50% of people who answered this poll are IDIOTS!

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
OK, I get it, support for gay marriage is increasing and this poll shows that now 50% of people now support it. I just can't stand that, in their support, they also show their ignorance of the Constitution.


Poll: Constitution should decide gay marriage

A new poll puts support for same-sex marriage at 50 percent, with even more Americans saying the issue ought to be decided based on the federal Constitution — not state laws.

Fifty-percent of American voters support same-sex marriage, while 41 percent oppose it and the remaining 9 percent are unsure or did not answer, according to a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey released on Thursday. It’s the first time support has reached the 50 percent threshold for Quinnipiac.

Politico

That's funny, I didn't know the founders wrote a clause into the constitution giving congress power over gay marriage or anything to do with marriage at all for that matter. Article one section eight lists all of the powers of congress and I'm just not seeing it.


Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

US Constitution

Last I checked, the Constitution said in the tenth amendment that any powers not specifically given to congress in the Constitution belonged to the states and the people.



Now, to be fair, I wasn't exactly sure that is exactly how the poll was worded, so I looked it up:


27. Do you think each state should make its own law on whether same-sex marriage is legal or illegal there, or do you think this should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution?

Poll results

This is a poll conducted by a university of higher learning. You would think they would have learned sometime that the Constitution says nothing on the issue of marriage and that this should properly be an issue for the states to resolve.

I guess the folks who made the poll are more to blame for horribly stating their question but, you would think the people answering would have noticed the discrepancy here. It jumped right out at me.

I think everyone in this whole country needs to take a remedial course on the US Constitution after seeing stuff like this.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Yup.

I'm with you. It shouldn't even be an issue. The Constitution and govt. Have nothing to do with marriage.
Why are we wasting our time and tax dollars on this?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I agree OP. The activists for just about any cause right now see a passive Federal Government in terms of going along to get along while avoiding bad P.R. at almost any cost. The result seems to be enthusiastic welcome to Federal control of just about anything people see a problem with. Gone is the awareness and value held to what defines our Republic and the basis by which we have a system of deep and enduring freedom.

It's a very hard thing to hold tyranny over the people, no matter what the cause or banner, when it must be sold 50 times, to 50 sets of law makers. Far easier to bribe, cajole and threaten ONE set by whatever it takes and get it rammed through and over all 50 jurisdictions by way of central Government control. Precisely the OPPOSITE of how the nation was designed to function.

It doesn't matter the cause, because it's any of a wide number taking full advantage of this "Federal IS the end all and be all of power" attitude which currently rules over all thinking and planning in Washington.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


As an outsider, i am a bit confused by this. If you are saying they have no right (under the constitution) as to the legality of marriage, then surely that applies to all marriage (gay or otherwise)? If not, then it is discriminatory by nature and therefore illegal (or could easily be argued as such).

Either the law applies to all or it applies to none - if that makes sense?

Or have i missed something glaringly obvious?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 
I wish people would stop trying to get the federal government involved in every aspect of the citizen's lives! This is something that should be decided on a state level, by the citizens of each state. We have the feds in our business too much already. Do people not realize that once they get the Supreme Court involved and they make a decision it gives the federal government authority over ALL marriages, and once they have any sort of power that they NEVER give it up?

If it were up to me I'd have the pro gay marriage lobby and the anti gay marriage lobby each pick one representative who would then wrestle each other in a mud pit to decide this rather than let the federal government take over! It's like people are begging to live with "Big Brother" calling all the shots!



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


As an outsider, i am a bit confused by this. If you are saying they have no right (under the constitution) as to the legality of marriage, then surely that applies to all marriage (gay or otherwise)? If not, then it is discriminatory by nature and therefore illegal (or could easily be argued as such).

Either the law applies to all or it applies to none - if that makes sense?

Or have i missed something glaringly obvious?


Well you see, in the US all men are created equal...unless they like spending too much time with other men

And those against gay marriage like to take it a step further. If we allow two men or two women, what's next man and turtle?!? 4 men, 3 women?!? It'll be madness!

Personally I believe two consenting adults of any shape, color or gender should be allowed to marry. And it should be recognized on a Federal level. My straight parents moved to Texas recently, should that make their Pennsylvania marriage invalid?
edit on 5-4-2013 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


It shouldnt even be up to the states.

Marriage has nothing to do with government. Any government.

Government, state and federal, should back off.
edit on 5-4-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


The cause, in my opinion, is entirely secondary and just the distraction of the moment. It's the willing surrender of liberty for the temporary feeling of security. Anything which invites central control out of Washington into the daily affairs of our lives any further will, by it's nature and history, give up liberties in some form and to some degree.

History absolutely shows us that the Federal Government never..EVER..stops with just a nose under the tent. When you see the nose, there is a stampede coming to smash your tent flat. The fact the nose here happens to be colored in an issue people rally behind makes the end result and process to get there all the worse.

I think it's absolutely critical to remember, the Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support ...at the time. Noses and tent walls. It never stops.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


As an outsider, i am a bit confused by this. If you are saying they have no right (under the constitution) as to the legality of marriage, then surely that applies to all marriage (gay or otherwise)? If not, then it is discriminatory by nature and therefore illegal (or could easily be argued as such).

Either the law applies to all or it applies to none - if that makes sense?

Or have i missed something glaringly obvious?


You are missing the main premise of the thread. And for full disclosure, I have no problem with same sex marriages, personally. In fact, I think that any and all federal benefits to marriage (i.e. tax breaks) should be abolished. That said . . .

