Maine Votes No To Gay Marriage

#51
#51
volinbham said:
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?
Click to expand...
They don't. I'm just arguing that letting the people decide isn't always the best thing. I'm perfectly fine with Maine saying no to this. This all started with my response to a post on the first page. The people don't always know what is best, even if it is their right to decide, and even if they are right on this issue.
 
Last edited:
#52
#52
IPorange said:
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.)
Click to expand...

This idea of "restricting freedoms" is not as clear as it seems.

Do people have the freedom to endow social institutions with meaning? If so, if the government changes the meaning of said institution isn't the government restricting the freedoms of the true owners of that meaning?
 
#53
#53
IPorange said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Amen! It is freedom for every one, not one particular group of people. That is why this country is great. I can live how I want when I want. If I don't, there are consequences. I mean, how much better can it get?

At this point you are not for smaller gov't, you are for expanded intrusive gov't.

Why in the world would any one care what someone else is doing in their private home/apartment/condo.

I mean really.........
 
#54
#54
OrangeEmpire said:
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.
Click to expand...

You get an Amen from the back row
 
#55
#55
volinbham said:
This idea of "restricting freedoms" is not as clear as it seems.

Do people have the freedom to endow social institutions with meaning? If so, if the government changes the meaning of said institution isn't the government restricting the freedoms of the true owners of that meaning?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a word and concept that exists all over the world in all sorts of cultures. It's hardly monopolized by one group who then get to bully others into not being able to use it. The concept of marriage existed before Christ. Heck, it existed before Judaism.
 
#56
#56
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

agreed.

i'm pissed because my company and others in cali allow civil union partners benefits thus meaning someone can put their roommate of one month on their medical coverage (which my old roommate did for his gf). if you require they get married you restrict this type of bs and my premiums go down. unfortunetly as long as you restict marriage of certain groups more and more of us are going to have to pay for people's gfs of one month.
 
#57
#57
CountVolcula said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

so those of us who chose to live in ultra liberal states get screwed? thanks a lot! :)
 
#58
#58
IPorange said:
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.)
Click to expand...

The only problem with this argument is that the government did not restrict this freedom to its citizens. The citizens voted and said no. Like I said before, I could care less if states allow same sex marriages or not, as long as the people of those states get to decide. If Alabama allowed it whoop-de-doo as long as it was a public referendum.
 
#63
#63
lumberjack4 said:
The only problem with this argument is that the government did not restrict this freedom to its citizens. The citizens voted and said no. Like I said before, I could care less if states allow same sex marriages or not, as long as the people of those states get to decide. If Alabama allowed it whoop-de-doo as long as it was a public referendum.
Click to expand...

But there is a double-edged sword there. Me and my wife homeschool our kids because our school system is terrible. There are a lot of folks out there that think that we shouldnt be able to homeschool and they shouldnt have the right to decide whether or not I can. Once you open the door for people to decide whats good for another, then whats to stop them from voting on whether you can be a Baptist, drive a Volvo, drink Koolaid, etc. When would the madness stop?
 
#64
#64
CountVolcula said:
But there is a double-edged sword there. Me and my wife homeschool our kids because our school system is terrible. There are a lot of folks out there that think that we shouldnt be able to homeschool and they shouldnt have the right to decide whether or not I can. Once you open the door for people to decide whats good for another, then whats to stop them from voting on whether you can be a Baptist, drive a Volvo, drink Koolaid, etc. When would the madness stop?
Click to expand...

That's a valid point and is the game we play right now between a people's government versus personal freedom. For any government to work individuals have to give up some freedoms. The bigger government gets, the more freedoms we give up. Each individual has their own limit as to how much freedom is too little freedom. When a person feels that he can no longer live in such a state of having too little freedom, he gets up and leaves for a place he finds acceptable.

I am a strong supporter of state and local government, because it puts these decisions into the hands of a smaller group of people that only affect a small group of people. Rather than a small group of people whose decisions affect millions. If City A decided that they wont allow homeschoolers in their city limits people that want to homeschool their kids will move to another area that allows it. Each area should be governed the way its people best see fit to govern themselves, those that disagree with the local will of the people can fight and try to change that will or move to an area that shares a similar set of beliefs. That does not mean that I want to abolish a state and federal government, but the higher you go up the chain the less of an impact these governments should have on a local group of people.

The Constitution covers the most basic set of rights for all its citizens. It is the job of the federal government to ensure that these rights and these rights only are not being infringed upon. The responsibility and set of rights covered should get larger the closer you get back to the local people.
 
#65
#65
Gay marriage is a trivial matter and the gov't or electorate shouldn't even bother with it.
 
#67
#67
CountVolcula said:
But there is a double-edged sword there. Me and my wife homeschool our kids because our school system is terrible. There are a lot of folks out there that think that we shouldnt be able to homeschool and they shouldnt have the right to decide whether or not I can. Once you open the door for people to decide whats good for another, then whats to stop them from voting on whether you can be a Baptist, drive a Volvo, drink Koolaid, etc. When would the madness stop?
Click to expand...

The Constitution and existing law.
 
#69
#69
lumberjack4 said:
The only problem with this argument is that the government did not restrict this freedom to its citizens. The citizens voted and said no. Like I said before, I could care less if states allow same sex marriages or not, as long as the people of those states get to decide. If Alabama allowed it whoop-de-doo as long as it was a public referendum.
Click to expand...

Hence "mob rule." We're a republic for a reason. If we did everything the way you think is swell for deciding gay marriage, then why do we need the Bill of Rights?
 
#70
#70
volfanjustin said:
I am just for states rights, I have more faith in the american people than I do a lawyer, judge or any person in the govt. If you disagree with a decision made in a state you can leave that state. So lets say that a state votes on segregation and votes to keep it, then one could move to a state that has voted it down. And again I don't think any state would vote for segregation.
Click to expand...
Further proof that the Bible licking right wing is completely ignorant of the principles of constitutional democracy and a federal system.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#71
#71
hatvol96 said:
Further proof that the Bible licking right wing is completely ignorant of the principles of constitutional democracy and a federal system.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
just look to the last sentence of the post to which you replied. That alone says replying is a waste. Dude apparently isn't aware that it took federal freaking troops to enforce desegregation.
 
#72
#72
utvolpj said:
they probably didn't vote because it doesn't matter to them and has zero impact on their lives. For some reason the bible bangers seem to think if gays marry it will instantly cause riots in the streets and 12yo girls marrying goats.
Click to expand...

no need for me to post, you've pretty much covered my opinion. The religious fearmongers are the only ones who really care enough to make a fuss about it.
 
#73
#73
IPorange said:
Hence "mob rule." We're a republic for a reason. If we did everything the way you think is swell for deciding gay marriage, then why do we need the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

535 people making decisions for over 300 million isn't a real representative democracy. I believe that each congressman should represent only 100,000 people instead of almost 600,000. Let states decide their own issues that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the feds.
 
#75
#75
lumberjack4 said:
535 people making decisions for over 300 million isn't a real representative democracy. I believe that each congressman should represent only 100,000 people instead of almost 600,000. Let states decide their own issues that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the feds.
Click to expand...
So we're better represented at 100k? I don't get it. Politicians don't change their stripes becase they represent fewer people. To wit, senators are easily as useless as reps.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top