Nebraska To Debate Bill Outlawing Local Gay Protections Laws

these idiots are exactly why liberals go over the head of the states to appeal the
federal government. Action/Reaction

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Agarta

 

Nice way to avoid answering the question.

I asked if you agree that we should not let the Federal government (Big Brother) decide issues for us that are normally decided on a local or State level.

Or you think it's OK for Big brother to take over as long as you agree with it?

Sorry I misunderstood. I think this is a trick question as it appears you are looking for a black or white answer, an either or and I dont see it as that simplistic. I think things like Rights should be universal and therefore regulated by the Federal Government within the freedoms we were/are given within the constitution as written originally, however, I feel that local laws are just as important. When someone lives in an area in which they agree with the local laws there is less crime and violation of rights. If they don't they can move to a location they agree with. If the Fed controls and unifies standard living requirements this is not possible.

I feel the State should be as they were originally established for, as an independent sovereign Nation of Nations within one overseeing and unifying Government rather than territories of a single dominating dictatorship.

Edit to add: I think that the controversy of the wording is what has caused so many issues. "Man" being seen as human instead of Man and not Woman for example.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Agarta

 

Im curious as to how anti gay laws are even legal under the Constitution. Since its based on religious belief, I would argue its a defacto establishment of religion. Secondly, laws that target one segment of the population are also illegal.

Do people really not have enough to do where they feel the need to delve into the bedrooms of others? II say make it all equal.

* - A law that bans all marriage (straight, Gay, Transgendered)
* - A law outlawing all religions
* - A law requiring surveillance cameras in ALL houses and bedrooms / hotel rooms / etc


We face an insurmountable debt, dwindling space / science programs, our educational system sucks, threat of regional / global war, plague, disease, famine.....

After all of that, people are more concerned about whom is sleeping with whom??

At least we know HOW we got into the mess we are in....

Aww, a poor wittle Intellectually bankrupt person trying to read the constitution. This whole concept of you illustrate in the first few sentences is a clever atheist lie.

Congress is prohibited from meddling in religion; the states are not limited in religious matters. In fact several states after the Signing established themselves as expressly Christian States. It is just that closet atheist's have been spending the last hundred years trying to rewrite history, and using case law to bypass expressed constitutional law.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
All those ``hate crime`` laws are unconstitutional anyways.

Remember that little passage in the constitution?

14 th amendment Section 1 :

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

``Special laws`` for certain people are unconstitutional.

Funny how you all want equal protection under the law, quote the 14th and then turn around and start banning marriage between homosexuals.

The hypocrisy would be funny if human lives weren't involved.

reply to post by HandyDandy

Funny how you all want equal protection under the law, quote the 14th and then turn around and start banning marriage between homosexuals.

Except not many people want to ban marriage between homosexuals. Only radical christians want to.

Anyone who is quoting the equal protection clause and says he wants to ban marriage between homosexuals needs to be slapped.

If the government really did what they are supposed to do, they would get out of marriage altogether and all ``marriages`` would be under contract law.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Except not many people want to ban marriage between homosexuals. Only radical christians want to.

There must be a majority of radical christians in California then?

I really AM scared now.

reply to post by korathin


So long as states / laws don't punish people for holding an opposing view point or create a law that allows one group to financially beneficent while denying the same to others, the States can establish a religious base.

However, gay people are being punished for having an opposing view point as well as punished financially by being denied the same benefits available to straight people.

Congress cannot establish an official religion, nor can they give preferential treatment to one religion over the other. However the establishment clause (directly affects the 1st amendment) allows the Federal government to venture into the religion arena to ensure fair and free access to all people, which does allow for Federal laws on the subject to be applied to the States via the 14th / equal protection clause.

Secondly when a State passes a law banning gay marriage, the only 2 options to base the law on are -
* - against nature
* - religious viewpoint.

Since the state cannot regulate "against nature", as it has no standing in law, they use religion (they just dont say religion because its a political and legal land mine.). Because of that viewpoint the laws being passed are based on the religious view point of those who draft the legislation and those who vote for it. If they dont use the religion as their basis, then there would be absolutely no need for the law. If they do base it on religion, then it violates the individuals first amendment rights and the 2 clauses attached to it.

