme Court's decision? That's news to me.
Hello? Where did I attack your language? The extreme anger you exude in your posts on this topic is unmistakable. Geez. It's rather sad.
How does "flaunting" apply in this context?
True! If gay promoters want to have the rights to flaunt gayness in public, they should accept the right of the public to express their views on it.