Maine Votes No To Gay Marriage

#26
#26
volfanjustin said:
For one you don't have any evidence to support your theory that they would still want it.
Think of it this way, would you rather a state put a law into place that you are completely against or the country as a whole be forced to take a law that you are completely against?
Click to expand...
The State obviously. What's the point. That doesn't change anything I have said. I'm going to say that I'm very glad desegregation was forced upon those states instead of waiting for them to come around.
 
#28
#28
tvolsfan said:
The State obviously. What's the point. That doesn't change anything I have said. I'm going to say that I'm very glad desegregation was forced upon those states instead of waiting for them to come around.
Click to expand...

The point is if you are in state that had segregation and you don't like it you can leave, you can move to a different state.
If Tennessee decided to allow gay marriage, fine. I disagree with that move but the people had a chance to vote on it. If they voted it in then I would have to make a choice to stay here or move to a state that did not allow it.
 
#30
#30
volfanjustin said:
The point is if you are in state that had segregation and you don't like it you can leave, you can move to a different state.
If Tennessee decided to allow gay marriage, fine. I disagree with that move but the people had a chance to vote on it. If they voted it in then I would have to make a choice to stay here or move to a state that did not allow it.
Click to expand...

What you are really saying is you are fine with going with the whims of the mob. I'd say that is something you should reconsider.
 
#31
#31
tvolsfan said:
If that was always the case, many states in the south would probably still be supporting segregation.

.
Click to expand...

False argument - segregration has been ruled unconstitutional. The gay marriage issue has not received similar protection.
 
#32
#32
volinbham said:
False argument - segregration has been ruled unconstitutional. The gay marriage issue has not received similar protection.
Click to expand...
That's fine with me. I'm not in favor of gay marriage, and I'm not saying it should be allowed. I would probably vote against it. I'm just saying don't wait for the people to come around. Sometimes the Government needs to step in there, like they did with segregation.
 
#33
#33
IPorange said:
What you are really saying is you are fine with going with the whims of the mob. I'd say that is something you should reconsider.
Click to expand...

That is not what I am saying. I can't believe you all trust a lawyer in a wrobe or a politician more than the people. Do states rights not matter to you all?
 
#34
#34
tvolsfan said:
That's fine with me. I'm not in favor of gay marriage, and I'm not saying it should be allowed. I would probably vote against it. I'm just saying don't wait for the people to come around. Sometimes the Government needs to step in there, like they did with segregation.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line with the interference of the federal govt?
 
#35
#35
tvolsfan said:
That's fine with me. I'm not in favor of gay marriage, and I'm not saying it should be allowed. I would probably vote against it. I'm just saying don't wait for the people to come around. Sometimes the Government needs to step in there, like they did with segregation.
Click to expand...

On what grounds should they step in? If gay marriage bans are not unconstitutional what authority does the government have to overturn the will of the people?
 
#38
#38
droski said:
this isn't 1776. i couldn't give a crap about states rights.
Click to expand...

That is the precise reason why we have a behemoth of a federal government, that cannot do the smallest of tasks without spending gazillions of dollars or pork projects and special interests and running over the rights of the individual.
 
#39
#39
lumberjack4 said:
That is the precise reason why we have a behemoth of a federal government, that cannot do the smallest of tasks without spending gazillions of dollars or pork projects and special interests and running over the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

and what state doesn't do exactly the same thing except just on a smaller scale?
 
#40
#40
Stuff like this drives me absolutely crazy.

Why in the world would any one give the gov't the power to choose what marriage is?

Why people hate freedom is beyond me.
 
#41
#41
OrangeEmpire said:
Stuff like this drives me absolutely crazy.

Why in the world would any one give the gov't the power to choose what marriage is?

Why people hate freedom is beyond me.
Click to expand...

so you are pro gay marriage then? because the current law is restricting freedom.
 
#42
#42
droski said:
and what state doesn't do exactly the same thing except just on a smaller scale?
Click to expand...

its a heck of a lot easier to hold a state government responsible than a national government. The farther away the people who makes the decision move from you the easier it is for them to do their own will rather than the people's will whom they represent. The 10th Amendment is simply an inconvenience for the nation government and as such has been ignored for 150 years.
 
#43
#43
OrangeEmpire said:
Stuff like this drives me absolutely crazy.

Why in the world would any one give the gov't the power to choose what marriage is?

Why people hate freedom is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything in this post...aside from the text formatting.
 
#45
#45
droski said:
so you are pro gay marriage then? because the current law is restricting freedom.
Click to expand...

I could freakin care less if a dude wants to fudge pack another dude.

If two girls just like tacos and are cute, record it and send it to me!

We are either free or we are not!
 
#46
#46
I don't know why someone would restrict the freedoms of others, and at the same time say that they are all about smaller government and more freedom.

(not you OE, just saying in general.)
 
#48
#48
droski said:
so you are pro gay marriage then? because the current law is restricting freedom.
Click to expand...

Can't answer for OE but he has rubbed off on me some.

Govt should be out of the marriage business period. Tie "couple benefits" to civil unions and the general licensing process used for marriage now. Let same sex couples, even triples apply for and gain those benefits.

Since that won't happen, my next preferred alternative would be to support civil unions with the same benefits as gov-sanctioned marriage and let voters determine what the word "married" means.

Ultimately, the term marriage is symbolic and that symbolism comes from people NOT the government.
 
#49
#49
Wow, I am flying off the handle. I got into this at church recently.

I am a hard core bible thumper. I personally believe homesexuality is wrong.

But guess what? I have the freedom to believe what I want when I want.

The homosexual should have the same freedom as I do.

No where should the gov't step in and say what is right/wrong/recognized or what have you.

People should crave and love freedom instead of pissing it away to suits in gov't.
 
#50
#50
droski said:
this isn't 1776. i couldn't give a crap about states rights.
Click to expand...

Droski, as much as I agree with you on most things, we will have to disagree on this. The United States was founded on the principle of a strong State Government and a weaker Federal Government. This was in part because States like Virginia did not want their populace being governed by laws that were passed in say New York. Just like today, if citizens of New York wanted a gun ban and were willing to give up their 2nd Amendment right for a little false security, then so be it, its not my place to decide, since I live in Tennessee. Just like if we wish to carry our guns on our hips in Tennessee, it is no business of a resident of any other State to decide whats best for us. Its called minding your own business!!!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top