Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 06:59 AM by vor78
reply to post by Bosko


I disagree. As I said in the thread last night, the easiest way to solve this problem is to have the government stop recognizing marriage altogether. I am against same-sex marriage on religious grounds, among other things. That said, I do not care one bit what two consenting adults do in their own home. The issue I have is that by recognizing it through government, you're basically forcing me to recognize and support something that, for a variety of reasons, I simply can't. Eliminate the governmental recognition of marriage and it becomes a completely private issue between two consenting adults, the marrying institution and the Almighty. At that point, I really don't care what you do. If you can justify it, knock yourself out.

Of course, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would ever go along with that for the simple reason that it makes a great wedge issue.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by vor78]



reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 07:15 AM by inthesticks
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


i think the main problem with calling it different is tht it will be seen as different, obviously something less.

Homosexual "marriage" IS different. I personally don't care one way or the other - none of my business - but to say homosexual marriage is not different from heterosexual marriages is just ridiculous. Of course, it's different because it is two guys/gals getting married.

My question as always been why the heck anybody - homosexual or hetrosexual - would want to get married and make the state a third party in their marriage! And that is exactly what happens when folks get married!


reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 08:20 AM by centurion1211
Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
reply to post by IAF101


I wonder how that high divorce rate works out for the much-touted (but oh so overrated) nuclear family unit?

Let's just face it: This is an issue best left up to the courts, not the ignorant masses.



But this IS a representative democracy with majority rule (in spite of what BH says above). And majority rule only works for you as long as you agree with the outcome, such as obama's election? Hypocrisy alert!

Ignorant masses? Is everyone that doesn't agree with your own "exalted" points of view a member of the "ignorant masses"?

But I can guess why you want the courts to handle this issue. They've been filled with liberal judges that feel that they should legislate from the bench on issues that liberals can't get voters to approve.



[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]


reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 08:31 AM by Seiko
reply to post by Mainer


This same tactic seemed to be as effective in other states.

as to the the thread;

It's interesting to think that if we allowed a vote on all rights of people, this country would be a very different place. If the people could show that the marriage issue had in some way affected them, I'd understand this more.

The idea of a representative democracy was to protect the minority from domination by a majority rule. I feel we have failed.



The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it.




reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 08:52 AM by Seiko
reply to post by centurion1211


Re-read my words, we have a republic, in the form of a representative democracy. If you're trying to tell me that this is equal to mob rule, you're the one who needs a refresher course.

What you refer to is a direct democracy, we are not one.


reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 08:55 AM by centurion1211
reply to post by Seiko


Actually ...

Go back and re-read my post - I've added a paragraph to help you understand.


reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 09:02 AM by Seiko
reply to post by centurion1211


The concept of how we vote for our representatives has nothing to do with equal rights and the majority overriding the basic concept of equal under the law.

The maine legislature interpreted that law and found no legal reason to deny same sex marriage. Then an amendment to make that law was voted on. These are two very separate things.

I do not stand with the crowd when I feel it is wrong. What you propose is that we can as a people decide which people have which rights and which ones do not. This is an inherently flawed argument.


reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 09:17 AM by centurion1211
reply to post by Seiko


Seriously, what does the expression "the will of the people" mean to you?

To me, it means that a majority of citizens voting for what they feel is right - whether special interest groups agree or not.

The exact purpose of representative democracy is to protect the majority from special interest groups - you know, the backbone of the democrat party.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]



reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 09:25 AM by Seiko
reply to post by centurion1211


I feel you're entirely wrong, if we wanted that we would have a direct democracy.



"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas Jefferson




As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)




Tyranny and despotism can be exercised by many, more rigorously, more vigorously, and more severely, than by one. Andrew Johnson




Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. U.S. supreme court



reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 09:33 AM by centurion1211
reply to post by Seiko


How can I be "wrong" about this. The process that allows people to directly vote on issues like this in the states is part of the constitutions of those states, and as such, perfectly legal. Now if you disagree with that process, your remedy is to start a popular movement to have those laws changed.

Of course, you'll also have to learn to live with defeat if you can't get a majority of whoever it takes to change the laws to agree with you.

Hopefully, you now see how it works - and is supposed to work.




reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 09:37 AM by Seiko
reply to post by centurion1211


Because the states constitution cannot override the federal constitution. And the 14th amendment declares equal protection under the law.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^