This is nothing for the federal government to rule on, as they do not have that power. The power resides in the states. If those that are in favor of same-sex marriage want to practice . . . they have to work within the state gov (through elections) to see this come about. If they live in a state that doesn't approve . . . they are free to reside in another state. That's the way the U.S. government is set up, in order to keep the central government from dictating how people live their lives. The supreme court even stated they have no authority to rule on the subject as there is nothing in the Constitution that pertains to marriage (same-sex or heterosexual).

The current problem is the federal government has already passed or employs statutes that reward people for getting married (i.e. tax breaks). This then creates a discriminatory practice against those that wish to be married or live together (civil unions or common law), which stems from federal policy. The answer is to remove all federal marriage benefits . . . then you eliminate any claims of discrimination.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by littled16
 


It shouldnt even be up to the states.

Marriage has nothing to do with government. Any government.

Government, state and federal, should back off.
edit on 5-4-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



This obviously is the best overall choice . . . Remove all laws and benefits pertaining to marriage across the board.

However, the feds can't have this . . . who would be responsible for those hefty estate and death taxes then?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


If a large portion of a society was preventing people with brown eyes from getting married then I would support legislation to make it illegal to discriminate, Its the same for gay marriage.

This wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for religion.

edit on 5-4-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Thanks for explaining that a bit more but i have to confess to still being confused, to a degree. The confusion arising from the fact that marriage is a legally binding contract, is it not? Therefore it must be recognised at Federal level? (otherwise how can divorce courts pass legally binding judgements, shared property, etc)?

Please understand i am not being pedantic here, i really am rather confused by this!



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


You're right, there is nothing in the Constitution giving Congress any power or authority over ANY form of marriage, which is why it is a 10th amendment state's rights issue, BUT since when has that stopped Congress? For example... see federal gun laws. Not only does Art 1, Sec 8 NOT mention the regulation of arms, the 2nd amendment specifically tells Congress that they have no authority, and yet they debate new gun laws as I type this. The Constitution is dead in the halls of our federal government.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 




Well you see, in the US all men are created equal..




Wayyy out of context. If this were true it wouldn't apply to only US citizens for one thing. For another, its not true!


That thought is derived from what has to be the dumbest line in the Declaration of Independence.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights


Lemme reword that into a question, Do you think all men are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable Rights? and furthermore that this is a "self-evident truth"?

No & No. The crackhead baby born with HIV is not endowed with as much of a right to pursue happiness as the healthy baby born with a silver spoon in its mouth is.

I get so sick of that line being used to support this agenda, "All men are created equal.." NO THEY"RE NOT! I don't care if gay people get married as marriage is just a religious financial contract, its a sham to begin with. The tactics people use to push this agenda though just get under my skin.



also, OP I agree. This should not be a federal issue.


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Sorry but, 50% of people who say that the Constitution should decide are 100% right. Does the US Constitution have domain over marriage? Nope but, that doesn't mean gay marriage isn't a Constitutional matter. Why? Because the Federal Government as well as State governments made marriage their business a long time ago by requiring licences and granting privileges and protections to married couples. The fact that the Federal and State governments applied any law to marriage, makes gay marriage a 14th amendment issue.


The equal protection clause is a section of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that says that states cannot, “deny to any person within [their] jurisdiction the equal protection of [their] laws.” This clause is designed to prevent the passage of discriminatory state laws that deny equal rights to people in similar circumstances, but of different classes.


link

Law can either apply to all or can apply to none, it can't apply to some. Sadly, very few people had any issue whatsoever with Federal or State government being involved with marriage until gay people wanted to get married, now it's become a 'government's too big and too intrusive' talking point... invoking the equal access protection clause will not make governments involvement with marriage one iota bigger or more intrusive. If that's your belief than I suggest advocating governments withdrawal from all marriage, altogether.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Many states don't require a "contract" through official marriage. A lot, mine included, have common law provisions which automatically go into effect after living a certain time together (essentially making you legally bound to each other for financial purposes).

Also, divorce court is a civil matter. You are essentially suing your former spouse to have them removed from your business affairs, as well as asking a court to decide on equitable division of property. This is only necessary due to tax statutes that say each is responsible for each other. For instance, if your spouse dies and has debts . . . they come after you. If your spouse fudged on their taxes . . . you are also in trouble.

There is no reason for this "contract" outside of taxes and collecting debt. Remove the statutes and divorce simply becomes a typical civil suit about ownership of property.

Heck, marriage as an institution was only a matter of religious belief until governments realized how to make money off of it. Under English common law, entering into marriage simply meant the acceptance of responsibilities to each other (man works and provides - woman keeps house and bears children).

Here's a good brief overview:
Marrage as Law



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Kali74 is right.

States make marriage laws, but according to the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, states are prohibited from making laws that deny equal treatment under those laws.
So, if a state offers marriage licenses to straight citizens, it's is unlawful for them to deny the same treatment to gay citizens.
It's simple, people.

The title of this thread is 100% incorrect.


And we don't live under English Common Law. We're talking about the laws as they are in the US today. Regardless how people think the laws SHOULD be, equal treatment under the CURRENT law is the issue.
edit on 4/5/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Well, if people want it to be decided by the Constitution then they need to press their representatives for an Amendment.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Why it's already in the Constitution.
The 14th amendment clearly covers this issue.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Not really . . . as stated above, the 14th is their amendment.

States can't pass laws barring inter-racial marriages . . . as that would be discriminatory.

Passing laws based on sexual orientation falls under the same category.

While I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, it is within their right to claim discriminatory abuses under current law.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join