• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

I would expect nothing less from the capital.
 
I would expect nothing less from the capital.

The article states Congress is reluctant to interfere with it, but I am not sure it can pass a referendum should it get that far.

Still, it is a sign of the times regarding legislation.
 
it's a nice step forward. nice to see this.
 
I'm not even concerned that GM is being shot down in other areas. As long as a few States have it for now, that is a great first step. It will provide a working model for other States that have fears or are simply on the fence to show them that households with gay partnerships are as normal and functional as heterosexual setups.
 
Good on 'em.

I'm curious to see if the Catholic Church is going to follow through on their threat to stop offering social services there.
 
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."


Absolutely right.

If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.
 
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."


Absolutely right.

If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.

No one was circumvented. There are three branches of government and one was exercised. The other two have the right to weigh in now if they want.
 
No one was circumvented. There are three branches of government and one was exercised. The other two have the right to weigh in now if they want.

Actually that is incorrect.

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics on Tuesday denied a petition to put a ballot initiative before city voters that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

D.C. vote on gay marriage denied - Washington Times

See gay marriage supporters can't win with the people voting on the issue so they circumvent the people.
 
Attorney Cleta Mitchell said that after Fenty signs the bill and it goes to Congress, the group will ask a district elections board to put a referendum on the ballot asking voters to overturn it. She said in a statement before the vote that the law is a "decision for the people, not a dozen people at city hall."


Absolutely right.

If the people vote it in, no problem but circumventing the people is the only way this has passed any state so far.

We the people ELECTED our City Council to represent us. Why should the people have to approve every single thing that our representatives pass? How is it "circumventing the people" for elected representatives to pass laws? If the people are that pissed about it, they can vote the City Council out of office next time they're up for election.
 
Last edited:
Actually that is incorrect.

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics on Tuesday denied a petition to put a ballot initiative before city voters that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

D.C. vote on gay marriage denied - Washington Times

See gay marriage supporters can't win with the people voting on the issue so they circumvent the people.

First and foremost, "the people" voted these elected officials into office so they could make these sorts of decisions. You know, that whole representative republic thing the constitution sets up? Yeah that.

Secondly, the Constitution also overrides "the people" when they attempt to vote away the equality and rights of other "people". So they can take their referendum ballot initiatives and shove 'em straight up their asses. Who knows, they might enjoy it and then the whole issue would be a moot point. :cool:
 
We the people ELECTED our City Council to represent us. Why should the people have to approve every single thing that our representatives pass? How is it "circumventing the people" for elected representatives to pass laws? If the people are that pissed about it, they can vote the City Council out of office next time they're up for election.

Then explain how they didn't circumvent the people when they denied a vote on this very issue?

go ahead.
 
Then explain how they didn't circumvent the people when they denied a vote on this very issue?

go ahead.


The group also has a lawsuit pending from earlier this year, when it tried to get an initiative on the ballot asking voters to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The elections board again cited the human rights law in saying no. A hearing in that case is scheduled for January.

Funny how you neglected to mention that part, and only quoted half the paragraph.
 
Funny how you neglected to mention that part, and only quoted half the paragraph.

Because it doesn't answer the question.

You can't hide behind a human rights argument to deny people their right to vote.
 
Because it doesn't answer the question.

You can't hide behind a human rights argument to deny people their right to vote.

The hell we can't. We did it when we forced desegregation.
 
Because it doesn't answer the question.

You can't hide behind a human rights argument to deny people their right to vote.

If the law is in place, and is relevant, you in fact have to use it. Some of you conservatives are all law and order, right up till the law is inconvenient.
 
If the law is in place, and is relevant, you in fact have to use it. Some of you conservatives are all law and order, right up till the law is inconvenient.

We just get a little antsy when the legislature deny the people the right to vote on an issue. Not something you liberals care much about as long as its in your favor.

And there is no human rights law. Nice try.

So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council who supported it denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing "human rights" you would support it as well?


Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly....
 
Last edited:
There is no human rights law. Nice try.

So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing human rights you would support it as well?


Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly....

:roll::roll::roll:
 
So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council who supported it denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing "human rights" you would support it as well?

How about we revisit that one when 12 year olds are able to legally enter into contracts?
 
We just get a little antsy when the legislature deny the people the right to vote on an issue. Not something you liberals care much about as long as its in your favor.

The legeslature is elected for a reason. Want to take a guess what that reason is?

And there is no human rights law. Nice try.

http://ohr.dc.gov/ohr/LIB/ohr/pdf/hra_toc.pdf

Turns out there is in fact just such a law.

So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council who supported it denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing "human rights" you would support it as well?


Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly....

The topic is gay marriage. Nice attempt to make an emotional trap question, but I am not playing.
 
How about we revisit that one when 12 year olds are able to legally enter into contracts?

How about we visit it now?

The entire point is the hypocrisy of this argument by the pro gay marriage crowd.

They only cite this "human rights" bs when its on this particular issue but they as whole ignore it when other alternative lifestyles would try for the same "right"

Last time I checked we were all human so it should apply to everyone. :roll:

Its hypocrisy at its finest and its the same argument the religious right makes citing a moral reason to deny gay marriage. To claim it is a "human right" but only limit the definition to people who want a 2 person same sex marriage is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
 
The legeslature is elected for a reason. Want to take a guess what that reason is?

To deny the people a right to vote when they ask?

http://ohr.dc.gov/ohr/LIB/ohr/pdf/hra_toc.pdf

Turns out there is in fact just such a law.

My apologies you are correct. (see it can be done. Wish you would try it when you are mistaken)

Only one problem though. There is no marriage section so it doesn't apply.

The topic is gay marriage. Nice attempt to make an emotional trap question, but I am not playing.

Because it exposes the hypocritical nature of your argument using the "human rights" defense.
 
How about we visit it now?

The entire point is the hypocrisy of this argument by the pro gay marriage crowd.

They only cite this "human rights" bs when its on this particular issue but they as whole ignore it when other alternative lifestyles would try for the same "right"

Last time I checked we were all human so it should apply to everyone. :roll:

Its hypocrisy at its finest and its the same argument the religious right makes citing a moral reason to deny gay marriage. To claim it is a "human right" but only limit the definition to people who want a 2 person same sex marriage is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Are you trying to make a wedge of cheese or what? At least it will give something to nibble on.

hint: I'm speaking metaphorically in realtion to your avatar
 
Are you trying to make a wedge of cheese or what? At least it will give something to nibble on.

hint: I'm speaking metaphorically in realtion to your avatar

I'm trying to get some who support gay marriage to see the hypocritical nature of using "human rights" as an argument to allow gay marriage.

You use that argument you cannot deny any human couple or group the same "right"
 
Back
Top Bottom