As far as evidence of my argument I refer you to the 9th circuit court of appeals over California's ban on gay marriage that was overturned. The justices stated the law served no other purpose than to -

"“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

If the appeal goes forward its going to result in case law for the states in the 9th circuit (all if it goes to SCOTUS).
When any one of the ban on gay marriage laws hits the full circuit, the constitutionality of the law will be questioned. The states will be required to justify the law and the reasons behind it, and in doing so will sink themselves because they will not be able to defend the law without using religion as a base.

The US Constitutional violations the states commit by passing these idiotic laws are present, making the matter a Federal issue. The other reason the laws / arguments fail is in part due to the full faith and credit clause. Congress is responsible for determining which legal documents / cases / etc are covered under full faith and credit, and to date Congress refuses to allow gay marriages to be covered.

Why? Because their view is marriage is between a man and a woman, which again is based on personal religious beliefs. Enjoy your state sanctioned religion now because at the rate the states are going, the US Supreme Court will settle the issue for the states.

Also - You should learn the law before making comments like this -

Aww, a poor wittle Intellectually bankrupt person trying to read the constitution. This whole concept of you illustrate in the first few sentences is a clever atheist lie.

That way you won't look lost when your position is shot down using State and Federal laws, not to mention the fact the Constitution is not a law.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
Defense of Marriage Act

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

The only people who are opposed to gay marriage, are a] fanatical, fundamentalist Christian, b] over 50 years of age, and c] usually white male. In other words, they're the same regressive, fascist, generally evil cabal of Palpatine wannabes (read: the necrotic mausoleum that euphemistically refers to itself as the American legislative branch, more or less in general) that already work tirelessly to make everyone else's life a misery in other respects.

They need to be ignored; and they also need to be removed from political office, and put in nursing homes where they belong.

reply to post by petrus4


Yep. Control freaks of all political belief should be thrown out of office and/or ignored.

These people hate freedom and they deserve to be deported.

aga where are u check inbox

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
So I guess the gist is that the state legislature likes the idea of gay people being discriminated against. What is wrong with these people?

Seriously, how can you be so hateful that you want to actively allow gays to be discriminated against?

No, the idea is that the LGBT community doesn't need special laws guaranteeing protection that other people don't get. Hate crimes legislation is ridiculous. Is there a love crime? A like crime? How about a I-just-want-to-be-friends crime?

If you're a person and you are discriminated against, or harassed, or assaulted, there is an existing law for it.

/TOA

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by Agarta

 

Nice way to avoid answering the question.

I asked if you agree that we should not let the Federal government (Big Brother) decide issues for us that are normally decided on a local or State level.

Or you think it's OK for Big brother to take over as long as you agree with it?

some laws need to be made by the federal government, minority laws being the most common.
i highly doubt a lot of southern states would have changed their laws about black rights unless they were forced to, i doubt a lot of states would have removed their sodomy laws unless they were forced to.

sure state by state laws are great, that is until you happen to end up living in a state that doesn't recognize something another state does. this happens with gay marriage, since sometimes your life requires you to move places you don't want to, and that includes moving to states that don't consider you married even when you were married in a state that does.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Except not many people want to ban marriage between homosexuals. Only radical christians want to.

There must be a majority of radical christians in California then?

I really AM scared now.

well that depends on what you consider radical, there is a large number of highly religious minority groups in california that have a high aversion to the idea of homosexuality.
both black and hispanic cultures are highly conservative when it comes to sexual morality, after all they don't say "no homo" for nothing..
it is better now, but still, the homophobia comes out in hiphop, rap and other sources readily enough.
since there is a lot of overlap between the hispanic and black cultures, more so than either with white, you might be able to assume there is a bit of the aversion, along with the highly catholic demographic.

then again we also can look at the aversion that seems to still poison the general culture, and the fear the anti-gay activists attempted to instill in everyone with their ads. mostly by implying that that children would be harmed by gay marriage, when there was no proof.